Transmission lines carrying power away from the Maple Ridge farm, near Lowville, N.Y., have sometimes become so congested that the companyâ(TM)s only choice is to shut down
In the case of congestion, why aren't the turbines the only ones providing local electricity instead of being forced to turn off? Why doesn't a coal plant decrease output? Couldn't the turbines pick up the slack to decrease load and ease congestion?
You should bear in mind that "agrees with you" and "has ethics/morals" are not equivalent concepts. Nor are "agrees with you" and "is a good database programmer."
It is entirely possible for someone to be smart, a good programmer, have strong morals, and still disagree with you about tactics to the point where they would make different decisions in similar situations.
Fighting terrorists is like getting hit by a woman. If she hits you like a man, you hit her back like a man. If a terrorist hits you like a nation state, then you hit them back, like a nation state. That means, no courts, no tribunals, only war and death for them.
So yeah, I would almost agree that the torture of three Al Qaeda operatives was bad morally. We should have killed them on site!
And who decides what the line is between "criminals" who get a day in court and "terrorists" who you feel should be shot on sight? You? George Bush? Whoever has the gun?
It really looks like the gov't is boldly marching down the road to hell. I would even feel a little better if it was one of those roads paved with good intentions instead of pure control and corruption.
The election was decided by the SCOTUS essentially declaring a winner and not by a rigorous count of the votes cast on a poorly-designed ballot in a state whose governor was a candidate's brother. It may or may not have been actively rigged, but it was VERY shady.
"This thing we built to do one thing and one thing only does it inaccurately and insecurely."
Please tell me that this is the nail in the coffin for these machines. Sadly, I don't think this is going to be the case.
I'm wondering if this will have a negative impact on the trust the voting public has in their elected officials. I have heard plenty of "I didn't vote for him" apathy in the past and am now wondering what will happen if enough people feel that the results are illegitimate.
Oh wait...I forgot the general election of 2000. People will do absolutely nothing and then renew our sentence for another 4 years.
I hope it's not true that the most interesting sentence for Slashdotters is about firing Bill Gates. Is the anti-MS kneejerk reaction so common that it would overshadow any amount of interesting or even merely amusing or nostalgic story? Somebody thinks so.
I agree with most of your first paragraph, but my definition was not purely statistical. I assumed (though didn't state) that part of being 'accepted' is being understood by a sufficiently large portion of the population.
As for the rest, I disagree that those who employ a new usage for a word are always the "wrong" ones in a case of miscommunication. If a majority of the population decides and accepts that a word has a particular meaning, anyone who doesn't accept that could be said to be the one who is "wrong."
However, I don't feel that there is any real way to claim that one person is right and the other wrong in this case. The person speaking could make himself clearer by speaking unambiguously, but if most people understand what he means when he uses that word, he shouldn't be expected to go out of his way to clarify himself every time.
Many times new uses of old words can end up leading to confusion, either because the new usage may be too similar to an old one, or too different. At a certain point in the evolution of the link between a word and a definition, when enough members of a given population understand what is meant when the word is used that way, there is a reasonable expectation of being understood when saying it.
"Hopefully" has been adapted to mean "I am hopeful that..." in addition to "in a hopeful manner." This usage is technically incorrect given how the word is formed grammatically. But I feel that this usage of the word fills a void in English and enough people know what is meant when it's used that way that it can't be called "wrong" to use it.
As if the rightness or wrongness of something depends upon how many people accept it. The majority can be wrong. Just because a use is accepted in everyday use, doesn't make it right. If you have to cite definition 3 to defend use of a word....
First, accepted common usage in everyday speech is pretty much the definition of what makes something right or wrong in language. Words are dropped, others are added, and some change meaning over time. The ONLY way for this to happen is through a natural process whereby a new word or usage may gain acceptance over time as more people begin to use it.
Second, claiming that a definition of a word is not correct because it is the third on a list is just downright silly. Such lists of definitions are usually ordered by frequency of use and should not be used to suggest that a later definition is somehow invalid or incorrect.
