Re:On correct use of apostrophes
on
God's Debris
·
· Score: 1
From "The Brief English Handbook", by Dornan and Dawe:
To form the possessive of singular nouns ending in s, add 's if it does not make pronunciation difficult. Add only an apostrophe if the additional s makes pronunciation difficult. "He rushed into the Boss's office." "Little is known about Cheryl Moses' life in Paris during the Depression." "James's reptile collection gives me an eerie feeling." In the following example, only the apostrophe is added because adding 's would make pronunciation difficult. "James' snake collection gives me an eerie feeling."
This rule is less strict that "Elements of Style," but I still feel upholds a ruling to add the 's to Adams in the cases mentioned: "Adams's book" and "Adam's God's Debris" are both like "James's reptile" and the added 's is not a pronunciation impediment.
Re:On correct use of apostrophes
on
God's Debris
·
· Score: 1
Just to be more helpful, I'll quote the very first page of Strunk and White's "The Elements of Style":
1. Form the possessive singular of mouns by adding 's. Follow this rule whatever the final consonant. Thus write, "Charles's friend", "Burns's poems", and "the witch's malice". Exceptions are the possessives of ancient proper names in -es and -is, the possessive "Jesus'", and such forms as "for conscience' sake", "for righteousness' sake".
Re:On correct use of apostrophes
on
God's Debris
·
· Score: 1, Offtopic
Actually, you're completely wrong. A noun that ends in "s" should be treated exactly the same as a non-"s" noun, even in the case of Proper nouns. Thus, "Adams's" is the correct form.
I find Copernic is incredible - it sweeps up all those search engines into its meta-search, including Google and Alta-Vista, sorts the results (in what I find to be a very intelligent manner), and even eliminates bad links from the result set to lower my frustration level. Finally, I'm NEVER bothered by anybody's ads, popups, or other distracting crap. Highly recommended.
I believe that a lot of folks (including me) maintain Windows machines for games. However, not just because there are more titles - I find the games run far better on my windows box (which is a lesser machine) than on Linux. I'm not sure why exactly, though I imagine tight integration with video hardware/acceleration counts for a lot and I've also found that sound doesn't mesh with visual elements well. It seems this type of thing might help in the raw performance category for gaming and help make Linux a top-tier gaming platform, rather than a not-so-great second-tier solution.
Now, I use my Linux box as my development platform, web server, mail server, etc, but I've got to keep Windows around for gaming.
Well, now that big business appears to be on the verge of getting a license to hack our machines, it certainly increases the necessity of extremely strong firewalling/security on our boxes. I would envision far more robust attacks than what simple script-kiddies routinely throw around.
Anonymous fool - why should I get a life? Because I tried the patch? Because I enjoy getting better response from my machine? Because I enjoy playing games? Playing games on Linux? Your inane proclamation makes me laugh. You might think of spending more time on positive thoughts - loser.:)
I just downloaded the patch, applied it, and recompiled my kernel. I can say I DO notice a snappier response overall when starting several large programs simultaneously (in the sense that I can continue doing other things and it's not so "jumpy").
Also, and this is key, the audio in my test game (Loki's Tribes 2 port) DEFINATELY syncs up better with on-screen action, making me think that this type of patch is an incredible boon for us Linux gamers.
It's easy - what's the definition of "terrorist"? Frankly, it doesn't matter at all what the current definition is: just wait a few years, until "suspected terrorist" is equivalent to "suspected of anything, including harboring anti-government sentiments." Then, you see, all these provisions of wiretapping, data gathering, etc, will apply to any citizen that's suspected of not toeing the line. That isn't exactly a breeding ground for freedom and healthy debate...
If you think this is true then how do you explain NT running Battleships (and failing - I forget the article but it was a bruise to MS for sure), and how do explain it's presence on the International Space Station?
Very true - that's why the only time I ever debug C++ code is when a programmer gets stuck, can't find help, and then comes to me to help them through the problem. I never "volunteer" my coding - I only respond to requests. The fact that requests keep coming in attests to the fact that at least some folks don't find my skills that mediocre yet. I'm not saying your experience doesn't happen. I'm just saying that some of us, even CTOs, try to avoid Peter Principle as much as possible...
Eric Livingston Chief Technology Officer Commerce One Global Services www.commerceone.com
Wow, you must have a pretty crappy CTO. I'm a CTO, and while I'm enganged in management-type stuff, I also help debug C++ problems and architect our overall solutions on projects, etc. I also never have my cell phone on in meetings - it's rude.
I don't think of myself as a useless management appendage. Too bad yours might be...
