>> 1) It's disheartening that someone on/. cannot distinguish between a country and a race.
> Iranians are Farsis, and yes Farsi is a race.
Doesn't matter. "No Irish" signs in windows in England and the US have been racist ever since the potato famine. Race is a far looser concept than the original historical definitions, which were bad on sloppy pseudo-science, and, unsurprisingly, racism. I would be willing to bet that the person to whom you are replying could not even satisfactorily define a "race".
Clearly you are unaware that the word 'race' has a wider range of meanings than the almost-certainly-meaningless 200-year-old one you appear to be clinging to.
Have a read of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasian_race
If you don't come to the conclusion that the concept of a "caucasian" is somewhere between meaningless and useless, then read it again.
Look for handy clues like tartars (who were from mongolia) being classified as caucasian not mongoloid, and slavs being mongoloid, despite being european. 18th and 19th century anthropology was a sick joke, and not worthy of the '-ology' suffix.
> The US citizen attempting to buy the export controlled product said "I'm from Iran".
That misrepresents things. You do not go into a shop and just say "I am from [a country that I'm not a citizen of]". There must have been some question before that which prompted that exclamation. Your selective quoting deliberately obfuscates the issue, it's clear what the question was. TFA actually said: "When we said 'Farsi, I'm from Iran,' ". The question was clearly something like "What language were you speaking back then?"
That's a loaded question. It was *not* an attempt to ascertain the *nationality* of the buyer, which is the legally important criterion, it was instead simplistic and flawed racial profiling. If it had been followed up with "are you an Iranian citizen?", then it would have been adequate profiling, but it wasn't, so it wasn't.
The humour is in the juxtaposition of the predicate "is an iPad owner" and the predicate "is a homosexual", the implication being that there is a correlation between the two, combined with the comedic presumption that this correlation isn't generally known and would be taboo to announce.
But you knew that. You just wanted an excuse to show that you were right-on offended by playing dumb.
Well, you might shout it in bold, but the evidence that we have from the pro-Apple side in this story is that
a) she was overheard in the shop saying she was buying it for her uncle in Iran b) she was overheard in the shop saying she was buying it for her grandmother in Iran c) she was overheard in the shop saying she was buying it for her cousin in Iran
If we take the intersection of those truths we get as the remaining hard evidence:
a/\ b/\ c) she wasn't overheard saying she was buying it for anyone in Iran while in the shop
This correlates very well with the evidence presented by the anti-Apple side:
d) she claims she didn't say she was buying it for anyone in Iran while in the shop
Whilst you've got as much right to express your disgust for what this guy stands for as he has to express his backward and inbred worldview, and I'd much rather see you rip into him than see him spout his ill-founded nonsense, isn't the simplest solution to just drop him in your foe list, which I've already done, and let slashdot continue as normal? Yet again, someone is wrong in the internet - you don't need to correct them all.
As a not-always-petty google hater, let me just say...
Why the flying fuck are they forcing us to speak the language "javascript" to view that site? My w3m, and my girlfriend's lynx are alas speaking a dying language - plain html.
> People prefer the convenience of streaming, but I'm sure they would have preferred ownership if the convenience was the same.
That was tried by the original MP3.com over a decade ago. The music megacorp mafia got them shut down. (And started a website with the same name, but substantially inferior functionality and services.)
> I'm trying to figure out...when did music become disposable?
It had certainly happened by the time of "bubblegum pop". So by the late 60s. But a lot of the teen-oriented songs from the early 60s and even late 50s fall into that category too. Any song that mentions schools, or youth, is a dead-cert candidate. Anything with inane references to 'love' too.
The shit did die and fall away quickly, so that the gems remain (today I've had 10 Years After, The Rolling Stones, Hendrix, and Budgie playing, for example), but that doesn't mean that the shit didn't exist.
Who needs plumbing? The tallest building in the world doesn't need anything apart from trucks to carry shit away from it, why should the next one to take that role be any different?
But your point falls flat, as no protocol is useful when the other end doesn't support that protocol. That doesn't need saying, it's carries zero bits of information.
In my experience, for the last few decades, a mobile phone, that supports voice calls, has been the single mechanism for instantanious communication with the highest penetration (indistinguishable from 100% of all adults). No internet chat protocol has even come close to that bredth of usage.
What's funny about this? Informative/insightful, yes, funny no.
If I'm travelling, or in the pub, I SSH (not telnet) into my server to pick up the screen session that contains a mutt window in order to read my mail.
