All I've been reading on/. is such memes as "if you don't want it public, don't put it up there", and yes that is completely true, and for many people that is the case. However I think the largest complaint is not about privacy, but just framed in those words.
Consider being at a restaraunt with a friend. You are at a public place, and so you really have no expectation of privacy. Now, do you expect everyone there to know about your conversation? Its not an issue of privacy because you aren't in a private place, but at the same time there is an expectation of exclusivity. If I'm talking with a friend in a public place, yes, people can eavesdrop, but I don't expect it.
The problem with the newsfeed wasn't that it was a violation of privacy, but rather that it globalized eavesdropping (per analogy). If someone wrote on the wall, that is something between them, much like the conversation in the restaraunt.
While police believe Gannon had violated state wiretap laws, Hefferan wrote in a statement announcing his decision, police and prosecutors concluded the case wasnt strong enough to bother prosecuting.
It seems that it is less that the little guy here won, so much as the DA simply thought he wouldn't win. The decision is less based on the merit of the claim so it doesn't seem like anything is really gained by this happening.
While these look interesting I don't think I'd use them. Cycling is already rather efficent pedeling-wise in that we are clipped into the pedals and can give force with each part of the stroke. The downstroke is obvious, but being clipped in we can pull up against the shoe as well.
I used to work as a math tutor for my university (sadly, I graduated, and student jobs don't live on after the degree), and we had two settings: One was an open lab where people at random would come in and raise a hand for questions, and the other was an hour one-on-one appointment.
While working in the lab I would usually stand up while waiting for questions, and when asked continue to stand next to the student, whereas in appointments the student and I would both be sitting at the same table. I found that when working in the lab I was more effective tutoring-wise, faster at figuring out things, and overall felt better about my ability. In fact after noticing this I started doing my class work while standing or pacing (which I had done for years, but never made the connection) and my grades that final term were some of the best I had.
So, yes, I think there's something to the idea of standing being beneficial to working.
What is more, speaking as a linguist here, the question oughtn't be whether the "standard" is used so much as whether a "standard" exists. For example, when there is a claim of a standard form of English that alone is contrary to fact. For example, which is standard wrench or spanner? Boot or trunk? Bubble or fountain? Soda or Pop or Coke or Sodapop or cola or whatever else is actually used? "The team are..." or "the team is..."?
Take note of the last example especially. I as someone raised in Texas want the latter to be proper, and in my personal English it is much as in the concensus American English too. However in British english collective nouns take a plurarl form. Using the wrong form would get a mark taken away on a grammar test in each country but each is "right".
If we lack a standard for whatever reason, to rail against a change is to fight against the inevitable. The written language doesn't matter as language is not inherently written. Language is naturally spoken (or signed), and written forms are a needless abstraction if communcation is the sole purpose of language. To worry about 'u' being used as opposed to "you" is rather silly; people using the former form still speak the latter and that is the langauge stored in their mind.
If the parents are such that they will allow Verizon or Sprint or whoever to spy on the kid's location for them, I don't think it would be unbelievable if those parents sued the pants off of whoever had their kid's mobile when something happens to that kid.
Nina Totenberg on NPR explained it this afternoon. The gist of it is that Souter's dissent read much like an opinion as though he had been assigned to write it had O'Conner stayed around. It's explained better in the audio clip, though.
I have half a mind to start a company that targets people whose computer freezes from all of the spy/ad/malware by claiming to offer something that will remove it. They, being tired of frozen screens, will give me the info I need.
The World (a PRI program) mentioned this in part of a larger story on malaria in Africa (WMA file, fittingly enough). The ultimate point was that as much as Bill is being generous in his giving, he largely has wanted to see it go toward technological improvements rather than simple things that work now (eg sleeping mats spayed down with repellent).
Right, I think that it will be a fascinating read and will ultimately help the project I'm currently doing, but my claim is that if it is linguistic then I highly doubt that it will be fully correct given the flawed (IMO) assumptions.
