I think gp's point was that "legion" works in the phrase because it means "many."
"Anonymous" doesn't mean "many", so "My name is Anonymous, for we are many" is nonsensical. ("My name is Anonymous, for I am behind 7 proxies" is perfectly fine, though.)
I don't use the google for peer reviewed articles, which I assume is what you mean by a "study." It can be done, but what's the point when there are hundreds of better databases?
I also don't bother researching in support of other people ridiculous beliefs (unless they're paying me, of course).
Agreed. I wanted an iPhone in 2009, when several coworkers got theirs. But after seeing the horrible coverage they got with AT&T, I got an Android phone. Now they've all switched to Verizon for their new iPhones, or switched to Android.
As far as I'm concerned, Apple's foolish agreement with the pathetic AT&T sped up by several years the market dominance that Android will enjoy for the foreseeable future.
Woosh! He's not saying it didn't happen; he's saying there's no similarity between that and the case at hand. In fact, comparing the two trivializes the near slave conditions of early American workers.
Re:Dramatic effect and scientific precision
on
Is Sugar Toxic?
·
· Score: 1
Yawn. My grandmother was a professional candy maker who smoked a pack a day. She was healthy as a horse and lived to be 90.
Who cares if sugar is "toxic"? Live a happy life, don't hurt anyone, mind your own business. The OMG IT'S TOXIC!!1! crowd really needs to stfu. A month ago it was salt. Before that it was carbs. Before that, protein.
The Chicken Littles won't be happy until there's nothing left to eat but tasteless dirt, and we'll all be forced to live to 100 in misery.
Maybe. But at my university, acting as a reviewer is still considered service, not research. Research only refers to original research, or published works for which you've been credited.
You're being deliberately obtuse, but I'll explain anyway. Your argument is identical to people in the Middle Ages who refused to look through a telescope because it showed them things that God didn't want them to see. Those people also argued against eye-glasses -- after all, humans were created by God, and man couldn't (and shouldn't) improve upon God's creation.
The only difference is that you're substituting God with evolution.
There no reason to think that photosynthesis can't be improved, just like there's no reason to think that human anatomy can be improved. Evolution chose to leave humans with all sorts of imperfections. How many people need glasses (from a very young age), need to have their wisdom teeth or appendix removed, or rely on medication for various chronic -- but not life-threatening -- conditions?
OP mentioned a few things that we've created or mastered to improve our environment, but I think we've gone beyond that and actually improved ourselves biologically in a number of ways. Certainly that's true from an evolutionary standpoint (I can have many, many more children than my ancestors of only a hundred years ago, even though I choose not to).
As someone who works in academia and has published a few peer-reviewed articles, I have no problem with his edits being considered "Service" -- after all, he's significantly assisting in the accumulation of knowledge.
But "Research"? Wikipedia specifically forbids original research!
So they'd need an email account or 2, then? Something tells me the average Google employee could figure out how to get around that (admittedly tall) obstacle.
Actually, I wasn't recognizing or not recognizing it -- just responding with an example that fit your model.
Had I cared whether or not you were being sarcastic, I would have said something like, "Lots of people have suggested it! For example...," or maybe, "Jeez, you don't pay attention much, do you?"
Instead I just added an anecdote that built from your statement and, in fact, added to the conversation (thus the modding up). Perhaps next time *you'll* add something to conversation, and not be modded Troll.
I'm appalled by the pathetic levels of narcissism and celebrity following.
So don't follow celebrities.
I felt exactly the same way as you 2 years ago. Recently I tried it again, and found it unbelievably informative. I don't follow celebrities, and I've stopped following the higher-profile geeks, whose feeds inevitably turn to narcissism. But I've picked up great things from local political activists (including those I disagree with), local businesses who offer discounts to their followers and other info, and people working in my industry who want to point out interesting articles.
The key to Twitter is this: If you follow people that you don't find interesting, you won't find Twitter interesting. If you're picky about who you follow, it can be an information junkie's best friend.