Yeah, my terminology was wrong. I've never had any formal music lessons, except the crap they give you at school when you're young and not supposed to actually learn anything concrete, and "passing note" just dropped out of a dim and distant memory from several decades back. (To be honest I prefer the term "passing" as I think it better describes what's taking place, "grace" is practically meaningless. Have we been given an additional note to play by someone's good will?!?! Brieve but by the grace of God sing I? Or is it an ancient corruption of "graze" - as you barely graze the note as you pass by?:-) )
Someone elsethread mentioned the term acciaccatura which was a completely new one for me, and googling (wikiing) led me to the related appoggiatura. It appears that wikipedia isn't 100% agreed on the precice meaning of those terms in the various places they're defined, so it's probably best that I forget them, and stick "grace notes" in my head for future use.
I did notice the turns too. I do like the fact that the wiki link highlights the "and it may be played as if it were" aspect (of all related ornamentation too) - which of course brings us back to my original point - are all the long-hand trill/mordant/turn-like sequences she played better represented as trills/mordants/turns that permit some artistic interpretation each time they're converted to sound again, or are they to be considered verbatim. For baroque music, I would venture that the ornamented version is almost always prefered.
My $DAYJOB is mostly code review, and I tend to be a bit of a perfectionist before I am prepared to add my Acked-by:. And that includes what might be "trivialities" like style issues. I was explicitly employed in this role to be a pedant, in fact. And I like to take my job home with me...
> In pieces with key signatures with lots of flats or sharps, you tend to get naturals without parentheses because it would be too cluttered to put them in.
You misunderstand the nub of my point - the ones I'm complaining about one could completely do without as they are redundant.
> As an amateur Philosopher spanning about a quarter century, I can tell you that I have studied quite a lot of territory which includes a lot of Physics.
yet you said above: >>>With that said, Science can not answer the base question, and neither side can prove it.
Which shows that in 25 years of study you have learnt nothing. You have not adequately defined what "the base question" is. And were you to pretend to yourself that you had (and I can assure you all ignostics will point out that that you haven't), then WTF does "proving" a question even mean?
You clearly can't get your thoughts straight. As an aside I notice that this is a trait shared by many who come to the same kinds of conclusions as you.
Slashdot Mirror
Most insightful post of the thread, IMHO.
>> 1) It's disheartening that someone on /. cannot distinguish between a country and a race.
> Iranians are Farsis, and yes Farsi is a race.
Doesn't matter. "No Irish" signs in windows in England and the US have been racist ever since the potato famine. Race is a far looser concept than the original historical definitions, which were bad on sloppy pseudo-science, and, unsurprisingly, racism. I would be willing to bet that the person to whom you are replying could not even satisfactorily define a "race".
> Iranian isn't a race
Clearly you are unaware that the word 'race' has a wider range of meanings than the almost-certainly-meaningless 200-year-old one you appear to be clinging to.
> Technically, Iranians are Caucasian.
Have a read of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasian_race
If you don't come to the conclusion that the concept of a "caucasian" is somewhere between meaningless and useless, then read it again.
Look for handy clues like tartars (who were from mongolia) being classified as caucasian not mongoloid, and slavs being mongoloid, despite being european. 18th and 19th century anthropology was a sick joke, and not worthy of the '-ology' suffix.
> The US citizen attempting to buy the export controlled product said "I'm from Iran".
That misrepresents things. You do not go into a shop and just say "I am from [a country that I'm not a citizen of]". There must have been some question before that which prompted that exclamation. Your selective quoting deliberately obfuscates the issue, it's clear what the question was. TFA actually said: "When we said 'Farsi, I'm from Iran,' ". The question was clearly something like "What language were you speaking back then?"
That's a loaded question. It was *not* an attempt to ascertain the *nationality* of the buyer, which is the legally important criterion, it was instead simplistic and flawed racial profiling. If it had been followed up with "are you an Iranian citizen?", then it would have been adequate profiling, but it wasn't, so it wasn't.
Oh come on - they deliberately leave things half-baked so that we've got something to argue about!
"when the customer informed them they were going to break the law..."
You are assuming facts not in evidence
The humour is in the juxtaposition of the predicate "is an iPad owner" and the predicate "is a homosexual", the implication being that there is a correlation between the two, combined with the comedic presumption that this correlation isn't generally known and would be taboo to announce.
But you knew that. You just wanted an excuse to show that you were right-on offended by playing dumb.
Well, you might shout it in bold, but the evidence that we have from the pro-Apple side in this story is that
/\ b /\ c) she wasn't overheard saying she was buying it for anyone in Iran while in the shop
a) she was overheard in the shop saying she was buying it for her uncle in Iran
b) she was overheard in the shop saying she was buying it for her grandmother in Iran
c) she was overheard in the shop saying she was buying it for her cousin in Iran
If we take the intersection of those truths we get as the remaining hard evidence:
a
This correlates very well with the evidence presented by the anti-Apple side:
d) she claims she didn't say she was buying it for anyone in Iran while in the shop
Whilst you've got as much right to express your disgust for what this guy stands for as he has to express his backward and inbred worldview, and I'd much rather see you rip into him than see him spout his ill-founded nonsense, isn't the simplest solution to just drop him in your foe list, which I've already done, and let slashdot continue as normal? Yet again, someone is wrong in the internet - you don't need to correct them all.
