I can indeed imagine: nothing. GoDaddy got shafted because it was a business that dealt largely with IT professionals; companies like Ford and Adidas don't have customer bases that are anywhere near similar in overall composition. We need to face the facts and deal with the core problem: the Internet's interests will continue getting shafted as long as it lacks the financial backing of those who seek to destroy it. Hopefully, the blackout protest will turn a couple of eyes... but you kinda have to wonder if maybe it's time to break net neutrality and start a war.
but I think the risk is minimal of that. Perhaps nonexistent if the ants themselves don't know how to unlock the special caste anymore, which would seem to be the case.
How dare you subvert the most irritating kneejerk reaction on all of Slashdot! Bow before your unimaginative snowclone masters!
Hardly new. Have you never heard of the Business Software Alliance? (Oh wait, their "enforcers" are actually salespeople in disguise. That's the opposite. My bad.)
Hey, go easy on the Ickemeister! He's the only author other than Hitler to ever be banned from Canada's book monopoly's shelves. You know what they say; schizophrenia is the best fantasy.
Holden: You're in a desert, walking along in the sand, when all of a sudden you look down...
Leon: What one?
Holden: What?
Leon: What desert?
Holden: It doesn't make any difference what desert, it's completely hypothetical.
Leon: But, how come I'd be there?
Holden: Maybe you're fed up. Maybe you want to be by yourself. Who knows? You look down and see a domain controller, Leon. It's crawling toward you...
Leon: Domain controller? What's that?
Holden: [irritated by Leon's interruptions] You know what a Windows server is?
Leon: Of course!
Holden: Same thing.
Leon: I've never seen a Windows server... But I understand what you mean.
Holden: You reach down and you press the domain controller's hibernate button, Leon.
Leon: Do you make up these questions, Mr. Holden? Or do they write 'em down for you?
Holden: The domain controller slowly begins to shut down, its hard disks baking in the hot sun, thrashing its write heads as it tries to dump its RAM to nonvolatile storage, but it can't. Not without your help. But you're not helping.
Leon: [angry at the suggestion] What do you mean, I'm not helping?
Holden: I mean: you're not helping! Why is that, Leon?
[Leon has become visibly shaken]
Holden: They're just questions, Leon. In answer to your query, they're written down for me. It's a test, designed to provoke an emotional response... Shall we continue?
Thank you for providing us anti-SOPA people with a rhetorical example of an internet rights disaster that is less politically sensitive than China. (Also, it may be time for another revolution.)
An amusing thought—but more seriously I'm pretty sure most of the pottery from Attica (which was the region around golden-age Athens) is either in Greece, Turkey, the US, or western Europe.
I didn't know this one off the top of my head, but Wikipedia says they were introduced in Spanish in 1754 because there's no way to recognize that a sentence is a question just from looking at the words; it's purely a tonal difference—and for really long sentences it can get disorienting if you have to go back and re-read it because you just found out that it was a question when you got to the end. I imagine the exclamation point was just made to be consistent.
What were the other symbols you tried to type? Guillemets?
"Even the Daily Mail thinks it's true" was not the basis of my argument. I gave a long list of scientific papers on the topic and then pointed out that the Daily Mail was unable to lie its way out of what was at hand. I discussed one of the claims made in the Daily Mail article, a presumably factual statement made by expert who works at Bastoy. At no point did I state:
(a) "it's true because the Daily Mail says so."
I did aim to communicate the following, however:
(b) "even the Daily Mail is convinced, because a prison guard said Bastoy has the lowest re-offending rate in Europe. That it does is remarkable, and supports the GP's claim."
(And technically this is incorrect since the prison guard didn't say it; that was research conducted by the author of the article. I believe this is the study used, but I don't have access to confirm it.)
(b) is semantically different from (a), and does not claim that the Daily Mail is an arbiter of correctness. I should also stress that I stated quite knowingly and clearly that the Daily Mail's opinion did not have "the integrity of a longitudinal study conducted by unbiased researchers."
