If the DVD was translated into Farsi and released in that region I somehow doubt the GP would be offended. Language is not the same as region encoding.
They have however created a region scheme for books but it relies entirely on legal threats. Most textbooks you see in University are "region locked".
FYI, Tim Berners-Lee created HTTP on a Next, which is essentially the precursor to OS X.
So in a way, you owe those shiny apples your ability to post your bullshit drivel on this site to begin with.
So really in no way any sane person could ever reason out?
African American Vernacular English (I wouldn't want to sound racist) is often unintelligible to someone not accustomed to hearing it. And that is part of its design. If it was "plain English" as you put it then it would not have a slang name (Ebonics) and it certainly would not have an "official" name. It is spoken much quicker than more standard English and contains a huge amount of slang terms only used within itself.
Not understanding a distinct dialect is in no way racist. Stop using that term as a catch-all insult for those you do not like; it weakens its meaning.
In this discussion I could not care less about prison sentencing. I only cared about why "Ebonics" is a more racist term than "[politically correct but absurdly nonsensical term for black person that resides in the United States of America] Vernacular English". Is it because one sounds more respectable to you? More academic? That's your prejudice not theirs.
I'm almost certain I know just what they mean when they say "Ebonics" as well. Probably something along the lines of: "Black punk talk. No wait I can't say that. What are they calling it these days? I think I've heard them say Ebonics on the news."
How is Ebonics any more racist of a term than "African American Vernacular English" both use skin colour to identify the dialect.
This constantly moving target of "not being racist" can be a little absurd. Perhaps "Ebonics" is the proper term in "Rich White Guy in Power Vernacular English" and you are just showing your prejudices by not accepting others' historical and cultural upbringing.
All known flying was done biologically, all known vision was done chemically and all known moving parts were once also biological in nature. We have conquered all of these with artificial, metal/composite and digital solutions.
The natural world has its toolbox and we have ours. There is no known reason, not even proper posturing that intelligence cannot be made out of a digital computer. All we lack is computing power and transfer speeds. Both of which show no signs of plateauing any time soon.
The flaw in your logic is that intelligence exists and life exists completely provably. Most scientifically minded people, myself included, believe that if something exists in nature here then it can most certainly be reproduced by us or by nature elsewhere.
Gods and religion are just not part of this set. There is no evidence to its existence and therefore most scientifically minded people, myself included, "poo-poo" (as you so eloquently put it) the very idea. Until there is some form of evidence to its existence it cannot be considered part of the set of "things that exist".
It's not a basic function because it never had it? How could the iphone lack basic functionality if you define basic functionality as what the iphone offers?
I know that's the goal you are going for but it is a pretty blatant fallacy you are using to get there.
Something's "worth" is not a one-time event. HP may have paid that much for it but if the purchase doesn't turn out well for them I doubt they will consider it "worth it".
"Worth" is a deeper concept than money paid right now. You must make a great consumer. "This thing sucks. But I paid for it so I guess it was worth it."
It is correct. All three things listed by GP are true no matter if the car is computer controlled or not. It is also true that they would also all have to fail just right simultaneously to cause this problem. Seems like a perfectly reasonable application of Occam's razor to me.
That is quite possibly the most obtuse post I have ever seen on slashdot. The iPhone has been shown to be testably broken. Not requires raw materials to print, power to function or new devices to do new tasks. Broken, as in does not work as can be reasonably expected.
I do believe the CPU manufacturers do not put 64 addressing lines in so it is physically impossible to address the full available space. On top of that I don't believe there is any non-blade, non-cluster systems that support that much RAM and there will not be in the foreseeable future.
Market segregation is also a means to make money. Many companies use this technique, but in 2010 I'd hardly call 192 an overbearing limit.
How old were they at the time/how much disposable income did they have? Would they have bought lots of games otherwise? I had a PlayStation when they were fairly new and had a couple of games for it (mostly bought used I might add). I rarely bought games because I did not have the means to do so. Eventually I got a modded PlayStation and ended up with a large collection of burnt games. I however continued purchasing legitimate games at the same rate I did before.
Money is a finite resource but media is for all intents and purposes infinite. Therein lies the real problem; people enjoy media but cannot afford to pay for everything they would like. Few people would see any harm done in viewing for free what they couldn't have paid for anyway so you get infringement. It may be a nuisance to some but it's very much a part of the ecosystem. You cannot produce media without someone, somewhere consuming it without your consent. Arguments of how the industry would fail if everyone copied for free are as absurd as assuming you can eliminate all infringement. It's a predator-prey model. You cannot have one without the other and it will all largely balance itself out.
