I guess I'd better flee the country then, because hell if I want american culture validated by anything I do. O_
It doesn't matter if you flee, because you are a product of American culture.
a set of circumstances that operates completely and totally independent of "culture" and has more to do with the local environment they were raised in
Well, uh, the local environment is usually what culture is really all about... culture is the rules that are permissible behind closed doors as much as open ones.
But of course, people have been using coincidence to validate their crackpot theories (religious significance in particular) since the dawn of time
But the thing is, historically speaking, being a religious fanatic and having a conservative appreciation of culture matters. You can bash tradition and culture as much as you want, but they work. And, in fact, even though you might be anti-culture, even most anti-religious people and leaders of the far left will concede that theirs is not a project to rid the world of christian culture as it is to replace it with a culture of their own. Culture is just something that you can't escape. Even if you are in the "I'm not in any culture", crowd, you are still in the "I'm not in any culture culture".
Yeah, because the the Qur'an (first published ca. 610AD) emphasizes the use of empirical observation and reason, and had technology and building know-how far ahead of its time
Ok, so now you are bashing mormons by sticking up for the muslims. My oh my. But let's do some basic math.. you can celebrate a bunch of muslims that have been dead for, let's see, um, 2009 - 610 = 1399 years, whose best claim to fame is stealing a bunch of math from India. Or, you can celebrate some fairly clever people that invented modern networking and word processing.
Face it, you just don't like Christians, and the thing is, you can't even admit to yourself that Christians have done some pretty smart stuff, IN THE NAME OF THEIR GOD.
Sorry, but scientifically speaking, having a god does not preclude you from making advancements in technology. In fact, it might even motivate them.
Actually, if someone lives and is born of a particular culture, and produces something extraordinary, it does validate that culture, yes. And similarly, if that culture doesn't produce people that do anything useful, then, it really says something about that culture too. If you can't see that, you're kinda dense.
They're not exactly known for their progressive views on technology
You mean, like, when the mormons invented WordPerfect, one of the first great Word Processors, or pioneered networking with Novell, the first great networking company?
Actually it has and it historically does. That's why people do it. But this debate isn't really about restricting language, it's, deciding, who gets to own the definitions of words, the government, or the private sector.
First off, I note that the "mormon" tag on the article. If there were a quote from a black leader, I wonder, would you tag the article as "black"?
I would not be so quick to bury this guy in your haste to have weaker trademarks. There is an interesting question, buried in this article. It is, what does a trademark actually buy? A trademark is a sort of a definition of an invented word, administered today by the government. A search word is as also a definition of a word, administered by a private corporation and sold to the highest bidder.
When Linux trademarks "Linux", it is to say that he has the rights to the definition of this word in some way as it pertains to his product. But, if I buy Linux on Google, then, I get the right to define the word by having my definition be placed in a preferred position.
Thus, you almost have to view trademark as a contest between the federal first come first serve word ownership mechanism, and, a private enterprise word as an auction mechanism advanced by the likes of Google.
There is a real dividing line between corporation and state, and the irony here is that those who would argue that trademarks should be less powerful by definition argue that words should be auctioned, rather than licensed, and conversely, those who argue for strong government trademarks ultimately argue that the government should control more the meaning of words rather than the free market.
I would be willing to bet that leftists who casually seek to undermine business by eliminating trademarks might be well advised to rethink that position, as they should so many others. I can't imagine that they of all people would really want a world where the definitions of words are decided by the highest bidder. It runs the risk of undermining everything that they stand for, and for that reason I'd have to conclude that people rushing to digitally behead "the mormon" might well consider that the "the mormon" is doing them a favor.
However, we tend to infer the instability of Microsoft code from the number of times Internet Explorer crashes in a 24-hour period, and how many BSODs we get in a month
So, if we are to judge Linux by the same standard, would it be fair to rip how often people have to hit CTRL-ALT-BACKSPACE to kill their super stable X session. Can we rip that brand by all the terrible things that happen when ever ubuntu pushes out a kernel update to Hardy Heron when you have nVidia drivers? That desktop gets blown away back to 800x600 ever time I download an update. What a crock.
I like Linux in some ways more than I like Windows, but, Vista is way more consumer stable than even my mighty Ubuntu. It just is.
Gee, the solar system is filled methane, hydrogen, and carbon dioxide. If we are to say that were are going to a natural universe, then, if anything is a pollutant, it is our planet's low CO2 and low methane atmosphere.
This is just a publicity stunt. If you sent a nuclear submarine with a top mounted sonar, you could put together a very detailed picture of the underside of the ice and fairly quickly. In fact, given the tendency of major powers to hide their ballistic submarines under the ice, I'd be shocked if those maps didn't exist already.
