Intelligent argument, other than the fact that it makes no sense. The point of language is to convey meaning and ideas, and as long as a phrase does that, why should we care about anything else?
He's pointing out that there's an unsupported statement that begs the questions. He then asks for some supporting evidence. Where's the improper usage?
"Begging the question" is a form of logical fallacy in which an argument is assumed to be true without evidence other than the argument itself. Fits the definition to me.
when the people that they're targetting are little different from sprites in a computer game That's a very compelling argument for them acting more rationally. I can't tell you how many hours I've seen people spend in Splinter Cell or Hitman making sure that they don't kill anyone that they're not supposed to.
Agreed. At the absolute worst, this is 100% guaranteed to keep one person (the pilot) from danger. The real concern in my mind is if China or Russia were able to hijack the airplane.
Yes, but your employers may believe that just because you're one in ten that 20 coders from Bolivia can do the same job because, hell, there's 20 of them. Even if your employers don't, a lot of others do.
To be honest, I have very little sympathy for someone who finds that a lack of an 'o' in that context makes the summary harder to read/understanding. Judging a slashdot summary based on it's grammar is like judging presidential candidates by their teeth: it's somewhat relevant, but unless it's grossly deficient (which this isn't), it's not the most important issue.
It will be interesting if Apple will ever decide to make a real portal of its own, or be content to partner with google. Isn't one of the founders of Google on the Apple board? I doubt Apple will have any problems continuing to let Google pay them to have their site as the portal on the iPhone, especially since Google does a decent job in copying the look and feel of devices/programs.
Where's the paradox in selling knowledge? I sell my knowledge to my employer(s). Companies have come to expect that if they have a problem, they'll be able to go to the vendor for support, and the only way to guarantee that is to sell it. In FOSS, I provide my code and I get a good program in return and the community as a whole provides me with more programs and everyone benefits and gets as much or more than they put into their projects. On the flip side there are companies that demand something the FOSS community can't reliably provide, so Red Hat, et al, have offered to be a layer between companies and open source. Again, where's the paradox of a company selling its knowledge and time?
in a media-driven capitalist economy, ideas need to become products that are sold in order to be recognized as "part of" the economy and society as a whole This is just anti-societal drivel. Linux became huge by providing a highly technical and powerful solution at a time when ones was needed for the explosion of internet activity. Windows wasn't secure enough for a large site with a big target on its forehead and other solutions were too expensive compared to the small increases in functionality they provided. In other words, Linux is taken seriously as a product and an idea because it was the best tool for the job of web serving.
But don't let the facts keep you from voicing more opinions.
Exactly. What's with Stallman's outrage? The core is Linux, it was the main effort and the part that the FSF couldn't get right before Linux hit. Seems to me that, between the two, Linux is the more integral part that enabled the operating system to flourish. That everyone refers to it as Linux makes sense from my point of view, and asking people to add a prefix seems stupid.
Re:Once again, they didn't read the article.
on
Attacking Sandboxes
·
· Score: 1
Yes, that may be the case right now, but at one time the internet was the domain of the highly competent developers and look how that turned out.
I would be surprised to learn that a judge reacted in a hostile manner to any motion that could potentially settle the dispute. I would too, but judges are typically intelligent enough to realize that a $1 offer, at less than 1% of what they could get for a win on a single song, isn't likely to settle the dispute.
If the plaintiff accepts, then the defendant gets off with a measly $1 judgment. If the plaintiff declines, then the defendant is guaranteed free legal counsel if he prevails, but suffers no penalty if he loses. Two penalties if he loses: the judge regards him as a twit for offering a settlement that's ridiculously low compared to the amount that the RIAA could get for a single song, and the defendant has to pay his lawyers for the time spend writing and defending the motion.
The offer clearly says she thinks she will win at trial but she doesn't want to go through the expense. And if a pit bull's looking like it's going to attack me, I'm going to take a threatening stance whether I'm urinating myself or not. It's just posturing.
It makes me sad to see my country reduced to this. In WWII, Hitler thought he could break the will of the English by bombing their cities; instead, he strengthened their resolve and gave them the opportunity to get their airfields back in shape. On the other hand, three planes crash into buildings and a fourth is stopped from doing so and suddenly we can't board an airplane without an hour of security. What's even funnier to me is that the fourth plane didn't complete its objective; the passengers didn't allow it. The problem fixed itself since passengers won't let airplanes be hijacked any more, and now that we're protecting pilots better, it's even less of an issue. It's sad to see the will of the people shatter in the face of so little adversity:'(
Judges also have to decide whether a law is, in itself, legal, whether it plays nicely with previous laws and the constitutions (state and national). In addition, judges have to decide what a law actually says, not what the lawmakers meant. While we don't have a system like the UK's where the courts have almost legislative power, the constitution does give judges the responsibility to judge and interpret the laws. In other words, while I agree with what Screwmaster said, I do believe the constitution itself gives that wiggle room.