I didn't pay too much attention to it but I seem to recall it going a little more like this:
An individual comes into an unauthorized possession of a development prototype.
Individual politely asks Apple if they want it back.
Apple denies it is theirs.
Individual sells it to Gizmodo.
Apple demands it back.
Gizmodo returns it.
Apple sends in the SWAT.
I disagree. If we had to take a stand at the expense of our future every time some entity stepped all over us we would never get anywhere in our lives and never get anything done. We are constantly spammed with entities trying to overpower us which forces us to really just have to ignore them for the most part and at best make sure others know how we feel until there are enough people who have had enough to actually change things.
Fair enough. I'm a bit farther north and we don't appear to have any roads like that. Consider me jealous. I consider it a nook in that it's a chunk of the area that I haven't driven much in. I never meant nook as in hick town.
His comment is a response to an article, well, a summary most likely. His post may be only 145 characters but is part of a larger discussion. If that was randomly posted to twitter then yes it would be nothing more than noise. But it was posted into the structure of a greater whole. It has relevance to the grouped information and opinions on this page.
I know there are a few highways with higher speed limits. I have driven on a lot of country roads in southwestern Ontario and I do not think I have ever seen one above 80km/h.
Either the parent was greatly exaggerating speed limits or there is some nook in the region that has higher limits that I have not traveled. Either is possible but I suspect exaggeration.
The 400 series highways are significantly different from "a lot of country roads". In fact, there's no way you can consider a 400 a "country road" at all. We call them 400 series and have special restrictions on them for a reason.
As for the other examples on that page: "Those portions of the King's Highways that have been upgraded to expressways or freeways generally have a posted speed limit of 90 km/h or 100 km/h". Certainly not "lots of country roads".
Slashdot Mirror
If the DVD was translated into Farsi and released in that region I somehow doubt the GP would be offended. Language is not the same as region encoding.
They have however created a region scheme for books but it relies entirely on legal threats. Most textbooks you see in University are "region locked".
FYI, Tim Berners-Lee created HTTP on a Next, which is essentially the precursor to OS X. So in a way, you owe those shiny apples your ability to post your bullshit drivel on this site to begin with.
So really in no way any sane person could ever reason out?
And then get canceled before we know what the cure is. :(
If you don't see the point in making technology smaller perhaps slashdot isn't the place for you?
There's always money in the banana stand. ;-)
African American Vernacular English (I wouldn't want to sound racist) is often unintelligible to someone not accustomed to hearing it. And that is part of its design. If it was "plain English" as you put it then it would not have a slang name (Ebonics) and it certainly would not have an "official" name. It is spoken much quicker than more standard English and contains a huge amount of slang terms only used within itself.
Not understanding a distinct dialect is in no way racist. Stop using that term as a catch-all insult for those you do not like; it weakens its meaning.
In this discussion I could not care less about prison sentencing. I only cared about why "Ebonics" is a more racist term than "[politically correct but absurdly nonsensical term for black person that resides in the United States of America] Vernacular English". Is it because one sounds more respectable to you? More academic? That's your prejudice not theirs.
I'm almost certain I know just what they mean when they say "Ebonics" as well. Probably something along the lines of: "Black punk talk. No wait I can't say that. What are they calling it these days? I think I've heard them say Ebonics on the news."
How is Ebonics any more racist of a term than "African American Vernacular English" both use skin colour to identify the dialect.
This constantly moving target of "not being racist" can be a little absurd. Perhaps "Ebonics" is the proper term in "Rich White Guy in Power Vernacular English" and you are just showing your prejudices by not accepting others' historical and cultural upbringing.
Guyana nor Surinam speak Spanish. Your point mostly stands but there are other countries in South America that do not speak Spanish.
All known flying was done biologically, all known vision was done chemically and all known moving parts were once also biological in nature. We have conquered all of these with artificial, metal/composite and digital solutions.
The natural world has its toolbox and we have ours. There is no known reason, not even proper posturing that intelligence cannot be made out of a digital computer. All we lack is computing power and transfer speeds. Both of which show no signs of plateauing any time soon.
The flaw in your logic is that intelligence exists and life exists completely provably. Most scientifically minded people, myself included, believe that if something exists in nature here then it can most certainly be reproduced by us or by nature elsewhere.
