I think I would make my password into an end-user license agreement; something like--ByEnteringThisPasswordUserAgreesToIndemnifyComputerOwnerAndHoldHimBlameless.
In the forthcoming book, published on 9 September, Hawking says that M-theory, a form of string theory, will achieve this goal: "M-theory is the unified theory Einstein was hoping to find," he theorises.
In my opinion, it should be the majority that gets to decide.
I agree one hundred percent. And we should get to do that on free speech, too. If 51% of the nation are Democrats, then the Republicans shouldn't even get to have their sound bites quoted in the paper. Until, of course, the pendulum swings back the other direction. Then it's back to free speech again.
According to the quote that would have to be a girl born on Tuesday because the quote in question states that one and only one of the children is a boy born on Tuesday.
Well, no, it didn't say that, and that's one of the ambiguities of the English language. One of my long-remembered riddles is, "I have two coins worth thirty cents, and one of them is not a quarter. What are they." The answer is a: nickle and a quarter. The reasoning is that the nickle is one of the coins and is not a quarter, so it's a valid answer.
I agree that it is common sense, but not for the reasons you list. A trademark can be lost by insufficient policing of it. That's how Aspirin(TM), Escalator(TM), Thermos(TM), and Zipper(TM) all entered the public domain. Now, if the NPB should ever be accused of insufficient policing of the trademark, they can point to the cease-and-desist letter to show that they have been diligent, one might even say "extremely diligent," in policing it.
The interesting thing about this theory...is that it is only ever trotted out to suggest that taxes are too high and that lowering them will increase revenue.
On the contrary. I've seen it used quite often to refute the default ideas on tax increases. I realize I'm over-simplifying, but suppose the legislature wants to increase their revenue for next year by 2%. Their conclusion is that they need to increase their tax rates by 2%. The Laffer curve is then a thought experiment showing that the conclusion is far too simplistic.
The strangest situation I've seen the default ideas on tax increases used is on cigarette and other "sin" taxes. The legislators claim that they want to reduce smoking by increasing cigarette taxes by 10%, and then they simultaneously claim that revenue from cigarette taxes will increase by 10%. Mathematically, the only way that tax revenue can increase by 10% under that situation is if there is no net reduction in smoking.
~Loyal
Re:Cohen Should Abstain from Any Regret
on
The Futurama of Physics
·
· Score: 3, Informative
That is what Isaac Asimov said. Of course he continued to be a Physics professor...
Biochemistry, actually. Perhaps you're thinking of Richard Feynman.
All it takes is one juror who thinks they are "smarter" than the rest
How is it that we can trust jurors to make life-or-death decisions regarding the facts of the case, but we can't trust them with information on the internet?
I agree wholeheartedly. I have been giving this a lot of thought, and here are the things I would like to see happen. 1) Patent: Monopoly reduced to two years. Honestly, after two years you have probably made your investment back, and even if you haven't, market share and brand loyalty have given you a lock on the market. Monopoly weakened to things that can't be reversed engineered. The original idea of patent was that the guilds would no longer keep the secret of making stuff to themselves. Really, if the thing itself tells you how to make it, it was never in danger of being held secret by the guilds in the first place. Ditto, if someone else figures out how to invent it separately. 2) Trademark: monopoly limited to non-descriptive names, regardless of whether they use non-standard spelling. Apple brand computers would make the cut unless someone can figure out how to make computers out of apples. Redee-To-Serv biscuits wouldn't. 3) Copyright: monopoly limited to two years, and current contact information has to appear on the tangible medium. If someone makes a reasonable effort to contact the copyright holder without response, then they are free to make copies. The reasoning here is similar to the reasoning for patent. Oh, and this goes for copies only. In other words, no one could be sued or forced to pay royalties just because they made a documentary about Jazz that included some snippets. Also, all monopolies would expire after two years. For example, if Disney comes out with a singing, dancing mouse such that similar singing, dancing meeces are protected, then in ten years when Disney comes out with singing, dancing mouse II, electric boogaloo, it's instantly unprotected. Alternatively, similar expressions could be unmonopolied such that the week after Paramount makes Indiana Jones I can release Indiana Jones: A New Hope. But ten in five years when Paramount releases Indiana Jones vs. Adolf Hitler, no one else can copy that for two years. Oh, and singing "Happy Birthday to You" at the Crab Shack isn't making a copy. It's performing, for crying in your beer. 4) Trade Secret: Monopoly eliminated entirely.
