Slashdot Mirror

Er, no, it doesn't 'beg' the question. It raises it without answering it, certainly; but that's not what begging a question means.

Begging a question is assuming it, using it in a circular argument.

[pontificate mode: on]

I find it strange and depressing that a community which is, in general, so careful and precise about its use of computer languages, should be so cavalier in its treatment of human ones...

it is no one

You mean, "my wife and me," of course. Nothing looks worse than over-applying a rule of English to avoid looking bad.

it's not that hard, people..

"Stereo" refers properly to a means of reproducing sound in two or more discrete channels to create a solid, apparently three-dimensional sound.

One problem with this story. Who is Chinese? Labeling the country of Taiwan "Chinese" for example, is incorrect since most of the population is Formosan not Chinese. The same goes for a lot of the various modern and ancient acquisitions. These territories weren't acquired because they were "Chinese". Only two thirds of "Chinese" speak the main language, Mandarin.

IMHO, things make much more sense if you view the culture of China not in isolation, but rather as a highly successful tool of an imperialistic bureacracy. I think the culture was created from the very begining to form an empire. For example, two of the primary religions of China were created by bureaucrats (pardon the negative connotations, but I don't know a better term to describe their careers in the government), that is, Taoism and Confusism. In each case, the religion was quickly endorsed by the state. And the concept of the "Mandate of Heaven" (basically a claim of divine sanction to rule) precedes these religions by many centuries.

My point is that Chinese culture was shaped long ago into a tool of imperialism. It's longevity and the number of adherents is a good sign of its great success over this unimaginable period of time.

I should also add that I believe a key component of this has been one of the most successful eugenics programs in the history of man. I think it's fair to say that the old Chinese empire and culture were used as tools to make the entire Chinese empire related in culture and genes to the Mandarins of the imperial court. The emperor and other high nobles were encouraged to have many children (while the closely related Mandarins controlled education and even the survival of the children). The culture was set up so that marrying a child of higher status was a good thing. Hence, they had a means for propagating the genes of a small controlled elite to the general population.

I think you should consider the reason for the existence of Chinese culture and not just what Chinese culture "wants".

Do you happend to know what's the status for the IGP adapters? (I have an IGP345, chipset R250 if I recall correctly)

So far I can get 2D acceleration, but not 3D, I've found some links (ATI IGP 320, Linux on a Compaq Presario 900US to name a few) but DRI is disabled (I use debian sid, and the dri-trunk-sid packages by the way)

I can't get a working radeon framebuffer, all i get is a garbled screen mode and I can't seem to fix it (I've even installed a kernel patch)

All I'd want is a working 3D acceleration, the framebuffer is not important to me.

Rumor has is that 10.5 is going to be named Sphynx, after the hairless cat. Steve Jobs worked out a deal with Gillette to promote the new OS.

It's = it is/it has.

free reign

So this begs the questions

No it doesn't.

Well the fossil record preserves much of earth history pre-humans, but the fact remains that humans, in our present iteration, haven't been around very long relative to the age of the planet. The human race surely hasn't been around "millions of years". At best we've been here as Homo Sapiens Sapiens for around 130,000 years. Anything that predates what we've found to be historical evidence of past civilizations is usually fiction.

There are other sites that simply claim that, "could care less" is a silly mistake, but these do not (in general) discuss the use of both phrases in literary works as the two links I offer do.

Do not assume ignorance when sarcasm will do!

This story brings the question
No it doesn't, dipshit.

> (1) the parent post is brought to you by the USian govment
> propaganda machine. indirectly, by way of one of its drones.
Well, make sure you watch out for those black helicopters too.

> (2) t's'ok, the DEA guys have to support themselves, too.
Tsk tsk... let the truth help you out here... I am neither American nor European.

