Actually, Russian does not depend upon word order to determine the role of a word in the sentence. Rather, it uses case declensions. Certainly, there is a prefered order (generally, SVO), but word order is generally used for emphasis rather than meaning. For instance, "Ya tjebya lublju" and "Ya lublju tebya" both mean "I love you," though the stress in the first would be on the object (you), and the stress on the second would be on the verb (love). Basically, it is the difference between "I LOVE you" and "I love YOU."
xander
Most of my education has been in archaeology. I have spent a great deal of time out in the field doing archaeological work. In most of the Great Basin (and, probably, other parts of the country), ranchers built fences to keep their cattle in (or out, depending upon the state). Those fences (the ones that are over 50 years old, at least) are now considered to be part of the archaeological record. However, they are generally mostly obliterated by time -- if you get right on top of one, you might find a bit of wire, some nails, or maybe some wood. However, 100 years ago, when the fences were new, they were a great place for birds to hang out. Those birds ate seeds from trees at slightly higher elevations, then pooped them out while sitting on the fence. Thus, a long line of pinyon or juniper trees is often an indication that a fence was built in a particular location at some point in time.
The idea of "the dongle is the application" is an interesting one to me. However, it seems that there are a couple of hurdles to jump before it is really practical. For instance, one reason to install on a hard drive is speed. Granted, once everything is loaded into RAM, it doesn't much matter, but my hard drive is a lot faster than my USB port. Also, what if someone wants to run Word, and Photoshop, and Excel, and four other programs at the same time? You will, eventually, hit a limit for the number of dongle ports that you have. Do you start daisy chaining them (Sonic and Knuckles + Sonic 3 style...)? Do you only allow a couple of apps to run at any one time?
Still, for a low end consumer computer, it might be a great idea.
i.e. it runs open source software. Not that this is particularly special, as Linux and Windows can do the same, but your response is something of a non sequitor, givn the original post.
A fellow anthro major! There's more than one on Slashdot! Amazing! If I ever meet you, remind me to offer you a glass of scotch (I have a rather nice 21 year old single malt on the shelf at the moment...).
And you didn't offer the prof any? I don't know a single anthropologist that would have turned down Bushmills (well, okay, a few, but they are all archaeologists, and drink Wild Turkey). Anthropologists just don't turn down booze -- it doesn't happen.
My point is that there are many spoilers in the thread, several of them higher up than mine. Anyone who is reading this is probably aware of Firefly, has seen the movie, and is probably not going to be offended by a spoiler. The very nature of the topic implies that there will be spoilers. I seriously doubt that I have spoiled anything for anyone who cares. As I said above, get over it.
xander
I find it odd that you choose to single out my post in this thread, when there are many, many others that include spoilers, including parent posts. Get over it.
It was jarring, and it was a moment that I did not like, but because Wash ended up dead, not because it was poorly done. In fact, that was one of the most jolting, complacency-killing moments I have ever seen in a movie. It was executed excellently, IMNSHO.
You are incorrect when you define humanism and atheism as religions, unless you are using a definition of religion that is far beyond that used in everyday speech and in the social sciences. Religion implies belief in the supernatural, ritual, and a community of people that share the above mentioned beliefs and rituals. Atheists do not believe in the supernatural, do not practice any kind of ritual, and do not form a community of like minded people. It is blatantly incorrect to identify atheism and humanism as religions.
I've always said that mice were evil. The decline of civilization can be traced to introduction of the mouse and the GUI. Why, back in my day, we had a character prompt, and that's the way we liked it!
I agree with basically all that you are saying. My original post took issue with the idea that Wikipedia is a peer reviewed publication. It is not, at least according to the traditional definition. Part of the reason, I think, that publications like The Register take such exception to Wikipedia is the fact that so many people on the other side want to place Wikipedia beside other peer reviewed publications. It doesn't belong there, and that argument seems to be doing more to hurt Wikipedia than to help it.
Otherwise, I have a great deal of respect for what Wikipedia is trying to do (provide a broad overview of human knowledge), and wish it the greatest success. As I said above, it is generally the first place that I look for an overview of something that I don't know much about, and don't need to know in any great detail. However, I would never place Wikipedia in the same category as, say, [i]American Antiquity[/i].
Yes, but quality counts for something. To extend your logic a bit, would it be better for an advanced physics article to be reviewed by three Ph.D.ed physicists before publication, or by the following committee of 1,000 people?: 200 have no physics education at all (not even high school physics); 200 have only high school physics taken more than 30 years ago; 200 are currently attending a high school physics class; 200 are either taking or have taken Physics 101 (or the equivelant) at a university; and the last 200 have have taken a couple more physics classes in college to fulfill their undergraduate requirements.