OK...I shall post a message that you like to set fire to puppies. If you make me take it down, we'll know you do.
You missed the part where the ACTA may have been copyright protected. If, for example, the Australian government claimed that the PPA have violated the government's copyright in the document, then that's a tacit admission that the government own the copyright in said document. In your example, you are the only one who owns copyright in the fire / puppies document, so only you would have the privilege of making yourself take it down.
When a tax, by definition, only affects the top 2%, it ONLY AFFECTS THE TOP 2%!
I understand that when you type all in capital letters then it makes true statements even more true than before.
A number of years ago congress decided to enact a tax that affected only the top wage earners, so they added a 10% tax surcharge on furs, top-of-the line jewelry, and yachts. They reasoned that only rich people bought furs, top-of-the-line jewelry, and yachts, so only rich people would be affected by the tax. Rich people responded by not buying furs, top-of-the line jewelry, and yachts that they otherwise would have bought. As an unintended consequence, the market in furs, top-of-the-line jewelry, and yachts crashed. Unfortunately, top wage earners didn't work making furs, top-of-the-one jewelry, or yachts, so the people who lost their jobs weren't top wage earners, but were affected nonetheless.
I hope that when they passed a law that, by definition, only affects the top 2% of wage earners they remembered to legislate that this law shall have no unintended consequences. Perhaps they should put it all in capital letters.
Once, I peeled off the three decals on the corner of a cube and stuck them in different places to try to stump it. It just peeled them back off and stuck them on in the right places.
This is written from a monetarist's perspective, since there are no more Keynesians of note except for congress, and then only during budgeting debate. The banks had to be bailed out. The reason the banks had to be bailed out is that banks are the way the country increases its money supply. I know many people won't believe this, but when banks make loans then the money from the loan doesn't come from the vault and isn't withdrawn from an account. It's newly created money expressly for the purpose of making the loan. The only semblance of a withdrawal is that a fraction of that money, usually about 10%, has to be earmarked as required reserves from the money the bank has on deposit with the Federal Reserve System. As a corollary, every time you make a payment, then that money is destroyed. That doesn't mean that the dollar bills that you used to make the payment get destroyed. It just means that ten percent of that is no longer earmarked as required reserves.
One symptom of the recent economic crisis is that the banks stopped making loans. Money was no longer being created. At the same time, though, people kept making payments on their loans. Mostly. That means that the rate of destruction of money was greater than the rate of its creation, and the money supply was declining. Another symptom is that cash in the vault grew greater than that needed for day-to-day operations, so banks started depositing that with the Federal Reserve System, making their reserves grow in excess of their reserve requirements. Those dollar bills were no longer in the pockets of people wanting to buy things, and those loans were no longer in the checking accounts of those people, so we were on the precipice of another depression.
The problem congress faced was coming up with a way to explain that to the American people. "Increasing the money supply" doesn't resonate with the taxpayers who were going to have to pick up the tab. "Avoiding a depression" doesn't go far enough to explain the situation. "Too big to fail" on the other hand works. Taxpayers could understand that the banks were being bailed out because of all the people who were going to lose their jobs, plus it's nice to get to avoid a depression. The problem didn't come until later. Chevrolet and Chrysler tried to fail, and they were bigger than any of the banks. Plus, the people they employed were much more visible. Surely, if the banks were too big to fail then the auto makers were. It didn't hurt that the auto workers were voters, so they got bailed out too. After that, though, who doesn't deserve to be bailed out? Anyone laid off is going to have a really hard time of it. Besides, why shouldn't a family man get some help from government, when the bankers are awarding themselves million dollar bonuses out of the bailout money?
So, short term, the banks had to be bailed out. Long term, though, we should change our monetary system so the banks can be allowed to fail. We've had the current system so long that it's hard to imagine a different system, but there are other systems. One such system is outlined in Milton Friedman's "A Program for Monetary Stability."
Firefly is primarily a story about Mal and his journey.
I might suggest that you've missed eight-ninths of the story. Let me suggest an alternative: Firefly is primarily a story about how a rag-tag group on the edge of society can make a life for themselves.
But let's suppose for a moment that you're right and the story is Mal and his journey. Let me propose this question: Why should I watch a series about the events that happen after the main story is resolved?
Yeah, I never buy extended warranties on appliances and electronics because I've heard that the companies rake in about ten times more than they pay out in repairs. But now that lots of people are buying extended warranties, maybe something has changed that makes it reasonable.
