< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 10 OF 10 ·
Later Kibitzing> 
Dec3114
  johnlspouge: I felt that you answered a question yourself, and rather wishfully, when the writer of the piece provided you with a link to the Greenpeace apology, which made no equivocation about responsibility. I accept that there might be the smallest possibility (which, indeed, I did not consider) of an unwarranted apology for a falseflag operation, and I understand your reluctance to decry Greenpeace. If I may be sharp once again, however, it does damage to everyone, when ready facts are not sought and then acknowledged. I knew a jab at your writing skills would get your attention, but you have no real reason to dwell on the sharpness in my previous post: I feel no shame in admitting that I regard your writing skills as superior to mine anyway. 

Dec3114
  Abdel Irada: <johnlspouge: I felt that you answered a question yourself, and rather wishfully, when the writer of the piece provided you with a link to the Greenpeace apology, which made no equivocation about responsibility. I accept that there might be the smallest possibility (which, indeed, I did not consider) of an unwarranted apology for a falseflag operation, and I understand your reluctance to decry Greenpeace. If I may be sharp once again, however, it does damage to everyone, when ready facts are not sought and then acknowledged.> Granted. I did subsequently admit that Greenpeace probably really was guilty. But consider that I'm a journalist, and that also means I'm something of a professional skeptic. I tend to take almost nothing for granted. That often proves pointless, but I also think that in principle it's necessary, lest narratives go unquestioned. <I knew a jab at your writing skills would get your attention> My real concern was the context. You may have noticed I've been more than a little beleaguered of late, with three cyberstalkers trying to tell me my entire career is a fabrication, and I'd rather see them denied ammunition to buttress that claim. <I feel no shame in admitting that I regard your writing skills as superior to mine anyway.> I would say rather that we are both proficient writers in our respective fields. I would never dream of trying to outwrite you in science and maths, where you know far more than I. :) ∞ 

Dec3114
  johnlspouge: < You may have noticed I've been more than a little beleaguered of late, with three cyberstalkers > I apologize for my inadvertent contribution to the truly despicable aims of the cyberstalkers. It was not my intention. Does this mean I must give you a bye on everything? :) 

Jan0115
  Abdel Irada: No. Just most things. ;)
∞ 

May1215
  WannaBe: Officer Kenny have had an interesting history, the latest death is his second. http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/11/us/wi... This may be unusual, the first case, was also cleared, and Matt Kenny wasn't the first officer on the scene. With that in mind, (which was not mentioned in the Yahoo article I linked to) we'll look a bit further: 1. Matt Kenny is a 12 year veteran (we'll round down the fractional year), which usually mean you don't need a partner and supervision: http://www.cityofmadison.com/police... (scroll down) 2. What is the history of Ismael Ozanne:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/12/us/is... 6th generation Wisconsonian, 5 years of experience, raised through the ranks. I feel/think, he is someone with integrity. 3. Matt Kenny was the first on the scene, as you noted in your post, he arrived without backup, Kenny is a veteran, maybe that day he was assigned without a partner, or maybe his partner was ill, to me that is not important. He responded, and was first on the scene, and Kenny know he is alone with a situation that he needs to resolve. 4. "... the officer used lawful deadly force after he was staggered by a punch to the dead and feared for his life." I do not know the height and weight of the shooting victim, but if I am an officer and after issuing orders and then being struck. I'd probably be afraid, too. Knowing that I am the first responder and I don't know where my backups are. 5. From yahoo article: <Then, Ozanne walked through evidence from the scene, 911 callers, Robinson's friends, police affidavits, crime lab reports and more to paint a picture of a young man out of control from a mix of hallucinogenic mushrooms, marijuana and Xanax. Kenny rushed to the apartment building and immediately became concerned that Robinson was attacking someone upstairs.> So Kenny c(w)ould have waited for back ups, or, for the risk of the safety of people being attacked, he took action and went in. Is this the fault of the officer? 

