gave Tony the call sign N7QVC. Granting him use of this mark
You can't just substitute one word for another and have it make sense. A call sign is not a trademark. I don't know the law completely, but Amateur radio is not Commercial radio, and trademarks are only for commerce. No commercial trade, no trademark is the way the law reads.
in conjunction with all uses of HAM (amateur radio). This would
include QSL cards and website making reference to his HAM activities. This could be
considered a trademark in itself.
without picking on France on the subject of bureaucracy: if you or anyone lives in a country that puts up a stink about extraditing suspected terrorists or former dictators or people who kidnap steal their own children from a spouse, things that matter, why would you go to another country and be surprised that someone might feel uncomfortable lending you money?
actually, it's safer: you can fall 499 floors from a 500 story building without injury. Fall even 25 measly floors from the 25 story building you mentioned and you are dead.
acetylene torches don't cut steal directly, they heat it up first, and then you push a lever to blow pure oxygen at the hot spot and it oxidizes on the spot, and blows away.
well, put it this way: for the first time, you and the wife will agree on what is a good gift. The first wearable computer that impresses her friends, and yours: you married her for better or for worse; why don't you let her know how it's going with The [glint/glitter] Beowulf Cluster.
I'm not disagreeing with you essentially, but I think there's more going on than simply perception.
When the needs are great, small technological improvements generate great benefit. Like, switching from nomadic hunter-gatherer to agriculture and animal husbandry is a small technological change, but a huge change in standard of living, and a huge decrease in risk.
Then, switching from a preindustrial to a postindustrial society was a huge technological leap, but not as incredibly noticeable in society: civilized before, civilized after.
Then, industrialization not only wiped out the need for 95% of our population of farmers, it eventually wiped out the need for 95% of our population of factory workers, creating the service economy of today where most people are working on jobs that were inconceivable to hunter-gatherer (you answer phone calls to support people who answer phone calls from people who need insurance to protect their vacation homes?)
so, the benefits of innovation today only seem to be small, while the innovations themselves (reading the whole fucking human genome, for christ's sake) are far bigger than they've ever been.
Threatening eternal torment for all who don't follow the rules doesn't strike me as a particularly good argument.
You yourself are not making a particularly good argument:
if eternal torment truly awaits those who don't adopt Christian moral beliefs, it is not only a good argument, it's a charitable act for them to try to convince you.
They haven't convinced me yet, but I can see why they are trying: their motives are pure.
Well, it's utterly impossible for them to filter all pornography
mmm, not quite... they could prove you wrong by having the Pope himself do the filtering. The Pope is infallible:)
Re:the first mark-down language
on
Perl and .NET
·
· Score: 1
ou should look at the Sun project to bind elements directly to objects. This is presume is your holy
grail - binding arbitrarily complex data types to fully maleable objects directly.
oh, cool: if I bring steak to the XML BBQ, I can have steak.
Re:the first mark-down language
on
Perl and .NET
·
· Score: 1
what I know of SAX is parsing. who cares about parsing? it's something that should be simple, which it's not with XML, hence the need to used canned parsers.
Semantics is what is interesting, but after parsing XML, DOM does not provide rich or useful semantics for manipulating hierarchical data.
the first mark-down language
on
Perl and .NET
·
· Score: 1
Why is putting words between angle brackets
revolutionary? Did we want a way to represent
hierarchical information in a way that it
could be easily manipulated and checked for
validity?
you are on the right track, but your criticism is misguided; you have obviously never used XML. XML does not make hierarchical information easy to manipulate. XML is the most complex system imaginable for manipulating simple tagged hierarchical information. While the angle bracket bit seems simple enough, the wacky syntax of DTDs, coupled with the meaningless complexity of the DOMs makes a combination that subtracts value in direct proportion to the markup added. It is truly a mark-down language.
a suggested improvement to your RBL would be to make its syntax variable to the user's taste. I've worked on a large number of quick and dirty sorts of hybrids that are superficially similar to what you've done, and have found it a huge pain to wish to parse one of the embedded languages, but having to write a parser for the other one too just to make sure that text which appears to be one language is not in fact a piece of the other one.
BTW, having syntax be a variant property does make it unimportant.
Thanks for the info about Java's stack, though if they don't guarantee it, it would not be a good idea to rely on it. If they do guarantee it, Java programmers should be taught the semantic implications because they could write recursive, simpler to read and debug, code.