> (3) no laws against any drug is fair.
Laws exist for our protection. Why do you need me to repeat this historyto you...?: ... the British traders generously bribed Canton officials in order to keep the opium traffic flowing. The effects on Chinese society were devestating. In fact, there are few periods in Chinese history that approach the early nineteenth century in terms of pure human misery and tragedy. In an effort to stem the tragedy, the imperial government made opium illegal in 1836 and began to aggressively close down the opium dens.

I think if you went back two centuries, and you'd happily function as a British opium trader -- intent on his own self-interest, uncaring of the misery he is causing thousands of people. Go back two centuries more, and you'd be happily be selling limitless quantities of liquor to Red Indian tribes -- with similar effect.

Could you be a little more caring of other people?

> USian laws and their emulations
> (BR laws, even) aren't fair. they treat people who take drugs also on
> pair with people who trade drugs.

Google was valuable in neutralizing your reality distortion field:
Federal drug trafficking convictions may result in denial of federal benefits for up to 5 years for a first conviction, ...
Federal drug convictions for possession may result in denial of federal benefits for up to 1 year for a first conviction ...

> (4) alcohol has worse social effects than marijuana.
> tobacco has worse health effects than marijuana.
You're sounding more coherent now, but still wrong about marijuana v/s alcohol. (More on that below.) Note, wine etc is good in moderation. Pot is Not. The answer to abuse - whether alcohol or drugs - is enforcement of laws that protect the addicts, including "inebriate orders" (a.k.a forced detox)

Looks like this needs repeating... NOTE: most governments do not BAN hard drugs, they REGULATE them to ensure that only those that NEED them get them. For eg: tons of opium [ieo.org] are legally shipped to countries like the US and Japan each year.

> marijuana is not a hard drug (and will not make you madder than booze)
> regardless of what Uncle Sam told you.
Sorry - inadvertent misclassification of marijuana as a "hard" drug (not that the distinction is great)...

4.1. I have some personal testimony on the damaging effect of pot: My friend is a pothead. He has very obvious signs of damage from his decades-old pot habit (shakes, general dimness - sad to see in an otherwise very bright person, working in computers). When I point this out to him, he doesn't see it (or rather doesn't want to admit it), and covers it up with... "ah, you can't get addicted to it.. I've got it under my control,... blah blah blah...". Well, he just got back from vacationing for some weeks with his brother, and said something that surprised me. He said: "I never thought I would ever tell you this... you *can* get addicted to pot". Apparently, his brother - who is another pothead - is addicted to pot (he cannot function without it) and is in a much worse state than he is.

4.2. Marijuana is instead often a gateway drug
Researchers looked at over 300 pairs of same sex twins, both identical and non-identical, in which one twin started using cannabis before hi

Correct - alcohol and tobacco are both deemed "less harmful" than "harder drugs" by the Govt.

Some alcoholic beverages are beneficial in small doses. This is obviously not true with tobacco, but laws have changed as knowledge grows - there was a time when doctors thought well of tobacco. Yes, it's also obvious that some governments can have a "tobacco tax" habit - that shouldn't stop them trying to do the right thing. For eg: laws in recent years aimed to curb passive smoking.

Just like tobacco now is legal, opium was legal once too... but unregulated use has tremedous effects on society: witness the period just before the Opium wars:

By the 1830's, the English had become the major drug-trafficking criminal organization in the world; very few drug cartels of the twentieth century can even touch the England of the early nineteenth century in sheer size of criminality. Growing opium in India, the East India Company shipped tons of opium into Canton which it traded for Chinese manufactured goods and for tea. This trade had produced, quite literally, a country filled with drug addicts, as opium parlors proliferated all throughout China in the early part of the nineteenth century. This trafficing, it should be stressed, was a criminal activity after 1836, but the British traders generously bribed Canton officials in order to keep the opium traffic flowing. The effects on Chinese society were devestating. In fact, there are few periods in Chinese history that approach the early nineteenth century in terms of pure human misery and tragedy. In an effort to stem the tragedy, the imperial government made opium illegal in 1836 and began to aggressively close down the opium dens.


