Slashdot Mirror

your comment, in parentheses was this:

(The WTC towers were actually designed to withstand having a jet flown directly into them. I bet whoever signed off on that was sure it would never happen)

That, as I mentioned before, was NOT my comment, merely a tangential fact, which I found interesting, and decided to include.

But to keep things pedantic, let's look up the definition of comment. I'll use Merriam-Webster as my source, so there will hopefully be no conflict.

comment

1 : COMMENTARY

2 : a note explaining, illustrating, or criticizing the meaning of a writing

3 a : an observation or remark expressing an opinion or attitude b : a judgment expressed indirectly

Hopefully I won't need to explain why a simple digression does not fall into any of those categories, but I will if you push the issue. But we'll move on for now.

The comment implies that the designer who did "sign off on it" had no idea what he was doing, because a plane did happen to crash into the tower and it did collapse.

Funny, I don't recall implying anything. Perhaps what you meant was that you inferred, and incorrectly so, as I have a tendency, when writing, to craft my sentences to read exactly as I intend to convey information, because so much is lost in the written word that is conveyed through tone and body language in normal conversation. What I meant was that the WTC towers were designed to withstand having a jet flown directly into them, and that I bet whoever signed off on that was sure it would never happen.

If I were to read your comment without reading the link, I would've thought that the designer, contractor, whoever, was either ignorant, or negligent. Neither of which was the case.

I would have almost preferred your reading my comment, without reading the link, and not have made assumptions about what I mean when I write it out in plain english. And again, what you think is your problem not mine.

It was a side-note which implied incorrect information, which is why I felt the need to correct you, or the implication of your statement, as the case may be.

There you go again, laying blame on me for implying something that you inferred.

Maybe you should try to be less anxious to jump to the conclusion that everyone is a pedantic twity asshole without which slashdot would cease to exist.

Maybe you should be less anxious to prove it.

And for the record, my actual comment was totally wrong anyhow, as will be realized soon when they lift the blackout on information about the 5th plane. Feel free to try again at that time.

-Tommy

your comment, in parentheses was this:

(The WTC towers were actually designed to withstand having a jet flown directly into them. I bet whoever signed off on that was sure it would never happen)

That, as I mentioned before, was NOT my comment, merely a tangential fact, which I found interesting, and decided to include.

But to keep things pedantic, let's look up the definition of comment. I'll use Merriam-Webster as my source, so there will hopefully be no conflict.

comment

1 : COMMENTARY

2 : a note explaining, illustrating, or criticizing the meaning of a writing

3 a : an observation or remark expressing an opinion or attitude b : a judgment expressed indirectly

Hopefully I won't need to explain why a simple digression does not fall into any of those categories, but I will if you push the issue. But we'll move on for now.

The comment implies that the designer who did "sign off on it" had no idea what he was doing, because a plane did happen to crash into the tower and it did collapse.

Funny, I don't recall implying anything. Perhaps what you meant was that you inferred, and incorrectly so, as I have a tendency, when writing, to craft my sentences to read exactly as I intend to convey information, because so much is lost in the written word that is conveyed through tone and body language in normal conversation. What I meant was that the WTC towers were designed to withstand having a jet flown directly into them, and that I bet whoever signed off on that was sure it would never happen.

If I were to read your comment without reading the link, I would've thought that the designer, contractor, whoever, was either ignorant, or negligent. Neither of which was the case.

I would have almost preferred your reading my comment, without reading the link, and not have made assumptions about what I mean when I write it out in plain english. And again, what you think is your problem not mine.

It was a side-note which implied incorrect information, which is why I felt the need to correct you, or the implication of your statement, as the case may be.

There you go again, laying blame on me for implying something that you inferred.

Maybe you should try to be less anxious to jump to the conclusion that everyone is a pedantic twity asshole without which slashdot would cease to exist.

Maybe you should be less anxious to prove it.

And for the record, my actual comment was totally wrong anyhow, as will be realized soon when they lift the blackout on information about the 5th plane. Feel free to try again at that time.

-Tommy

The Republican fight for "states' rights" *was* a federalist fight.