It is not a question of "lying," as you put it. It is a question of whether or not the editing community has the expertise to know if the information even makes sense. I am not saying that Wikipedia is a bad thing, only that it is not a peer reviewed publication in the traditional sense of peer reviewed. A peer reviewed publication is one in which every article is vetted before publication by people who are well informed in the subject area. Generally, these publications go out to other peers, who then have the opportunity to write and respond. Thus, even bad articles are generally dismissed very quickly. If they are not, then the publication loses respect, no one reads it or publishes in it, and it goes defunct.
Don't get me wrong, I like Wikipedia, and use it as a reference quite a bit. However, I do not consider it to be an authoratative source of knowledge (except with reference to pop-culture, where Wikipedia seems to be about as good as anyone else), and I would never call it "peer reviewed" for two important reasons:
1) Those that review it do not have to present any kind of credential before making comments.
2) Things can be (and are, generally) published before they are reviewed; thus an error can be in the wild for a time before it is found and corrected.
The problem with your argument is that you have assumed that I am worried about people "lying," which is not the case. That implies intent to defraud. I am more concerned about people submitting bad information, and everyone saying "Ah! That sounds good, everything must be right with the world." Again, Wikipedia is fine for what it does, but it should not be confused with, or given the weight of, proper peer reviewed journals.
Not that I am disagreeing entirely, but in academia, peer review is done by people that have proven that they are experts in a field. Any random shmo can edit a Wiki. Wikipedia editors, by and large, need offer no credentials.
I would agree with you except for the fact that the error is obviously on GoDaddy's end, and they are blaming Apple. If the article stated that there was a problem, and GoDaddy had no intention of fixing it because it only affect a small number of people, it would be unfortunate, but expected. As it is, they are trying to pass the buck and blame someone else. Also, point of fact, Safari and Opera have more than 0.25% marketshare. So, all things considered, your post is a troll. Rather than mod you down, I thought I should explain why you will be modded down by someone else shortly.
Puns, my friend, are the highest form of humor. When they create a sci-fi series with as much punniness as Firefly had snark, I will be overjoyed. Untill that day, I will live with the scraps of sarcasm that are thrown my way.
Speaking of which, you do know what sarcasm is, right? It is a large hole in the ground used by 19th Century Russian monarchs. *rimshot*
By your logic, I conclude that movies are not art. In a movie, you are either forced to rely upon dialog (falling back on literature), visual impact (which simply reproduces the work of a painter or sculpter), or the interactions of humans (like, say, a play). Hell, plays and literature are built on oral traditions -- they can't be art, either. I am sorry, but your logic is flawed.
Ack! I forgot about Cave Story! Silly me. As to Dawn of Sorrow, I hadn't heard of it. Mayhaps I will buy a DS in a few years when I can get a used one for $50. Don't laugh... I tend to buy all of my games several years after they come out -- they are cheaper that way. I only got Symphony of the Night last year, and didn't get a PS2 until last month (for $70). That being said, I am still very interested in what is coming out now, as I will be playing it in a year or two:)
The article mentions indie games, but fails to mention one of the greatest draws -- they are also generally cheap (or at least cheaper than the standard $50 per game of most large releases).
Mutant Storm is a brilliant arcade style game that combines old school frenzy with purty graphics. It is nice to see that folk are still making games like this (now, if I could find a decent platformer -- the last good game in that genre was Castlevania: Symphony of the Night). Not only is Mutant Storm a great game, but it costs less $20.
Darwinia is another wonderful game. Sure, it is a bit short (10 levels, less than 10 hours if you go through it at a reasonable pace), but some of the best games ever were rather short (Sonic the Hedgehog is still one of my favorite games, and can be beaten less than an hour -- two hours if you take your time). Add to this that Darwinia has a very different set of aesthetics from most modern games (rather than realistic graphics, Darwinia seeks to produce a very clean, artificial look, something like the movie Tron), an interesting interface, and a compelling story. Price: $30.
