Greetings, I believe this is the first time we've actually crossed in a thread.
Reading the grandparent, I thought that it was so absurd that it was a troll. No-one could actually believe such nonsense, surely. However, from his second reply, it appears he does!
Not only were the Greek tales written down - they were _annotated_ with images of the events and people portrayed in the tales. This makes them remarkably close in concept to modern comics.
[Side note - who was saying "ubermensch can't mean superman as uber means over, so ubermensch means overman"? Would that person please inform me what "comic" means? Funny, perchance? And yet we see that a large proportion of what are called comics are indeed not funny. What can we learn from this? Simple - never rely on robotic literal word substitution if you want actual _meanings_ of words. Etymology isn't definition.]
Also, the Greeks had a fairly well-defined system of categorising the ranks and roles of the characters they wrote about. Gods and god-equivalents, half-gods, heroes with preternatural powers, and of course mere humans.
Why? BEcause they're in different markets, there's no brand confusion possible. Except, of course, that that's not true: SUPERHEROE is trademarked in the identical market to which DC and Marvel operate. So yes, the USPTO is incompetant. No news there.
I seem to remember the Greeks writing tales of superheroes about 2 millennia before DC or Marvel "invented" the concept? And they weren't the first. There was no invention, nor need there be for a trademark. The only novelty required for a trademark is the application of a term to an object of trade in order to distinguish it.
Patently, applying a term like "super hero" to fantastic heroic figures is almost devoid of any such novelty.
Just because uber translates to over (and above), and mensch translates to man, it doesn't mean that ubermensch translates to over-man. Look in the dictionary - super- means both over and above. Superman is not just/a/ valid translation for ubermensch, but is also/the single most commonly used/ translation of it.
""" Microsoft's site will not have the kind of controversial material that has popped up at Black Hat. "All researchers at the BlueHat are responsible," Kornbrust said. """
i.e. All researchers will be gagged/censored.
That's not taking security responsibly - that's marketting spin pretending to be addressing security.
So basically it's the SOSO from M$, they've been spinning that yarn for nearly a decade.
There's no freaking way jcarter's post was a troll. It's only people with opinions like his that are helping linux steer away from being as bad and luser-friendly as Windows.
Given how this thread started, I may as well offer a word-substitution here too:
s/distractors/detractors/
To detract is to make something less attractive (de- and a- being rough opposites. Then again, dis- and a- are opposites too, so the mistake is understandable).
I know nintendo's out of fashion, but it's hard to beat good old Diddy Kong Racing. The more experienced player just needs to chose a more difficult to drive racer. This is actually beneficial, as it forces you to learn skills and techniques that would be more useful in advanced stages of the single-player game.
My guess is that the Mario Kart games are as good for the same reasons.
However, finally, and this is a serious suggestion, and quite fun too...... get drunk!
Well, not drunk, but more than just a little bit lubricated. I normally give myself a 4-pint handicap when playing my girlfriend at DKR, for example.
The only way increasing compilation speed would be useful is if build-from-sourcers swallow their pride and finally add up to the fact that compilation actually does take a large amount of CPU time. So much time, in fact, that the few% savings made in the programs used would take months or years to pay off.
I count CPU cycles, as I use my machines as a compute farm. I spent very little time as a build-from-sourcer when I realised the savings were negative unless you want an OS that basically never updates.
I also don't think you'll find it in Jewish scripture.
We only have little-red-riding-hood's word for it that the wolf said "all the better to eat you with". That phrase doesn't appear in any Lupine tracts.
"The issue in question is not whether the Jews think that their Messiah is divine. We are talking about your statement, "By Christians' definitions, Jesus _cannot_ be the Jewish messiah." We are therefore using Christian definitions both for the Jewish Messiah and the Christian Christ."
The Christians have cannot define what the Jewish Messiah is. The Jews get to define what their Messiah is, because it's their religion.
If he were to exist, not a belief I subscribe to as I view all religions as just fairy-tales, then the single corporeal entity Jesus cannot simultaniously satisfy the Christian requirement that the Christ be God, God the Son as some say, and the Jewish requirement that he be not-God. The Old testament does explicitly state that the Messiah will be a man. To now say "ah, but that doesn't explicitly exclude the possibility that he actually be a shaped meat-ball from the flying spaghetti monster" would be to introduce into the Jewish belief system something of such fundamental importance that for the canonical scriptures to not have otherwise recorded it would be an _utter_ absurdity.