Robot is originally from the Czech word 'robota' meaning compulsory labor, ie slave. So in this sense they are robots - in this case they are modern gladiators, and gladiators if I remember rightly were slaves for the most part.

The online Merriam-Webster is a good place to check your word definitions.

Treaties.

From Merriam-Webster:

a contract in writing between two or more political authorities (as states or sovereigns) formally signed by representatives duly authorized and usually ratified by the lawmaking authority of the state.

I think this word [merriam-webster] means exactly what I think it is in definition 1c: "A mass-produced unspecialized product."

Read some books about the lifestyle of the average person in the middle ages and then compare that to the wage slaves of the Industrial Revoloution. Were they better off? You bet.

Nothing so clearly contradicts your statement than the condition of child labour in 19th century England, which was at the forefront of the Industrial Revolution. It was only after the recommendation of a Royal Commission in 1833 that children age 9 to 11 were limited to working a mere 8 hours a day in the textile industry. In mining, where there was no regulation, children began work at five years old and were typically dead by 25.

The purpose of this example is to show that the improvement in the lives of ordinary people did not come about as a result of the Industrial Revolution, but from legislation and trade unions that mitigated the depredations of industrialization.

It is also important to remember that at the same time as the Industrial Revolution another tremendous accumulation of wealth was going on that involved simply conquering weaker countries, dispossesing the natives and keeping their land and resources. A large part of the wealth from the Industrial Revolution didn't come from the factories, it was stolen from abroad with as much brutality as necessary.

The pendulumn swings and over time things balance out.

Is this pronouncement your alternative to "regurgitated historical pablum"?

So people don't have to feel dumb looking it up. From www.m-w.com:

Eclectic; adj.
1 : selecting what appears to be best in various doctrines, methods, or styles
2 : composed of elements drawn from various sources;

I don't normally post spelling flames, but since you linked to a dictionary in your post, I couldn't resist.

pioneers

Microsoft is dying? Wow..thats news.
You know with SGI completly owning(both in script kiddy sense and www.m-w.com sense (b.)) the 3d Graphics market ( Alias~Wavefront , SGI's beast of machines)
I'd wonder how you could say the pionears of realtime 3d could be dying.

What a world...

From Merriam-Webster
Innovate: 1 : to introduce as or as if new

Invent: 2 : to devise by thinking : FABRICATE
3 : to produce (as something useful) for the first time through the use of the imagination or of ingenious thinking and experiment

Innovation has always been about doing "new things" to fill market needs. Invention gets the glory, but rarely the $$$... hence, people like to equate innovation with invention, but it's simply not the same thing.

Sisyphean \sih-suh-FEE-un\ (adjective): of, relating to, or suggestive of the labors of Sisyphus; specifically : requiring continual and often ineffective effort

Great word. Impress your friends and use it today!

Sisyphean \sih-suh-FEE-un\ (adjective): of, relating to, or suggestive of the labors of Sisyphus; specifically : requiring continual and often ineffective effort

Great word. Impress your friends and use it today!

Sisyphean \sih-suh-FEE-un\ (adjective): of, relating to, or suggestive of the labors of Sisyphus; specifically : requiring continual and often ineffective effort

Great word. Impress your friends and use it today!

Seems like someone was reading the word of the day from Merriam Webster Online.

Seems like someone was reading the word of the day from Merriam Webster Online.

Er, no it isn't

"Lasoo" is not quite a word.

See, Martin Luther is just one of many many examples of people who stood for what was right in spite of the religious authorities. Luther was a free thinker!

No True Scotsman
I must confess that this is the first time I've heard of this 'fallacy'. Searching for a definition, I found it with reference to "Free Thinkers" on the ffrf site. No one can be a freethinker who demands conformity to a bible, creed, or messiah.
This doesn't sound like free thought to me!

Because my definition of Christianity is consistent - internally, and with that of Christ himself, I assert that your accusation of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy is invalid.

"Not everyone who says to me, `Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven."
Mt 7:21

Jesus didn't believe that all people who claimed Christianity were true Christians. I'll stand with Him.

Man, you're full of them today!
BTW - Your assertion that I was making an ad hominem attack was unfounded. Additionally, because I didn't shift my definition of Christianity, your scotsman assertion is invalid. Therefore this assertion that I'm full of them is not valid, either.