Eric Livingston Chief Technology Officer Commerce One Global Services www.commerceone.com
At Commerce One, we have both a CIO and, actually, two CTOs - I'm the Chief Technology Officer of Commerce One Global Services, and there's another fellow who's the CTO of our Product Division. We report directly to the business leads of our divisions (i.e. I report to the Vice President of Global Services). My responsibility is all customer-facing. Basically, making sure we're creating the best technical solutions possible in our services division, from tool selection to standards, architectures, skill sets, etc. I also support our business development area by informing our proposals with technical inpu.
We also have a CIO, who's in charge of our internal IT. It is a non-customer facing role, and is in charge of keeping us operating with the right automation (email servers, file servers, etc).
So, as another poster put it, CTO=customer facing/solution oriented stuff, while CIO=Internal automation/infrastructure stuff.
Eric Livingston Chief Technology Officer Commerce One Global Services www.commerceone.com
Not quite true. The concept of a patent is that in return for being allowed a monopoly on your idea for a while, you have to publish your patent for all to see, and it has to be done with enough detail that another company or person "skilled in the art" can reproduce the patented engine.
Why bother? Because what you ARE allowed to patent yourself are new ideas that build on the original patent. Therefore, if I took that engine idea in his patent, and based on it, created yet another engine that only used 1/4 of the fuel (or whatever), I could patent that.
I was recently the lead inventor on a software patent my former company filed. Part of the application was a section wherein we tried to predict all the improvements one could make on our idea and patent them as well, because if we didn't think of one and someone else did, they could one-up our patent and patent their own, better idea based on ours. And that's ok, as far as how the system's supposed to work.
So, the patent process is actually supposed to spur on innovation because it forces these ideas into the public domain. Why doesn't somebody look over the engine patent and base some new idea off it that makes it even better? Then they could patent that and move things along...
Well, I'd never buy one. No matter what the specs, a competitor will have something almost exactly like it specs-wise but it will look better. This looks like some stupid toy.
I mean, it's got a lunch-box like handle on top for God's sake - very lame. I hate it.
Change the end-game and Circumvent
on
High-Speed Greed
·
· Score: 1
So, can't a merchant put on their site, right before the button that says "click to purchase" a phone number to call and order by phone to save x% of the purchase price? They could even do this after everything's been entered on the site: just give them an order reference number so they can call up and say "Hi, I'd like to complete order number 3456645. I authorize the transaction." Hell, you could even do it with touch-tone and keep human operators out of it completely.
That way, the transaction is actually "completed" over the phone and not on the web site.
In general, I feel vendors will figure out ways to squirm around this, probably by allowing the consumer to select a higher price vs. less convenience.
Therefore, you and other dealers must immediately begin transitioning over to Motorola's competition, or you will simply lie there and get screwed.
The only way to "punish" a company that practices bad mojo like this is to move your money elsewhere - or, I suppose, throw a whole bunch more laws on the books and move us all the closer to being a 100% government run, socialist police state (I'd say now we're only about 90%) there...
Unless there's a specific law preventing them from doing so, and the article states there is none, then they are not violating any rights. They are simply making a business decision regarding how they will treat their customers and dealers. This is how the free market works: if their business grows as a result, it was a good decision. If not, it was a bad one. But it's certainly not an illegal one (not yet, anyway).
Dealers and customers will simply vote with their dollars and Motorola will respond. Frankly, if the dealers all get pissed off and walk, but then Motorola makes three times as much selling on the 'net, then they've made a good business decision. It's up to end-users to care enough not to let that happen, as then all their competitors will see the result and follow suit.
Unfortunately, I have little doubt that consumers will either not know, not care, or both, and so Motorola's biz will likily do fine...
Re:An interesting idea...
on
TigerCloning
·
· Score: 1
Well, remember that cheetahs are so nearly identical genetically that they may as well be clones, or at least one huge inbreeding experiment. The theory is that at some point in the past 99%+ of them were wiped out, but the stragglers were able to rebuild and now all cheetahs in the world stem from a very, very few ancestors - and thus they are all basically inbreeding. The question being studied with them is: why hasn't all that inbreeding debilitated the species?
Clearly (to me, anyway) they are simply doing the same thing here as they did with Netscape. First, create a free app that has the MS FUD and brand behind it. Give it away and destroy the marketshare of anything competing against it (such as StarOffice, etc). Wait until the development teams of StarOffice and all competing office suites disappear and all development of alternative Open Source office suites is dead and gone, all the while touting the benefits to be had by using MS Office for Linux.