This is not to say that I don't agree on some of your points. However, I think such an orthodox view of how language should be used is ultimately futile and that going out of your way to correct everything you see as a misuse is somewhat pedantic.
The reason we believe that animals aren't conscious, and are like little automaton, is because it allows us to treat them with callous disregard.
I would suggest that we believe it because we have no evidence to the contrary, and not for lack of searching (TFA, for example).
Though this is likely true only for those of us who are science-minded.
If you visit a street corner, you will notice that every right-angle intersection of two continuing streets has the ability to have 4 structures. It is common to say something might be "at the corner of 9th and Pine." If something like "NE corner" isn't specified, then there can easily be 3 churches at the corner of 9th and Pine.
The trailer for Watchmen got the E.T. treatment. Just in case you were afraid that the character on screen was going to shoot you, his gun has been replaced by a walkie-talkie.
I'm upset that the only issues that those surveyed brought up in large enough numbers to merit a percentage point were economy, war, immigration, and national security. I wish more people were concerned with the rapid and sanctioned erosion of civil rights and the due process of law in this country (United States).
They should be more concerned that the actions of the government have not been in line with one that is most concerned with the well-being of its citizens, regardless of economic strata.
I want to be able to look at Washington and actually believe that those politicians are doing the best they can to maintain a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.
Slashdot Mirror
That's not the cuddle chemical we used when I was in college
at least they don't make any bones about being for big business so you know where you stand if you vote Republican.
It's true...knowing that I am waist-deep in shit does kinda make me feel less shitty.
Transmission lines carrying power away from the Maple Ridge farm, near Lowville, N.Y., have sometimes become so congested that the companyâ(TM)s only choice is to shut down
In the case of congestion, why aren't the turbines the only ones providing local electricity instead of being forced to turn off? Why doesn't a coal plant decrease output? Couldn't the turbines pick up the slack to decrease load and ease congestion?
You should bear in mind that "agrees with you" and "has ethics/morals" are not equivalent concepts. Nor are "agrees with you" and "is a good database programmer."
It is entirely possible for someone to be smart, a good programmer, have strong morals, and still disagree with you about tactics to the point where they would make different decisions in similar situations.
Fighting terrorists is like getting hit by a woman. If she hits you like a man, you hit her back like a man. If a terrorist hits you like a nation state, then you hit them back, like a nation state. That means, no courts, no tribunals, only war and death for them.
So yeah, I would almost agree that the torture of three Al Qaeda operatives was bad morally. We should have killed them on site!
And who decides what the line is between "criminals" who get a day in court and "terrorists" who you feel should be shot on sight? You? George Bush? Whoever has the gun?
Heinlein called it first.
Is anyone else reminded of Chick tracts? Share files and you go to hell...
It really looks like the gov't is boldly marching down the road to hell. I would even feel a little better if it was one of those roads paved with good intentions instead of pure control and corruption.
I call shotgun in the handbasket.
Kneel before Zod!
The election was decided by the SCOTUS essentially declaring a winner and not by a rigorous count of the votes cast on a poorly-designed ballot in a state whose governor was a candidate's brother. It may or may not have been actively rigged, but it was VERY shady.
"This thing we built to do one thing and one thing only does it inaccurately and insecurely."
Please tell me that this is the nail in the coffin for these machines. Sadly, I don't think this is going to be the case.
I'm wondering if this will have a negative impact on the trust the voting public has in their elected officials. I have heard plenty of "I didn't vote for him" apathy in the past and am now wondering what will happen if enough people feel that the results are illegitimate.
Oh wait...I forgot the general election of 2000. People will do absolutely nothing and then renew our sentence for another 4 years.
I hope it's not true that the most interesting sentence for Slashdotters is about firing Bill Gates. Is the anti-MS kneejerk reaction so common that it would overshadow any amount of interesting or even merely amusing or nostalgic story? Somebody thinks so.