It is undoubted that drugs like opium, cannabis etc. have medicinal properties (when used correctly). It is also RIGHT that the governments "regulate" these hard drugs. NOTE: most governments do not BAN hard drugs, they REGULATE them to ensure that only those that NEED them get them. For eg: tons of opium are legally shipped to countries like the US and Japan each year.

Some people that call out for legalizing hard drugs seem like drug-addled British opium traders from the 19th century. Talk like "Oh, think of the poor suffering cancer patients", often pushed around as a good reason for legalizing marijuana, is nonsense. Such patients already have access to far more effective opium derivates. If you want to improve laws that benefit the sick (eg. make pain-reliving drugs more freely available to patients suffering pain) why don't you do so? - instead of trying to ruin society?

The laws against hard drugs in the US (including pot) are fair laws - obey them!

Not always.

Note the bit on the Hodges meteorite:

Hodges meteorite. November 30, 1954, Sylacauga, Alabama. Annie Hodges was napping on her couch when an eight-pound stony meteorite crashed through her roof. It bounced off a large console radio and hit her in the arm and then the leg, leaving her badly bruised.

How's *that* for a fun one to explain to your insurance agent?

Hmmm... sounds like someone got rejected.

Seriously, though, I joined Mensa just so I could say Mensa is for losers and not sound like I was shouting sour grapes.

Of course, now that I'm in, there are always greater heights to achieve.

It does not 'beg the question'.

It's "lens", plural "lenses". I don't care what your dictionary says.

Which begs the question

You misspelled "Which raises the question".

An explanation.

You're already in Washington state, so you definitely want to look at
Electronic Media and Culture at Washington State U. in Vancouver. I have a friend who worked for several years a project manager on projects to move, upgrade, or migrate office computers. He's about to graduate from the program and he's been very happy with it. Don't hesitate to get in touch with me if you want to know more.

As far as computer studies without coding, as a software developer I will say that if you want to write software for a living, and it sounds like that's not really your goal, there is no shortcut to learning -- writing lots of code is an absolute necessity, in exactly the same way that writing lots of words is necessary to become a good writer.

The jury seems to be out on plural un-pronounced acronyms.

Funny, because that's the correct way to say it.

"their" is gaining popularity... [i]t may not be correct now, but if it gains more acceptance, it could be considered correct at some time in the future.

Not to mention that it was also considered correct at some time in the past.

--
Dum de dum.

But, if the net change allows for more productive use of the world's land then the new configuration is more optimal.

Indeed this may be the case after the change. If climate changes rapidly, agricultural producivity, amongst other things, will be near impossable to maintain.

You can either use common sense, or the mean value theorem if you wish, to show that there must have been a period of global warming between then and now.

You could even put dates on it, find causes, evaluate them, look at rates and effects, and do a lot of other stuff. Simply waving your hand and saying 'It's been colder, it's been warmer, so what' isn't even an argument.

So you believe that paleoclimatology says that the mean world temperature is static and has been for thousands of years?

Errm, yes, it's been extremely stable for the last 8-10,000 years. Indeed, this period of stability has been extremely unusual for the past few million years; this has been very, very lucky for the development of complex civilisation. Even minor excursions like the little ice age and MWP have had the effect of collapsing major civilisations. (c.f. Egypt, Maya )

This is a pet peeve of mine: the use (utilisation?) of the word utilise/utilize where the word 'use' would do. Though not technically incorrect, it is usually a byproduct either of a misguided desire to appear educated or of too much exposure to management-speak...or both.

Normally I'm not picky about this sort of thing on Slashdot, but in the context of this thread and this particular comment I think it appropriate to observe that grammar and spelling are (not is) utilised. Subject-verb agreement is a very important concept, and should be taught as a very early part of any grammar curriculum. If I were* a genuinely cruel copy editor, I would also note that the last sentence of the parent post is egregiously comma spliced.

I fear now that I've racked up sufficient bad karma from this little rant to ensure a spelling or grammar error will creep into this post....

