Since blocking software is bound to remain in use in most public schools for the foreseeable future, this raises the question: Is it possible for a blocking company to define a 'hate site' in a consistent way, without including conservative groups that might file a First Amendment lawsuit if their sites were blocked from public school computers?
You mean it begs the question?
Wait a minute . . .
WTF! A Slashdot summary that gets it right? What next? Dogs and cats living together?
It's just like in the Star Wars prequels, where due to advances in special effects and costuming, the newer Star Wars movies (episodes I-III) look far more modern even though they're meant to be prequels.
That wasn't a problem for me.
Did you watch the King Kong remake? Did you think, "Wow, this CG is way too good for the '30s?"
Off-topic semi-frothing rant, but am I the only one who finds old-fashioned abbreviations such as Rings or Fellowship vastly more readable than acronyms such as LOTR or LOTR:FOTR?
Peter Jackson did a great job with LotR. There were lots of special effects, to be sure, but most weren't relly all that spectacular.
LOTR was good story telling, but I think the effects were pretty darn spectacular. There's one scene in LOTR:FOTR when the perspective pans away and we see a tiny CG fellowship running through Moria. I thought to myself, "Wow, that CG sucks." That's the only time in the whole trilogy I was even conciously aware that I was watching CG at all. How about the Cave Troll? Huge armies of Orcs? The Nazgul and their mounts? Golum? All pretty good, IMHO. Plus all the crap that's small but doesn't bring attention to itself.
I think this lawsuit is innappropriate and silly. Let me play Jack's advocate for a minute.
Suppose a situation exists that gives another person a strong incentive to kill you. If you could go back in time; what one movie, book, and video game would you pick for that person to have during his childhood?
I'm pretty sure we wouldn't pick GTA for the game.
I think it will be. I heard the game is in this new genre where you and the character share the same point of view, and you shoot at enemies from that point of view.
I wouldn't really call Slashdot a game. And Microsoft's not really the enemy.
The reason movies show the future mostly to be bad is because it make a nicer story and it tells people that NOW is good.
I think that's true, but I think there's another mundane factor. Writing about car chases and shootings is easy.
Writer A: Let's suppose innovation X. What are the social and political implications? Writer B: . . . Writer C: It goes haywire! And then, say, the hero shoots things! Writer B: Yeah, that would be great Sci Fi.
that would end all the ethical issues with raising an animal for food, . . .
I don't accept the idea that the cow would be happier never living. Never having been a cow, I can't really say. But to me, it seems ethically stronger to raise the cow as a creature (under reasonable conditions) rather than a meat culture.
(I don't think this is what the article is discussing anyway.)
The Justice Department has repeatedly signaled its strong interest, through continued conversations with Internet companies and members of Congress, in having the data retained to help it fight terrorism and child pornography . .
oh, come off it. "Begging the question" is an idiom anyway, which doesn't follow the literal interpretation of the words themselves. The OPs comment uses it as an idiom which actually pretty closely matches the literal meaning of the individual words.
Evolution of language should perhaps be slowed in some cases, but this is rediculous. Correcting people for such a minor (and perhaps more popular than the original usage) infraction of idiomatic usage just makes you look like an ass.
The misuse of "begging the question" grates me not just because it dilutes the traditional meaning but because people use the phrase specifically to sound pretentious. They've heard a smart person use it correctly and know they want to sound impressive. People should stick to words and phrases whose meanings they know well in the interest of communication.
[Dave crosses his fingers and hopes he hasn't made any mistakes in this post.]
I'm a casual role-playing geek who took up poker in '03. The collectible card games seem like a natural intersection of those interests, but I never really got the bug.
Anyway, I wandered into the CCG area at Gencon this year, just to see the decorations and such. I was immediately struck by how much different the CCG players looked from the other gamers. They were card players: siblings to poker players; very, very distant cousins to role players. Their air was solemn and businesslike. They didn't dress like dorks.
On the whole, they didn't look very happy. It makes me rethink my devotion to poker.
Three hundred years ago, self-sufficience might have meant knowing how to tend a farm, and having enough hair on your nuts to knock up the girl next door so you can make some farmhands together. Society has changed; young adults now know more, and HAVE to know more, than at any time in history.
I think you're underestimating the array of skills these people had. "How to tend a farm" covers a lot of ground when people are constructing a lot of their needs (e.g., buildings, clothes, & tools) from raw materials.