Then, start to make it suck and fall well behind the Windows version, forcing more and more users to switch over as they lose support. Finally, discontinue it altogether, leaving Linux users with nothing at all (when now they have alternatives), and crush all possibility of Linux reaching the desktop any time soon.
For that matter, I'm truly surprised that there's no MS Linux distribution, which they would push and market heavily until Red Hat, Corel, and others went out of business, all other distros were ignored, and they were the only game in town (or at least had gathered like 97%+ of the market share). Then, again, just dump the damn thing. Kill it off, and leave everyone sucking wind. While it may not kill Linux off altogether, it would set the effort back a decade or so, and give MS Winblows the opportunity to actually grow into a stable OS that works sometimes, and cement an even greater share of the market.
I think they are a crappy company, and that they make crappy software. My opinion is that they should close up shop and refund customers of their money for all the crappy, negative, low-quality software they produce. And if they'd like to sue me because I said this, well I guess I'll be the one taking them to the supreme court.
Seriously, the Libertarian party is the only one dedicated to all personal and property rights, including the much-abused right to free speech and the trampled right of protection from unreasonable search and seizure. Sure, it won't be overnight, and it probably does make sense to set up something overseas in the meantime (I'll be looking into it) but please take to time to also get out there and vote!
And if it feels hopeless and overwhelming, remember that there is a fast-growing party out there of like-minded folks who are actively paving the way (there are now over 300 Libertarians in public office, all of whom are fighting to end this kind of rights-trampling crap).
Check out www.lp.org and you might find what you're looking for already out there. Fundamental to Libertarianism is the basic concept that no person or group of people should be allowed to transgress on your person or property for any reason whatsoever. Therefore, any kind of censorship, limits on my actions (except those that transgress on another's person or property), or any attempt to disallow me from being as individual as I please is absolutely out of bounds. Individualists are pretty darn close to Libertarians, except Libertarians go farther to say that government should also stay out of the lives and activities of corporations, because to do otherwise clearly means they are invading on the property of the company owners, which is a crime (under Libertarian thought).
Keep in mind that any power to control your property immediately places limits on your individuality (and liberty, including freedom of speech) to the extent that you value that property and wish not to lose it or its utility (a threat that those with the power to control your property can make).
That is why fundamentally Libertarians do not separate Freedom of speech from Freedom to own property outright with no regulation - because you can't have one without the other (think of how "free" an individual would be if the government owned or could control literally all property owned by that individual, such that by falling into disfavor, that individual could find themselves homeless, penniless, and without food, clothes, and anything else). How free would that individual truly be to criticize those with that power, or to act in any way (individually) that might bring negative attention on themselves. Freedom of speech (and true individualism) is absolutely bonded with freedom to own property absolutely, with no form of regulation (including government involvement in big business).
To ask for true freedom to be an individual, while simultaneously asking for government regulation on big business (which, don't forget, are ultimately owned by other people who may very well consider themselves individuals with the right to stay that way) is hypocritical and ultimately self-defeating.
I hope this will be something future cases can stand on as a legal precedent. It's good to see a body of caselaw developing that supports freedom, rather than strip it away.
I almost completely agree with everything RMS says
on
Thus Spake Stallman
·
· Score: 5
Not so sure about the lack of relativism: if I prefer one kind of tea over someone else I don't think either of us is "wrong" in any meaningful sense - it truly is relative. I believe the same holds for less trivial examples of differing opinion.
I also believe strongly in the underlying battle for fundamental civil freedoms and rights behind GNU, and certainly see the distinction between that and Open Source.
Unfortunately, while I rage against the machine (and donate generously to the ACLU and the Libertarian party), I also see it as an inevitably losing battle - I'm becoming more convinced by the day that humans (at least Americans) simply don't truly want freedom - they want to be bounded and "safe". Folks say they want freedom of speech until some KKK member says something they don't like - then it's all about how we need new laws limiting hate speech and whatever else they don't want to hear. Folks like property rights until their neighbor parks some trashed pickup in their front yard - then it's all about how we need new laws restricting what people can do with their property.
It's really not about big business, though I wish it was. It's really about fear people have that somebody else will get a better deal than them, and how to stop that from happening. You could blame the record companies for the rash of new lawsuits and restrictions on freedom, but frankly they can do that because most people just don't care. Freedom is just not an important issue for most people, those of us for whom it is a big issue tend to stand out on some lunatic fringe.
The Open Source movement, while emasculated from a moral/ethical/rights point of view, is at least crafting a message that is getting heard by more folks because it caters to their greed rather than a hope that they will care about freedom and what a lack of it might mean to them in the future. But, it's certainly not the same message that RMS is trying to convey - which ultimately is a far more important message.