*Kudos to you for studying German. I learned more about English grammer through my studies in French, Spanish, and German than I ever did in my English classes. The starred phrase above represents a correct use of the subjunctive--a concept I first saw clearly defined in Spanish 101.

"I'm in a bit of a dilemma."

So, what are the two horns of that "dilemma"?

well iirc Solaris was set on a planet that was mostly a gigantic ocean?

Good luck! -Joel

An argument that improperly assumes as true the very point the speaker is trying to argue for is said in formal logic to "beg the question." Here is an example of a question-begging argument: "This painting is trash because it is obviously worthless." The speaker is simply asserting the worthlessness of the work, not presenting any evidence to demonstrate that this is in fact the case. Since we never use "begs" with this odd meaning ("to improperly take for granted") in any other phrase, many people mistakenly suppose the phrase implies something quite different: that the argument demands that a question about it be asked--raises the question. If you're not comfortable with formal terms of logic, it's best to stay away from this phrase, or risk embarrassing yourself.

Begs the question

http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~brians/errors/begs.html

mute point

wrong. it RAISES the question. see this page and this page.

using language which you yourself clearly do not understand isn't good for your credibility; in other words, it's obvious that you're talking out your ass. please: never post your ill-considered drivel again.

Of course, there was the decimation of the Circle K...

Yes, it was decimated -- exactly one-tenth of it was destroyed .

-Waldo Jaquith

Will the new network be admin'd by Central Services?

Actually the correct usage makes a lot of sense. It's call "begs the question" because it "begs the question [why?]".
Using the previous quoted example, the speaker is begging the question "Why the painting is obviously worthless?".

Most people, like the poster, incorrectly assume that "begs the question" is the same as "answers the question". This describes the proper use of the phrase.

Damn, I knew I should have includeed citations. The first two are from John Adams' letters to Jefferson. As a poster pointed out the first Adams quote is fragmented and misleading. The full quote is supportive, if critical, of religion,

Twenty times, in the course of my late Reading, have I been upon the point of breaking out, "This would be the best of all possible Worlds, if there were no Religion in it." ! ! ! But in this exclamati[on] I should have been as fanatical as Bryant or Cleverly. Without Religion this World would be Something not fit to be mentioned in polite Company, I mean Hell. So far from believing in the total and universal depravity of human Nature; I believe there is no Individual totally depraved. The mos abandoned Scoundrel that ever existed, never Yet Wholly extinguished his Conscience, and while Conscience remains there is some Religion. Popes, Jesuits and Sorbonists and Inquisitors have some Conscience and some Religion. So had Marius and Sylla, Caesar Cataline and Anthony, an Augustus had not much more, let Virgil and Horace say what they will.

You can find both of those in The Adams Jefferson Letters, The Complete Correspondence Between Thomas Jefferson and Abigail and John Adams, Edited by Lester J. Cappon, University of North Carolina Press (1959, 1987)

Adams, although not a Christian (in the trinitarian sense of believing Jesus is God) was pretty religious. He vacillated between Deism and Unitarianism. He was adamant about seperation of church and state however, and was angry when the Massachusetts constitutional Convention modified his draft to include Christianity. Seven years later he was vidicated when the citizens of the Commonwealth voted (under referendum) to repeal the Christian clause by a 10-1 margin.

He later wrote, " "As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?" (The Great Quotations, ed. by George Seldes, (Citadel Press) quoting letter by J.A. to F.A. Van der Kamp Dec. 27, 1816 )

The Jefferson quote on the Gospel of St. John is from a letter to Alexander Smyth. (Thomas Jefferson, An Intimate History by Fawn M. Brodie, p. 453 quoting letter by T.J. to Alexander Smyth Jan. 17, 1825)

The Jeferson quote on the corruption of Christian doctrine is from the Adams correspondence. (Thomas Jefferson, Passionate Pilgrim by Alf Mapp Jr., p. 246, quoting letter by T.J. to John Adams July 5, 1814 )

The first Madison quote is from a letter, (The Madisons by Virginia Moore, p. 43 quoting letter by J.M. to William Bradford April 1, 1774) the other two are from his Memorial and Remonstrance of 1785.