At issue is a 1996 law, which contained language later nicknamed the 'fleeing felon' provision, that said fugitives were ineligible to receive federal benefits.
Didn't these people pay their social security taxes? Why shouldn't they receive their benefits? Would you like to know what I'm looking for? A law that contains language that makes violators ineligible to pay taxes.
You have to nitpick pretty far at one arbitrary definition of "troll" to come to the conclusion that they aren't trolling.
I'll try to keep an open mind. Would you please explain to me what a troll is and how what the SBTS is doing is trolling?
If the intent to teach was pure, there would be no need to post in "hostile" forums. The intent is clearly to disrupt these "hostile" forums.
That's certainly false. Whenever people associate only with like-minded people a sort of "group think" sets in where opinions, even false ones, tend to get reinforced. It's only when people are forced to support their arguments, especially against determined opposition, that they truly think about their arguments, understand them, and come to correct conclusions.
Your post has generated more questions for me than answers. For example, you seem to object to third-party definitions, yet you neither support a first-party definition (which I presume would be SBTS's definition) nor a second-party one (wish I presume would be either definitions held by the hostile websites or by Slashdot), nor do you offer a definition of your own. I'm beginning to suspect that the definition is the one I suggested in my title, that a troll is anyone with whom you disagree, in which case I'm a troll and so are you.
You suggested that I'm ignoring the issue at hand, despite the fact that both the original summary and my post dealt almost exclusively with whether the STBS is offering trolling for credit. Then you suggest that the issue at hand is spamming, individualism, and free will, despite the fact that none of those three topics occur in the summary. Would you care to explain?
As I am a Christian who believes in Intelligent Design, please allow me this as an opportunity to defend my brothers. I hold that whether the SBTS requires trolling depends rather strongly on the definition of trolling. I found the following on Wikipedia.
In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional or disciplinary response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.
Since Wikipedia's main focus is on people who disrupt Wikipedia, and not at all with ID per se I claim that Wikipedia's definition is neutral and sufficient. Now, as I parse it, meeting the definition of "troll" rests on four prongs. First, the troll must make a post. Second, the troll's post must be controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant, or off-topic. Third, the troll's post must be in an online community. And fourth, the troll's primary intent must be to provoke other users into an emotional or disciplinary response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.
I think the fist prong is passed pretty easily, at least if the summary is to be believed. For the second prong, I judge the posts to be controversial, non-inflammatory, relevant, and on-topic. Since "or" is the connective then the second prong is passed as well. The third prong is passed also, since "'hostile' websites" is approximately the same as "online community". I believe it fails, however, on the fourth prong. I believe the students' primary intent is either to get a satisfactory grade in the class or to learn. I believe the teacher's primary intent is to teach his students. Now, obviously, the result of the posts MAY be the provocation of emotional or disciplinary responses or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion. However, Wikipedia's definition didn't state that such was the result. It stated only that such must be the troll's primary intent. Since a concept must meet all its prongs prongs to meet the definition, I claim that the only possible conclusion is that these are not trolls, and this is not the fist case of trolling the net being part of course requirements.
If your alarm bells weren't ringing about China long before...
Big "if". Or maybe I should say "really big 'if'". It's like that Twinkie(TM) in Ghostbusters. It's thirty-five feet long, weighing approximately six hundred pounds.
You are sitting on/. typing your rant on a computer that was largely made with Chinese parts/labor, probably wearing shoes/clothing that were made in China and god knows what else. I'm sorry but you don't get to throw stones when you live in a glass house.
Objection, your honor. Assumes facts not in evidence. Strawman. I've always been amazed at the assumption that a culture should be made to starve and otherwise live in abject poverty just so that someone else can have the privilege of criticizing.
One of my friends came up with a Western Union teletype that still had some paper with their name along one edge. The paper was yellowed with age. The teletype used a 5-bit baudot code, which wikipedia says Western Union stopped using in 1950. We hacked a printer port into an Atari 800, and started putting out the baudot. We had plans to write things like "JAPAN BOMBS PEARL HARBOR!" or "DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN!" which would have looked wicked on the yellow Western Union paper, but we settled for writing things like "The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog." and "All good men come to the aid of their country."
Slashdot Mirror
I think I would make my password into an end-user license agreement; something like--ByEnteringThisPasswordUserAgreesToIndemnifyComputerOwnerAndHoldHimBlameless.
~Loyal
In the forthcoming book, published on 9 September, Hawking says that M-theory, a form of string theory, will achieve this goal: "M-theory is the unified theory Einstein was hoping to find," he theorises.