I may be using the wrong terminology, but when I learned Scheme (long ago) we were taught to refer to a whole class of semantics as tail recursion.
Using my terminology, You are actually making my point by lapsing into the "advocate language" trap that I'm advocating against. You will fail in anything like the short run to get programmers to change to the languages you are advocating. But, we could advocate and add tail recursive semantics to C and Perl, and programmers could immediately begin to use a semantic notion of iteration that becomes more functional and weans them from the need for "for" and "while" loops.
Incrementally, we'd get to where you want to be more quickly.
Strangely, you probably think that you are thinking more "high level" than I am, and yet your thinking indicates that you dive right into compiler implementation rather than staying at the level of programmer semantics, though perhaps I set you off by using a term that you think refers to a compiler optimization. I'm pointing that out not to tweak your nose, but to advocate for how I think we can best educate programmers: teach them one semantic at a time.
If I should use different terminology to make this point, I'd love to be educated.
actually, I didn't mean at all to imply that syntax is unimportant. What I meant was that talking about and advocating a "language" never sounds convincing. But talking about and advocating for specific semantics is. And, perhaps if enough people started thinking that way, people like Larry Wall would understand the undertaking better in advance, rather than going on to invent a massive (and useful) kluge that has had to undergo some major surgery and still carries a lot of cruft.
if you study "real" computer science you don't talk about "languages": you talk about "semantics". Semantics are the different parts of computer languages that do the interesting things. For example, the semantics of Perl's strings are (the capabilities, the limitations, the expressiveness) are very good. That's why people like Perl. There is no real reason that the C language could not be modified to add Perl's string semantics. Another cool semantic is tail-recursion, a la Scheme. Why don't more languages add tail-recursion?
and too bad more language advocates and language designers and language users don't understand that language semantics are the interesting thing.
you make some reasonable points, somewhat in the right direction, but you're leaving out a lot of chapters. At one time, there was no single "English". There was (forgive me if I have any of these details wrong) Wessex and Sussex and Northumbrian and Kentish and Cornish and they were all fairly different, but then one became dominant and crushed all of the others. Now, the crushees and crushers alike are complaining again.
First, the spelling of words has just about absolutely nothing to do with language. Prove it to yourself: as a child, you learned to speak your native language without ever learning to spell it. There are and have been many languages which never get written. So, changing the spelling of words does not change the language in any way any more than changing the pictures of written Chinese would change Chinese. (And not to mention that the reason Am. and UK English use different spellings is that there was no standard English spelling at the time the two dialects began to diverge)
There are some differences between UK and Am. English vocabulary and pronunciation, but the core grammar, phonology, and morphology are 99% the same. It does not take long after arriving on the other shore to get the hang of understanding and being understood in the other variant.
And you're right, it doesn't matter, except that it's sort of interesting to have differences. The study of Linguistics would be set back a lot if there were no differences.
Your comment is 100% correct, but misses about 80% of the whole story. Vocabulary, which you focus on, is only a small part of "language". Of course, these Spanish speakers you are critiquing are making the same mistake so I guess that makes your comment reasonably appropriate, but the "linguistic truth" is more interesting. The Spanish language could adopt every English word, and it could still be considered to be the Spanish language. Language has far more grammar (word order, verb tensing, gender, agreement, etc.) and phonology (how the sounds combine with one another in a meaningful way) as it does morphology, and morphology includes a bit more than just the lexicon (dictionary/vocabulary). And, this is how English adopts so many foreign words and still remains English. There was some very interesting "congealing" of French with English in the years following the Normon conquest of 1066AD, but the language remained essentially and recognizably English just the same.
People love their native tongues for irrational reasons. But given that, the Spanish speakers of the world (and there are a lot of them) should focus their energy on making their economies more productive. Then other people will actually care what they have to say and will take the trouble to learn their language. I'm not saying that's right and just, but it's just the way it is and has always been.
The point here is that forbidding all privacy, anonymity, and even something as
innocuous as language translation services, is a technical requirement of censorware
That's his conclusion? Awfully sloppy reasoning and just plain wrong: it is not a requirement of censorware at all to block either anonymity or translation. A censoring proxy could (does?) actually provide anonymity itself, and they could provide translations too, if they wanted to.
beyond the security problems, and there are a lot, Exchange is most innappropriate in a hybrid environment. It has loads of defaults that keep sneaking users into using the seamless integration with other parts of Microsoft Office.
