Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
"A Voyage to Arcturus" by David Lindsay
"Lud-in-the-Mist" by Hope Mirrlees
More recent stuff that might fit:
"Viriconium" by M. John Harrison -- imagine if Lord Dunsany, William Burroughs and Mervyn Peake had hijacked Gene Wolfe's brain while he was writing the The Book of the New Sun.
"Moonwise" by Greer Gilman -- 350 page linguistic orgasm...I mean prose-poem.
Probably in no real danger of being forgotten, but just in case:
"Little, Big" by John Crowley -- the kind of book that tends to slip through the cracks: too literary for most genre readers and too fantastic for literary snobs.
"Always Coming Home" by Ursula Le Guin -- doesn't seem to get mentioned as often as her other novels, but it's possibly her most unusual, and the one where she uses her talents best.
I just said "limits", and I didn't actually say anything about governments. I would not go as far as to say governments should force parents to have their children vaccinated, at least not for any current threats (if there were an extremely dangerous disease going around, with high likelihood of infection then maybe). Also, from what I've heard, governments often (usually?) do a horrible job of raising children.
I was actually addressing (as I thought the parent post was) the fact that the fundamental belief of Libertarians (of whom there are many in the US) is that self-interest trumps social interest. I was stating that I don't think this concept of "self-interest" can be applied to the vaccine issue in a clear-cut way. However I know that some Libertarians would say it does, because children have their parents' genes, and perhaps invoke Dawkins' "selfish gene" (I personally think this is a contrived pseudo-scientific argument and caring for a child has nothing to do with shared genes).
Except that I was counting non-mathematicians as well. A lot of people have difficulty grasping what is going on with 0.999... and what it means for that number to equal 1 (the idea that a number could have two representations in the same base goes over a lot of people's heads).
Yes, they do have difficulty. People who say that people who have trouble believing 1=0.999... are idiots are themselves having difficulty. 1 and 0.999... are different kinds of mathematical objects, hence in some sense they are not equal.
0.999... is not a "decimal expansion" of some number, but rather it denotes a sequence of numbers:
0.999, 0.9999, 0.99999,
The fact that "the real numbers can be defined as equivalence classes of Cauchy sequences of rational numbers" is probably not obvious to most of the people who think 0.999...=1 is obvious, and they would probably be surprised at how deep this area of mathematics is. See P-adic_number.
Also, one should not just casually accept the ideas of infinite series and sequences, because counter-intuitive things DO happen with them. There is no such thing as an "infinite decimal expansion" or "adding up an infinite number of numbers" -- those are just analogies, which may or may not mislead you in a given situation.