So if someone uses your open wifi connection to do any of the following, you're expecting that the police or FBI won't come knocking on your door just because you have open wifi? Examples of wifi activity that could cause problems...
"Causing problems" != "legally liable"
The cops can come knocking on my door for no reason whatsoever; that doesn't mean I'm going to jail.
Yes, because if you're not already working in a given industry, you couldn't possibly know anything about it.
And if you don't work in government, you shouldn't vote, right? After all, how can you know about something when you work in a totally different industry?
If you make available the tools by which crimes can be committed, you damn well can be held liable for their use in such crimes.
No, you can't. Unless you had knowledge of the crime, or could have reasonably expected the crime to occur.
If you allow someone access to your computer and they do something illegal with it, *you* are the one they are going to talk too since it was your computer and connection.
"Talk to" isn't the same as "held liable."
By your reasoning, the ISPs are responsible for all file sharing, since they "made the tools available."
but while this particular bit might hold true for financial analysts (or real estate people), it doesn't for general managers and CEOs. I've seen enough of those who have failed miserably at their previous job
It's not true for any of them. We've just seen a bunch of financial analysts nearly bankrupt the country and create another Great Depression.
Honestly, I'm just surprised I never heard of someone suggesting this before.
Although she's run away from the position since then, this is not unlike what Sarah Palin did in Alaska. Raise substantial taxes on oil companies and redistribute that money to Alaskans in the form of cash payments.
A cynic might see this as vote-buying, but it fits into your model as well.
Slashdot Mirror
I think gp's point was that "legion" works in the phrase because it means "many."
"Anonymous" doesn't mean "many", so "My name is Anonymous, for we are many" is nonsensical. ("My name is Anonymous, for I am behind 7 proxies" is perfectly fine, though.)
I don't use the google for peer reviewed articles, which I assume is what you mean by a "study." It can be done, but what's the point when there are hundreds of better databases?
I also don't bother researching in support of other people ridiculous beliefs (unless they're paying me, of course).
Millions of Picnik users lead me to the shocking conclusion that not everyone is just like you.
The studies show that it's true for the vast majority.
This great new invention called "the internet" allows you to link to "the studies." It's pretty cool.
Agreed. I wanted an iPhone in 2009, when several coworkers got theirs. But after seeing the horrible coverage they got with AT&T, I got an Android phone. Now they've all switched to Verizon for their new iPhones, or switched to Android.
As far as I'm concerned, Apple's foolish agreement with the pathetic AT&T sped up by several years the market dominance that Android will enjoy for the foreseeable future.
So it's degrees of evil? Do you really think the cops will "bust you less" if they only have a few days worth of your data?
That would depend on the time period they were investigating, now wouldn't it?
Woosh! He's not saying it didn't happen; he's saying there's no similarity between that and the case at hand. In fact, comparing the two trivializes the near slave conditions of early American workers.
Yawn. My grandmother was a professional candy maker who smoked a pack a day. She was healthy as a horse and lived to be 90.
Who cares if sugar is "toxic"? Live a happy life, don't hurt anyone, mind your own business. The OMG IT'S TOXIC!!1! crowd really needs to stfu. A month ago it was salt. Before that it was carbs. Before that, protein.
The Chicken Littles won't be happy until there's nothing left to eat but tasteless dirt, and we'll all be forced to live to 100 in misery.
Whether or not you can get the code for your phone has nothing at all to do with Google, unless your phone is a Nexus.
Maybe. But at my university, acting as a reviewer is still considered service, not research. Research only refers to original research, or published works for which you've been credited.
You're being deliberately obtuse, but I'll explain anyway. Your argument is identical to people in the Middle Ages who refused to look through a telescope because it showed them things that God didn't want them to see. Those people also argued against eye-glasses -- after all, humans were created by God, and man couldn't (and shouldn't) improve upon God's creation.
The only difference is that you're substituting God with evolution.