For one thing, if you have security vulnerabilities, does it really make much difference to you whether they'll be exploited by a guy in Russia, or a guy in USA? Because they will be exploited if they're there
Yeah, there is a difference. In the USA, I can call the cops and they can go after someone in the USA. Even if it were the EU as a source, I could call the cops from that nationality, or American law enforcement could look for extradition, and vice versa. But Russia has obviously no interest in enforcing any sort of law on the internet, unless its someone making fun of Putin, in which case, they will be shot. Maybe another answer is to return messages back, randomly implicating the browser in an anti-Putin conspiracy, and let the potential offender contemplate their assault on my systems from Lubyanka
On just what the lunar soil is really like. We know a few bits from the various moon missions but its not like anyone tries to dig anything around up there. If the lunar soil was just a big pile of dust, then a robot pushing it around is rather doable. But if it had all sorts surprises in it, rocks, differences in composition that changes the way one digs, well then, the robots will run into problems.
A lot of bogus traffic comes from countries that don't offer much in commercial value. I'm wondering if you could just configure Apache to just refuse connections to certain countries, or take them to an alternative page. Like, "404, We're sorry Russia, but you have too damned many crooks."
Even still, one wonders if ISPs offer that service as well.
If we have the deltaV to land on the rock, then we have the deltaV to match its orbit without bothering to land on it. So why waste time with the landing?
Well, you could fire a bullet straight up. If it peaked at say a mile up, its velocity would be zero, but, it could still hit a plane regardless of its velocity if you timed it right.
In the case of the asteroid, we could theoretically, anyway, shoot up something to an altitude of 64k km, have it "hit" the asteroid, and then continue on its merry way. That would be some pretty fancy shooting, but you wouldn't -need- to reach escape velocity. Granted, the old probe would be impacted by something that has twenty times the velocity of a rifle bullet and billions of times the mass, so it would be a short visit. IF he wanted to train for this mission, perhaps we could reactivate an Iowa class battleship and have it fire a full broadside into his chest. I think that would only be a billionth of the forces involved of getting hit by a giant asteroid, but, at least its practice.
Looks to me like they are entitled to the trademark. They registered it, they used it. Intel's actions in this regard seem like they are trying to hijack a term.
The thing is, if Psion didn't register the trademark in the USA, they really don't have much to stand on, do they?
BUT
If psion actually has the term netbook registered as a trademark, then this is an open and shut case. I mean, if the name is so valueless, or so easy to think up, come up with another word. But psion has the name netbook registered, and that's kinda how it works.
I can understand your desire to protect those poor companies Dell and Intel from the taxing obligations of having to think up a word of their own.
. You're putting humans on the same value level as a purchasable object?
A purchasable object is the embodiment of someone else's culture and an acceptance of them. This is why, in the USA, we celebrate the breakthrough of Jackie Robinson in baseball, or the early work of musicians such as Duke Ellington. Those people, making sport and entertainment products, lead the way for integration of black american into society and ultimately laid the groundwork for civil rights. You can't like a product without having some measure of fondness for the people that made that product. One area where free trade has been successful is in integration of cultures in countries that do import.
It's why, in the USA, anyone with any sort of brain views hostility towards immigrants with a skeptical eye. Indeed, there are some who have argued and on this board that suppression of free trade is a form of racism.
I would regret to kill somebody, even if it was in self defence.
You can mourn what you had to do, but not regret it. Regret it implies that you think it was a mistake to do it. The Japanese really should have surrendered after the Marianas campaign, would have saved many lives on both sides. But the peace feelers they sent out via Russia argued for a preservation of their conquered territory and keeping their political structure in place. A peace at that time would have left Japan in control of China and vast sections of the Pacific. Unacceptable.
The one thing that I do believe was foolish on the Allied part was the 5-5-2 agreement at the Washington Naval Treaty. This utterly humiliated Japan, who at that time was actually an ally of the British, and there was absolutely no need to do that.
All I can say is that the stock market is down 7,000 points since Obama first overtook McCain in the polls. You can talk about how great he is, but as it is, everyone with half a brain knows that Obama just spend a trillion dollars on welfare, won't accomplish anything, and all this talk about the Bush budget deficits is just utterly dwarfed by Obama's spending spree.
And you just wait, until we make you Democrats defend free trade. WE'll take the blue collar vote away from you, and then what will you have left?
Slashdot Mirror
I guess I'd better flee the country then, because hell if I want american culture validated by anything I do. O_
It doesn't matter if you flee, because you are a product of American culture.
a set of circumstances that operates completely and totally independent of "culture" and has more to do with the local environment they were raised in
Well, uh, the local environment is usually what culture is really all about... culture is the rules that are permissible behind closed doors as much as open ones.