I realise that the structuring and presentation may have suggested an attempt at deferring to the authority of the Daily Mail, and I initially considered writing the post as one, but the actual body of the post depends on the arguments made in the Daily Mail article, not the opinion of the journalist. If you still think I have presented something that amounts to deferring to the journalist's opinion, then I would counter by saying that I have justified and accounted for that opinion; my post then amounts to "the Daily Mail believes x because they did research and found y is true. Since we trust y, and assuming no wrongdoing on the part of the Daily Mail, we can also trust that when the Daily Mail says x, it is correct." This is not a fallacious argument either.
Oh, that's purely typographical. When moving blocks of metal type around, a full-stop/period or comma is more delicate than a quotation mark, since it's only x-height and not capital letter height. Typographers got in the habit of putting them on the inside to keep them safe. That's also why certain ligatures of f and the long s were preserved from scribal writing: those letters were designed to hook over others, and if the next letter was tall then it would create a structural instability (an x-height hole.) If modern punctuation had evolved before the invention of moveable type, we would probably put the quotation mark directly above the other punctuation mark, and use logical punctuation for ? and !. However, it didn't, so it was all put inside to stay consistent.
To be honest, I find it visually more pleasant. After looking at code that passes strings around as arguments in C-style imperative languages all day, it's nice to see something without a big gap on the baseline (this "is," an "example", for you.) Since the quotation mark is already floating up and away from the letters, it's less jarring to see it separated from the word than a comma or period. (This is more or less the modern aesthetic justification for keeping it the traditional way. However, modern typographers don't always agree with traditionalists: watch what happens when you point out that the "single" space used to separate sentences prior to the invention of the typewriter was actually larger than a standard double space.)
Gee, it sure looks like they're returning random search engine results next to—oh look, a list of opinions as proferred by so-called "linguistic middlemen."
I like how the top example for how 'magic' is used in English isn't even purely English, but a bullet point about features in the Zend framework. I'll make a habit of saying "__magic()" in everyday speech more often!
I think the worst outcome of this is that PHP now somehow has influence on the evolution of a natural language. I do not believe I am alone in feeling terrified by this prospect.
(Also, I believe this is most likely the study that the Daily Mail article references, not that I have sufficient access to check it for certain, and like most newspapers they don't exactly include a bibliography.)
The Daily Mail article contains this little nugget, which I alluded to in my earlier post:
And yet, an extensive new study undertaken by researchers across all the Nordic countries reveals that the reoffending average across Europe is about 70-75 per cent. In Denmark, Sweden and Finland, the average is 30 per cent. In Norway it is 20 per cent. Thus Bastoy, at just 16 per cent, has the lowest reoffending rate in Europe.
If you or anyone else really has the nerve to call this argumentum ad verecundiam, then I kindly request that you turn in your logic text book and go stand in a corner. I was illuminating my point with a spurious observation that even the Daily Mail, a newspaper not known for dealing with the facts, was accepting the reasoning at hand. That's not the same as "they feel it's true, so it's true." I am starting to get sick of saying "RTFA."
On top of that you have the highly conservative Daily Mail, as the grandparent poster linked, stating unabashedly that the system on Bastoy has proven itself as being more effective than Norwegian closed (traditional) prisons, which is a position that is quite controversial for the newspaper and not at all towing the party line. That may not have the integrity of a longitudinal study conducted by unbiased researchers, but the tour escort is quoted as saying that there has only been one attempted escape in all of Bastoy's years of operation, and that the region has the lowest re-offending rate in all of Europe despite Norway's absence of a death penalty or life sentence. These are not light claims.
Slashdot Mirror
I can indeed imagine: nothing. GoDaddy got shafted because it was a business that dealt largely with IT professionals; companies like Ford and Adidas don't have customer bases that are anywhere near similar in overall composition. We need to face the facts and deal with the core problem: the Internet's interests will continue getting shafted as long as it lacks the financial backing of those who seek to destroy it. Hopefully, the blackout protest will turn a couple of eyes... but you kinda have to wonder if maybe it's time to break net neutrality and start a war.
but I think the risk is minimal of that. Perhaps nonexistent if the ants themselves don't know how to unlock the special caste anymore, which would seem to be the case.
How dare you subvert the most irritating kneejerk reaction on all of Slashdot! Bow before your unimaginative snowclone masters!