Gods and religion are just not part of this set. There is no evidence to its existence and therefore most scientifically minded people, myself included, "poo-poo" (as you so eloquently put it) the very idea. Until there is some form of evidence to its existence it cannot be considered part of the set of "things that exist".
It's not a basic function because it never had it? How could the iphone lack basic functionality if you define basic functionality as what the iphone offers?
I know that's the goal you are going for but it is a pretty blatant fallacy you are using to get there.
Symbian has the largest market share of them all. How you consider that dead I am not sure.
Game consoles aren't marketed as general purpose computing devices. Except maybe the PS3, and there was a large outcry when that was removed.
If the car and house had big signs that stated: "Come on in and play with me" you might have a point. But they don't and neither do you.
Something's "worth" is not a one-time event. HP may have paid that much for it but if the purchase doesn't turn out well for them I doubt they will consider it "worth it".
"Worth" is a deeper concept than money paid right now. You must make a great consumer. "This thing sucks. But I paid for it so I guess it was worth it."
It is correct. All three things listed by GP are true no matter if the car is computer controlled or not. It is also true that they would also all have to fail just right simultaneously to cause this problem. Seems like a perfectly reasonable application of Occam's razor to me.
That is quite possibly the most obtuse post I have ever seen on slashdot. The iPhone has been shown to be testably broken. Not requires raw materials to print, power to function or new devices to do new tasks. Broken, as in does not work as can be reasonably expected.
I do believe the CPU manufacturers do not put 64 addressing lines in so it is physically impossible to address the full available space. On top of that I don't believe there is any non-blade, non-cluster systems that support that much RAM and there will not be in the foreseeable future.
Market segregation is also a means to make money. Many companies use this technique, but in 2010 I'd hardly call 192 an overbearing limit.
How old were they at the time/how much disposable income did they have? Would they have bought lots of games otherwise? I had a PlayStation when they were fairly new and had a couple of games for it (mostly bought used I might add). I rarely bought games because I did not have the means to do so. Eventually I got a modded PlayStation and ended up with a large collection of burnt games. I however continued purchasing legitimate games at the same rate I did before.
Money is a finite resource but media is for all intents and purposes infinite. Therein lies the real problem; people enjoy media but cannot afford to pay for everything they would like. Few people would see any harm done in viewing for free what they couldn't have paid for anyway so you get infringement. It may be a nuisance to some but it's very much a part of the ecosystem. You cannot produce media without someone, somewhere consuming it without your consent. Arguments of how the industry would fail if everyone copied for free are as absurd as assuming you can eliminate all infringement. It's a predator-prey model. You cannot have one without the other and it will all largely balance itself out.
I didn't pay too much attention to it but I seem to recall it going a little more like this:
An individual comes into an unauthorized possession of a development prototype.
Individual politely asks Apple if they want it back.
Apple denies it is theirs.
Individual sells it to Gizmodo.
Apple demands it back.
Gizmodo returns it.
Apple sends in the SWAT.
I disagree. If we had to take a stand at the expense of our future every time some entity stepped all over us we would never get anywhere in our lives and never get anything done. We are constantly spammed with entities trying to overpower us which forces us to really just have to ignore them for the most part and at best make sure others know how we feel until there are enough people who have had enough to actually change things.
Fair enough. I'm a bit farther north and we don't appear to have any roads like that. Consider me jealous. I consider it a nook in that it's a chunk of the area that I haven't driven much in. I never meant nook as in hick town.
His comment is a response to an article, well, a summary most likely. His post may be only 145 characters but is part of a larger discussion. If that was randomly posted to twitter then yes it would be nothing more than noise. But it was posted into the structure of a greater whole. It has relevance to the grouped information and opinions on this page.
I know there are a few highways with higher speed limits. I have driven on a lot of country roads in southwestern Ontario and I do not think I have ever seen one above 80km/h.
Either the parent was greatly exaggerating speed limits or there is some nook in the region that has higher limits that I have not traveled. Either is possible but I suspect exaggeration.
The 400 series highways are significantly different from "a lot of country roads". In fact, there's no way you can consider a 400 a "country road" at all. We call them 400 series and have special restrictions on them for a reason.
As for the other examples on that page: "Those portions of the King's Highways that have been upgraded to expressways or freeways generally have a posted speed limit of 90 km/h or 100 km/h". Certainly not "lots of country roads".