Nice try.

I'll give you kudos for creativity, but please punch holes in my argument rather than raise non-fallacies as red herrings.

the whole "killing people is wrong" thing goes out the window,
You shall not murder. Murder differs from killing.

Looks like you're the one who is full of them..... :)


What standard determines right?
Now you're learning!
You didn't answer my question.

Respectfully,
Anomaly

See, Martin Luther is just one of many many examples of people who stood for what was right in spite of the religious authorities. Luther was a free thinker!

No True Scotsman
I must confess that this is the first time I've heard of this 'fallacy'. Searching for a definition, I found it with reference to "Free Thinkers" on the ffrf site. No one can be a freethinker who demands conformity to a bible, creed, or messiah.
This doesn't sound like free thought to me!

Because my definition of Christianity is consistent - internally, and with that of Christ himself, I assert that your accusation of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy is invalid.

"Not everyone who says to me, `Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven."
Mt 7:21

Jesus didn't believe that all people who claimed Christianity were true Christians. I'll stand with Him.

Man, you're full of them today!
BTW - Your assertion that I was making an ad hominem attack was unfounded. Additionally, because I didn't shift my definition of Christianity, your scotsman assertion is invalid. Therefore this assertion that I'm full of them is not valid, either.

Nice try.

I'll give you kudos for creativity, but please punch holes in my argument rather than raise non-fallacies as red herrings.

the whole "killing people is wrong" thing goes out the window,
You shall not murder. Murder differs from killing.

Looks like you're the one who is full of them..... :)


What standard determines right?
Now you're learning!
You didn't answer my question.

Respectfully,
Anomaly

reverend
I prefer "computer geek." That's how I make my living, anyway.

see ad hominem attack
ad hominem
I did not attack your person, and you were espousing a position consistent with materialist philosophy.

You're saying there's no such thing as a moral standard?
What I'm saying it I'm saying is that pure science - absent the influence of morality - leads to disastrous consequences. Science is not able to determine right from wrong.

why the difficulty in understanding that the universe just came into existence?
Because according to the laws of science, we are not able to produce matter from non-matter.

God is non-material, and is not subject to the laws of science. Based on our experience, it does not make sense to assert that the universe came from nothing. That is not naturally possible. Therefore, we need to look to supernatural causes.

This is not to argue for a lack of scientific investigation, but rather to augment the understanding gained through the scientific method.

BTW - we do have the opportunity to investigate many of the things asserted in the biblical record. We do not have to rely simply on the Hollywood portrayal of biblical events. I strongly argue for the use of scientific approaches to investigate the claims of the Bible.
Certainly science cannot investigate non-scientific things, and cannot "prove" the Bible correct or incorrect, but it can help provide supporting or contradictory information.

Where we fail to fully understand the way that things work according to the observations we've made into the physical world, we look for other explanations. This is where string theory and the unified field theory come from. Why would superatural causes not also be a potential explanation?

Yeah, but where does THEOLOGY play into this?
Ethics and morality typically have a theological basis. Not only that, but GWB lives in a political world where the majority of his constituency believes in God. They also tend to look toward religious leaders to help with ethical standards. He knows this and includes theologians to appease the mass public.

Just out of curiosity, what do you use as a basis for determining right from wrong?

Respectfully,
Anomaly

God loves you and longs for relationship with you. If you would like to know more about this, please contact me at tom_cooper at bigfoot dot com

Am I the only one bothered by the fact that MS-Word doesn't recognize 'newspeak' as a misspelling?

Yeah, you are. Stealing the link from another poster to this article, it's in the dictionary :-)

Ah, yes, the "elite." Just who exactly are you talking about? I love the way people use that meaningless term as a pejorative. I'm willing to bet it's connected in your mind with a political sensibility but as you didn't come right out and say anything to that end we'll let it dangle.

I was speaking of cultural elitists. I thought I made this clear by also referring to them as "intelligentsia" in the same sentence. While that does present the possibility of political overtones, I figured since I was also referring to their evaluation of Maus that it was apparent that I was referring to the artistic elites.

