Besides, Foghorn Leghorn's entire manner of speech was meant to parody that of a prominent politician in the days when the character originated. The character was meant to satirize the politician.
This sort of proves the point, though. We want to make fun of someone, but that isn't politic. So we make a cartoon character that talks like the person we want to make fun of. Then we mock the cartoon character. Or, if we want to show that Jews are evil, Africans are ignorant, and Chinese are evil and ignorant, we make aliens that talk like Jews, Africans, and Chinese and then mock the aliens.
I tend to believe George Lucas when he says that wasn't his intent, but it's pretty amazing that the man could be so insensitive...I guess we were all supposed to grin with our big white teeth and say "Yassuh, that's how it is, sho nuf!"
It may not be your fault that you can't find anything else to do; I've worked in environments where you do what you're told and keep your mouth shut or else.
That said, though, can't you find something productive to do with your 45 minutes of downtime?
This is the funniest thing I've read all day and a perfect demonstration of how easy data recovery is if you use a good error-correcting encoding scheme.
No, you're wrong. This sort of behavior will cause the Hugo to become just some sort of popularity contest, where anybody is allowed to vote for whatever books they liked.
Anybody can explain anything, but first there has to be something to explain. Observation precedes explanation. Until a phenomenon is observed, there's no point in trying to explain it. A hallmark of quacks and cranks is pointlessly complicated explanations of phenomenon that cannot be consistently repeated. If I give you some extremely dilute chemical and you drink it and feel better, is that a real phenomenon? Or would you have felt better anyway? Or would you have felt better if I'd given you distilled water and lied about what was in it? Double-blind clinical trials by disinterested parties that are reviewed and confirmed by the FDA are real, reproducible observations. Something your aunt and your cousin and an MD told you is not.
Clouds, blue sky, and green trees are real phenomena. You can observe them independently of me. Anyone can see that they exist. We can then come up with explanations. Those clouds? That's caused by cotton, blowing on the wind. Blue sky? It's a result of all the water in the air. Green trees? The green is the result of a fine film of bacteria that cover leaves. These are all interesting explanations, but they are completely false. However, the phenomena they describe are as real as the table my computer sits on.
On the other hand, there is this tiny pink dragon sitting on my shoulder. Can you explain it? I can't. He says he's the last of his kind and that only I can see him. makes no sense to me, but it's TRUE. Don't dismiss what you can't explain. Oh, wait...you're not dismissing that idea because you can't explain it; you're dismissing it because you can't observe it. I claim that a phenomenon exists, but you can't confirm it. Why bother to try to explain it?
Of course, if there's money to be made in trying to convince you of the existence of my pink dragon, then the sky's the limit...all I need is to find loads of gullible and poorly educated people and sell them my book on finding their own pink dragon. Perhaps the dragon merely needs to be diluted before he's observable.
In my opinion, schooling in its current form.. (at least in the US) does almost as much harm as it does good.
So why are we communicating in the native language of the US over a medium invented, developed, and funded by the US on a website that resides in the US?
What an intriguing analogy...will we remove our obelisk when they begin to eat meat and kill one another? In other words, does the internet act as a homogenizing influence and does the internet act as a corrupting influence?
What a great topic for an essay. Too bad I'm not in college anymore. This sounds like a great way to waste 7-10 pages.
Not to be harsh or anything, but if your "sole purpose" was to modify it, I'd think you would have researched it a bit before you gave its creators money.
I've got no problem with a Honda dealership selling used cars. More power to 'em. But when a 2002-model car is being sold *right beside* the new book...that strikes me as hurting the manufacturer and its employees.
Books are different, because they're intellectual property, right? Guess you haven't heard, then, but car parts can be patented. Computer code in the engines can be copyrighted. The design of the car can be copyrighted. The name is trademarked. A car is COVERED with intellectual property protection at many levels. A book has only a single copyright. Which is more important to protect?
Be VERY careful about advocating limits on the first sale doctrine. Once corporations lock up intellectual property under laws that prevent its resale, real property may start to come under the same kind of control. It's stupid and shortsighted, but in an era when all that matters are the next quarter's profits, it looks really attractive to sacrifice long term good for short term gain.
BTW, there is no such thing as courtesy between two soul-less entities; Amazon, like most publishers, is a corporation.
I feel fine letting Symantec et al worry about studying viruses. I feel fine letting Sun worry about Java. I feel fine letting Microsoft worry about computer security. I feel fine letting the LAPD internal affairs department worry about police corruption. I feel fine letting the military worry about war.
In general, I feel fine about letting the fox worry about the henhouse.
Furthermore, if distributing harmful code in nonexecutable form for the purpose of study and discussion, wouldn't it be far, far worse to distribute harmful binaries that cause loss of data, as Word and Excel often do?
Dealing with idiots is not worth the $$$. Hundreds of thousands of retailers nationwide disagree with you.
