So the solution is to send two bucks direct to the author!
I guess, though, that the author will have difficulty in getting a new edition published or in getting a contract for another book if the first one didn't appear to be popular - which is how it will appear if one copy is bought and then Xeroxed twenty times. So you're damaging the author's ability to do his job in the future, as well as depriving him of current royalties.
What it calls into question is following *any* leader without interpreting their example according to the culture of their time. This is a problem that biblical literalists have, for example.
I really don't understand what you're saying, or where your analysis of my comment comes from. I was trying to ask why you stated that air travel is possible for aluminium and not for humans, that's all.
I don't understand your correction. Both aluminium and humans can now be carried through the air by a combination of engineering and physical forces. The difference is that the aluminium is often a necessary (though not sufficient) element of the machine and the human isn't. Doesn't change the fact that "air travel" (not "flight") is possible for humans now.
Child marriage was not a particular taboo in medieval times, and was pretty widespread, particularly amongst higher-class people. I'm not saying it's right, but that you're putting a highly emotive and anachronistic slant on a practice which Muhammad's contemporaries would probably never have dreamed of calling into question.
This isn't about the legality or otherwise of the content being transferred. P2P is not only used for "infringing" content, and Comcast isn't blocking or slowing it down because someone might be transferring something illegal. Your raising of the copyright infringement issue is a red herring. The real issue here is net neutrality.
To be fair, we don't use "hour" to mean "sixty minutes" in every context except computing, where it means "fifty-eight and a half minutes". The rationality lies in the removal of confusion, as much as in the units themselves.
Why do discussions over really quite minor issues such as these always have to degenerate into personal slanging matches? No-one's a "fool" just because they didn't fight to the death over this terminology.
Oh, and I've been trying for half an hour to make a "rack of lamb"/"lack of RAM" pun here, but have to admit defeat. Anyone?
I think you're overestimating the effects of these drugs. I take beta blockers and provigil (on prescription) for a neurological condition. They've helped me a lot, but I can't imagine that they perform miracles on anyone. This isn't like the dramatic physical gains enjoyed by anabolic steroid users, for example. You still have to work hard, you still have to have the good ideas, and all the drugs will do is replace the coffee or sugary soda that we've all traditionally used to keep going through the work. If you don't want to take the drugs, stick to cherry coke instead!
Heh! I need to set that address up - sometime when I'm not stuck in dial-up-internet land, forced to read/. on my cellphone. It's the redefinition of torture.
I take your points, but remember that most people are not in a band, don't fly jet fighters, and aren't independently wealthy. Most people work in stores, as road sweepers, janitors, office drones, whatever. And most of them can't (or shouldn't!) talk about the details of their work to girls - "So, today I sold a C667Ex6 model sofa with turned wood legs, and a G665ff54 model chest of drawers. Can I buy you a drink?". Compare that with "today I worked on a system that stops your plane from falling from the sky next time you go on holiday". It's not what you do, it's how you present it!
Male geeks have a culture of "women will hate me because of what I do". And - let's face it - for a lot of them it's both a badge of honour and a protection mechanism. Sexy geeks are the ones who drop that act.
Hmmm... Well, I usually give guys my email address (I hate telephones), and if they don't offer theirs in return it usually means it isn't happening! But they may email - it's their decision. If you can find a good reason to ask for someone's email, that can be good - people feel less threatened giving out their email address rather than their phone number.
How to not let someone fall asleep while you're talking to them? Ask them questions - about themselves and their interests. And when they answer, follow up by asking for explanations of details and things you don't understand, or sharing experiences of things you do understand. When they ask you questions, take them seriously, assume that they mean the questions genuinely, but be prepared to back off and turn the focus back on them if they begin to look bored. And have some fun facts or amusing anecdotes on hand about your interests, so that you can lighten the conversation if you suddenly realise you've been listing technical details for five hours;) The fact is that most people can make what they do sound interesting, it just takes a bit of practice, and trying to imagine what aspects would be interesting to a non-specialist.
Before next time you see them, you could google some of their interests and see whether there's something you can slip into the conversation - not "I obsessively googled every topic you mentioned last time", but "oh, hey - I saw in the news that rhino conservation is becoming big in Tasmania, is that right?" (This assumes that rhino conservation is one of the person's interests, of course.) And if you can make her laugh, you're probably doing very well.
I'm no expert, by the way. But this is the kind of thing that makes me really happy to spend more time with a guy. YMMV.