It would seem what who mean by "the elite" are "pretentious intellectuals," which is ironic because it's drippingly obvious from your post that you are in fact a pertentious intellectual, just one that happens to have lowbrow taste in comic books.

If you had said middlebrow, I might be taking your argument more seriously. Granted the later issues of Cerebus are much more highbrow than the early issues, but that doesn't automatically make them better. Which is the problem I have with a lot of highbrow art. Just because it takes a more serious tone, or more serious subject matter, doesn't automatically make it superior. (I think Maus is great--but not the masterpiece everybody has proclaimed it to be.) I do prefer great highbrow art over great middlebrow art, but the fact of the matter is that there is much more of the latter in the world, due to quantity of output and the law of averages. I did refer to Peter Bagge, Dan Clowes and Charles Burns as "great". Do you really think of them as lowbrow?

Basically all you say here is, you like comic books with an arty take on conventions until they acquire a little depth,

No, I was just offering some random thoughts. Just stuff that came to mind. I also consider Robert Crumb, Jim Woodring, Neil Gaiman, Harvey Pekar, Miller/Sienkiewicz (only for Elekra: Assassin), Gilbert Hernandez, Jeff Smith and Alan Moore to have created some of the greatest comics ever. If you still want to say I only like comics with an arty take on conventions and no depth, you're now qualified to do so. I know I'm leaving out early stuff like Eisner, Barks and Kurtzman. I just think they're all great but conventional by today's standards. I know I'm also leaving out the 60s/70s underground stuff (except for Crumb, of course), but I think most of it hasn't aged very well. Of course, if I were an elitist, I would be more generous to these artists because I'd be evaluating them in a historical context. But since I'm just a philistine, I'm just saying what I think is good.

you agree with Groth that comic books belong on paper even though you don't like him personally...

True. I'm just offering this info on Groth because I think anyone who is taking this debate between him and McCloud seriously should be aware of a certain aspect of his character--especially since it could have a decided affect on his intellectual thought process. (And anyone who would read that 30,000-word article probably is taking the debate seriously.)

Can you refresh us on what you added to this discussion other than to erect a soapbox to showcase your pretentious disdain for them comic books that got too big fer their britches?

Well, like I said, I was just presenting random thoughts. I really think my post would have read a lot better if I had known to put in the paragraph tags. I was just trying to offer opinions that are different than those that are always being repeated by the comic books pros and critics. If I had been composing my thoughts in a slightly more organized fashioned, and had attempted to cull any kind of conclusion from them, maybe I would've said that comic book professionals are always thinking and debating about things like this. They want to have the same amount of success and/or recognition that great artists in practically every other medium (cinema, music, literature, etc.) enjoy, which is why comics that are more serious than good (i.e., later Cerebus) are often inordinately praised. And why every event or change or wrinkle that comes along in comics (i.e., direct sales shop, Maus winning the Pulitzer, and now Web-based comics) makes people think there's a chance that things will finally change. Which they won't. There's a plethora of art and entertainment already available in different mediums, which means people with low- and middle- and high-brow tastes already have their needs sufficiently filled by all the movies/music/shows/books/ect.out there. Comics are either considered too much of a stigma to take seriously or are too misunderstood to be properly appreciated. (Could you see the NewYork Times Book Review praising Bagge?) I'm not saying it's going to be that way forever, but I just know how people think, and it's just not going to change in our lifetimes.

At least do the courtesy of posting as an anonymous coward so noone else is forced to read this drivel and waste their time responding in kind. I've got a JOB, you know.

OK.

We were talking about information. Information is not property; property being defined as "something owned or possessed" (according to Merriam-Webster).

I own a CD. You take it, it is theft. You copy it, it isn't. One can not own sequences of bits and bytes. One can, however, pretend that they can be owned, and this is what we do in our present system of copyright. This is neither inherently good nor inherently bad. But it seems to me that the current implementation of copyright is flawed; cf. the DCMA, the DeCSS case, Sklyarov, etc.

if, for some reason, the alimentation of the palm is defective, and sent to the serial port, perhaps it could damage some cheap serial port controller. Is burning a chip on the motherboard damaging the motherboard?