Don't confuse communism the theory with the dictatorships the claim to be communist. Communism as a theory disclaims most if not all personal property rights, but it has nothing to do with Murder and Censorship, any more than Capitalism has to do with monitoring bank records and tapping phone calls.
The theory is not unrelated to the implementations. The first step in Communism is for the party to sieze control of all of the assets by force. The dictatorship of the proletariat is part of the theory. This stage is going to be violent. And furthermore, it's entirely unclear that the state will ever give up this power in any real implementation.
2) PAL != NTSC. When I've been in america I have to say - the picture quality is terrible. I can see the desire for HD television there. But in the UK we have very good quality broadcasts. There is less desire for the upgrade.
Actually, "is riding" creates a nominative sentence--not active. It describes the boy as having a state of being: "riding." The word "riding" is a verbal noun (gerund), which is also used as an adjective.
Horsefeathers.
The word "riding" can be a gerund, but it is not functioning as one here. Gerunds act as nouns in sentences, not as adjectives. That is part of the definition of gerund.
So "Subject (helping verb) adjective" - nominative. The sentence is not active at all, but passive.
Helping verb? What's the main verb it's helping then?
I think the term you're looking for here is linking verb. We can build a sentence from a subject, a linking verb, and a participle acting as a predicate adjective. For instance, we can say:
He is charming.
So, having cleaned up the terminology, I again say horsefeathers. "Riding" is not acting as an adjective here. We can tack on an another adjective to my sentence and say:
The boy is charming and handsome.
When we tack on an adjective to the original sentence, it doesn't work so well.
The boy is riding to the store and handsome.
It doesn't work because "riding" isn't an adjective here.
in 1200 of its 3200 stores, with plans to do so in at least 1400 by the end of the year.
I hope the guy programming the cash registers at Wal-Mart isn't the same guy as the one who did the math above. If he is, profits at Wal-Mart should be way up and I'm heading out to buy their stock.
I really love games in general and RPGs inparticular. That said, I have to question why topics regarding the "real world" worth of game stuff keeps coming up. I think people like to imagine that, after all the effort they've put in, there's some actual value to the end result. There usually isn't. But when there is, don't we get excited at the prospect? I think if we're honest with ourselves, it's just a rationalization for spending an inordinate amount of time playing a fun game.
oh, come on, name me one major hollywood movie with more realistic IT in it. This is mass-market fiction, if it was authentic then it would not be as successful. Dan Brown did what he had to. The only example of popular fiction that I can think of that contains a believable depiction of an IT system is Jurassic Park - the novel, not the movie.
Jurassic Park makes up for it with stupid biology. They think they can contain the dinosaurs contained on the island by making them "lysine dependent". People are fucking lysine dependent. It's an essential amino acid. To the author's credit, it turns out not to work. But I can't imagine an organization capable of bringing back dinosaurs from DNA that can't collectively remember 9th grade biology.
1) There is no way anybody is going to spin off their most profitable divisions to avoid some regulation
I disagree.
2) Just the SUV division alone of any major manufacturer would have way too high a volume to qualify for any "boutique" manufacturer exemption
So, they split it more.
3) Just taxing the gas is a regressive tax that places a higher burden on lower incomes than on upper ones. Maybe you don't have a problem with this, but I do.
Don't the rich people drive big vehicles that burn more gas?
There are all kinds of ways to redistribute wealth. It doesn't need to be in every law.
Slashdot Mirror
You mean it begs the question?
Wait a minute . . .
WTF! A Slashdot summary that gets it right? What next? Dogs and cats living together?
That wasn't a problem for me.
Did you watch the King Kong remake? Did you think, "Wow, this CG is way too good for the '30s?"
LOTR was good story telling, but I think the effects were pretty darn spectacular. There's one scene in LOTR:FOTR when the perspective pans away and we see a tiny CG fellowship running through Moria. I thought to myself, "Wow, that CG sucks." That's the only time in the whole trilogy I was even conciously aware that I was watching CG at all. How about the Cave Troll? Huge armies of Orcs? The Nazgul and their mounts? Golum? All pretty good, IMHO. Plus all the crap that's small but doesn't bring attention to itself.
I think this lawsuit is innappropriate and silly. Let me play Jack's advocate for a minute.
Suppose a situation exists that gives another person a strong incentive to kill you. If you could go back in time; what one movie, book, and video game would you pick for that person to have during his childhood?