My argument is based soley upon this blog entry, and what it says doesn't quite seem to add up to me.
Chomsky is to linguistics as Freud to psych. He had great ideas for the time (many still stand), and the science would be nowhere close to where it is without him. However, A) he's backed off alot of supporting his own theories and B) he's published papers contradicting his original ideas so that is some question there for their veracity. Since so many linguistics undergrads hold him as the pinnical of syntax none are really deviating drastically from him.
WRT the unscientificness, to make his view fit English, there has to be "do-support" which basically is that when forming an interrogative "do" just comes in to make things work without any explanation. In other words, it is in our grammar, but our view of syntax does not account for it.
Exactly, I can't be completely quick to dismiss this, but based upon the data given and the fact that I'm working on almost the exact problem as what the algorithm is supposed to solve, it really doesn't mesh.
That is prescriptive grammar. Descriptive grammar is what linguists and that is actually what people speak.
Consider this, who is in charge of language, an institute or the speakers? Natives cannot be wrong about their own language; they can be wrong on the standard, but A) that standard is always changing and B) given A who then is correct?
IAALinguist doing computational things and my BA focused mainly on syntax and language acquisition, so here're my thoughts on the matter.
It's not going to be right. The algorithm is stated as being statistically based which while is similar to the way children learn languages is not exactly it. Children learn by hearing correct native languages from their parents, teachers, friends, etc. The statistics come in when children produce utterances that either do not conform to speech they hear or when people correct them. However, statistics does not come in at all with what they hear.
With respect to the learning of the algorithm the underlying grammar of a language, I am dubious enough to call it a grand, untrue claim. Basically all modern views of syntax are unscientific and we're not going to get anywhere until Chompsky dies. Think about the word "do" in english. No view of syntax describes from where that comes. Rather languages are shoehorned into our constructs.
So, either they're using a flawed view of syntax or they have a new view of syntax and for some reason aren't releasing it in any linguistics journal as far as I know.
I'm sure if the PPC could speak for itself it'd go something like this:
Apple: Here's one- Public: Ninepence. PPC: (feebly) I'm not dead! Public: (suprised) What? Apple: Nothing! Here's your ninepence.... PPC: I'm not dead! Public: 'Ere! 'E says 'e's not dead! Apple: Yes he is. PPC: I'm not! Public: 'E isn't? Apple: Well... he will be soon-- he's very ill... PPC: I'm getting better! Apple: No you're not, you'll be stone dead in a moment. Public: I can't take 'im like that! It's against regulations! PPC: I don't want to go on the cart.... Apple: Oh, don't be such a baby. Public: I can't take 'im.... Apple: I feel fine! PPC: Well, do us a favor... Public: I can't! Apple: Can you hang around a couple of minutes? He won't be long... Public: No, gotta get to Robinson's by nine today.... Apple: Well, when's your next round? Public: Thursday. PPC: I think I'll go for a walk.... Apple: You're not fooling anyone, you know--(to Cart-master) Look, isn't there something you can do...?
(they both look around)
PPC: I feel happy! I feel happy!
(the Cart-master deals the old man a swift blow to the head with his wooden spoon. The old man goes limp.)
Apple: (throwing the old man onto the cart) Ah. thanks very much. Public: Not at all. See you on Thursday! Apple: Right! All right....
TFA doesn't go into what actually happened, only that someone watched porn and from that the librarian is being dismissed since she "had not done enough to prevent the incident".
First off, it's an "incident" not "incidents", so it probably only happened once, and if the history just showed one site, I can think of a thousand ways that could have accidentally happened.
We're missing some kind of important details here.
You pick a Mac knowing full well what is ahead and then complain about a lack of choices? Wasn't that self-determined when you decided to go Mac?
Furthermore, while you may have more choice with x86 hardware, if you have Windows, what kind of choice do you have software side? If you plan on using Linux, well, that is the most free option, but that has been long established.