Getting her into bed... Well, that's lesson number 2! Send me a message once you've done all the above successfully, and we'll discuss it:)
"Women tend to be much more likely to go for the fake sensitivity where a guy tells them things too good to be true or what they want to hear"
So, guys trick women with fake sensitivity, and that makes the women shallow? How are they meant to know the difference between real and fake sensitivity? Trust me, I've been caught by one of these guys in my younger days, and I don't blame anyone who falls for them. They can be incredibly persuasive, and the women they tend to prey on are ones who are emotionally vulnerable and very needy of care and sensitivity. I'm sorry if you've lost out to one of these guys, but blame them, not the women they leech onto.
I've met (and been told about) geeks who seem to think it's okay to be very unpresentable and develop no social skills - and who sometimes claim geekdom as an excuse. Sorry if I offended you (or anyone else) - I was just speaking from experience! And yes, you're right, there are also one hell of a lot of geeks who are perfectly normal in all these areas:)
I think you're very wrong. Look at dating sites - a lot of women's profiles are very honest that they're not looking for fat or ugly guys. Many of my female friends and I will openly scope out the good looking guys (and, yes, their trouser-bulges) in a bar even when we're around male friends. Yes, most of us, like most men, are keen to be with someone who we find physically attractive. But that's not necessarily going to be the standard handsome muscular guy. I've met guys who I thought were only average-attractive until I got to know them; their intelligence, humour, and personality made them incredibly sexy. On the other hand, I've never met a really handsome man who was sexy without being intelligent.
I've also encountered a lot of guys who claim to want to get to know a girl's personality when what they really want are her 32-double-Ds. I've met some who will pretend a lot of sensitivity and interest in women's views and opinions which magically vanishes once they've got the goods. So what? A lot of people are shallow and it's not gender-specific. Just try to avoid them.
I think the original French article is saying that 47% of software used in companies in France (rather than just by Sony) is being used illegally. And it's quoting the Business Software Alliance directly, not the PointDev spokesman.
Slashdot Mirror
So the solution is to send two bucks direct to the author!
I guess, though, that the author will have difficulty in getting a new edition published or in getting a contract for another book if the first one didn't appear to be popular - which is how it will appear if one copy is bought and then Xeroxed twenty times. So you're damaging the author's ability to do his job in the future, as well as depriving him of current royalties.
What it calls into question is following *any* leader without interpreting their example according to the culture of their time. This is a problem that biblical literalists have, for example.
I really don't understand what you're saying, or where your analysis of my comment comes from. I was trying to ask why you stated that air travel is possible for aluminium and not for humans, that's all.
I don't understand your correction. Both aluminium and humans can now be carried through the air by a combination of engineering and physical forces. The difference is that the aluminium is often a necessary (though not sufficient) element of the machine and the human isn't. Doesn't change the fact that "air travel" (not "flight") is possible for humans now.
Child marriage was not a particular taboo in medieval times, and was pretty widespread, particularly amongst higher-class people. I'm not saying it's right, but that you're putting a highly emotive and anachronistic slant on a practice which Muhammad's contemporaries would probably never have dreamed of calling into question.
Wow - not only a very speedy Godwinism, but lumping Muhammad in with mass murderers and dictators. I do love a rational argument!
This isn't about the legality or otherwise of the content being transferred. P2P is not only used for "infringing" content, and Comcast isn't blocking or slowing it down because someone might be transferring something illegal. Your raising of the copyright infringement issue is a red herring. The real issue here is net neutrality.
To be fair, we don't use "hour" to mean "sixty minutes" in every context except computing, where it means "fifty-eight and a half minutes". The rationality lies in the removal of confusion, as much as in the units themselves.
Why do discussions over really quite minor issues such as these always have to degenerate into personal slanging matches? No-one's a "fool" just because they didn't fight to the death over this terminology.
Oh, and I've been trying for half an hour to make a "rack of lamb"/"lack of RAM" pun here, but have to admit defeat. Anyone?
I think you're overestimating the effects of these drugs. I take beta blockers and provigil (on prescription) for a neurological condition. They've helped me a lot, but I can't imagine that they perform miracles on anyone. This isn't like the dramatic physical gains enjoyed by anabolic steroid users, for example. You still have to work hard, you still have to have the good ideas, and all the drugs will do is replace the coffee or sugary soda that we've all traditionally used to keep going through the work. If you don't want to take the drugs, stick to cherry coke instead!
Heh! I need to set that address up - sometime when I'm not stuck in dial-up-internet land, forced to read /. on my cellphone. It's the redefinition of torture.