Slashdot Mirror
To form the possessive of singular nouns ending in s, add 's if it does not make pronunciation difficult. Add only an apostrophe if the additional s makes pronunciation difficult. "He rushed into the Boss's office." "Little is known about Cheryl Moses' life in Paris during the Depression." "James's reptile collection gives me an eerie feeling." In the following example, only the apostrophe is added because adding 's would make pronunciation difficult. "James' snake collection gives me an eerie feeling."
This rule is less strict that "Elements of Style," but I still feel upholds a ruling to add the 's to Adams in the cases mentioned: "Adams's book" and "Adam's God's Debris" are both like "James's reptile" and the added 's is not a pronunciation impediment.
1. Form the possessive singular of mouns by adding 's. Follow this rule whatever the final consonant. Thus write, "Charles's friend", "Burns's poems", and "the witch's malice". Exceptions are the possessives of ancient proper names in -es and -is, the possessive "Jesus'", and such forms as "for conscience' sake", "for righteousness' sake".
Actually, you're completely wrong. A noun that ends in "s" should be treated exactly the same as a non-"s" noun, even in the case of Proper nouns. Thus, "Adams's" is the correct form.
I find Copernic is incredible - it sweeps up all those search engines into its meta-search, including Google and Alta-Vista, sorts the results (in what I find to be a very intelligent manner), and even eliminates bad links from the result set to lower my frustration level. Finally, I'm NEVER bothered by anybody's ads, popups, or other distracting crap. Highly recommended.
Now, I use my Linux box as my development platform, web server, mail server, etc, but I've got to keep Windows around for gaming.
Scare stuff...
Anonymous fool - why should I get a life? Because I tried the patch? Because I enjoy getting better response from my machine? Because I enjoy playing games? Playing games on Linux? Your inane proclamation makes me laugh. You might think of spending more time on positive thoughts - loser. :)
Also, and this is key, the audio in my test game (Loki's Tribes 2 port) DEFINATELY syncs up better with on-screen action, making me think that this type of patch is an incredible boon for us Linux gamers.
It's easy - what's the definition of "terrorist"? Frankly, it doesn't matter at all what the current definition is: just wait a few years, until "suspected terrorist" is equivalent to "suspected of anything, including harboring anti-government sentiments." Then, you see, all these provisions of wiretapping, data gathering, etc, will apply to any citizen that's suspected of not toeing the line. That isn't exactly a breeding ground for freedom and healthy debate...
If you think this is true then how do you explain NT running Battleships (and failing - I forget the article but it was a bruise to MS for sure), and how do explain it's presence on the International Space Station?
Eric Livingston
Chief Technology Officer
Commerce One Global Services
www.commerceone.com
I don't think of myself as a useless management appendage. Too bad yours might be...
Eric Livingston
Chief Technology Officer
Commerce One Global Services
www.commerceone.com
We also have a CIO, who's in charge of our internal IT. It is a non-customer facing role, and is in charge of keeping us operating with the right automation (email servers, file servers, etc).
So, as another poster put it, CTO=customer facing/solution oriented stuff, while CIO=Internal automation/infrastructure stuff.
Eric Livingston
Chief Technology Officer
Commerce One Global Services
www.commerceone.com
Why bother? Because what you ARE allowed to patent yourself are new ideas that build on the original patent. Therefore, if I took that engine idea in his patent, and based on it, created yet another engine that only used 1/4 of the fuel (or whatever), I could patent that.
I was recently the lead inventor on a software patent my former company filed. Part of the application was a section wherein we tried to predict all the improvements one could make on our idea and patent them as well, because if we didn't think of one and someone else did, they could one-up our patent and patent their own, better idea based on ours. And that's ok, as far as how the system's supposed to work.
So, the patent process is actually supposed to spur on innovation because it forces these ideas into the public domain. Why doesn't somebody look over the engine patent and base some new idea off it that makes it even better? Then they could patent that and move things along...
I mean, it's got a lunch-box like handle on top for God's sake - very lame. I hate it.
That way, the transaction is actually "completed" over the phone and not on the web site.
In general, I feel vendors will figure out ways to squirm around this, probably by allowing the consumer to select a higher price vs. less convenience.
The only way to "punish" a company that practices bad mojo like this is to move your money elsewhere - or, I suppose, throw a whole bunch more laws on the books and move us all the closer to being a 100% government run, socialist police state (I'd say now we're only about 90%) there...