Hardly new. Have you never heard of the Business Software Alliance? (Oh wait, their "enforcers" are actually salespeople in disguise. That's the opposite. My bad.)
"I do not agree with a word you say but will defend to the death your right to say it."
- Evelyn Beatrice Hall (as a summation of Voltaire's attitude.)
(Just ask the Gangster Computer God.)
Hey, go easy on the Ickemeister! He's the only author other than Hitler to ever be banned from Canada's book monopoly's shelves. You know what they say; schizophrenia is the best fantasy.
Well. That's just prime, then.
Holden: You're in a desert, walking along in the sand, when all of a sudden you look down...
Leon: What one?
Holden: What?
Leon: What desert?
Holden: It doesn't make any difference what desert, it's completely hypothetical.
Leon: But, how come I'd be there?
Holden: Maybe you're fed up. Maybe you want to be by yourself. Who knows? You look down and see a domain controller, Leon. It's crawling toward you...
Leon: Domain controller? What's that?
Holden: [irritated by Leon's interruptions] You know what a Windows server is?
Leon: Of course!
Holden: Same thing.
Leon: I've never seen a Windows server... But I understand what you mean.
Holden: You reach down and you press the domain controller's hibernate button, Leon.
Leon: Do you make up these questions, Mr. Holden? Or do they write 'em down for you?
Holden: The domain controller slowly begins to shut down, its hard disks baking in the hot sun, thrashing its write heads as it tries to dump its RAM to nonvolatile storage, but it can't. Not without your help. But you're not helping.
Leon: [angry at the suggestion] What do you mean, I'm not helping?
Holden: I mean: you're not helping! Why is that, Leon?
[Leon has become visibly shaken]
Holden: They're just questions, Leon. In answer to your query, they're written down for me. It's a test, designed to provoke an emotional response... Shall we continue?
Thank you for providing us anti-SOPA people with a rhetorical example of an internet rights disaster that is less politically sensitive than China. (Also, it may be time for another revolution.)
An amusing thought—but more seriously I'm pretty sure most of the pottery from Attica (which was the region around golden-age Athens) is either in Greece, Turkey, the US, or western Europe.
I didn't know this one off the top of my head, but Wikipedia says they were introduced in Spanish in 1754 because there's no way to recognize that a sentence is a question just from looking at the words; it's purely a tonal difference—and for really long sentences it can get disorienting if you have to go back and re-read it because you just found out that it was a question when you got to the end. I imagine the exclamation point was just made to be consistent.
What were the other symbols you tried to type? Guillemets?
But how would you convince a museum to "permanently loan" you enough ancient pottery to cover an entire spacecraft in the stuff?
That might take... a while. I somewhat doubt the drillers would want to wait that long. However, your Geektopia does sound very pragmatic.
Funny, I don't see any citations for that... It must not be notable.
"Even the Daily Mail thinks it's true" was not the basis of my argument. I gave a long list of scientific papers on the topic and then pointed out that the Daily Mail was unable to lie its way out of what was at hand. I discussed one of the claims made in the Daily Mail article, a presumably factual statement made by expert who works at Bastoy. At no point did I state:
(a) "it's true because the Daily Mail says so."
I did aim to communicate the following, however:
(b) "even the Daily Mail is convinced, because a prison guard said Bastoy has the lowest re-offending rate in Europe. That it does is remarkable, and supports the GP's claim."
(And technically this is incorrect since the prison guard didn't say it; that was research conducted by the author of the article. I believe this is the study used, but I don't have access to confirm it.)
(b) is semantically different from (a), and does not claim that the Daily Mail is an arbiter of correctness. I should also stress that I stated quite knowingly and clearly that the Daily Mail's opinion did not have "the integrity of a longitudinal study conducted by unbiased researchers."
I realise that the structuring and presentation may have suggested an attempt at deferring to the authority of the Daily Mail, and I initially considered writing the post as one, but the actual body of the post depends on the arguments made in the Daily Mail article, not the opinion of the journalist. If you still think I have presented something that amounts to deferring to the journalist's opinion, then I would counter by saying that I have justified and accounted for that opinion; my post then amounts to "the Daily Mail believes x because they did research and found y is true. Since we trust y, and assuming no wrongdoing on the part of the Daily Mail, we can also trust that when the Daily Mail says x, it is correct." This is not a fallacious argument either.