Re:Is any of this real?
on
Quark Stars
·
· Score: 2
Exactly...relativity applies across all speeds and scales. So when I think that it took an hour to get to work, that's just in my frame of reference. In my boss's frame of reference, it took 1.0000000000001 hours and I'm late...
You young'ns, always tootin' 'bout somethin' that just happened this decade...and it's still happenin'! Remember MSX? Remember Xenix? Remember Bob?
No?
Just remember...they may have laughed at Einstein, Newton, and Archimedes, but they also laughed at nameless billions...Just because other MS products have survived from 1.0 to 4.0 doesn't mean this one will.
Re:This is the beginning of the revolution
on
Google to Offer API
·
· Score: 2
technet.microsoft.com, perhaps? And not just the articles themselves, but the ones that reference them.
I can't give you any good specific arguments, since I'm not familiary with the specifics of the bill, but here's the tack I'd take: this measure increases the rights of business and corporations and diminishes the rights of individuals and consumers.
Be sure that what you are saying makes sense to a politician. I'm reminded of Contact, which had Jodie Foster as the "good" scientist, and some other guy as the "bad" scientist. My take on the movie was that the "bad" scientist was actually the more effective one, because he spoke the language of those in power and knew how to manipulate them to accomplish the goals of science. Jodie Foster's character didn't do much for science except by chance, because she couldn't make those who held the purse strings understand her. The movie had a happy ending because fo two or three deus ex machinas; in real life that won't happen.
In short, don't even open your mouth to this guy unless you speak his language. Otherwise, you will poison the well for those that come after you: "Oh, great, not another Napster-loving Linux using technology freak..."
Now that I've finished stating the obvious, I'll get back to work...
No, it's not. It's pure pulp fantasy. It goes far beyond the realm of science.
I liked the first two (NPiA and tSotU) but after that it went downhill. I've read all ten books about three times, though, because I still like them better than most other fantasy novels.
So you missed the scene in the first book with the queen of Rebma? And the entire first half of of the second book with Lorraine? And the interlude with Merlin's mother? And the attempted seduction by a creature of chaos on the black road? Or the lady near the end of the world?
Imagine how much more useless ambulance and fire services will be when anyone can contact them from anyphone merely by dialing three digits...oh, wait...
Slashdot Mirror
Besides, Foghorn Leghorn's entire manner of speech was meant to parody that of a prominent politician in the days when the character originated. The character was meant to satirize the politician.
This sort of proves the point, though. We want to make fun of someone, but that isn't politic. So we make a cartoon character that talks like the person we want to make fun of. Then we mock the cartoon character. Or, if we want to show that Jews are evil, Africans are ignorant, and Chinese are evil and ignorant, we make aliens that talk like Jews, Africans, and Chinese and then mock the aliens.
I tend to believe George Lucas when he says that wasn't his intent, but it's pretty amazing that the man could be so insensitive...I guess we were all supposed to grin with our big white teeth and say "Yassuh, that's how it is, sho nuf!"
It may not be your fault that you can't find anything else to do; I've worked in environments where you do what you're told and keep your mouth shut or else.
That said, though, can't you find something productive to do with your 45 minutes of downtime?
This is the funniest thing I've read all day and a perfect demonstration of how easy data recovery is if you use a good error-correcting encoding scheme.
=)
No, you're wrong. This sort of behavior will cause the Hugo to become just some sort of popularity contest, where anybody is allowed to vote for whatever books they liked.
Umm....nevermind.
Anybody can explain anything, but first there has to be something to explain. Observation precedes explanation. Until a phenomenon is observed, there's no point in trying to explain it. A hallmark of quacks and cranks is pointlessly complicated explanations of phenomenon that cannot be consistently repeated. If I give you some extremely dilute chemical and you drink it and feel better, is that a real phenomenon? Or would you have felt better anyway? Or would you have felt better if I'd given you distilled water and lied about what was in it? Double-blind clinical trials by disinterested parties that are reviewed and confirmed by the FDA are real, reproducible observations. Something your aunt and your cousin and an MD told you is not.
Clouds, blue sky, and green trees are real phenomena. You can observe them independently of me. Anyone can see that they exist. We can then come up with explanations. Those clouds? That's caused by cotton, blowing on the wind. Blue sky? It's a result of all the water in the air. Green trees? The green is the result of a fine film of bacteria that cover leaves. These are all interesting explanations, but they are completely false. However, the phenomena they describe are as real as the table my computer sits on.
On the other hand, there is this tiny pink dragon sitting on my shoulder. Can you explain it? I can't. He says he's the last of his kind and that only I can see him. makes no sense to me, but it's TRUE. Don't dismiss what you can't explain. Oh, wait...you're not dismissing that idea because you can't explain it; you're dismissing it because you can't observe it. I claim that a phenomenon exists, but you can't confirm it. Why bother to try to explain it?
Of course, if there's money to be made in trying to convince you of the existence of my pink dragon, then the sky's the limit...all I need is to find loads of gullible and poorly educated people and sell them my book on finding their own pink dragon. Perhaps the dragon merely needs to be diluted before he's observable.
Don't accept what you can't see.