Isn't Bill's Last Day pretty much just a clone of Clinton's Final Days?
I agree with most of your first paragraph, but my definition was not purely statistical. I assumed (though didn't state) that part of being 'accepted' is being understood by a sufficiently large portion of the population.
As for the rest, I disagree that those who employ a new usage for a word are always the "wrong" ones in a case of miscommunication. If a majority of the population decides and accepts that a word has a particular meaning, anyone who doesn't accept that could be said to be the one who is "wrong."
However, I don't feel that there is any real way to claim that one person is right and the other wrong in this case. The person speaking could make himself clearer by speaking unambiguously, but if most people understand what he means when he uses that word, he shouldn't be expected to go out of his way to clarify himself every time.
Many times new uses of old words can end up leading to confusion, either because the new usage may be too similar to an old one, or too different. At a certain point in the evolution of the link between a word and a definition, when enough members of a given population understand what is meant when the word is used that way, there is a reasonable expectation of being understood when saying it.
"Hopefully" has been adapted to mean "I am hopeful that..." in addition to "in a hopeful manner." This usage is technically incorrect given how the word is formed grammatically. But I feel that this usage of the word fills a void in English and enough people know what is meant when it's used that way that it can't be called "wrong" to use it.
As if the rightness or wrongness of something depends upon how many people accept it. The majority can be wrong. Just because a use is accepted in everyday use, doesn't make it right. If you have to cite definition 3 to defend use of a word....
First, accepted common usage in everyday speech is pretty much the definition of what makes something right or wrong in language. Words are dropped, others are added, and some change meaning over time. The ONLY way for this to happen is through a natural process whereby a new word or usage may gain acceptance over time as more people begin to use it.
Second, claiming that a definition of a word is not correct because it is the third on a list is just downright silly. Such lists of definitions are usually ordered by frequency of use and should not be used to suggest that a later definition is somehow invalid or incorrect.
This is not to say that I don't agree on some of your points. However, I think such an orthodox view of how language should be used is ultimately futile and that going out of your way to correct everything you see as a misuse is somewhat pedantic.
The reason we believe that animals aren't conscious, and are like little automaton, is because it allows us to treat them with callous disregard.
I would suggest that we believe it because we have no evidence to the contrary, and not for lack of searching (TFA, for example).
Though this is likely true only for those of us who are science-minded.
Doesn't putting Idle stories on the front page detract from the "stuff that matters" claim of /.?
After reading this post, I have decided that BadAnalogyGuy is probably the most appropriate username I've seen here.
If you visit a street corner, you will notice that every right-angle intersection of two continuing streets has the ability to have 4 structures. It is common to say something might be "at the corner of 9th and Pine." If something like "NE corner" isn't specified, then there can easily be 3 churches at the corner of 9th and Pine.
The trailer for Watchmen got the E.T. treatment.
Just in case you were afraid that the character on screen was going to shoot you, his gun has been replaced by a walkie-talkie.
Ask the inventor of the Yo-yo how his patent fights against big companies have been for example.
You might have trouble asking the inventor since the yo-yo has been around for a long, long timeand that they will now use this as an argument when explaining why Fermilab has exactly the correct amount of funding
I have to say that one of my favorite videos involving dorky dancing is A Million Ways by OK Go
One theory has that it was an eruption of the Toba supervolcano in Sumatra. that caused it.
There's also a good look at the event at http://www.andaman.org/BOOK/originals/Weber-Toba/textr.htmwith a discussion of the genetic bottleneck effect in chapter 5.
I'm upset that the only issues that those surveyed brought up in large enough numbers to merit a percentage point were economy, war, immigration, and national security. I wish more people were concerned with the rapid and sanctioned erosion of civil rights and the due process of law in this country (United States).
They should be more concerned that the actions of the government have not been in line with one that is most concerned with the well-being of its citizens, regardless of economic strata.
I want to be able to look at Washington and actually believe that those politicians are doing the best they can to maintain a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.