You just have to have faith.
~Loyal
In my opinion, it should be the majority that gets to decide.
I agree one hundred percent. And we should get to do that on free speech, too. If 51% of the nation are Democrats, then the Republicans shouldn't even get to have their sound bites quoted in the paper. Until, of course, the pendulum swings back the other direction. Then it's back to free speech again.
~Loyal
And if everyone in the nation did that then we would be a pink car nation.
~Loyal
According to the quote that would have to be a girl born on Tuesday because the quote in question states that one and only one of the children is a boy born on Tuesday.
Well, no, it didn't say that, and that's one of the ambiguities of the English language. One of my long-remembered riddles is, "I have two coins worth thirty cents, and one of them is not a quarter. What are they." The answer is a: nickle and a quarter. The reasoning is that the nickle is one of the coins and is not a quarter, so it's a valid answer.
~Loyal
I agree that it is common sense, but not for the reasons you list. A trademark can be lost by insufficient policing of it. That's how Aspirin(TM), Escalator(TM), Thermos(TM), and Zipper(TM) all entered the public domain. Now, if the NPB should ever be accused of insufficient policing of the trademark, they can point to the cease-and-desist letter to show that they have been diligent, one might even say "extremely diligent," in policing it.
~Loyal
The interesting thing about this theory...is that it is only ever trotted out to suggest that taxes are too high and that lowering them will increase revenue.
On the contrary. I've seen it used quite often to refute the default ideas on tax increases. I realize I'm over-simplifying, but suppose the legislature wants to increase their revenue for next year by 2%. Their conclusion is that they need to increase their tax rates by 2%. The Laffer curve is then a thought experiment showing that the conclusion is far too simplistic.
The strangest situation I've seen the default ideas on tax increases used is on cigarette and other "sin" taxes. The legislators claim that they want to reduce smoking by increasing cigarette taxes by 10%, and then they simultaneously claim that revenue from cigarette taxes will increase by 10%. Mathematically, the only way that tax revenue can increase by 10% under that situation is if there is no net reduction in smoking.
~Loyal
That is what Isaac Asimov said. Of course he continued to be a Physics professor...
Biochemistry, actually. Perhaps you're thinking of Richard Feynman.
~Loyal
All it takes is one juror who thinks they are "smarter" than the rest
How is it that we can trust jurors to make life-or-death decisions regarding the facts of the case, but we can't trust them with information on the internet?
~Loyal
I agree wholeheartedly. I have been giving this a lot of thought, and here are the things I would like to see happen. 1) Patent: Monopoly reduced to two years. Honestly, after two years you have probably made your investment back, and even if you haven't, market share and brand loyalty have given you a lock on the market. Monopoly weakened to things that can't be reversed engineered. The original idea of patent was that the guilds would no longer keep the secret of making stuff to themselves. Really, if the thing itself tells you how to make it, it was never in danger of being held secret by the guilds in the first place. Ditto, if someone else figures out how to invent it separately. 2) Trademark: monopoly limited to non-descriptive names, regardless of whether they use non-standard spelling. Apple brand computers would make the cut unless someone can figure out how to make computers out of apples. Redee-To-Serv biscuits wouldn't. 3) Copyright: monopoly limited to two years, and current contact information has to appear on the tangible medium. If someone makes a reasonable effort to contact the copyright holder without response, then they are free to make copies. The reasoning here is similar to the reasoning for patent. Oh, and this goes for copies only. In other words, no one could be sued or forced to pay royalties just because they made a documentary about Jazz that included some snippets. Also, all monopolies would expire after two years. For example, if Disney comes out with a singing, dancing mouse such that similar singing, dancing meeces are protected, then in ten years when Disney comes out with singing, dancing mouse II, electric boogaloo, it's instantly unprotected. Alternatively, similar expressions could be unmonopolied such that the week after Paramount makes Indiana Jones I can release Indiana Jones: A New Hope. But ten in five years when Paramount releases Indiana Jones vs. Adolf Hitler, no one else can copy that for two years. Oh, and singing "Happy Birthday to You" at the Crab Shack isn't making a copy. It's performing, for crying in your beer. 4) Trade Secret: Monopoly eliminated entirely.
~Loyal
OK...I shall post a message that you like to set fire to puppies. If you make me take it down, we'll know you do.