May1315
  johnlspouge: < He responded, and was first on the scene, and Kenny know he is alone with a situation that he needs to resolve. > This statement is incorrect, and it is central to my point. You should examine the methods of foreign police: [ http://thedailybanter.com/2014/08/u... ] The first officer does <not> need to resolve the situation. He needs to contain it and keep it harmless until backup arrives. This example from China shows a policy of containment, where an officer fires a weapon to force an assailant with a knife to stay away from other people: [ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUd... ]
These examples and the corresponding statistics from other countries shows that a policy of containment while waiting for backup can usually resolve situations without lethal force. This procedure differentiates US police policy from policy in other countries. The best example I know of the benefits of patient policing is the following standoff in Canada, where a gunman was isolated and thereby held harmless. [ http://news.nationalpost.com/news/c... ] In many cases now videotaped, the US police clearly are not taught to contain and wait for backup. They escalate situations, making results predictably lethal. I have little interest in debating the peculiarities of the one case you present, because it just shows that the standard US police procedure of escalation puts officers' lives in unnecessary danger. Present US police procedures promote unnecessary lethality, and that this can be changed if the public recognizes that in most cases, a procedural change would render use of lethal force unnecessary. 

Jun0515
  Abdel Irada: Please stop feeding the trolls <hv.U.grwnup> and <balolog>. If universally ignored, they will eventually get bored and leave. But even a crumb of encouragement will suffice to keep them here, firmly convinced that they're an accepted part of the forum community even as they violate every rule and standard that makes this site function. ∞ 

Jun0915   hv.U.grwnup: <Abdel Irada: Please stop feeding the trolls <hv.U.grwnup> > ridiculous.
all the time this guy <abdel irada> is polluting rogoff forum and wasting his life too by engaging in useless arguments. i helped this guy a bit otherwise earlier he was always 'besieged and embattled' (that is the way he used to put it.) it is because of people like <abdel irada> that i have decided to leave this site. shameless guy , polluting forum of <johnlspouge> instead of writing such garbage in his own forum. 

Jun1115   MarkFinan: @johnslspouge Stop feeding the troll who fly's Sugradom airlines https://youtu.be/FKezWLZqRik Hahahahahaha. "I'm going to die sir ji" LOL 

Jul2915
  Abdel Irada: Is there a reason why you're trying, in the present conversational context, to offer ammunition to my adversaries? By phrasing your challenge the way you did, you appear to lend your weight to the accusation of dishonesty recently brought against me. Is that intentional? Do you mean to imply that I am evasive or deceptive? If so, perhaps we'd better have it out. If not, perhaps you could find a different way to phrase your question. ∞ 

Jan2916
  johnlspouge: @<PinnedPiece>: Enjoy ;>) [ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TZ... ] 

Jan3016
  PinnedPiece: How fun!
I have video stuff like this, from 20 yrs ago though....your courage and showmanship make me want to hit the boards again... :) More comment on my page...
. 

Mar0117   Nisjesram: Reposted from rogoff forum
<abdel irada> , may I have your attention please , sir ? Why you talking to idiots like <big pawn> who are hell bent on wasting their lives? I addressed a few posts to you and <johnlspouge> (especially important are part 2 and part 3). Give some time to these posts please. If they click for you , if they engage you , absorb you , involve you , it might turn out to be the most important event of your live. Trust me on it  just for a little while . Try me , test me please. What have you got to lose , anyways?
Thank you. 

Mar0217   Nisjesram: Reposted from rogoff forum (hope it is OK , <johnlspouge>. If not please let me know. This should be the last time) <big pawn> , I am back with a different persona . Trying to be respectful to you again.
<Big pawn>, <abdel irada> check it out please : 1) spirituality is about knowing 'something' at the level of direct experience which watches consciousness. If I am solving a question of maths , consciousness is using intellect/discrimination to examine different logic paths to solve that question. And along with may experience different emotions also  frustration/joy etc. There is 'something' that watches consciousness on the whole as if from a distance in a dispassionate manner. Call that something witness or soul or whatever. 2)'we' can not see soul because mind is not still it is occupied in too many distractions. If we take away distractions , we can see soul. Distractions are all the emotions  anger, lust , greed, fear , desires etc. These emotions cause turbulence in mind. There is always some kind of static , some kind of useless chatter/noise going on in mind. When we start reducing that chatter by developing dispassion , in other words as we grow in <being still> , at some point we start 'seeing' soul. Developing dispassion alone could be sufficient but in that case we need a very high degree of dispassion. Developing dispassion and at the same time looking for soul helps us 'see' it in less time. 3) as our dispassion grows , chatter in mind is eliminated , at some point our experience of soul is deep enough that we can see soul watching the body even when body is in deep dreamless sleep. Soul watches , is aware that body is asleep. Earlier , soul was able to see the consciousness only in waking state. There is more . However, up to here , can you give your input please. Does it sound nonsense/crazy to you? If so, why 