You can find the Allen quotes in his treatise Reason, the Only Oracle of Man of 1784

The Franklin line comes from a 1790 letter to Ezra Stiles in which he frankly identifies himself as a Deist.

The Paine Quote is from his The Age of Reason

Priestly's quip on Franklin is on page 60 of his autobiography.

In 1831 prominent Episcopal minister Bird Wilson complained that "The founders of our nation were nearly all Infidels, and that of the presidents who had thus far been elected not a one had professed a belief in Christianity.... "Among all our presidents from Washington downward, not one was a professor of religion, at least not of more than Unitarianism." (sermon preached in October, 1831, first sentence quoted in John E. Remsberg, "Six Historic Americans," second sentence quoted in Paul F. Boller, George Washington & Religion, pp. 14-15)

His point, while put in a rather sneering, ranting tone, is well-taken. It is a fact that most PHBs don't get there because of merit. They get there because they went to the right prep school, Daddy knew the right people, their frat brothers (whom they used to drink a fifth a weekend with) helped them, etc. Also, there is some credence to the notion that B-schoolers don't know their ass from a hole in the ground. As a former one myself (before I saw the light,) I can tell you that they have as many classes on etiquette and protocol as they do academics. Look where business administration majors score - fifth from the bottom! Where's my major? Second from the top, even beating out comp. sci. and engineering. WOOHOO!!

I agree that social skills are necessary. I agree that one has to be able to get along to a certain extent. But social skills are one thing, getting by because you're a bullshit artist in an expensive suit is quite another. Most corporate higher-ups fit into the latter category, and we saw it in excelsis during the dot.bomb era.

Now it's my turn to rant. This proves what a lot of people suspect about CEOs and other higher-ups in companies. Namely, that they are spoiled, pampered, self-important, pompous assholes who have never worked a hard day in their lives and wouldn't know an honest day's work if it bit them in the face. They don't need the training because, hey, we're bigshots. We've people for those menial tasks. "We're too good for the mere IT mortals, we deserve private training." Yeah, along with your private dining room, private bathroom, private jet, etc., etc., etc . . .

I don't like science-orientated universities. I prefer science oriented universities.

Hooray, indeed!

Supporting Info:

At the time period approximately 4-5 million years ago, we were very much animals, and I believe that the fossil records localize us to Africa. Australopithicus ramidus lived during that time frame, and are pretty much Human v. 0.0.99pre2 or so.

Here's an interesting antro site I found that has a timeline and some other info: Clicky

According to Churchill, ending a sentence with a preposition is something up with which no /.er ever would put.

Elegant prose is often not strictly grammatical,

I routinely turn off grammar checking in every program I've ever used it in. Aside from the occasional misplaced modifier or dangling participle, its worthless.

Comon, editors, let's use the proper grammar, at least when talking about schools! To vs Too vs Two.

Actually, it's not. At least, not yet. Pixelvision was so great because it was liberating. It was the video version of the portable 4-track tape recorder. It brought the DIY/Garage ethos to movie making.

This thing is all about consuming licensed content ("Collect Them All") from the major media players, as if that's any big surprise. Sure, Zoc_All_Alone is reverse-engineering the file format, but until someone can hack a Mavica to record in that format, I don't think it will be as compelling to fiddle with.

An argument that improperly assumes as true the very point the speaker is trying to argue for is said in formal logic to "beg the question."

Note the "prismatic lorgnettes" about midway through the article which describes a little pair of prismatic glasses designed to trick the eye to view side-by-side images.

Sigh.

No, it doesn't.

Usage Nazi here to tell you that "begs the question" does *not* mean "prompts one to ask". It refers to particular flaw in logical reasoning.