By analogy, why buy an embedded device if you can do X with the hardware? Well, you buy it because that choice fills your need.
This is unneed pendantry. If you are not only able to list off these places as frames of referrence but also think of them in the first place, odds are you already know the answer.
Most sensible people would take it as being the sun spinning around the sun, and leave it there.
Since there is no pleasing you therein, the earth is more or less 149,668,992 km from the sun, which gives a circumfrence of around 940,398,011 km which over 365 days gives 29.8 km/second.
This is actually not 100% correct. Speaking here as a linguist*, native english speaker, and someone with strong familiarity with both modern and ancient hebrew (it was part of my thesis) I have to say that there isn't a timing problem.
For simplicity's sake, let's do this in English since that is what the linked page used (I'm not certain which translation they used for this, but that shouldn't matter). Out of the first section we should not that there are no elements of ordering or timing. Yes, the consecutive use of "and" would seem to imply that there is a sense of timing, but if I were to say "I went to the store and I went to the game, and I went to school" in simple recounting of events there is no timing therein. It is simply stating what happened, not when.
In the second section the same issue with timing prevails. The earlier section simply says they were created, but the second gives timing. For example if I were to say that I created LRGO models, technik and pirate in the image of the box, all I've said is that I made them. where is the timing there? Once again, simple recounting of event.
So, yeah, I can see why there may be confusion over this, but A) the translation is weird and fairly far from literal, and B) to arrive at such a conclusion requires one to do no more than a cursory look at the text and no consideration of what the grammar actually says.
*to the other linguists, I still am a descriptivist grammarian, but I cite being a linguist in order to indicate that I look closely at language rathan that prescribing how it should be.
Slashdot Mirror
Seems that no one can follow the stupid thing.
Hey, the first rule of Project Mayhem is to not talk about Project Mayhem.
All I've been reading on /. is such memes as "if you don't want it public, don't put it up there", and yes that is completely true, and for many people that is the case. However I think the largest complaint is not about privacy, but just framed in those words.
Consider being at a restaraunt with a friend. You are at a public place, and so you really have no expectation of privacy. Now, do you expect everyone there to know about your conversation? Its not an issue of privacy because you aren't in a private place, but at the same time there is an expectation of exclusivity. If I'm talking with a friend in a public place, yes, people can eavesdrop, but I don't expect it.
The problem with the newsfeed wasn't that it was a violation of privacy, but rather that it globalized eavesdropping (per analogy). If someone wrote on the wall, that is something between them, much like the conversation in the restaraunt.
It seems that it is less that the little guy here won, so much as the DA simply thought he wouldn't win. The decision is less based on the merit of the claim so it doesn't seem like anything is really gained by this happening.
While these look interesting I don't think I'd use them. Cycling is already rather efficent pedeling-wise in that we are clipped into the pedals and can give force with each part of the stroke. The downstroke is obvious, but being clipped in we can pull up against the shoe as well.
I used to work as a math tutor for my university (sadly, I graduated, and student jobs don't live on after the degree), and we had two settings: One was an open lab where people at random would come in and raise a hand for questions, and the other was an hour one-on-one appointment.
While working in the lab I would usually stand up while waiting for questions, and when asked continue to stand next to the student, whereas in appointments the student and I would both be sitting at the same table. I found that when working in the lab I was more effective tutoring-wise, faster at figuring out things, and overall felt better about my ability. In fact after noticing this I started doing my class work while standing or pacing (which I had done for years, but never made the connection) and my grades that final term were some of the best I had.
So, yes, I think there's something to the idea of standing being beneficial to working.
What is more, speaking as a linguist here, the question oughtn't be whether the "standard" is used so much as whether a "standard" exists. For example, when there is a claim of a standard form of English that alone is contrary to fact. For example, which is standard wrench or spanner? Boot or trunk? Bubble or fountain? Soda or Pop or Coke or Sodapop or cola or whatever else is actually used? "The team are..." or "the team is..."?