Mar2317   Nisjesram: part 1
1)at the age of 13 , all my students learn calculus. they finish 12th class mathematics by age 13. however, after that solving difficult problems on their own , that is something else altogether.2)after i finish maths with them , i start teaching them physics now that they have pre  requisite for physics (calculus). my niece finished 12th class maths at the age 13 with me and by the age of 14 she had done quite a bit of physics. she understood. however, when it came to solving the problems , she could solve problems of irodov book (which is tougher than resnick halliday)  80% of newton's laws problems she could solve..... but only at the rate of 3 questions per day. 3)that is right. she could solve only 3 questions in a day. she felt like she could solve questions on her own and therefore she did not want my help. she kept striving and she solved 3 questions every day on an average. in a month , at this rate , she solved 80% questions of that topic. 4)and people say that is a miracle. different standards. 5)however, that is where my challenge lies now. . she is 15 now . and i have a few students like her who i teach , some are 15 , some are 16 and i have finished teaching physics , maths chemistry of class 11th and 12th to them at the level of irodov. and challenge now is to see that they reach a level where they can solve irodov level questions in physics and equivalent in maths and chemistry at a very fast speed. they would take the exam at the age of 17. some of them have 2 years to get to that speed and skill, some have 1 year. 6)when i solve irodov level questions , i don't use pen and paper (i solve it in mind). however, it takes me some time to solve the question , do the calculations to get the answer. 30 sec. may be. sometime more. i am working on reducing that time. when i solve 11th and 12 th class maths questions , usually , it does not take me anytime. i look at the problem and solution flows out of me instantaneously. however, in maths also , when i solve the questions that are equivalent to irodov problems in difficulty , solution flows out of me at a slower rate  may be 30 sec or so and in some questions more. i want it to flow out of me instantaneously. 7)nature vs nurture.
9 years ago , when i was in usa , i realized that i could solve maths problems without using pen and paper  easy ones . and i had a feeling that if i nurture this skill , i would be able to solve even the difficult maths problems without pen and paper. seven years ago , i started nurturing it. 8)i had read that maths/science prodigies solve maths questions in their mind without using pen and paper. nature gifts them this skill. 9)in my teens , i was talented in maths/science , however, nowhere as gifted as prodigies. nature had been somewhat kind to me , however, a lot of nurturing was needed in my case , nonetheless. 

Mar2317   Nisjesram: Part 2
11)Earlier , I had taught to students when they were in class 11th and 12th and they could get admission in no 6 engineering college of india. 12)not only securing admission in top college but also securing ranks among the toppers in entrance exam, one has to be gifted/talented for that. 13)nature vs nature so I deided this experiment of finishing 11th and 12th class syllabus of students before they finish 9th or 10th (resnick halliday, irodov) and then see if in 2 extra years that they get to prepare , they can catch up . 

Mar2317   Nisjesram: Part 3
14)and I teach them spirituality too.
15)what can be the best contribution to humanity keep children from turning into right wing crazies like <big pawn> and <diceman>. And how do we do that? 16) first teach them maths/physics/chemistry and once they have brains , teach them spirituality 17)because if they dont have brains , they may learn religion instead of spirituality and would become religious idiots like <big pawn> and <diceman> and then would spawn many horrors/nightmares. We just recently witnessed horror of horrors trump is president of USA now. 

Mar2317   Nisjesram: Part 4
18)i intend to start teaching English to my students as well. I have got two grammar books (i)Raymond Murphy (ii)sat grammar by Erica Meltzer19)perhaps , <abdel irada> would give me tips from time to time. 20)earlier , I used to speak with <softpaw> through email occasionally. He does not respond to my mails any more. I think I alienated him a few years ago . he might have thought why a person of his stature , intelligence, knowledge and academic brilliance was talking to an immature idiot like me. 21)economics and politics are not my priorities presently (a few years down the line , I would definitely like to teach economics and politics to my students as well). Maths, science and English are. 22)<twinlark> had once said oh my god. I wish I could write like <abdel irada> I wish too. And for me it is not just an idle fantasy. I want to work on it. 23)and this time , I want to be mature about it . I would never want to alienate people like <johnlspouge> and <abdel irada>. I would be respectful to them and approach them only after doing my homework i.e. never going to them for getting me spoonfeeding. Approaching them only when it is really, really necessary. 24)<jim bartle>/<saffuna> had said <nisjesram> , if you choose to be rude and insult me , write better /proper English I liked that idea. Let us see how soon I can have the kind of English in which <jim bartle> would like to be insulted if he must be insulted. 