I know that both of these were briefly mentioned in the article, but I thought that they both deserved a bit more praise.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, Russian does not depend upon word order to determine the role of a word in the sentence. Rather, it uses case declensions. Certainly, there is a prefered order (generally, SVO), but word order is generally used for emphasis rather than meaning. For instance, "Ya tjebya lublju" and "Ya lublju tebya" both mean "I love you," though the stress in the first would be on the object (you), and the stress on the second would be on the verb (love). Basically, it is the difference between "I LOVE you" and "I love YOU." xander
This is entirely off topic, though bird related:
Most of my education has been in archaeology. I have spent a great deal of time out in the field doing archaeological work. In most of the Great Basin (and, probably, other parts of the country), ranchers built fences to keep their cattle in (or out, depending upon the state). Those fences (the ones that are over 50 years old, at least) are now considered to be part of the archaeological record. However, they are generally mostly obliterated by time -- if you get right on top of one, you might find a bit of wire, some nails, or maybe some wood. However, 100 years ago, when the fences were new, they were a great place for birds to hang out. Those birds ate seeds from trees at slightly higher elevations, then pooped them out while sitting on the fence. Thus, a long line of pinyon or juniper trees is often an indication that a fence was built in a particular location at some point in time.
The idea of "the dongle is the application" is an interesting one to me. However, it seems that there are a couple of hurdles to jump before it is really practical. For instance, one reason to install on a hard drive is speed. Granted, once everything is loaded into RAM, it doesn't much matter, but my hard drive is a lot faster than my USB port. Also, what if someone wants to run Word, and Photoshop, and Excel, and four other programs at the same time? You will, eventually, hit a limit for the number of dongle ports that you have. Do you start daisy chaining them (Sonic and Knuckles + Sonic 3 style...)? Do you only allow a couple of apps to run at any one time?
Still, for a low end consumer computer, it might be a great idea.
Meh... that ain't so hard:
print "What is the meaning of life?"
See, this is where I have you beat. All of my data is stored on stainless steel punchcards. They will survive forever! Bwa hahahaha!
Hrm... what's that dripping sound? Water!? RUST! NOOOOOOO!
You missed the key word of that sentence:
"Open source running..."
i.e. it runs open source software. Not that this is particularly special, as Linux and Windows can do the same, but your response is something of a non sequitor, givn the original post.
Since you are being pedantic, you probably meant 1/999999999, as opposed to 999999999/1, which is, in fact 999999999.
A fellow anthro major! There's more than one on Slashdot! Amazing! If I ever meet you, remind me to offer you a glass of scotch (I have a rather nice 21 year old single malt on the shelf at the moment...).
And you didn't offer the prof any? I don't know a single anthropologist that would have turned down Bushmills (well, okay, a few, but they are all archaeologists, and drink Wild Turkey). Anthropologists just don't turn down booze -- it doesn't happen.
My point is that there are many spoilers in the thread, several of them higher up than mine. Anyone who is reading this is probably aware of Firefly, has seen the movie, and is probably not going to be offended by a spoiler. The very nature of the topic implies that there will be spoilers. I seriously doubt that I have spoiled anything for anyone who cares. As I said above, get over it. xander
I find it odd that you choose to single out my post in this thread, when there are many, many others that include spoilers, including parent posts. Get over it.
Actually, it was Jayne.
/pedant
It was jarring, and it was a moment that I did not like, but because Wash ended up dead, not because it was poorly done. In fact, that was one of the most jolting, complacency-killing moments I have ever seen in a movie. It was executed excellently, IMNSHO.
Still no belief in the supernatural. Doesn't meet the definition. Also, judges can perform weddings... does that make them religious officials?
You are incorrect when you define humanism and atheism as religions, unless you are using a definition of religion that is far beyond that used in everyday speech and in the social sciences. Religion implies belief in the supernatural, ritual, and a community of people that share the above mentioned beliefs and rituals. Atheists do not believe in the supernatural, do not practice any kind of ritual, and do not form a community of like minded people. It is blatantly incorrect to identify atheism and humanism as religions.
I've always said that mice were evil. The decline of civilization can be traced to introduction of the mouse and the GUI. Why, back in my day, we had a character prompt, and that's the way we liked it!
I, for one, welcome our new vampire slaying overlords.
I agree with basically all that you are saying. My original post took issue with the idea that Wikipedia is a peer reviewed publication. It is not, at least according to the traditional definition. Part of the reason, I think, that publications like The Register take such exception to Wikipedia is the fact that so many people on the other side want to place Wikipedia beside other peer reviewed publications. It doesn't belong there, and that argument seems to be doing more to hurt Wikipedia than to help it.
Otherwise, I have a great deal of respect for what Wikipedia is trying to do (provide a broad overview of human knowledge), and wish it the greatest success. As I said above, it is generally the first place that I look for an overview of something that I don't know much about, and don't need to know in any great detail. However, I would never place Wikipedia in the same category as, say, [i]American Antiquity[/i].