One entry found for alimentation. Main Entry: alimentation Pronunciation: "a-l&-m&n-'tA-sh&n, -"men- Function: noun Date: circa 1656 : the act or process of affording nutriment or nourishment

1. the introduction of something new
2. : a new idea, method, or device : NOVELTY

1. the introduction of something new
2. : a new idea, method, or device : NOVELTY

1. the introduction of something new
2. : a new idea, method, or device : NOVELTY

Main Entry: pronounce
Pronunciation: pr&-'naun(t)s
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): pronounced; pronouncing
...
transitive senses
1 : to declare officially or ceremoniously <the minister pronounced them husband and wife>
2 : to declare authoritatively or as an opinion <doctors pronounced him fit to resume duties>

I don't see how M$ could make things worse .

Main Entry: 2hoax
Function: noun
Date: 1808
1 : an act intended to trick or dupe : IMPOSTURE
2 : something accepted or established by fraud or fabrication

Where do you get the idea that Linux is involved in any of this? Do you see the guy claiming to be running anything other than QNX?

Yes, titbits.

Main Entry: satire
Pronunciation: 'sa-"tIr
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French or Latin; Middle French, from Latin satura, satira, perhaps from (lanx) satura dish of mixed ingredients, from feminine of satur well-fed; akin to Latin satis enough -- more at SAD
Date: 1501
1 : a literary work holding up human vices and follies to ridicule or scorn
2 : trenchant wit, irony, or sarcasm used to expose and discredit vice or folly synonym see WIT

Just in case you didn't know...

B

Pronunciation: k&-'mi[ng]-g&l, kä-
Date: circa 1626
transitive senses

1 : to blend thoroughly into a harmonious whole
2 : to combine (funds or properties) into a common fund or stock

www.m-w.com

From Merriam-Webster:

Main Entry: whinge
Pronunciation: 'hwinj, 'winj
Function: intransitive verb
Inflected Form(s): whinged; whinging or whingeing
Etymology: from (assumed) Middle English, from Old English hwinsian; akin to Old High German winsOn to moan
Date: 12th century
British : to complain fretfully : WHINE

So... how exactly is it not an alternate form (spelling+pronunciation) of 'whine?'

For us Americans...
A Telstra spokesman said today the link, laid "donkey's years ago", carried very little of the telco's network traffic before yesterday's cut.
This confused me, until I found the idiom.

(It wasn't here or here.)

--

One dictionary defines hubris as "exaggerated pride or self-confidence". I think we can safely say that Microsoft isn't bordering on hubris...they got it bad!

While I agree this is at least implied at times in the context that it is used, "jock" is simply a synonym of "athlete," so they are one and the same, unless of course you are referring to jockeys, who may be bullies to horses but I doubt would have much success in beating up geeks (see Merriam-Webster's dictionary online...www.m-w.com)

Plus, you don't wear an "athletestrap," do you? No, you wear a jockstrap, and that does not make you an asshole.

What affect does anti-trust have on a cartel as opposed to a monopoly? Same? Different? Yellow?

Of course the Constitution is a common law docuement so isn't valid in these courts.....

the body of law developed in England primarily from judicial decisions based on custom and precedent, unwritten in statute or code, and constituting the basis of the English legal system and of the system in all of the U.S. except Louisiana [emphasis added]

Merriam-Webster OnLine:

fundamentalism
Function: noun
Date: 1922
1 a often capitalized : a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching b : the beliefs of this movement c : adherence to such beliefs
2 : a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles

Fundamentalist Christians believe the words written in the bible to be literally true. One would suppose true fundmentalists of any religion would turn to the textual sources of that religion and follow them to the letter. As someone pointed out elsewhere in this discussion, the Taliban may be doing some of that, perverting passages meant in a specific historical time of war to be applicable today.

There's certainly nothing in the dictionary definition of fundamentalism about rejecting the accepted standard. The Taliban certainly appears to be "stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles" but since they aren;t principles that any other practicing Muslims recognize as Muslim, I would continue to argue that though they might be fundamentalist Talibanians, they are not fundamentalist Muslims.