If all of your users use Exchange and the Office Suite, that does provide a nice user experience, but it is an ugly, hairy mess to deal with if you are not part of that club. Mail aliases inside Exchange/Outlook are not external aliases, and even simple stuff like exporting your mail out of Exchange into a file is almost impossible though I did figure out a way to do it.
I'm just scratching the surface of the number of problems you will encounter if you are someone who already knows how email works. This is one of those, "If Exchange/Outlook are all you know, you'll think you know everything, but if you know enough to ask, it's not for you" things.
security, yes, but security through obscurity. VMWare is highly complex, and closed source, and you've no idea whether there are buffer overruns or other exploitable vulnerabilities in there.
I'll bet there are.
Gingrich was brought down by the hatred that the media (almost universally 2nd rate intellects) had for him.
Clinton's ethical and legal transgressions (perjury, porking young subordinates, and credible & numerous allegations of coerced sex and credible and numerous allegations of phony financial deals) were far worse than Gingrich's (iffy book deal allegation, politicizing a tax-free organization, and an extra-marital affair).
You will never see the above honest list and matter-of-fact laid out in the media for comparison.
I have no idea what your last line means, but I'm certainly more intellectual than 99% of Slashdot, and, as an atheist, I'm not a member of the religious right. But, I think your calling them "bastards" is illustrative of the hypocrisy of the left which purports to be accepting of freedom of thought and diversity but is in actuality viciously intolerant of anyone who holds politically different beliefs.
Slashdot Mirror
You can't just substitute one word for another and have it make sense. A call sign is not a trademark. I don't know the law completely, but Amateur radio is not Commercial radio, and trademarks are only for commerce. No commercial trade, no trademark is the way the law reads. in conjunction with all uses of HAM (amateur radio). This would include QSL cards and website making reference to his HAM activities. This could be considered a trademark in itself.
without picking on France on the subject of bureaucracy: if you or anyone lives in a country that puts up a stink about extraditing suspected terrorists or former dictators or people who kidnap steal their own children from a spouse, things that matter, why would you go to another country and be surprised that someone might feel uncomfortable lending you money?
it's pretty standard in English writing for a new word to start out hyphenated and over time lose the hyphen as people get used to it.
not just the from slashdot effect, but remember, web museums have been patented, so this'll be gone in no time.
"trust me... nothing like they will if they see you're my X. I'd rather they just think we're a disconnected twisted pair."
actually, it's safer: you can fall 499 floors from a 500 story building without injury. Fall even 25 measly floors from the 25 story building you mentioned and you are dead.
acetylene torches don't cut steal directly, they heat it up first, and then you push a lever to blow pure oxygen at the hot spot and it oxidizes on the spot, and blows away.
well, put it this way: for the first time, you and the wife will agree on what is a good gift. The first wearable computer that impresses her friends, and yours: you married her for better or for worse; why don't you let her know how it's going with The [glint/glitter] Beowulf Cluster.
When the needs are great, small technological improvements generate great benefit. Like, switching from nomadic hunter-gatherer to agriculture and animal husbandry is a small technological change, but a huge change in standard of living, and a huge decrease in risk.
Then, switching from a preindustrial to a postindustrial society was a huge technological leap, but not as incredibly noticeable in society: civilized before, civilized after.
Then, industrialization not only wiped out the need for 95% of our population of farmers, it eventually wiped out the need for 95% of our population of factory workers, creating the service economy of today where most people are working on jobs that were inconceivable to hunter-gatherer (you answer phone calls to support people who answer phone calls from people who need insurance to protect their vacation homes?)
so, the benefits of innovation today only seem to be small, while the innovations themselves (reading the whole fucking human genome, for christ's sake) are far bigger than they've ever been.
You yourself are not making a particularly good argument:
if eternal torment truly awaits those who don't adopt Christian moral beliefs, it is not only a good argument, it's a charitable act for them to try to convince you.
They haven't convinced me yet, but I can see why they are trying: their motives are pure.
mmm, not quite... they could prove you wrong by having the Pope himself do the filtering. The Pope is infallible :)
oh, cool: if I bring steak to the XML BBQ, I can have steak.
Semantics is what is interesting, but after parsing XML, DOM does not provide rich or useful semantics for manipulating hierarchical data.
you are on the right track, but your criticism is misguided; you have obviously never used XML. XML does not make hierarchical information easy to manipulate. XML is the most complex system imaginable for manipulating simple tagged hierarchical information. While the angle bracket bit seems simple enough, the wacky syntax of DTDs, coupled with the meaningless complexity of the DOMs makes a combination that subtracts value in direct proportion to the markup added. It is truly a mark-down language.
