>Nope. When you enter someone else’s place of business, you have no expectation of privacy.
This is only somewhat true. At the spa for instance, you very much have an expectation of privacy. Practically speaking it is sort of contextual? Even at say a restaurant, I would be both surprised and disconcerted to discovered the business had recorded the entire conversation that occurred at my table, even though I would be unsurprised by a bit of eavesdropping.
There are laws that specify that certain types of surveillance/tracking cannot take place. In most states, you cannot be recorded in the bathroom, for example. There are also federal laws against recording of audio in most public places - this is why casinos have incredibly sophisticated video surveillance and analysis software, but do not have microphones to listen in on conversations.
So the rules of the tracking and surveillance road are well defined, and most businesses adhere to those rules. All of the privacy complaints I have seen recently did not involve violations of the law. Rather, these complaints are essentially that people have a fundamental human right to use private services being run at the cost of private entities on the terms that users choose, which just isn't how the world works.
Not exactly. THe ACLU actually does work in the area being discussed [0]. I believe the criticism is that people did not donate for that reason, not that the ACLU doesn't do anything about it; the ACLU does quite a bit.
Not to be obtuse, but wouldn't what is basically an anthropomorphic doughnut be fine in two dimensions? Or do you just mean that that would not likely be the digestive tract of such a thing?
But you can't have a doughnut in two dimensions either, the two sides would have to be separated by the hole or else it's not really a doughnut, it's just a circle without a digestive system.
Possible linguistic pedantry; he used "a" set of natural numbers, but "the" set of real numbers. It's equally difficult to represent the set of natural numbers.
I can't produce the set of all humans on Earth either, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.
Both real and natural numbers can be reasoned about despite their infinite size (and we even know that e.g. there must be "more" real numbers than natural numbers, even though both sets are infinite)
Axiom of choice says I should be able to select an element from the set of real numbers (assuming it exists; but, I believe the assumption to be counterfactual).
I agree. Even though the axiom of choice is independent of ZF, I don't think it is self-evident axiom. It actually seems pretty counter-intuitive if you believe in infinite-precision real numbers that have an infinite amount of information and can't be compressed. I have more to say on this in "Digital Physics" (the movie). -Khatchig
"Say you are playing a game that needs you to pick a real number. If you choose a computable real number, you lose the game. If you choose a real number that is not computable, which the majority real numbers are, then you win. You can imagine yourself choosing a non-computable real number, and winning the game, if you build in the axiom of choice. But in the real world version of the game you will never have enough time or space to non-ambiguously specify this infinitely precise real number which has an infinite amount of non-compressible information (see Kolmogorov complexity)."-Khatchig, from "Digital Physics" (the movie)
This is only somewhat true. At the spa for instance, you very much have an expectation of privacy. Practically speaking it is sort of contextual? Even at say a restaurant, I would be both surprised and disconcerted to discovered the business had recorded the entire conversation that occurred at my table, even though I would be unsurprised by a bit of eavesdropping.