As I've mentioned to some of my muslim friends here in Canada, I think part of the reason "fundamentalist muslim" reads more provocatively than "fundamentalist christian" is because there is now a long history of protestantism and various splinter churches re-interpreting christianity. When one delares the fundamentalist christians believe one thing, or the branch Davidians believe another, we don't assume that their actions stem logically from the catholic faith and that all the millions of other Christians believe as they do, only to a lesser, more temptered degree.

On the other hand, in the current world dialogue, discussion of the Taliban constantly raises fears and complaints regarding other muslim peoples; there's only been one major split in the Muslim faith and most westerners don't know about it. And it is true that a muslim taking drastic political or military action will more likely be called a Muslim Extremist in the media than a member of whatever political or military group is actually moving him to act. We are accepting the implication that Islam promotes violence against non-believers, even as its religious leaders tell us that's just not true.

Now I admit, I have no idea how knowing that a shower creates a small huricane will become personally useful to me. But that does not mean that some aspect of this will not become useful in the future.

Well, To address the poster to whom you were replying to:

Fuel economy - the efficiency of the combustion process (in an internal combustion engine) is directly proportional to the level of homogeneity of the gas/air charge in the cylinders at the time of combustion (gas isn't actually fuel until you mix it homogenously with air).

Atomization of the gasoline is very important but simply atomizing it isn't good enough in many cases. New research has led to "direct injection" which places the fuel injector in the combustion chamber like a spark plug instead of on the other side of the intake valves. I believe Seat (an Audi/VW subsidiary) has introduced one of the worlds first direct injection engines which uses gasoline injection at a pressure of 1450psi (normal cars use under 50psi)! At these pressures, things like mini hurricanes become very important to understanding exactly what is going on in the combustion chamber.

Thinkaboutit

Taken from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

One entry found for BYO.

Main Entry: BYO
Function: abbreviation
bring your own

If only you'd BYO dictionary.


"How much truth can advertising buy?" - iNsuRge - AK47

http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary& va=coke

One of my favorites is schadenfreude.Tell me that the German is not better than the English! (For those not familiar with the word, look it up.

Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day.

I know this is a little more general than the topic, but I feel it's very relevant. In the United States, and increasingly everywhere else, consumerism drives power and legal structures. Advertising is a major component of consumerism. As long as capitalism rules the land, you will never see strong anti-advertising laws, including those against spam.

* Try stopping junk mail from filling your snailbox. Good luck.
* You paid for that movie ticket. Why are there advertisements before the movie?
* You paid for that concert ticket. Why are there sponsor banners all over the place?
* And that damn magazine you paid 6 bucks for. Why the hell is more than half of it ads?
* There are beer and liquor advertisements on the PUBLIC subway car here in NY, two feet in front of your and many childrens' faces! What's all the noise about advertising cigarettes to children with such blatant government hypocrisy?

Don't expect ads to go away anytime soon... and don't expect spam to go away anytime soon.

LS

Of course, these silly trademark rules will probably allow Adobe to pressure the Koffice people to change the name.

Someone above suggested that Kword might soon be pressured by MSFT to change, and maybe even the Koffice name will have to be changed. This leads to an interesting point. Many word processors existed prior to MSWord with the name 'word' in them. Could MSFT claim KWord is in violation or not? And similarly, has anyone encountered other software with the name 'illustrator' in it?
__ __ ____ _ ______
\ V .V / _` (_-&#60_-&#60
.\_/\_/\__,_/__/__/

Main Entry: inebriety
Pronunciation: "i-ni-'brI-&-tE
Function: noun
Etymology: probably blend of inebriation and ebriety drunkenness
Date: 1801
: the state of being inebriated : DRUNKENNESS

The trouble is that you are trying to join a club whose membership is subjective.

The definition of "fine art" is in the head of the beholder.

As far as art galleries go, "fine art" typically means art that has been produced using traditional, classical media. That means that they will never let new art media enter the club. Photography is still not truly considered "fine art", though it is shown in some, but not all art galleries.

Don't let it get you down. There are increasingly more galleries in larger cities that are beginning to have purely digital showings. Just get your stuff out there. People who want to see its merit will certianly do so.

Taking 26% of someone's wages and using it to fund all manner of things including aid to the homeless is not so fine. Not because of the things funded by that money, but because it is taken, not offered up freely.