Yes, but quality counts for something. To extend your logic a bit, would it be better for an advanced physics article to be reviewed by three Ph.D.ed physicists before publication, or by the following committee of 1,000 people?: 200 have no physics education at all (not even high school physics); 200 have only high school physics taken more than 30 years ago; 200 are currently attending a high school physics class; 200 are either taking or have taken Physics 101 (or the equivelant) at a university; and the last 200 have have taken a couple more physics classes in college to fulfill their undergraduate requirements.
It is not a question of "lying," as you put it. It is a question of whether or not the editing community has the expertise to know if the information even makes sense. I am not saying that Wikipedia is a bad thing, only that it is not a peer reviewed publication in the traditional sense of peer reviewed. A peer reviewed publication is one in which every article is vetted before publication by people who are well informed in the subject area. Generally, these publications go out to other peers, who then have the opportunity to write and respond. Thus, even bad articles are generally dismissed very quickly. If they are not, then the publication loses respect, no one reads it or publishes in it, and it goes defunct.
Don't get me wrong, I like Wikipedia, and use it as a reference quite a bit. However, I do not consider it to be an authoratative source of knowledge (except with reference to pop-culture, where Wikipedia seems to be about as good as anyone else), and I would never call it "peer reviewed" for two important reasons:
1) Those that review it do not have to present any kind of credential before making comments.
2) Things can be (and are, generally) published before they are reviewed; thus an error can be in the wild for a time before it is found and corrected.
The problem with your argument is that you have assumed that I am worried about people "lying," which is not the case. That implies intent to defraud. I am more concerned about people submitting bad information, and everyone saying "Ah! That sounds good, everything must be right with the world." Again, Wikipedia is fine for what it does, but it should not be confused with, or given the weight of, proper peer reviewed journals.
Not that I am disagreeing entirely, but in academia, peer review is done by people that have proven that they are experts in a field. Any random shmo can edit a Wiki. Wikipedia editors, by and large, need offer no credentials.
I would agree with you except for the fact that the error is obviously on GoDaddy's end, and they are blaming Apple. If the article stated that there was a problem, and GoDaddy had no intention of fixing it because it only affect a small number of people, it would be unfortunate, but expected. As it is, they are trying to pass the buck and blame someone else. Also, point of fact, Safari and Opera have more than 0.25% marketshare. So, all things considered, your post is a troll. Rather than mod you down, I thought I should explain why you will be modded down by someone else shortly.
Puns, my friend, are the highest form of humor. When they create a sci-fi series with as much punniness as Firefly had snark, I will be overjoyed. Untill that day, I will live with the scraps of sarcasm that are thrown my way.
/me ducks the flurry of rotten tomatoes
Speaking of which, you do know what sarcasm is, right? It is a large hole in the ground used by 19th Century Russian monarchs. *rimshot*
By your logic, I conclude that movies are not art. In a movie, you are either forced to rely upon dialog (falling back on literature), visual impact (which simply reproduces the work of a painter or sculpter), or the interactions of humans (like, say, a play). Hell, plays and literature are built on oral traditions -- they can't be art, either. I am sorry, but your logic is flawed.
Ack! I forgot about Cave Story! Silly me. As to Dawn of Sorrow, I hadn't heard of it. Mayhaps I will buy a DS in a few years when I can get a used one for $50. Don't laugh... I tend to buy all of my games several years after they come out -- they are cheaper that way. I only got Symphony of the Night last year, and didn't get a PS2 until last month (for $70). That being said, I am still very interested in what is coming out now, as I will be playing it in a year or two :)
The article mentions indie games, but fails to mention one of the greatest draws -- they are also generally cheap (or at least cheaper than the standard $50 per game of most large releases).
Mutant Storm is a brilliant arcade style game that combines old school frenzy with purty graphics. It is nice to see that folk are still making games like this (now, if I could find a decent platformer -- the last good game in that genre was Castlevania: Symphony of the Night). Not only is Mutant Storm a great game, but it costs less $20.
Darwinia is another wonderful game. Sure, it is a bit short (10 levels, less than 10 hours if you go through it at a reasonable pace), but some of the best games ever were rather short (Sonic the Hedgehog is still one of my favorite games, and can be beaten less than an hour -- two hours if you take your time). Add to this that Darwinia has a very different set of aesthetics from most modern games (rather than realistic graphics, Darwinia seeks to produce a very clean, artificial look, something like the movie Tron), an interesting interface, and a compelling story. Price: $30.
I know that both of these were briefly mentioned in the article, but I thought that they both deserved a bit more praise.