There no reason to think that photosynthesis can't be improved, just like there's no reason to think that human anatomy can be improved. Evolution chose to leave humans with all sorts of imperfections. How many people need glasses (from a very young age), need to have their wisdom teeth or appendix removed, or rely on medication for various chronic -- but not life-threatening -- conditions?
OP mentioned a few things that we've created or mastered to improve our environment, but I think we've gone beyond that and actually improved ourselves biologically in a number of ways. Certainly that's true from an evolutionary standpoint (I can have many, many more children than my ancestors of only a hundred years ago, even though I choose not to).
As someone who works in academia and has published a few peer-reviewed articles, I have no problem with his edits being considered "Service" -- after all, he's significantly assisting in the accumulation of knowledge.
But "Research"? Wikipedia specifically forbids original research!
So they'd need an email account or 2, then? Something tells me the average Google employee could figure out how to get around that (admittedly tall) obstacle.
Actually, I wasn't recognizing or not recognizing it -- just responding with an example that fit your model.
Had I cared whether or not you were being sarcastic, I would have said something like, "Lots of people have suggested it! For example...," or maybe, "Jeez, you don't pay attention much, do you?"
Instead I just added an anecdote that built from your statement and, in fact, added to the conversation (thus the modding up). Perhaps next time *you'll* add something to conversation, and not be modded Troll.
Good luck!!
No, the Church was the RIAA, and the printing press was the internet (just a shame so few could read).
History is interesting, if you bother reading about it.
So why'd you buy an Android phone, then?
At the time I got the EVO: cheaper than iPhone, faster than iPhone, better coverage than iPhone, free turn-by-tun navigation.
I'm appalled by the pathetic levels of narcissism and celebrity following.
So don't follow celebrities.
I felt exactly the same way as you 2 years ago. Recently I tried it again, and found it unbelievably informative. I don't follow celebrities, and I've stopped following the higher-profile geeks, whose feeds inevitably turn to narcissism. But I've picked up great things from local political activists (including those I disagree with), local businesses who offer discounts to their followers and other info, and people working in my industry who want to point out interesting articles.
The key to Twitter is this: If you follow people that you don't find interesting, you won't find Twitter interesting. If you're picky about who you follow, it can be an information junkie's best friend.
If you're married with a wife...why the fuck would you want to look at gay pr0n???
You'd have to ask one of the numerous Republican politicians and religious leaders who've been caught with their (and their boy toy's) pants down.
Seriously, if you're asking that question, you don't get out much.
So if someone uses your open wifi connection to do any of the following, you're expecting that the police or FBI won't come knocking on your door just because you have open wifi? Examples of wifi activity that could cause problems...
"Causing problems" != "legally liable"
The cops can come knocking on my door for no reason whatsoever; that doesn't mean I'm going to jail.
Nobody cares if your puns were intended.
Yes, because if you're not already working in a given industry, you couldn't possibly know anything about it.
And if you don't work in government, you shouldn't vote, right? After all, how can you know about something when you work in a totally different industry?
If you make available the tools by which crimes can be committed, you damn well can be held liable for their use in such crimes.
No, you can't. Unless you had knowledge of the crime, or could have reasonably expected the crime to occur.
If you allow someone access to your computer and they do something illegal with it, *you* are the one they are going to talk too since it was your computer and connection.
"Talk to" isn't the same as "held liable."
By your reasoning, the ISPs are responsible for all file sharing, since they "made the tools available."
but while this particular bit might hold true for financial analysts (or real estate people), it doesn't for general managers and CEOs. I've seen enough of those who have failed miserably at their previous job
It's not true for any of them. We've just seen a bunch of financial analysts nearly bankrupt the country and create another Great Depression.
Honestly, I'm just surprised I never heard of someone suggesting this before.
Although she's run away from the position since then, this is not unlike what Sarah Palin did in Alaska. Raise substantial taxes on oil companies and redistribute that money to Alaskans in the form of cash payments.
A cynic might see this as vote-buying, but it fits into your model as well.
mostly a public who know no better.
I would argue that this applies to iTunes as well.