BTW, having syntax be a variant property does make it unimportant.
Thanks for the info about Java's stack, though if they don't guarantee it, it would not be a good idea to rely on it. If they do guarantee it, Java programmers should be taught the semantic implications because they could write recursive, simpler to read and debug, code.
Using my terminology, You are actually making my point by lapsing into the "advocate language" trap that I'm advocating against. You will fail in anything like the short run to get programmers to change to the languages you are advocating. But, we could advocate and add tail recursive semantics to C and Perl, and programmers could immediately begin to use a semantic notion of iteration that becomes more functional and weans them from the need for "for" and "while" loops. Incrementally, we'd get to where you want to be more quickly.
Strangely, you probably think that you are thinking more "high level" than I am, and yet your thinking indicates that you dive right into compiler implementation rather than staying at the level of programmer semantics, though perhaps I set you off by using a term that you think refers to a compiler optimization. I'm pointing that out not to tweak your nose, but to advocate for how I think we can best educate programmers: teach them one semantic at a time. If I should use different terminology to make this point, I'd love to be educated.
actually, I didn't mean at all to imply that syntax is unimportant. What I meant was that talking about and advocating a "language" never sounds convincing. But talking about and advocating for specific semantics is. And, perhaps if enough people started thinking that way, people like Larry Wall would understand the undertaking better in advance, rather than going on to invent a massive (and useful) kluge that has had to undergo some major surgery and still carries a lot of cruft.
and too bad more language advocates and language designers and language users don't understand that language semantics are the interesting thing.
you make some reasonable points, somewhat in the right direction, but you're leaving out a lot of chapters. At one time, there was no single "English". There was (forgive me if I have any of these details wrong) Wessex and Sussex and Northumbrian and Kentish and Cornish and they were all fairly different, but then one became dominant and crushed all of the others. Now, the crushees and crushers alike are complaining again.
First, the spelling of words has just about absolutely nothing to do with language. Prove it to yourself: as a child, you learned to speak your native language without ever learning to spell it. There are and have been many languages which never get written. So, changing the spelling of words does not change the language in any way any more than changing the pictures of written Chinese would change Chinese. (And not to mention that the reason Am. and UK English use different spellings is that there was no standard English spelling at the time the two dialects began to diverge)
There are some differences between UK and Am. English vocabulary and pronunciation, but the core grammar, phonology, and morphology are 99% the same. It does not take long after arriving on the other shore to get the hang of understanding and being understood in the other variant.
And you're right, it doesn't matter, except that it's sort of interesting to have differences. The study of Linguistics would be set back a lot if there were no differences.
People love their native tongues for irrational reasons. But given that, the Spanish speakers of the world (and there are a lot of them) should focus their energy on making their economies more productive. Then other people will actually care what they have to say and will take the trouble to learn their language. I'm not saying that's right and just, but it's just the way it is and has always been.
this issue hasn't been determined. The law allows making noncommercial copies as a "fair use", and Napster users are doing it noncommercially.
That's his conclusion? Awfully sloppy reasoning and just plain wrong: it is not a requirement of censorware at all to block either anonymity or translation. A censoring proxy could (does?) actually provide anonymity itself, and they could provide translations too, if they wanted to.
I'm just scratching the surface of the number of problems you will encounter if you are someone who already knows how email works. This is one of those, "If Exchange/Outlook are all you know, you'll think you know everything, but if you know enough to ask, it's not for you" things.
security, yes, but security through obscurity. VMWare is highly complex, and closed source, and you've no idea whether there are buffer overruns or other exploitable vulnerabilities in there. I'll bet there are.
Clinton's ethical and legal transgressions (perjury, porking young subordinates, and credible & numerous allegations of coerced sex and credible and numerous allegations of phony financial deals) were far worse than Gingrich's (iffy book deal allegation, politicizing a tax-free organization, and an extra-marital affair).
You will never see the above honest list and matter-of-fact laid out in the media for comparison.
I have no idea what your last line means, but I'm certainly more intellectual than 99% of Slashdot, and, as an atheist, I'm not a member of the religious right. But, I think your calling them "bastards" is illustrative of the hypocrisy of the left which purports to be accepting of freedom of thought and diversity but is in actuality viciously intolerant of anyone who holds politically different beliefs.