But of course, people have been using coincidence to validate their crackpot theories (religious significance in particular) since the dawn of time
But the thing is, historically speaking, being a religious fanatic and having a conservative appreciation of culture matters. You can bash tradition and culture as much as you want, but they work. And, in fact, even though you might be anti-culture, even most anti-religious people and leaders of the far left will concede that theirs is not a project to rid the world of christian culture as it is to replace it with a culture of their own. Culture is just something that you can't escape. Even if you are in the "I'm not in any culture", crowd, you are still in the "I'm not in any culture culture".
Yeah, because the the Qur'an (first published ca. 610AD) emphasizes the use of empirical observation and reason, and had technology and building know-how far ahead of its time
Ok, so now you are bashing mormons by sticking up for the muslims. My oh my. But let's do some basic math.. you can celebrate a bunch of muslims that have been dead for, let's see, um, 2009 - 610 = 1399 years, whose best claim to fame is stealing a bunch of math from India. Or, you can celebrate some fairly clever people that invented modern networking and word processing.
Face it, you just don't like Christians, and the thing is, you can't even admit to yourself that Christians have done some pretty smart stuff, IN THE NAME OF THEIR GOD.
Sorry, but scientifically speaking, having a god does not preclude you from making advancements in technology. In fact, it might even motivate them.
At least they aren't muslims!
Actually, if someone lives and is born of a particular culture, and produces something extraordinary, it does validate that culture, yes. And similarly, if that culture doesn't produce people that do anything useful, then, it really says something about that culture too. If you can't see that, you're kinda dense.
They're not exactly known for their progressive views on technology
You mean, like, when the mormons invented WordPerfect, one of the first great Word Processors, or pioneered networking with Novell, the first great networking company?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Ashton_(executive)
http://www.mormonwiki.com/Ray_Noorda
Restricting the use of language doesn't work.
Actually it has and it historically does. That's why people do it. But this debate isn't really about restricting language, it's, deciding, who gets to own the definitions of words, the government, or the private sector.
First off, I note that the "mormon" tag on the article. If there were a quote from a black leader, I wonder, would you tag the article as "black"?
I would not be so quick to bury this guy in your haste to have weaker trademarks. There is an interesting question, buried in this article. It is, what does a trademark actually buy? A trademark is a sort of a definition of an invented word, administered today by the government. A search word is as also a definition of a word, administered by a private corporation and sold to the highest bidder.
When Linux trademarks "Linux", it is to say that he has the rights to the definition of this word in some way as it pertains to his product. But, if I buy Linux on Google, then, I get the right to define the word by having my definition be placed in a preferred position.
Thus, you almost have to view trademark as a contest between the federal first come first serve word ownership mechanism, and, a private enterprise word as an auction mechanism advanced by the likes of Google.
There is a real dividing line between corporation and state, and the irony here is that those who would argue that trademarks should be less powerful by definition argue that words should be auctioned, rather than licensed, and conversely, those who argue for strong government trademarks ultimately argue that the government should control more the meaning of words rather than the free market.
I would be willing to bet that leftists who casually seek to undermine business by eliminating trademarks might be well advised to rethink that position, as they should so many others. I can't imagine that they of all people would really want a world where the definitions of words are decided by the highest bidder. It runs the risk of undermining everything that they stand for, and for that reason I'd have to conclude that people rushing to digitally behead "the mormon" might well consider that the "the mormon" is doing them a favor.
However, we tend to infer the instability of Microsoft code from the number of times Internet Explorer crashes in a 24-hour period, and how many BSODs we get in a month
So, if we are to judge Linux by the same standard, would it be fair to rip how often people have to hit CTRL-ALT-BACKSPACE to kill their super stable X session. Can we rip that brand by all the terrible things that happen when ever ubuntu pushes out a kernel update to Hardy Heron when you have nVidia drivers? That desktop gets blown away back to 800x600 ever time I download an update. What a crock.
I like Linux in some ways more than I like Windows, but, Vista is way more consumer stable than even my mighty Ubuntu. It just is.
Reading things like this [ericvasilik.com] should give you a hint.
Uh, Netscape?
Gee, the solar system is filled methane, hydrogen, and carbon dioxide. If we are to say that were are going to a natural universe, then, if anything is a pollutant, it is our planet's low CO2 and low methane atmosphere.
Microsoft ... poorly written code
How do you know its poorly written, if it is proprietary?
I fixed that for you.
This is just a publicity stunt. If you sent a nuclear submarine with a top mounted sonar, you could put together a very detailed picture of the underside of the ice and fairly quickly. In fact, given the tendency of major powers to hide their ballistic submarines under the ice, I'd be shocked if those maps didn't exist already.