I take your points, but remember that most people are not in a band, don't fly jet fighters, and aren't independently wealthy. Most people work in stores, as road sweepers, janitors, office drones, whatever. And most of them can't (or shouldn't!) talk about the details of their work to girls - "So, today I sold a C667Ex6 model sofa with turned wood legs, and a G665ff54 model chest of drawers. Can I buy you a drink?". Compare that with "today I worked on a system that stops your plane from falling from the sky next time you go on holiday". It's not what you do, it's how you present it!
Male geeks have a culture of "women will hate me because of what I do". And - let's face it - for a lot of them it's both a badge of honour and a protection mechanism. Sexy geeks are the ones who drop that act.
Hmmm... Well, I usually give guys my email address (I hate telephones), and if they don't offer theirs in return it usually means it isn't happening! But they may email - it's their decision. If you can find a good reason to ask for someone's email, that can be good - people feel less threatened giving out their email address rather than their phone number.
How to not let someone fall asleep while you're talking to them? Ask them questions - about themselves and their interests. And when they answer, follow up by asking for explanations of details and things you don't understand, or sharing experiences of things you do understand. When they ask you questions, take them seriously, assume that they mean the questions genuinely, but be prepared to back off and turn the focus back on them if they begin to look bored. And have some fun facts or amusing anecdotes on hand about your interests, so that you can lighten the conversation if you suddenly realise you've been listing technical details for five hours ;) The fact is that most people can make what they do sound interesting, it just takes a bit of practice, and trying to imagine what aspects would be interesting to a non-specialist.
Before next time you see them, you could google some of their interests and see whether there's something you can slip into the conversation - not "I obsessively googled every topic you mentioned last time", but "oh, hey - I saw in the news that rhino conservation is becoming big in Tasmania, is that right?" (This assumes that rhino conservation is one of the person's interests, of course.) And if you can make her laugh, you're probably doing very well.
I'm no expert, by the way. But this is the kind of thing that makes me really happy to spend more time with a guy. YMMV.
Getting her into bed... Well, that's lesson number 2! Send me a message once you've done all the above successfully, and we'll discuss it :)
Oh. You mean you're one of those small, weedy guys? Fine - don't wanna have coffee with you in that case.
**sulks**
"Women tend to be much more likely to go for the fake sensitivity where a guy tells them things too good to be true or what they want to hear"
So, guys trick women with fake sensitivity, and that makes the women shallow? How are they meant to know the difference between real and fake sensitivity? Trust me, I've been caught by one of these guys in my younger days, and I don't blame anyone who falls for them. They can be incredibly persuasive, and the women they tend to prey on are ones who are emotionally vulnerable and very needy of care and sensitivity. I'm sorry if you've lost out to one of these guys, but blame them, not the women they leech onto.
[I'm sorry... please forgive me in advance for what I'm about to say... It's irresistible...]
You talk to girls about bare shafts, and they still reject you? Surely not?
[See, I warned you...]
Ha! You really need to write some EmbitteredGeek-English translation software.
Merci!
**doing a little dance of joy that my French is not as bad as I feared it was**
Preeeee-cisely.
You wanna meet for coffee sometime? ;)
I've met (and been told about) geeks who seem to think it's okay to be very unpresentable and develop no social skills - and who sometimes claim geekdom as an excuse. Sorry if I offended you (or anyone else) - I was just speaking from experience! And yes, you're right, there are also one hell of a lot of geeks who are perfectly normal in all these areas :)
I think you're very wrong. Look at dating sites - a lot of women's profiles are very honest that they're not looking for fat or ugly guys. Many of my female friends and I will openly scope out the good looking guys (and, yes, their trouser-bulges) in a bar even when we're around male friends. Yes, most of us, like most men, are keen to be with someone who we find physically attractive. But that's not necessarily going to be the standard handsome muscular guy. I've met guys who I thought were only average-attractive until I got to know them; their intelligence, humour, and personality made them incredibly sexy. On the other hand, I've never met a really handsome man who was sexy without being intelligent.
I've also encountered a lot of guys who claim to want to get to know a girl's personality when what they really want are her 32-double-Ds. I've met some who will pretend a lot of sensitivity and interest in women's views and opinions which magically vanishes once they've got the goods. So what? A lot of people are shallow and it's not gender-specific. Just try to avoid them.
No, no sarcasm. It really seems to be a phenomenon here, too.
I think the original French article is saying that 47% of software used in companies in France (rather than just by Sony) is being used illegally. And it's quoting the Business Software Alliance directly, not the PointDev spokesman.
Sorry, what?
Hmmm... we're still friends. I may try it. If it works, you get lots of mod-ups whenever I have points :)