In my opinion, schooling in its current form .. (at least in the US) does almost as much harm as it does good.
So why are we communicating in the native language of the US over a medium invented, developed, and funded by the US on a website that resides in the US?
What an intriguing analogy...will we remove our obelisk when they begin to eat meat and kill one another? In other words, does the internet act as a homogenizing influence and does the internet act as a corrupting influence?
What a great topic for an essay. Too bad I'm not in college anymore. This sounds like a great way to waste 7-10 pages.
Not to be harsh or anything, but if your "sole purpose" was to modify it, I'd think you would have researched it a bit before you gave its creators money.
You've mixed up the parts in the analogy...
Manufacturers make cars. Dealers sell them.
Publishers and authors make books. Bookstores sell them.
The manufacturers/publishers are complaining about the dealers/used book shops
I've got no problem with a Honda dealership selling used cars. More power to 'em. But when a 2002-model car is being sold *right beside* the new book...that strikes me as hurting the manufacturer and its employees.
Books are different, because they're intellectual property, right? Guess you haven't heard, then, but car parts can be patented. Computer code in the engines can be copyrighted. The design of the car can be copyrighted. The name is trademarked. A car is COVERED with intellectual property protection at many levels. A book has only a single copyright. Which is more important to protect?
Be VERY careful about advocating limits on the first sale doctrine. Once corporations lock up intellectual property under laws that prevent its resale, real property may start to come under the same kind of control. It's stupid and shortsighted, but in an era when all that matters are the next quarter's profits, it looks really attractive to sacrifice long term good for short term gain.
BTW, there is no such thing as courtesy between two soul-less entities; Amazon, like most publishers, is a corporation.
I feel fine letting Symantec et al worry about studying viruses.
I feel fine letting Sun worry about Java.
I feel fine letting Microsoft worry about computer security.
I feel fine letting the LAPD internal affairs department worry about police corruption.
I feel fine letting the military worry about war.
In general, I feel fine about letting the fox worry about the henhouse.
Furthermore, if distributing harmful code in nonexecutable form for the purpose of study and discussion, wouldn't it be far, far worse to distribute harmful binaries that cause loss of data, as Word and Excel often do?
Dealing with idiots is not worth the $$$.
Hundreds of thousands of retailers nationwide disagree with you.
Exactly...relativity applies across all speeds and scales. So when I think that it took an hour to get to work, that's just in my frame of reference. In my boss's frame of reference, it took 1.0000000000001 hours and I'm late...
You young'ns, always tootin' 'bout somethin' that just happened this decade...and it's still happenin'!
Remember MSX? Remember Xenix? Remember Bob?
No?
Just remember...they may have laughed at Einstein, Newton, and Archimedes, but they also laughed at nameless billions...Just because other MS products have survived from 1.0 to 4.0 doesn't mean this one will.
technet.microsoft.com, perhaps? And not just the articles themselves, but the ones that reference them.
The O-ring failed on the launch pad. The shuttle didn't blow up until a couple of minutes later.
I can't give you any good specific arguments, since I'm not familiary with the specifics of the bill, but here's the tack I'd take: this measure increases the rights of business and corporations and diminishes the rights of individuals and consumers.
Be sure that what you are saying makes sense to a politician. I'm reminded of Contact, which had Jodie Foster as the "good" scientist, and some other guy as the "bad" scientist. My take on the movie was that the "bad" scientist was actually the more effective one, because he spoke the language of those in power and knew how to manipulate them to accomplish the goals of science. Jodie Foster's character didn't do much for science except by chance, because she couldn't make those who held the purse strings understand her. The movie had a happy ending because fo two or three deus ex machinas; in real life that won't happen.
In short, don't even open your mouth to this guy unless you speak his language. Otherwise, you will poison the well for those that come after you:
"Oh, great, not another Napster-loving Linux using technology freak..."
Now that I've finished stating the obvious, I'll get back to work...
I still hope to run sometime
I don't suppose you live anywere near me, do you?
Amber is pure pulp sci-fantasy
No, it's not. It's pure pulp fantasy. It goes far beyond the realm of science.
I liked the first two (NPiA and tSotU) but after that it went downhill. I've read all ten books about three times, though, because I still like them better than most other fantasy novels.
the sex was completely missing
So you missed the scene in the first book with the queen of Rebma? And the entire first half of of the second book with Lorraine? And the interlude with Merlin's mother? And the attempted seduction by a creature of chaos on the black road? Or the lady near the end of the world?
Did you even read the same book I read?
I would suggest that hackerism doesn't scale.
Imagine how much more useless ambulance and fire services will be when anyone can contact them from anyphone merely by dialing three digits...oh, wait...
Cutting off a pig leg kills the pig leg.
Pig legs are animal byproducts.
He clearly states we will not eat animal byproducts that are killed.
Actually, the most populous area of this dirt ball is asia.
WOW!
You mean the continent with the LARGEST AREA also has the LARGEST POPULATION?
You sure straightened out THAT guy!