The thing is, it's not your language, my language, or any other one person's language. English is constantly evolving, and insisting on using outdated definitions of words limits your potential audience. In order to efficiently convey ideas, it's important to use words that everyone understands; this is the information age, and scientific, political, and social debate isn't limited to the elite anymore.
There's nothing wrong with software as a commodity in theory, it's the way that it is monetized that needs to be revised. Advertising revenue is one way (Google), charging for training and support is another (Red Hat). Trying to treat intellectual property like an automobile is a dead end. Most people who wouldn't think about stealing a car have no problem downloading IP, because software isn't real in the same sense that a car is; everyone knows this except organizations like the MPAA and RIAA. Things will change, but it may take many years.
What you're describing sounds a lot like The Jetsons. I agree that everything that can be automated will be, eventually, but, you can't automate writing software, movies, music, or books; there will always be a job market for the creators of these things, in the U.S. and elsewhere in the world. For those that don't have the skills or desire to create intellectual property, there will always some things that are difficult to automate, such as garbage collection and law enforcement.
This is like me finding a pair of old eye glasses and exclaiming they must have been Ben Franklins since he wore eye glasses.
No, it's like you finding a pair of old eye glasses, and exclaiming they must have been Ben Franklin's because they look like glasses he was known to wear, they date to the right time, and have the inscription "BF" on them. Could the scientists be wrong? Sure, but the best evidence suggests that these are in fact Martian rocks.
Give a bunch of random people the science, and you'll find people who had the art and ingenuity but didn't know it.
This. Along the same line, not everyone who goes to college has what it takes to graduate, and not everyone who graduates with a computer science degree has what it takes to be a coder. But you will never know unless you try.
Plenty of people vote for a third party, just not enough; it's not human nature to go against the pack. The people who control this country are masters at understanding human nature, which is why things are as they are; they know how to manipulate the masses.
We're not talking about putting up advertisements, we're talking about wearing a pendant or a shirt. Would I get kicked out for wearing a shirt from Mike's hardware store?
And how exactly is a private citizen displaying a symbol of his or her religion considered "state sponsored?" It's not like they have state officials coming up to them and saying "I'm happy to see a crucifix around your neck." Those who are offended by others displaying pride in their religion (or lack thereof) are not very strong in their own beliefs and need to do some soul-searching.
I believe, in fact, he was speaking against the practice of Laicism (though he didn't call it that by name), not speaking "about the benefits of a laic state." Very few people in the U.S., including atheists, would preach against being able to publicly display symbols of your religion. Laicism at its core is intolerance for religion; as long as its not state sponsored, and its not inconveniencing anyone, me displaying symbols of my religion (or lack thereof -- are atheist bumper stickers illegal in France?) shouldn't be any of the state's business.
To be honest I couldn't care less what's in their hearts, as long as their actions mirror what they say. They're a faceless corporation, not my grandmother; if the CEO secretly wants to murder kittens, well that's none of my concern, and neither is their secret feelings towards SOPA; as long as they don't screw the pooch by creating corporate policy for it, I say let them be.
I would hope so, but even then it'll be quite a leap for a med student who has only ever practiced on simulations to go straight to real cutting on a human cadaver; however, I suppose those who have the knack for it will pick it up quickly, and all others probably shouldn't be doctors, anyway.
If that's true, then it's one of the biggest perversions of justice I've seen in a long time; I'm not a lawyer, and I realize double jeopardy laws may not cross over from civil to criminal cases, but it's ridiculous to be able to send somebody to jail for stealing your imaginary property, and then be able to sue in another court for the same reason.
There's a precedent for this in the computer security world, as well; it's not an uncommon practice for software vendors to prosecute or threaten to prosecute people who discover security holes in their products, instead of simply fixing said security hole. The problem is that in a lot of cases the flaws don't get fixed until they're out in the open; the thinking of the big software firms is that if nobody knows about it, then it's not worth the cost to fix it. This may seem like a legitimate action on the surface, but eventually somebody of a less savory character will rediscover the security flaw (especially if it's made known that a particular type of flaw is out there), and that's when legitimate users get burned.
I think the confusion is in the meaning of the word applies; most people are reading it as a passive verb, but it is meant to be read as an active verb.
You can have the most brilliant ideas in the world, but if you convey them like an uneducated buffoon then that's exactly what you will appear to be. Proper grammar may be optional in casual conversation (LOL wuzzup d00d), but in a setting where the conveyance of knowledge is the primary goal you should strive to do your ideas justice by relating them in an intelligent way.
So, let's clarify your point of view: Americans can't do math, and any American's who can do math aren't really Americans. Did I get the gist of it? Bigot.
And how exactly will turning the prison system into an adult daycare promote rehabilitation? IMO, this is why the number of repeat offenders is so high. Give them high school and college courses, or let them otherwise learn a useful life skill; do anything but make prison an extended vacation for them.
Racism implies an erroneous stereotype; its no secret that law enforcement tend to single out the lower class and minorities, simply because the police themselves observe stereotypes of their own (i.e. if you don't have a lot of money, you're more likely to steal). A lot of police use these stereotypes as justification to bend the law, as long as they think they're sticking to the spirit of it.
Slashdot Mirror
Also, magnets... How do they work?