Mar2517
  al wazir: <johnlspouge>: First off, let me apologize for not getting back to you sooner. Until today I didn't notice that you had posted in my forum. I created it solely in order to explore the question of whether the game of Lex works well when played online. It doesn't. Having determined that, I abandoned my forum. Wellmeaning people (and, I suppose, others who don't mean well) occasionally post there. I delete all such messages after a year has elapsed. Secondly, I have to say that I was wrong to write exp(x), exp(iπ), etc. I should have written e^(ix), etc., instead. The exponential function is defined either as a power series or as the solution of a differential equation, both of which fall in the domain of calculus. Thirdly, at the time I posted I didn't clearly remember the elementary derivation that I thought up after I helped Nellie (I still don't), only that there is such a derivation. So I have to start anew, just like you. Following is a sketch of one, with some steps left for the reader. The complex function e^(ix) has a real and imaginary part, so I can write it as f(x) + ig(x), where f(x) and g(x) are both real. From the elementary properties of complex numbers it follows that e^(ix)*e^(ix) = e^0 = 1, so e^(ix) has unit absolute value; and also that f(x) = [e^(ix) + e^(ix)]/2
and
g(x) = [e^(ix) e^(ix)]/(2i).
Clearly f(0) = 1 and g(0) = 0.
Simple multiplication shows that
f(x)f(y)  g(x)g(y)
= (1/4)[e^(ix) + e^(ix)][e^(iy) + e^(iy)]  [e^(ix)  e^(ix)][e^(iy)  e^(iy)] = [e^i(x+y) + e^(i)(x+y)]/2 = f(x+y),
and similarly,
f(x)g(y) + f(y)g(x) = g(x+y).
I think these functional relations are enough to prove that f(x) = cos(kx) and g(x) = sin(kx) for some constant k. [All of these relations hold equally well if I replace e with some other positive number a. But since I can write a^(ix) = e^(ix ln a) = e^(ix'), where x' = x ln a, and k = k' ln a, nothing is gained by this generality.] What is k?
There is an elementary argument in plane geometry that shows that sin(x) ≈ x
for x << 1, *provided that the angle x is measured in radians*. You probably remember the proof better than I do; I could cobble one together if you insist, but I hope you won't, because kludging up diagrams of triangles with <CG>'s software is infernally difficult. That establishes that the constant k = 1 and concludes the derivation of Euler's formula. It may be equivalent to the one you sketched; at least it is similar in spirit. 

Mar2517
  al wazir: <johnlspouge>: I'm afraid that "derivation" is flawed. Nothing there establishes that the number I have been calling e is the usual e = 2.71828... . What's worse, I've remembered my original reasoning, and it was only a plausibility argument: for any positive real number a, a simple geometric construction shows that the function a^(ix) maps the unit circle in the complex plane. So there must be some number e such that e^(iπ) = 1. 