Oh, that's purely typographical. When moving blocks of metal type around, a full-stop/period or comma is more delicate than a quotation mark, since it's only x-height and not capital letter height. Typographers got in the habit of putting them on the inside to keep them safe. That's also why certain ligatures of f and the long s were preserved from scribal writing: those letters were designed to hook over others, and if the next letter was tall then it would create a structural instability (an x-height hole.) If modern punctuation had evolved before the invention of moveable type, we would probably put the quotation mark directly above the other punctuation mark, and use logical punctuation for ? and !. However, it didn't, so it was all put inside to stay consistent.
To be honest, I find it visually more pleasant. After looking at code that passes strings around as arguments in C-style imperative languages all day, it's nice to see something without a big gap on the baseline (this "is," an "example", for you.) Since the quotation mark is already floating up and away from the letters, it's less jarring to see it separated from the word than a comma or period. (This is more or less the modern aesthetic justification for keeping it the traditional way. However, modern typographers don't always agree with traditionalists: watch what happens when you point out that the "single" space used to separate sentences prior to the invention of the typewriter was actually larger than a standard double space.)
Yes.
Here's the results for 'magic'.
Gee, it sure looks like they're returning random search engine results next to—oh look, a list of opinions as proferred by so-called "linguistic middlemen."
I like how the top example for how 'magic' is used in English isn't even purely English, but a bullet point about features in the Zend framework. I'll make a habit of saying "__magic()" in everyday speech more often!
I think the worst outcome of this is that PHP now somehow has influence on the evolution of a natural language. I do not believe I am alone in feeling terrified by this prospect.
(Also, I believe this is most likely the study that the Daily Mail article references, not that I have sufficient access to check it for certain, and like most newspapers they don't exactly include a bibliography.)
FWIW, I believe this is the study cited in the Daily Mail article, but it's outside of my institutional access.
The Daily Mail article contains this little nugget, which I alluded to in my earlier post:
And yet, an extensive new study undertaken by researchers across all the Nordic countries reveals that the reoffending average across Europe is about 70-75 per cent. In Denmark, Sweden and Finland, the average is 30 per cent. In Norway it is 20 per cent. Thus Bastoy, at just 16 per cent, has the lowest reoffending rate in Europe.
If you or anyone else really has the nerve to call this argumentum ad verecundiam, then I kindly request that you turn in your logic text book and go stand in a corner. I was illuminating my point with a spurious observation that even the Daily Mail, a newspaper not known for dealing with the facts, was accepting the reasoning at hand. That's not the same as "they feel it's true, so it's true." I am starting to get sick of saying "RTFA."
Appeal to authority is a valid argument everywhere. I take it you've never heard of scientific integrity?
[citation needed] is serious business!
We can avoid that by making something else contraband before we forget; a kind of chaining effect. I motion that we should ban first posts.
Are you serious? This is painfully trivial to find with Google Scholar.
Education or punishment? Reformatory schools in Norway, 18401950 Education or punishment? Reformatory schools in Norway, 18401950
Daddy in Prison: An Evaluation (Norwegian)
The prison reform movement: Forlorn hope
People's Justice - A Major Poll of Public Attitudes on Crime and Punishment
Wilful Obstruction - The Frustration of Prison Reform
Reaffirming Rehabilitation
On top of that you have the highly conservative Daily Mail, as the grandparent poster linked, stating unabashedly that the system on Bastoy has proven itself as being more effective than Norwegian closed (traditional) prisons, which is a position that is quite controversial for the newspaper and not at all towing the party line. That may not have the integrity of a longitudinal study conducted by unbiased researchers, but the tour escort is quoted as saying that there has only been one attempted escape in all of Bastoy's years of operation, and that the region has the lowest re-offending rate in all of Europe despite Norway's absence of a death penalty or life sentence. These are not light claims.
Next time please RTFA and JFGI.
Don't shoot at ghosts, rookie. It gets you laughed at.