I'm pretty sure we wouldn't pick GTA for the game.
s/declaration of independence/Pledge of Allegiance ?
I wouldn't really call Slashdot a game. And Microsoft's not really the enemy.
Oh, that's not what you meant? Sorry.
I think that's true, but I think there's another mundane factor. Writing about car chases and shootings is easy.
Writer A: Let's suppose innovation X. What are the social and political implications?
Writer B: . . .
Writer C: It goes haywire! And then, say, the hero shoots things!
Writer B: Yeah, that would be great Sci Fi.
Right, because dead students don't perform well. Sounds like a kick-ass research program, by the way.
I don't accept the idea that the cow would be happier never living. Never having been a cow, I can't really say. But to me, it seems ethically stronger to raise the cow as a creature (under reasonable conditions) rather than a meat culture.
(I don't think this is what the article is discussing anyway.)
I bet they have a stamp that says that.
The misuse of "begging the question" grates me not just because it dilutes the traditional meaning but because people use the phrase specifically to sound pretentious. They've heard a smart person use it correctly and know they want to sound impressive. People should stick to words and phrases whose meanings they know well in the interest of communication.
[Dave crosses his fingers and hopes he hasn't made any mistakes in this post.]
I'm a casual role-playing geek who took up poker in '03. The collectible card games seem like a natural intersection of those interests, but I never really got the bug.
Anyway, I wandered into the CCG area at Gencon this year, just to see the decorations and such. I was immediately struck by how much different the CCG players looked from the other gamers. They were card players: siblings to poker players; very, very distant cousins to role players. Their air was solemn and businesslike. They didn't dress like dorks.
On the whole, they didn't look very happy. It makes me rethink my devotion to poker.
I think you're underestimating the array of skills these people had. "How to tend a farm" covers a lot of ground when people are constructing a lot of their needs (e.g., buildings, clothes, & tools) from raw materials.
The theory is not unrelated to the implementations. The first step in Communism is for the party to sieze control of all of the assets by force. The dictatorship of the proletariat is part of the theory. This stage is going to be violent. And furthermore, it's entirely unclear that the state will ever give up this power in any real implementation.
I'm going to offer an educated opinion about SIDS in general.
Parent: Why did my infant suddenly die?
Doctor1: I don't know.
Doctor2: He died of, umm, Sudden Infant Death Syndrome.
I think doctor2 is pretending to say something helpful, but really, does tacking syndrome on the end of the problem do us any good?
That's absurd.
In the U.S., landlords typically get a credit report before renting to people. A lot of people buy cars on payments, too.
Contrary to what you might think, the government runs the jails.
Horsefeathers.
The word "riding" can be a gerund, but it is not functioning as one here. Gerunds act as nouns in sentences, not as adjectives. That is part of the definition of gerund.
Helping verb? What's the main verb it's helping then?
I think the term you're looking for here is linking verb. We can build a sentence from a subject, a linking verb, and a participle acting as a predicate adjective. For instance, we can say:
He is charming.
So, having cleaned up the terminology, I again say horsefeathers. "Riding" is not acting as an adjective here. We can tack on an another adjective to my sentence and say:
The boy is charming and handsome.
When we tack on an adjective to the original sentence, it doesn't work so well.
The boy is riding to the store and handsome.
It doesn't work because "riding" isn't an adjective here.
Those are both active. I'm pretty sure you meant to write something like this:
Passive: The bike is ridden by the boy to the store.
What the hell are you talking about?
I really love games in general and RPGs inparticular. That said, I have to question why topics regarding the "real world" worth of game stuff keeps coming up. I think people like to imagine that, after all the effort they've put in, there's some actual value to the end result. There usually isn't. But when there is, don't we get excited at the prospect? I think if we're honest with ourselves, it's just a rationalization for spending an inordinate amount of time playing a fun game.
Jurassic Park makes up for it with stupid biology. They think they can contain the dinosaurs contained on the island by making them "lysine dependent". People are fucking lysine dependent. It's an essential amino acid. To the author's credit, it turns out not to work. But I can't imagine an organization capable of bringing back dinosaurs from DNA that can't collectively remember 9th grade biology.
I disagree.
So, they split it more.
Don't the rich people drive big vehicles that burn more gas?
There are all kinds of ways to redistribute wealth. It doesn't need to be in every law.