"Hey Jews - you forgot to mention that this Messiah guy would be divine." "Oy vay, thanks for telling us." Oh, please.
However, all the texts, and all the beliefs, are absurdities. Belief that they have any epistemological or teleological validity is a psychosis, and putting any faith in them as a historical record is a grave error too.
"Some input device configuration may end in arbitrary mouse movements or lockups."
You don't see that as being a bit of a fundamental flaw?
"Here's your new super-secure machine. Oh - by the way, the keyboard mightn't work, and may screw your usage of the mouse, which might lock up entirely"
And it's also, in part, an exercise in bullshitting. e.g. "He is also credited with being the first man to shift physics from a philosophical activity to an experimental one."
Only by people who don't consider measuring the diameter of the earth to be physics.
Or by people who don't consider measuring the weight of displaced water by floating and immersed bodies physics.
Or by people who generally don't realise quite how brilliant some of the Greeks, some of whom predate the era being talked about by over a thousand years, were.
Don't get me wrong - at other times I praise highly the incredible advances made in the region we now call the middle east in ancient times, in particular in my favourite field - discrete mathematics. But I simply think that you shouldn't tarnish an otherwise good report with unverifiable or refutable fabrications.
Yup. No-one I know has ever been able to counter this very punchy little summary:
"The Talmud nowhere indicates a belief in a superhuman Deliverer as the Messiah." Cohen, Everyman's Talmud: The Major Teachings of the Rabbinic Sages 1949. Chap. XI, The Hereafter.
The Christian view of what a messiah is is vastly different from what the Christian view of what a messiah is. By Christians' definitions, Jesus _cannot_ be the Jewish messiah.
There are some Jews who do have some differing minority opinions though on this matter, but I've never met one, and to be honest, I wouldn't want to discuss the point with them as I can't stand such rabid quoters, in particular religious ones. (And no, me quoting Cohen above doesn't make me a rabid quoter - Cohen simply says "that stuff isn't in your texts", which is very different from "all this stuff is in our texts".)
Islam, as its holy tracts, includes (some subset of*) the Hebrew and the Christian testaments. Mohammed added very little, volume-wise, to the corpus. Bugger all, in reality, as it was people 100-200 years after Mohammed who were the creative ones** in their compilation of FoaF-attested Suras.
FP. [* Likewise, Judaism only accepts a subset of the books into its current version of the official list; and Christianity only accepts a _tiny_ subset - there are several dozen Gospels that have bubbled into and out of popularity over the last 2 millennia, not just 4, for example.] [** Just like Christianity.]
'I guess they aren't "gay bars" anymore, they are "gay-friendly bars"? '
My girlfriend and I used to hang around with a bunch of mates, the majority of whom were gay, and we would often head out towards what were certainly best described as gay-friendly bars. Fortunately they were straight-friendly too, but I expected no different. I don't object to the term "gay bars", and would happily apply it to the places we went to, but to pretend that by default they would be exclusive would be a sign of ignorance. (Amusingly, we both could have pulled on a few occasions, had we been so inclined!)
Of course, we never went to the Blue Oyster Bar...
FP. (Not hanging around with the same bunch of mates only because we moved country, before you ask. Quite missing them - they were a scream!)
P.S. UK-ish 'mates' = US-ish chums/pals. Nothing to do with 'mating'!:-P
Slashdot Mirror
Greetings, I believe this is the first time we've actually crossed in a thread.
Reading the grandparent, I thought that it was so absurd that it was a troll. No-one could actually believe such nonsense, surely. However, from his second reply, it appears he does!
Not only were the Greek tales written down - they were _annotated_ with images of the events and people portrayed in the tales. This makes them remarkably close in concept to modern comics.
[Side note - who was saying "ubermensch can't mean superman as uber means over, so ubermensch means overman"? Would that person please inform me what "comic" means? Funny, perchance? And yet we see that a large proportion of what are called comics are indeed not funny. What can we learn from this? Simple - never rely on robotic literal word substitution if you want actual _meanings_ of words. Etymology isn't definition.]
Also, the Greeks had a fairly well-defined system of categorising the ranks and roles of the characters they wrote about. Gods and god-equivalents, half-gods, heroes with preternatural powers, and of course mere humans.
Hmmm, so have I actually been trolled?
FP.
Why? BEcause they're in different markets, there's no brand confusion possible.