For one thing, if you have security vulnerabilities, does it really make much difference to you whether they'll be exploited by a guy in Russia, or a guy in USA? Because they will be exploited if they're there
Yeah, there is a difference. In the USA, I can call the cops and they can go after someone in the USA. Even if it were the EU as a source, I could call the cops from that nationality, or American law enforcement could look for extradition, and vice versa. But Russia has obviously no interest in enforcing any sort of law on the internet, unless its someone making fun of Putin, in which case, they will be shot. Maybe another answer is to return messages back, randomly implicating the browser in an anti-Putin conspiracy, and let the potential offender contemplate their assault on my systems from Lubyanka
On just what the lunar soil is really like. We know a few bits from the various moon missions but its not like anyone tries to dig anything around up there. If the lunar soil was just a big pile of dust, then a robot pushing it around is rather doable. But if it had all sorts surprises in it, rocks, differences in composition that changes the way one digs, well then, the robots will run into problems.
A lot of bogus traffic comes from countries that don't offer much in commercial value. I'm wondering if you could just configure Apache to just refuse connections to certain countries, or take them to an alternative page. Like, "404, We're sorry Russia, but you have too damned many crooks."
Even still, one wonders if ISPs offer that service as well.
Then does that mean its ok for everyone else to start calling their website slashdot, so long as they have a slightly different domain name?
If they had invented the toothbrush anywhere but in Maryland, they would have called it the teethbrush.
If we have the deltaV to land on the rock, then we have the deltaV to match its orbit without bothering to land on it. So why waste time with the landing?
Well, you could fire a bullet straight up. If it peaked at say a mile up, its velocity would be zero, but, it could still hit a plane regardless of its velocity if you timed it right.
In the case of the asteroid, we could theoretically, anyway, shoot up something to an altitude of 64k km, have it "hit" the asteroid, and then continue on its merry way. That would be some pretty fancy shooting, but you wouldn't -need- to reach escape velocity. Granted, the old probe would be impacted by something that has twenty times the velocity of a rifle bullet and billions of times the mass, so it would be a short visit. IF he wanted to train for this mission, perhaps we could reactivate an Iowa class battleship and have it fire a full broadside into his chest. I think that would only be a billionth of the forces involved of getting hit by a giant asteroid, but, at least its practice.
Looks to me like they are entitled to the trademark. They registered it, they used it. Intel's actions in this regard seem like they are trying to hijack a term.
The thing is, if Psion didn't register the trademark in the USA, they really don't have much to stand on, do they?
BUT
If psion actually has the term netbook registered as a trademark, then this is an open and shut case. I mean, if the name is so valueless, or so easy to think up, come up with another word. But psion has the name netbook registered, and that's kinda how it works.
I can understand your desire to protect those poor companies Dell and Intel from the taxing obligations of having to think up a word of their own.
You say newsweek is too liberal, that to me seems like a reason to renew my subscription.
Judging by their subscription numbers, you would probably be one of the only ones.
. You're putting humans on the same value level as a purchasable object?
A purchasable object is the embodiment of someone else's culture and an acceptance of them. This is why, in the USA, we celebrate the breakthrough of Jackie Robinson in baseball, or the early work of musicians such as Duke Ellington. Those people, making sport and entertainment products, lead the way for integration of black american into society and ultimately laid the groundwork for civil rights. You can't like a product without having some measure of fondness for the people that made that product. One area where free trade has been successful is in integration of cultures in countries that do import.
It's why, in the USA, anyone with any sort of brain views hostility towards immigrants with a skeptical eye. Indeed, there are some who have argued and on this board that suppression of free trade is a form of racism.
I would regret to kill somebody, even if it was in self defence.
You can mourn what you had to do, but not regret it. Regret it implies that you think it was a mistake to do it. The Japanese really should have surrendered after the Marianas campaign, would have saved many lives on both sides. But the peace feelers they sent out via Russia argued for a preservation of their conquered territory and keeping their political structure in place. A peace at that time would have left Japan in control of China and vast sections of the Pacific. Unacceptable.
The one thing that I do believe was foolish on the Allied part was the 5-5-2 agreement at the Washington Naval Treaty. This utterly humiliated Japan, who at that time was actually an ally of the British, and there was absolutely no need to do that.
All I can say is that the stock market is down 7,000 points since Obama first overtook McCain in the polls. You can talk about how great he is, but as it is, everyone with half a brain knows that Obama just spend a trillion dollars on welfare, won't accomplish anything, and all this talk about the Bush budget deficits is just utterly dwarfed by Obama's spending spree.
And you just wait, until we make you Democrats defend free trade. WE'll take the blue collar vote away from you, and then what will you have left?