Take note of the last example especially. I as someone raised in Texas want the latter to be proper, and in my personal English it is much as in the concensus American English too. However in British english collective nouns take a plurarl form. Using the wrong form would get a mark taken away on a grammar test in each country but each is "right".
If we lack a standard for whatever reason, to rail against a change is to fight against the inevitable. The written language doesn't matter as language is not inherently written. Language is naturally spoken (or signed), and written forms are a needless abstraction if communcation is the sole purpose of language. To worry about 'u' being used as opposed to "you" is rather silly; people using the former form still speak the latter and that is the langauge stored in their mind.
If the parents are such that they will allow Verizon or Sprint or whoever to spy on the kid's location for them, I don't think it would be unbelievable if those parents sued the pants off of whoever had their kid's mobile when something happens to that kid.
Nina Totenberg on NPR explained it this afternoon. The gist of it is that Souter's dissent read much like an opinion as though he had been assigned to write it had O'Conner stayed around. It's explained better in the audio clip, though.
I'll bet it was a smashing success
I have half a mind to start a company that targets people whose computer freezes from all of the spy/ad/malware by claiming to offer something that will remove it. They, being tired of frozen screens, will give me the info I need.
I'll call it ice phishing.
The World (a PRI program) mentioned this in part of a larger story on malaria in Africa (WMA file, fittingly enough). The ultimate point was that as much as Bill is being generous in his giving, he largely has wanted to see it go toward technological improvements rather than simple things that work now (eg sleeping mats spayed down with repellent).
It's a good listen overall, though.
Something online might not be true? Shocking!
Right, I think that it will be a fascinating read and will ultimately help the project I'm currently doing, but my claim is that if it is linguistic then I highly doubt that it will be fully correct given the flawed (IMO) assumptions.
My argument is based soley upon this blog entry, and what it says doesn't quite seem to add up to me.
It is in effect two parted:
Chomsky is to linguistics as Freud to psych. He had great ideas for the time (many still stand), and the science would be nowhere close to where it is without him. However, A) he's backed off alot of supporting his own theories and B) he's published papers contradicting his original ideas so that is some question there for their veracity. Since so many linguistics undergrads hold him as the pinnical of syntax none are really deviating drastically from him.
WRT the unscientificness, to make his view fit English, there has to be "do-support" which basically is that when forming an interrogative "do" just comes in to make things work without any explanation. In other words, it is in our grammar, but our view of syntax does not account for it.
Exactly, I can't be completely quick to dismiss this, but based upon the data given and the fact that I'm working on almost the exact problem as what the algorithm is supposed to solve, it really doesn't mesh.
That is prescriptive grammar. Descriptive grammar is what linguists and that is actually what people speak.
Consider this, who is in charge of language, an institute or the speakers? Natives cannot be wrong about their own language; they can be wrong on the standard, but A) that standard is always changing and B) given A who then is correct?
Insofar as only utterance A is heard. A kid will always hear "Are you hungry" but never "Am you hungry" or "Are he hungry".
Native speakers by definition speak correctly, and that is all the child is hearing.
IAALinguist doing computational things and my BA focused mainly on syntax and language acquisition, so here're my thoughts on the matter.
It's not going to be right. The algorithm is stated as being statistically based which while is similar to the way children learn languages is not exactly it. Children learn by hearing correct native languages from their parents, teachers, friends, etc. The statistics come in when children produce utterances that either do not conform to speech they hear or when people correct them. However, statistics does not come in at all with what they hear.
With respect to the learning of the algorithm the underlying grammar of a language, I am dubious enough to call it a grand, untrue claim. Basically all modern views of syntax are unscientific and we're not going to get anywhere until Chompsky dies. Think about the word "do" in english. No view of syntax describes from where that comes. Rather languages are shoehorned into our constructs.