That brings back memories. I remember being in my high school computer lab in a computer science class when someone installed bonzai buddy. The entire class pointed and laughed at him for a solid 15 minutes.
I completely agree. The most obvious sign to me is that he's never, ever done wrong, he's always the victim. Come on, get a grip. At the very least this guy's just slashvertising himself over and over again. He's right, there's a conflict of interest, but as several people have pointed out, they haven't exploited it like he claims they have.
The problem stems from the slew of recent ultra-gore "horror" movies that slide by with "R" ratings and a game like manhunt comes up and gets the equivalent of an NC-17. It's treating games as inherently more evil or immoral that bothers me and, I suspect, the rest of the slashdot crowd. I won't be buying the game either, or even paying attention to it as a game, but it's doing a good job of showing inequality in media restraints.
Slashdot Mirror
"Invariant" means unchanging. There's your fifth ;)
Intelligent argument, other than the fact that it makes no sense. The point of language is to convey meaning and ideas, and as long as a phrase does that, why should we care about anything else?
Out of curiosity, how many clusters do you set up?
Quick observation: being successfully invaded by America has historically been the best thing for a country's economy.
Agreed. At the absolute worst, this is 100% guaranteed to keep one person (the pilot) from danger. The real concern in my mind is if China or Russia were able to hijack the airplane.
Yes, but your employers may believe that just because you're one in ten that 20 coders from Bolivia can do the same job because, hell, there's 20 of them. Even if your employers don't, a lot of others do.
I agree, but the gp seems to indicate that it's a failing of the internet rather than a failing of the business which I don't agree with.
To be honest, I have very little sympathy for someone who finds that a lack of an 'o' in that context makes the summary harder to read/understanding. Judging a slashdot summary based on it's grammar is like judging presidential candidates by their teeth: it's somewhat relevant, but unless it's grossly deficient (which this isn't), it's not the most important issue.
But don't let the facts keep you from voicing more opinions.
Exactly. What's with Stallman's outrage? The core is Linux, it was the main effort and the part that the FSF couldn't get right before Linux hit. Seems to me that, between the two, Linux is the more integral part that enabled the operating system to flourish. That everyone refers to it as Linux makes sense from my point of view, and asking people to add a prefix seems stupid.
Yes, that may be the case right now, but at one time the internet was the domain of the highly competent developers and look how that turned out.
Because they're less likely to take it than an actual, reasonable offer, and if the judge sees you being a twit it'll factor into future decisions.
It makes me sad to see my country reduced to this. In WWII, Hitler thought he could break the will of the English by bombing their cities; instead, he strengthened their resolve and gave them the opportunity to get their airfields back in shape. On the other hand, three planes crash into buildings and a fourth is stopped from doing so and suddenly we can't board an airplane without an hour of security. What's even funnier to me is that the fourth plane didn't complete its objective; the passengers didn't allow it. The problem fixed itself since passengers won't let airplanes be hijacked any more, and now that we're protecting pilots better, it's even less of an issue. It's sad to see the will of the people shatter in the face of so little adversity :'(
Judges also have to decide whether a law is, in itself, legal, whether it plays nicely with previous laws and the constitutions (state and national). In addition, judges have to decide what a law actually says, not what the lawmakers meant. While we don't have a system like the UK's where the courts have almost legislative power, the constitution does give judges the responsibility to judge and interpret the laws. In other words, while I agree with what Screwmaster said, I do believe the constitution itself gives that wiggle room.
That brings back memories. I remember being in my high school computer lab in a computer science class when someone installed bonzai buddy. The entire class pointed and laughed at him for a solid 15 minutes.
Yes, the first person perspective and the shooting threw the rest of us off. Thanks for the correction.
I completely agree. The most obvious sign to me is that he's never, ever done wrong, he's always the victim. Come on, get a grip. At the very least this guy's just slashvertising himself over and over again. He's right, there's a conflict of interest, but as several people have pointed out, they haven't exploited it like he claims they have.
The problem stems from the slew of recent ultra-gore "horror" movies that slide by with "R" ratings and a game like manhunt comes up and gets the equivalent of an NC-17. It's treating games as inherently more evil or immoral that bothers me and, I suspect, the rest of the slashdot crowd. I won't be buying the game either, or even paying attention to it as a game, but it's doing a good job of showing inequality in media restraints.
Sure, you say that now, but what happens with all the violence gets into your head? You'll have no choice!