Mar2517   Nisjesram: There is one area where I consider myself very immature  a complete idiot  compared to my closest friends like Shyam Sunder, Yogesh Bagga, Sandeep Arora. That area is  my temper.
Good thing is I am now very close to master this area. How do I know ?
When rage/anger shows out there in world, before that rage/anger gnaws at us in our thoughts. That poignant movie ,'dead man walking' , which is based on a true story : trauma of the parents whose teen age children were raped and killed brutally. It takes a lot of spiritual maturity to let go of anger/rage in such cases.
All the time angry thoughts replaying in the mind. Road rage is a very minor thing compared to that. And other kind of rages  someone insults us and we get angry, someone is unfair to us and we get angry. However, in all such cases solution is the same. Same solution that Lord Krishna gave to Arjuna. Kauravas were unfair to Pandavas. Pandavas tried very hard for a nonviolent solution but to no avail. And Krishna taught discrimination/dispassion/detachment  Vivek/vairagya. Use Vivek intelligence/discrimination  to know the right thing to do and then do the right thing with dispassion/detachment. 'kaun Marta Hai , kaun maarta Hai. Sab Leela Hai" (who kills, who gets killed. Life/universe is a play/movie) Once we know the right thing to do , we practice dispassion/detachment by abiding in soul/selfless self/witness , by concentrating on concentrator . And as we are able to concentrate on concentrator more and more deeply and more and more often , our clarity of thinking increases very fast and as a result we know the right thing to do very fast in every situation. So , how do I know I am very close to mastering this area? Because before rage/anger explodes out there in the world , it shows up in thoughts. And I am able to show spiritual maturity in my inner world of thoughts and emotions now. It is just the beginning but a very mature and solid beginning and because of such strong basics , the distance of beginning and end would be short , inshallah I am able to abide in soul/selfless self/witness more and more deeply and often every day. My stillness is increasing very fast everyday  'be still and know that I am god' Namaste. 

Mar2517   Nisjesram: Good post by <Al wazir> in <johnlspouge> forum. In a few years (may be a year or two) , I should get smart enough to participate in such a conversation. Too bad this idiot <Al wazir> has put me on ignore. May be god will teach this idiot some lesson one day. May be one day I will become so smart in maths and physics that <Al wazir> will beg me to discuss physics and maths with him. I know  someone is about to tell me what I told to <thegoodanarchist> a little while ago : lizard dreaming that it will become crocodile one day Namaste 

Mar2617
  al wazir: <johnlspouge>: I thnk there's a way to salvage that failed derivation. It's something of a cheat, as you'll see, but it is accessible to a student who hasn't studied calculus. First we need a calculusfree definition of e. For any real number a > 0, a^0 = 1. So when x is small, a^x must be close to 1. The concept of a limit is fundamental to calculus, but I will argue that the idea is easily grasped and is not actually part of calculus. Hence we can say that in the limit x → 0 , a^x 1 → 0 . It isn't evident a priori that a^x 1 = O(x). The difference might approach 0 as x^2 or x^(1/2), or some other way. But in fact if you calculate (a^x 1)/x for x = 0.1, 0.01, 0.001, etc., with different choices of a (say, a = 2, a = 10, and any others you care to experiment with), you find that the ratio does approach a definite limiting value. The calculation is easy to perform with a pocket calculator. Actually, most pocket calculators already incorporate exponentials, This is a distraction and is irrelevant. In principle you could do the calculation on paper using logarithm tables which of course are created using calculus and the properties of the exponential. But most students don't know or care how log tables are created. The limiting value of the ratio (a^x 1)/x depends on a. It is plausible that for some choice of a, (a^x 1)/x → 1 as x → 0.
If this relation holds, I will define the number e to be that value of a. It is possible to find at least a rough approximate value for e by trial and error. But there is a way to calculate it to whatever number of decimal places your log tables are accurate to. With the conventional notation that logarithms to base 10 are denoted by log and logarithms to the base e are denoted by ln, it is easy to show that (ln 10) x (log e) = 1.
So as x → 0,
(10^x 1)/x = [e^(x ln 10 ) 1]/x → ln 10 = 1/log e, And using the log tables you find that e = 2.71828... . From my first post,
e^(ix) = f(x) + ig(x),
and as x → 0,
f(x) + ig(x) → 1 + i sin (kx).
In the same limit,
e^(ix) → 1 + ix.
This implies that sin (kx)/x → 1.
*Now* I can invoke that elementary plane geometry theorem that sin x ≈ x for small values of the angle x when it is measured in radians, to conclude that k = 1. QED. 

Mar2617   Nisjesram: <Al wazir> says a^0 =1 therefore a^x when x approaches to zero has limiting value equal to 1. Idiot.
What ? Is it an axiom?
You got to prove it , stupid.
Ask me for the proof. 

Mar2617   Nisjesram: The whole post by <Al wazir> in <johnlspouge> is very stupid. Does not prove the things that need to be proved but takes them as axiomatic. Is he really p.h.d. from Princeton?
I would like to see his degree. 



< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 10 OF 10 ·
Later Kibitzing> 


A free online guide presented by Chessgames.com