Plus feedback loop which makes behaviour a little chaotic.
As a not-always-petty google hater, let me just say...
Why the flying fuck are they forcing us to speak the language "javascript" to view that site? My w3m, and my girlfriend's lynx are alas speaking a dying language - plain html.
> Linux lost and its time to move on with Android and Windows.
Android is linux. A mangled fucked up linux for simpletons, but then again so were other environments, so let's not single it out for that.
You're either an idiot or a troll. Neither of which does anything apart from reduce the signal to noise ratio here.
> People prefer the convenience of streaming, but I'm sure they would have preferred ownership if the convenience was the same.
That was tried by the original MP3.com over a decade ago. The music megacorp mafia got them shut down. (And started a website with the same name, but substantially inferior functionality and services.)
> I'm trying to figure out...when did music become disposable?
It had certainly happened by the time of "bubblegum pop". So by the late 60s. But a lot of the teen-oriented songs from the early 60s and even late 50s fall into that category too. Any song that mentions schools, or youth, is a dead-cert candidate. Anything with inane references to 'love' too.
The shit did die and fall away quickly, so that the gems remain (today I've had 10 Years After, The Rolling Stones, Hendrix, and Budgie playing, for example), but that doesn't mean that the shit didn't exist.
Who needs plumbing? The tallest building in the world doesn't need anything apart from trucks to carry shit away from it, why should the next one to take that role be any different?
Didn't the Mac-ites skip straight from Web 2.0 to Web 6.0?
But your point falls flat, as no protocol is useful when the other end doesn't support that protocol. That doesn't need saying, it's carries zero bits of information.
In my experience, for the last few decades, a mobile phone, that supports voice calls, has been the single mechanism for instantanious communication with the highest penetration (indistinguishable from 100% of all adults). No internet chat protocol has even come close to that bredth of usage.
What's funny about this? Informative/insightful, yes, funny no.
If I'm travelling, or in the pub, I SSH (not telnet) into my server to pick up the screen session that contains a mutt window in order to read my mail.
Yeah, my terminology was wrong. I've never had any formal music lessons, except the crap they give you at school when you're young and not supposed to actually learn anything concrete, and "passing note" just dropped out of a dim and distant memory from several decades back. (To be honest I prefer the term "passing" as I think it better describes what's taking place, "grace" is practically meaningless. Have we been given an additional note to play by someone's good will?!?! Brieve but by the grace of God sing I? Or is it an ancient corruption of "graze" - as you barely graze the note as you pass by? :-) )
Someone elsethread mentioned the term acciaccatura which was a completely new one for me, and googling (wikiing) led me to the related appoggiatura. It appears that wikipedia isn't 100% agreed on the precice meaning of those terms in the various places they're defined, so it's probably best that I forget them, and stick "grace notes" in my head for future use.
I did notice the turns too. I do like the fact that the wiki link highlights the "and it may be played as if it were" aspect (of all related ornamentation too) - which of course brings us back to my original point - are all the long-hand trill/mordant/turn-like sequences she played better represented as trills/mordants/turns that permit some artistic interpretation each time they're converted to sound again, or are they to be considered verbatim. For baroque music, I would venture that the ornamented version is almost always prefered.
Thanks for the informative correction!
I think we're mostly on the same track.
My $DAYJOB is mostly code review, and I tend to be a bit of a perfectionist before I am prepared to add my Acked-by:. And that includes what might be "trivialities" like style issues. I was explicitly employed in this role to be a pedant, in fact. And I like to take my job home with me...
> In pieces with key signatures with lots of flats or sharps, you tend to get naturals without parentheses because it would be too cluttered to put them in.
You misunderstand the nub of my point - the ones I'm complaining about one could completely do without as they are redundant.
> As an amateur Philosopher spanning about a quarter century, I can tell you that I have studied quite a lot of territory which includes a lot of Physics.
yet you said above:
>>>With that said, Science can not answer the base question, and neither side can prove it.
Which shows that in 25 years of study you have learnt nothing. You have not adequately defined what "the base question" is. And were you to pretend to yourself that you had (and I can assure you all ignostics will point out that that you haven't), then WTF does "proving" a question even mean?
You clearly can't get your thoughts straight. As an aside I notice that this is a trait shared by many who come to the same kinds of conclusions as you.
> mouth-frothing, ignorant religious nuts
Careful - you're talking about an ex-president!
> A scientist is doing a "better job" when he finds evidence that conflicts with the current viewpoint.
Not to contradict your stance, but I also think scientists who reduce the error bars are doing a fine job too.