Actually, division by zero can be a useful tool. Your calculator gives you an E when you try to do it, because it doesn't deal with infinity. In mathematics, there are different quantities of infinity, and they are useful for various things. Getting into the specifics is way outside of the scope of this discussion, and a red herring (oops, forgot about your title, you rounded it out to 10).

Your assertion that the limit function doesn't exist is funny as hell. Without the limit function, you wouldn't be able to post your lies and half-truths on the internet, because computers wouldn't exist. Just because a mathematical concept doesn't make intuitive sense to you doesn't mean it isn't of practical use.

Don't bother replying to this one because it's offtopic, and I'm not going to respond further. You'd just love to change the subject, and I'm not in the mood to let you.

- Ten of your "logical fallacies" of mine are not logical fallacies, and the eleventh being your assertion that you counted ten logical fallacies.

I win.

Oh - I forgot to mention centralized data centers (such as the Google farm in Oregon) in my list of centralized entities whose destruction would herald the end of civilization. For those who believe in Global Warming, perhaps you could work for decentralizing so many institutions that we have come to depend on for our lives. When Rome was sacked by the Visigoths, people in the provinces didn't know about it, or feel it, for years. If New York or D.C. fell, we would feel it in a matter of hours. Grocery stores would run bare in a matter of days. People would starve in a matter of weeks.

You want to save civilization? Stop saying the stupid word "green," and start doing things that matter. Things that make sense. Change that makes sense. You really think al Gore and company are going to make systemic, structural changes to our civilization that would make it more resilient and more sustainable? No. They are going to change YOU and YOUR way of life in order to maintain the same structure and the same system, as it weathers these possible global climate changes.

See the difference? Just like Obama's economic rescue package, just like the War on Terror. We are not changing the financial system, we are changing your financial life. We are not ridding ourselves of terrorism, we are changing your life to be eternally on gaurd against terrorism.

There is no change anymore. There is only adaptation. The structures of global power and wealth are in place. And you and your children will adapt, any way you can, in order to maintain that structure. That is what "Global Warming" is all about: it is about changing you, and your way of life, in order for the current power and wealth systems to remain intact.

Yet another reason to let a Global Warming Catastrophe happen.

***********************

A number divided by zero is not infinity, because zero is nothing. Infinite nothing still equals nothing.

- Ten of your "logical fallacies" of mine are not logical fallacies, and the eleventh being your assertion that you counted ten logical fallacies.

Begging the question again, you didn't even try to refute a single one of them. 11 logical fallacies, mwha ha ha!

But this is also known as the middle school logical fallacy, because your statement is linguistically equivalent to two common logical errors that children make.

Your statement parses as:

I'm rubber and you're glue, whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you.

Or:

I know you are but what am I?

I'm not going to bother counting all the red herrings in your latest post. You're obviously too chicken to address the subject directly. Plus, you've reached the Count's limit, he only goes up to 12. I'll just accept your concession and move on.

I knew that Steele was trying to drag me off course, of course, but thanks for the advice. You inspired The Count.

His alarm goes off at 6:30am, and he hits snooze. Due to a thunderstorm, the electricity goes out, and he wakes up an hour later to a flashing 1:00 on his clock. "That's a logical fallacy!" he exclaims, wagging his finger at the alarm clock.

Determined to continue his day, he goes to get ready for work. While showering, the soap slips out of his hands and hits the floor. "That's a logical fallacy!" He resumes washing.

On his way to work, a construction sign makes him take a detour, which will make him later than he told his boss he would be in. "That's a logical fallacy," he cries, wagging his finger at the construction workers, who stare at him blankly through his window.

And on and on we go, with the logical fallatio.

Well, you are evidently reluctant to answer a simple technical question so, with your indulgence, I'll answer it for you.

A car battery whose components are in chemical equilibrium is a dead battery in a state of maximum entropy. Any system in a state of equilibrium is incapable of producing useful work. For example, the components of a system in thermal equilibrium all have the same temperature and the Carnot efficiency of the system is exactly zero.

When a dead battery (i.e., a battery in a state of maximum entropy) is charged, the entropy can only decrease. The effect of adding electrical energy to the dead battery is to cause electro-chemical reactions that move the system away from a state of equilibrium. The more the battery is charged, the further it moves from equilibrium until a state of maximum displacement from equilibrium is attained and the battery is fully charged and capable of doing useful work.

Now, let's examine your statement that got this ball rolling. "The second law of thermodynamics guarantees that any system, including ecological systems, will always tend towards equilibrium." Well, a charging battery is certainly a system and it is just as certainly not tending towards equilibrium. If you don't accept this, then consider a battery that is discharging. A battery that is discharging and a battery that is charging both can't be tending towards chemical equilibrium, a state of maximum entropy from which no useful work can be drawn.

The second law is indeed a universal law of physics. But the second law as you understand it leads to a clear paradox when applied to a system as simple as a car battery. How, exactly, can a charging battery and a discharging battery both be tending towards chemical equilibrium? BTW, if you can give a civil answer without taunts, insults and ad hominems that would be nice.