Except, of course, that that's not true: SUPERHEROE is trademarked in the identical market to which DC and Marvel operate. So yes, the USPTO is incompetant. No news there.
I seem to remember the Greeks writing tales of superheroes about 2 millennia before DC or Marvel "invented" the concept? And they weren't the first. There was no invention, nor need there be for a trademark. The only novelty required for a trademark is the application of a term to an object of trade in order to distinguish it.
Patently, applying a term like "super hero" to fantastic heroic figures is almost devoid of any such novelty.
Just because uber translates to over (and above), and mensch translates to man, it doesn't mean that ubermensch translates to over-man. Look in the dictionary - super- means both over and above. Superman is not just /a/ valid translation for ubermensch, but is also /the single most commonly used/ translation of it.
('plogs about not having any diacriticals.)
The full OED gives a published use of the term, hyphenated, in 1917
"Airman's Outings", by "Contact" (author's pseudonym).
If you ask me, it's just a word, nothing more, and should not
be valid as a trademark.
Don't like them? Then give them a bad review at another search portal - amazon:
/ B00006BZ5W/ref=cm_rev_all_1/103-4818698-6196652?%5 Fencoding=UTF8&s=theweb
:-) ...
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews
Since I voted, they went from 3 stars to 2 1/2
I'm sure slashdot can take them down to 1 star in a matter of minutes
FP.
Rewind to the 80s.
IBM = "Big Blue"
3 syllables vs. 2 - everyone I know always used the short form.
"""
Microsoft's site will not have the kind of controversial material that has popped up at Black Hat. "All researchers at the BlueHat are responsible," Kornbrust said.
"""
i.e. All researchers will be gagged/censored.
That's not taking security responsibly - that's marketting spin pretending to be addressing security.
So basically it's the SOSO from M$, they've been spinning that yarn for nearly a decade.
FP.
There's no freaking way jcarter's post was a troll.
It's only people with opinions like his that are helping linux steer away from being as bad and luser-friendly as Windows.
If I meet you in meta-mod, I'll know what to do.
Given how this thread started, I may as well offer a word-substitution here too:
s/distractors/detractors/
To detract is to make something less attractive (de- and a- being rough opposites. Then again, dis- and a- are opposites too, so the mistake is understandable).
I know nintendo's out of fashion, but it's hard to beat good old Diddy Kong Racing. The more experienced player just needs to chose a more difficult to drive racer. This is actually beneficial, as it forces you to learn skills and techniques that would be more useful in advanced stages of the single-player game.
... get drunk!
My guess is that the Mario Kart games are as good for the same reasons.
However, finally, and this is a serious suggestion, and quite fun too...
Well, not drunk, but more than just a little bit lubricated. I normally
give myself a 4-pint handicap when playing my girlfriend at DKR, for
example.
FP.
You're right.
Anyone who says otherwise is an ill-informed.
The only way increasing compilation speed would be useful is if build-from-sourcers swallow their pride and finally add up to
the fact that compilation actually does take a large amount of
CPU time. So much time, in fact, that the few% savings made in
the programs used would take months or years to pay off.
I count CPU cycles, as I use my machines as a compute farm.
I spent very little time as a build-from-sourcer when I realised
the savings were negative unless you want an OS that basically
never updates.
Hmmm, when put in perspective, this ain't a bad demo after all.
Selective amnesia has caused me to purge all memories of M$ crap out of my mind. I'll forgive you, just this once, for reminding me!
I also don't think you'll find it in Jewish scripture.
We only have little-red-riding-hood's word for it that the wolf said "all the better to eat you with". That phrase doesn't appear in any Lupine tracts.
"The issue in question is not whether the Jews think that their Messiah is divine. We are talking about your statement, "By Christians' definitions, Jesus _cannot_ be the Jewish messiah." We are therefore using Christian definitions both for the Jewish Messiah and the Christian Christ."
The Christians have cannot define what the Jewish Messiah is.
The Jews get to define what their Messiah is, because it's their religion.
If he were to exist, not a belief I subscribe to as I view all religions as just fairy-tales, then the single corporeal entity Jesus cannot simultaniously satisfy the Christian requirement that the Christ be God, God the Son as some say, and the Jewish requirement that he be not-God. The Old testament does explicitly state that the Messiah will be a man. To now say "ah, but that doesn't explicitly exclude the possibility that he actually be a shaped meat-ball from the flying spaghetti monster" would be to introduce into the Jewish belief system something of such fundamental importance that for the canonical scriptures to not have otherwise recorded it would be an _utter_ absurdity.