So, either they're using a flawed view of syntax or they have a new view of syntax and for some reason aren't releasing it in any linguistics journal as far as I know.
I'm sure if the PPC could speak for itself it'd go something like this:
Apple: Here's one-
Public: Ninepence.
PPC: (feebly) I'm not dead!
Public: (suprised) What?
Apple: Nothing! Here's your ninepence....
PPC: I'm not dead!
Public: 'Ere! 'E says 'e's not dead!
Apple: Yes he is.
PPC: I'm not!
Public: 'E isn't?
Apple: Well... he will be soon-- he's very ill...
PPC: I'm getting better!
Apple: No you're not, you'll be stone dead in a moment.
Public: I can't take 'im like that! It's against regulations!
PPC: I don't want to go on the cart....
Apple: Oh, don't be such a baby.
Public: I can't take 'im....
Apple: I feel fine!
PPC: Well, do us a favor...
Public: I can't!
Apple: Can you hang around a couple of minutes? He won't be long...
Public: No, gotta get to Robinson's by nine today....
Apple: Well, when's your next round?
Public: Thursday.
PPC: I think I'll go for a walk....
Apple: You're not fooling anyone, you know--(to Cart-master) Look, isn't there something you can do...?
(they both look around)
PPC: I feel happy! I feel happy!
(the Cart-master deals the old man a swift blow to the head with his wooden spoon. The old man goes limp.)
Apple: (throwing the old man onto the cart) Ah. thanks very much.
Public: Not at all. See you on Thursday!
Apple: Right! All right....
TFA doesn't go into what actually happened, only that someone watched porn and from that the librarian is being dismissed since she "had not done enough to prevent the incident".
First off, it's an "incident" not "incident s ", so it probably only happened once, and if the history just showed one site, I can think of a thousand ways that could have accidentally happened.
We're missing some kind of important details here.
You pick a Mac knowing full well what is ahead and then complain about a lack of choices? Wasn't that self-determined when you decided to go Mac?
Furthermore, while you may have more choice with x86 hardware, if you have Windows, what kind of choice do you have software side? If you plan on using Linux, well, that is the most free option, but that has been long established.
By analogy, why buy an embedded device if you can do X with the hardware? Well, you buy it because that choice fills your need.
EW...?
This is unneed pendantry. If you are not only able to list off these places as frames of referrence but also think of them in the first place, odds are you already know the answer.
Most sensible people would take it as being the sun spinning around the sun, and leave it there.
Since there is no pleasing you therein, the earth is more or less 149,668,992 km from the sun, which gives a circumfrence of around 940,398,011 km which over 365 days gives 29.8 km/second.
So, there you go, it's around the sun.
This is actually not 100% correct. Speaking here as a linguist*, native english speaker, and someone with strong familiarity with both modern and ancient hebrew (it was part of my thesis) I have to say that there isn't a timing problem.
For simplicity's sake, let's do this in English since that is what the linked page used (I'm not certain which translation they used for this, but that shouldn't matter). Out of the first section we should not that there are no elements of ordering or timing. Yes, the consecutive use of "and" would seem to imply that there is a sense of timing, but if I were to say "I went to the store and I went to the game, and I went to school" in simple recounting of events there is no timing therein. It is simply stating what happened, not when.
In the second section the same issue with timing prevails. The earlier section simply says they were created, but the second gives timing. For example if I were to say that I created LRGO models, technik and pirate in the image of the box, all I've said is that I made them. where is the timing there? Once again, simple recounting of event.
So, yeah, I can see why there may be confusion over this, but A) the translation is weird and fairly far from literal, and B) to arrive at such a conclusion requires one to do no more than a cursory look at the text and no consideration of what the grammar actually says.
*to the other linguists, I still am a descriptivist grammarian, but I cite being a linguist in order to indicate that I look closely at language rathan that prescribing how it should be.