You missed the part where the ACTA may have been copyright protected. If, for example, the Australian government claimed that the PPA have violated the government's copyright in the document, then that's a tacit admission that the government own the copyright in said document. In your example, you are the only one who owns copyright in the fire / puppies document, so only you would have the privilege of making yourself take it down.
~Loyal
When a tax, by definition, only affects the top 2%, it ONLY AFFECTS THE TOP 2%!
I understand that when you type all in capital letters then it makes true statements even more true than before.
A number of years ago congress decided to enact a tax that affected only the top wage earners, so they added a 10% tax surcharge on furs, top-of-the line jewelry, and yachts. They reasoned that only rich people bought furs, top-of-the-line jewelry, and yachts, so only rich people would be affected by the tax. Rich people responded by not buying furs, top-of-the line jewelry, and yachts that they otherwise would have bought. As an unintended consequence, the market in furs, top-of-the-line jewelry, and yachts crashed. Unfortunately, top wage earners didn't work making furs, top-of-the-one jewelry, or yachts, so the people who lost their jobs weren't top wage earners, but were affected nonetheless.
I hope that when they passed a law that, by definition, only affects the top 2% of wage earners they remembered to legislate that this law shall have no unintended consequences. Perhaps they should put it all in capital letters.
~Loyal
Once, I peeled off the three decals on the corner of a cube and stuck them in different places to try to stump it. It just peeled them back off and stuck them on in the right places.
~Loyal
This is written from a monetarist's perspective, since there are no more Keynesians of note except for congress, and then only during budgeting debate. The banks had to be bailed out. The reason the banks had to be bailed out is that banks are the way the country increases its money supply. I know many people won't believe this, but when banks make loans then the money from the loan doesn't come from the vault and isn't withdrawn from an account. It's newly created money expressly for the purpose of making the loan. The only semblance of a withdrawal is that a fraction of that money, usually about 10%, has to be earmarked as required reserves from the money the bank has on deposit with the Federal Reserve System. As a corollary, every time you make a payment, then that money is destroyed. That doesn't mean that the dollar bills that you used to make the payment get destroyed. It just means that ten percent of that is no longer earmarked as required reserves.
One symptom of the recent economic crisis is that the banks stopped making loans. Money was no longer being created. At the same time, though, people kept making payments on their loans. Mostly. That means that the rate of destruction of money was greater than the rate of its creation, and the money supply was declining. Another symptom is that cash in the vault grew greater than that needed for day-to-day operations, so banks started depositing that with the Federal Reserve System, making their reserves grow in excess of their reserve requirements. Those dollar bills were no longer in the pockets of people wanting to buy things, and those loans were no longer in the checking accounts of those people, so we were on the precipice of another depression.
The problem congress faced was coming up with a way to explain that to the American people. "Increasing the money supply" doesn't resonate with the taxpayers who were going to have to pick up the tab. "Avoiding a depression" doesn't go far enough to explain the situation. "Too big to fail" on the other hand works. Taxpayers could understand that the banks were being bailed out because of all the people who were going to lose their jobs, plus it's nice to get to avoid a depression. The problem didn't come until later. Chevrolet and Chrysler tried to fail, and they were bigger than any of the banks. Plus, the people they employed were much more visible. Surely, if the banks were too big to fail then the auto makers were. It didn't hurt that the auto workers were voters, so they got bailed out too. After that, though, who doesn't deserve to be bailed out? Anyone laid off is going to have a really hard time of it. Besides, why shouldn't a family man get some help from government, when the bankers are awarding themselves million dollar bonuses out of the bailout money?
So, short term, the banks had to be bailed out. Long term, though, we should change our monetary system so the banks can be allowed to fail. We've had the current system so long that it's hard to imagine a different system, but there are other systems. One such system is outlined in Milton Friedman's "A Program for Monetary Stability."
~Loyal
Firefly is primarily a story about Mal and his journey.
I might suggest that you've missed eight-ninths of the story. Let me suggest an alternative: Firefly is primarily a story about how a rag-tag group on the edge of society can make a life for themselves.
But let's suppose for a moment that you're right and the story is Mal and his journey. Let me propose this question: Why should I watch a series about the events that happen after the main story is resolved?
-Loyal
The part that needs to be eliminated in the reboot is the movie. I want to see a series that includes Wash and Sheppard Book.
-Loyal
Yeah, I never buy extended warranties on appliances and electronics because I've heard that the companies rake in about ten times more than they pay out in repairs. But now that lots of people are buying extended warranties, maybe something has changed that makes it reasonable.
~Loyal
p.s. Wait a minute! Who's telling me this!