"Hey Jews - you forgot to mention that this Messiah guy would be divine."
"Oy vay, thanks for telling us."
Oh, please.
However, all the texts, and all the beliefs, are absurdities. Belief that they have any epistemological or teleological validity is a psychosis, and putting any faith in them as a historical record is a grave error too.
FP.
The Christian Christ is the son of God and divine.
The Jewish Messiah is just a mortal man and not divine.
Therefore the Christian Christ cannot be the Jewish Messiah.
Let Jesus into my bum?
:-)
Someone didn't preview
"In the Christian New Testament all the books had to be writen by an eyewittness of the man Jesus or a very close associate of one"
Right, that's Matthew, Mark, Luke and John in the bin then.
What's left?
"Some input device configuration may end in arbitrary mouse movements or lockups."
You don't see that as being a bit of a fundamental flaw?
"Here's your new super-secure machine. Oh - by the way, the keyboard mightn't work, and may screw your usage of the mouse, which might lock up entirely"
"Gee, thanks"
And it's also, in part, an exercise in bullshitting.
e.g.
"He is also credited with being the first man to shift physics from a philosophical activity to an experimental one."
Only by people who don't consider measuring the diameter of the earth to be physics.
Or by people who don't consider measuring the weight of displaced water by floating and immersed bodies physics.
Or by people who generally don't realise quite how brilliant some of the Greeks, some of whom predate the era being talked about by over a thousand years, were.
Don't get me wrong - at other times I praise highly the incredible advances made in the region we now call the middle east in ancient times, in particular in my favourite field - discrete mathematics. But I simply think that you shouldn't tarnish an otherwise good report with unverifiable or refutable fabrications.
FP.
Yup. No-one I know has ever been able to counter this very punchy little summary:
"The Talmud nowhere indicates a belief in a superhuman Deliverer as the Messiah." Cohen, Everyman's Talmud: The Major Teachings of the Rabbinic Sages
1949. Chap. XI, The Hereafter.
The Christian view of what a messiah is is vastly different from what the Christian view of what a messiah is. By Christians' definitions, Jesus _cannot_ be the Jewish messiah.
There are some Jews who do have some differing minority opinions though on this matter, but I've never met one, and to be honest, I wouldn't want to discuss the point with them as I can't stand such rabid quoters, in particular religious ones.
(And no, me quoting Cohen above doesn't make me a rabid quoter - Cohen simply says "that stuff isn't in your texts", which is very different from "all this stuff is in our texts".)
No, exactly not like that.
Islam, as its holy tracts, includes (some subset of*) the Hebrew and the Christian testaments. Mohammed added very little, volume-wise, to the corpus. Bugger all, in reality, as it was people 100-200 years after Mohammed who were the creative ones** in their compilation of FoaF-attested Suras.
FP.
[* Likewise, Judaism only accepts a subset of the books into its current version of the official list; and Christianity only accepts a _tiny_ subset - there are several dozen Gospels that have bubbled into and out of popularity over the last 2 millennia, not just 4, for example.]
[** Just like Christianity.]
Never store a /hash/ like md5 or SHA*.
Instead, use the Young-Hammond-Baker Transform (YHBT).
HTH,
FP.
Why post AC?
I'm a huge pro-linux advocate, and I would have said exactly the same thing as you, and been proud to have my name attached to it.
The more idiots that make fuckwitted mistakes the more it dilutes the _sound_ reasons for running linux.
This was not an 'oops' this was a stupid fuckup.
Glad to be running Debian,
FP.
'I guess they aren't "gay bars" anymore, they are "gay-friendly bars"? '
:-P
My girlfriend and I used to hang around with a bunch of mates, the majority of whom were gay, and we would often head out towards what were certainly best described as gay-friendly bars. Fortunately they were straight-friendly too, but I expected no different. I don't object to the term "gay bars", and would happily apply it to the places we went to, but to pretend that by default they would be exclusive would be a sign of ignorance. (Amusingly, we both could have pulled on a few occasions, had we been so inclined!)
Of course, we never went to the Blue Oyster Bar...
FP.
(Not hanging around with the same bunch of mates only because we moved country, before you ask. Quite missing them - they were a scream!)
P.S. UK-ish 'mates' = US-ish chums/pals. Nothing to do with 'mating'!