The thing is, it's not your language, my language, or any other one person's language. English is constantly evolving, and insisting on using outdated definitions of words limits your potential audience. In order to efficiently convey ideas, it's important to use words that everyone understands; this is the information age, and scientific, political, and social debate isn't limited to the elite anymore.
There's nothing wrong with software as a commodity in theory, it's the way that it is monetized that needs to be revised. Advertising revenue is one way (Google), charging for training and support is another (Red Hat). Trying to treat intellectual property like an automobile is a dead end. Most people who wouldn't think about stealing a car have no problem downloading IP, because software isn't real in the same sense that a car is; everyone knows this except organizations like the MPAA and RIAA. Things will change, but it may take many years.
What you're describing sounds a lot like The Jetsons. I agree that everything that can be automated will be, eventually, but, you can't automate writing software, movies, music, or books; there will always be a job market for the creators of these things, in the U.S. and elsewhere in the world. For those that don't have the skills or desire to create intellectual property, there will always some things that are difficult to automate, such as garbage collection and law enforcement.
Didn't you know that all republican leaders are reptilian overlords who secretly rule the planet?
Because there's never been a white terrorist, right?
This is like me finding a pair of old eye glasses and exclaiming they must have been Ben Franklins since he wore eye glasses.
No, it's like you finding a pair of old eye glasses, and exclaiming they must have been Ben Franklin's because they look like glasses he was known to wear, they date to the right time, and have the inscription "BF" on them. Could the scientists be wrong? Sure, but the best evidence suggests that these are in fact Martian rocks.
Give a bunch of random people the science, and you'll find people who had the art and ingenuity but didn't know it.
This. Along the same line, not everyone who goes to college has what it takes to graduate, and not everyone who graduates with a computer science degree has what it takes to be a coder. But you will never know unless you try.
Plenty of people vote for a third party, just not enough; it's not human nature to go against the pack. The people who control this country are masters at understanding human nature, which is why things are as they are; they know how to manipulate the masses.
We're not talking about putting up advertisements, we're talking about wearing a pendant or a shirt. Would I get kicked out for wearing a shirt from Mike's hardware store?
And how exactly is a private citizen displaying a symbol of his or her religion considered "state sponsored?" It's not like they have state officials coming up to them and saying "I'm happy to see a crucifix around your neck." Those who are offended by others displaying pride in their religion (or lack thereof) are not very strong in their own beliefs and need to do some soul-searching.
I believe, in fact, he was speaking against the practice of Laicism (though he didn't call it that by name), not speaking "about the benefits of a laic state." Very few people in the U.S., including atheists, would preach against being able to publicly display symbols of your religion. Laicism at its core is intolerance for religion; as long as its not state sponsored, and its not inconveniencing anyone, me displaying symbols of my religion (or lack thereof -- are atheist bumper stickers illegal in France?) shouldn't be any of the state's business.
and for that matter...
http://www.etsy.com/listing/50473469/american-flag-reusable-cloth-maxi-pad
To be honest I couldn't care less what's in their hearts, as long as their actions mirror what they say. They're a faceless corporation, not my grandmother; if the CEO secretly wants to murder kittens, well that's none of my concern, and neither is their secret feelings towards SOPA; as long as they don't screw the pooch by creating corporate policy for it, I say let them be.
*blink*
I would hope so, but even then it'll be quite a leap for a med student who has only ever practiced on simulations to go straight to real cutting on a human cadaver; however, I suppose those who have the knack for it will pick it up quickly, and all others probably shouldn't be doctors, anyway.
or alternately, and probably more common, "cleaning."
If that's true, then it's one of the biggest perversions of justice I've seen in a long time; I'm not a lawyer, and I realize double jeopardy laws may not cross over from civil to criminal cases, but it's ridiculous to be able to send somebody to jail for stealing your imaginary property, and then be able to sue in another court for the same reason.
There's a precedent for this in the computer security world, as well; it's not an uncommon practice for software vendors to prosecute or threaten to prosecute people who discover security holes in their products, instead of simply fixing said security hole. The problem is that in a lot of cases the flaws don't get fixed until they're out in the open; the thinking of the big software firms is that if nobody knows about it, then it's not worth the cost to fix it. This may seem like a legitimate action on the surface, but eventually somebody of a less savory character will rediscover the security flaw (especially if it's made known that a particular type of flaw is out there), and that's when legitimate users get burned.
I think the confusion is in the meaning of the word applies; most people are reading it as a passive verb, but it is meant to be read as an active verb.
You can have the most brilliant ideas in the world, but if you convey them like an uneducated buffoon then that's exactly what you will appear to be. Proper grammar may be optional in casual conversation (LOL wuzzup d00d), but in a setting where the conveyance of knowledge is the primary goal you should strive to do your ideas justice by relating them in an intelligent way.
So, let's clarify your point of view: Americans can't do math, and any American's who can do math aren't really Americans. Did I get the gist of it? Bigot.
I use Facebook ironically.
And how exactly will turning the prison system into an adult daycare promote rehabilitation? IMO, this is why the number of repeat offenders is so high. Give them high school and college courses, or let them otherwise learn a useful life skill; do anything but make prison an extended vacation for them.
Racism implies an erroneous stereotype; its no secret that law enforcement tend to single out the lower class and minorities, simply because the police themselves observe stereotypes of their own (i.e. if you don't have a lot of money, you're more likely to steal). A lot of police use these stereotypes as justification to bend the law, as long as they think they're sticking to the spirit of it.