Dealers and customers will simply vote with their dollars and Motorola will respond. Frankly, if the dealers all get pissed off and walk, but then Motorola makes three times as much selling on the 'net, then they've made a good business decision. It's up to end-users to care enough not to let that happen, as then all their competitors will see the result and follow suit.
Unfortunately, I have little doubt that consumers will either not know, not care, or both, and so Motorola's biz will likily do fine...
Well, remember that cheetahs are so nearly identical genetically that they may as well be clones, or at least one huge inbreeding experiment. The theory is that at some point in the past 99%+ of them were wiped out, but the stragglers were able to rebuild and now all cheetahs in the world stem from a very, very few ancestors - and thus they are all basically inbreeding. The question being studied with them is: why hasn't all that inbreeding debilitated the species?
Then, start to make it suck and fall well behind the Windows version, forcing more and more users to switch over as they lose support. Finally, discontinue it altogether, leaving Linux users with nothing at all (when now they have alternatives), and crush all possibility of Linux reaching the desktop any time soon.
For that matter, I'm truly surprised that there's no MS Linux distribution, which they would push and market heavily until Red Hat, Corel, and others went out of business, all other distros were ignored, and they were the only game in town (or at least had gathered like 97%+ of the market share). Then, again, just dump the damn thing. Kill it off, and leave everyone sucking wind. While it may not kill Linux off altogether, it would set the effort back a decade or so, and give MS Winblows the opportunity to actually grow into a stable OS that works sometimes, and cement an even greater share of the market.
I think they are a crappy company, and that they make crappy software. My opinion is that they should close up shop and refund customers of their money for all the crappy, negative, low-quality software they produce. And if they'd like to sue me because I said this, well I guess I'll be the one taking them to the supreme court.
Seriously, the Libertarian party is the only one dedicated to all personal and property rights, including the much-abused right to free speech and the trampled right of protection from unreasonable search and seizure. Sure, it won't be overnight, and it probably does make sense to set up something overseas in the meantime (I'll be looking into it) but please take to time to also get out there and vote!
And if it feels hopeless and overwhelming, remember that there is a fast-growing party out there of like-minded folks who are actively paving the way (there are now over 300 Libertarians in public office, all of whom are fighting to end this kind of rights-trampling crap).
Keep in mind that any power to control your property immediately places limits on your individuality (and liberty, including freedom of speech) to the extent that you value that property and wish not to lose it or its utility (a threat that those with the power to control your property can make).
That is why fundamentally Libertarians do not separate Freedom of speech from Freedom to own property outright with no regulation - because you can't have one without the other (think of how "free" an individual would be if the government owned or could control literally all property owned by that individual, such that by falling into disfavor, that individual could find themselves homeless, penniless, and without food, clothes, and anything else). How free would that individual truly be to criticize those with that power, or to act in any way (individually) that might bring negative attention on themselves. Freedom of speech (and true individualism) is absolutely bonded with freedom to own property absolutely, with no form of regulation (including government involvement in big business).
To ask for true freedom to be an individual, while simultaneously asking for government regulation on big business (which, don't forget, are ultimately owned by other people who may very well consider themselves individuals with the right to stay that way) is hypocritical and ultimately self-defeating.
I hope this will be something future cases can stand on as a legal precedent. It's good to see a body of caselaw developing that supports freedom, rather than strip it away.
I also believe strongly in the underlying battle for fundamental civil freedoms and rights behind GNU, and certainly see the distinction between that and Open Source.
Unfortunately, while I rage against the machine (and donate generously to the ACLU and the Libertarian party), I also see it as an inevitably losing battle - I'm becoming more convinced by the day that humans (at least Americans) simply don't truly want freedom - they want to be bounded and "safe". Folks say they want freedom of speech until some KKK member says something they don't like - then it's all about how we need new laws limiting hate speech and whatever else they don't want to hear. Folks like property rights until their neighbor parks some trashed pickup in their front yard - then it's all about how we need new laws restricting what people can do with their property.
It's really not about big business, though I wish it was. It's really about fear people have that somebody else will get a better deal than them, and how to stop that from happening. You could blame the record companies for the rash of new lawsuits and restrictions on freedom, but frankly they can do that because most people just don't care. Freedom is just not an important issue for most people, those of us for whom it is a big issue tend to stand out on some lunatic fringe.
The Open Source movement, while emasculated from a moral/ethical/rights point of view, is at least crafting a message that is getting heard by more folks because it caters to their greed rather than a hope that they will care about freedom and what a lack of it might mean to them in the future. But, it's certainly not the same message that RMS is trying to convey - which ultimately is a far more important message.