At issue is a 1996 law, which contained language later nicknamed the 'fleeing felon' provision, that said fugitives were ineligible to receive federal benefits.
Didn't these people pay their social security taxes? Why shouldn't they receive their benefits? Would you like to know what I'm looking for? A law that contains language that makes violators ineligible to pay taxes.
-Loyal
You have to nitpick pretty far at one arbitrary definition of "troll" to come to the conclusion that they aren't trolling.
I'll try to keep an open mind. Would you please explain to me what a troll is and how what the SBTS is doing is trolling?
If the intent to teach was pure, there would be no need to post in "hostile" forums. The intent is clearly to disrupt these "hostile" forums.
That's certainly false. Whenever people associate only with like-minded people a sort of "group think" sets in where opinions, even false ones, tend to get reinforced. It's only when people are forced to support their arguments, especially against determined opposition, that they truly think about their arguments, understand them, and come to correct conclusions.
-Loyal
Your post has generated more questions for me than answers. For example, you seem to object to third-party definitions, yet you neither support a first-party definition (which I presume would be SBTS's definition) nor a second-party one (wish I presume would be either definitions held by the hostile websites or by Slashdot), nor do you offer a definition of your own. I'm beginning to suspect that the definition is the one I suggested in my title, that a troll is anyone with whom you disagree, in which case I'm a troll and so are you.
You suggested that I'm ignoring the issue at hand, despite the fact that both the original summary and my post dealt almost exclusively with whether the STBS is offering trolling for credit. Then you suggest that the issue at hand is spamming, individualism, and free will, despite the fact that none of those three topics occur in the summary. Would you care to explain?
-Loyal
As I am a Christian who believes in Intelligent Design, please allow me this as an opportunity to defend my brothers. I hold that whether the SBTS requires trolling depends rather strongly on the definition of trolling. I found the following on Wikipedia.
In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional or disciplinary response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.
Since Wikipedia's main focus is on people who disrupt Wikipedia, and not at all with ID per se I claim that Wikipedia's definition is neutral and sufficient. Now, as I parse it, meeting the definition of "troll" rests on four prongs. First, the troll must make a post. Second, the troll's post must be controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant, or off-topic. Third, the troll's post must be in an online community. And fourth, the troll's primary intent must be to provoke other users into an emotional or disciplinary response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.
I think the fist prong is passed pretty easily, at least if the summary is to be believed. For the second prong, I judge the posts to be controversial, non-inflammatory, relevant, and on-topic. Since "or" is the connective then the second prong is passed as well. The third prong is passed also, since "'hostile' websites" is approximately the same as "online community". I believe it fails, however, on the fourth prong. I believe the students' primary intent is either to get a satisfactory grade in the class or to learn. I believe the teacher's primary intent is to teach his students. Now, obviously, the result of the posts MAY be the provocation of emotional or disciplinary responses or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion. However, Wikipedia's definition didn't state that such was the result. It stated only that such must be the troll's primary intent. Since a concept must meet all its prongs prongs to meet the definition, I claim that the only possible conclusion is that these are not trolls, and this is not the fist case of trolling the net being part of course requirements.
-Loyal
If your alarm bells weren't ringing about China long before...
Big "if". Or maybe I should say "really big 'if'". It's like that Twinkie(TM) in Ghostbusters. It's thirty-five feet long, weighing approximately six hundred pounds.
You are sitting on /. typing your rant on a computer that was largely made with Chinese parts/labor, probably wearing shoes/clothing that were made in China and god knows what else. I'm sorry but you don't get to throw stones when you live in a glass house.
Objection, your honor. Assumes facts not in evidence. Strawman. I've always been amazed at the assumption that a culture should be made to starve and otherwise live in abject poverty just so that someone else can have the privilege of criticizing.
-Loyal
Yeah, that's why I never leave a leopard. I just post a sign stating "Beware of Leopard."
-Loyal
While that might be true in "this" lifetime, it wasn't in previous ones.
-Loyal
One of my friends came up with a Western Union teletype that still had some paper with their name along one edge. The paper was yellowed with age. The teletype used a 5-bit baudot code, which wikipedia says Western Union stopped using in 1950. We hacked a printer port into an Atari 800, and started putting out the baudot. We had plans to write things like "JAPAN BOMBS PEARL HARBOR!" or "DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN!" which would have looked wicked on the yellow Western Union paper, but we settled for writing things like "The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog." and "All good men come to the aid of their country."
-Loyal