I really, really hate this sort of taxation, though. It's an underhanded way of doing things.
We're supposed to be running a free society. The theory is that we explain things to people, and they decide what to do. We explain that we feel that gas is too important to waste, and people (perhaps) agree with us and use it carefully. Or maybe they don't, but that's because they're free adults, and they don't have to agree with anybody, not even the Forces of Truth and Justice.
If it's really urgent, then be up front about it. Ration gas, if you think the situation warrants it and the public will stand for it. But rationing through taxation is a horrible idea -- it creates the impression that taxation is arbitrary, certainly encouraging tax evasion ("Oh, they don't need the money -- they're just using taxes to manipulate you!"), it creates a government dependance on the very thing that they're supposed to be discouraging (how much has gambling increased in the US since states found it such a lucrative thing and started actively encouraging it? What would they do if gas tax revenues rose for several years and then fell?), and it's simply dishonest. If you feel it necessary to be the nation's parent, then be an honest parent -- don't let people buy their way out of the rules.
If the US really cared... they would impose a large tax...
So more than doubling the fuel price isn't enough? Jeez, how about every third tankfull explodes or something, would that be sufficient disincentive for you?
The newly built Chrysler Building? Wasn't that completed ~1930, right along with the Empire State Building? (I seem to recall reading that the competition between the two was fierce, with elements of each design kept secret as long as possible, in the hopes that the other would fail to build tall enough -- the Empire State people had to tack on a zeppelin mooring mast to make the grade.)
Bit of history, because we're all forgetting this stuff: Back in the day, Netscape's claim was that Navigator was more than a browser, that because of its plug-in architecture people would write applications that would run under Netscape. Since Netscape ran on multiple OS'es, applications written to Netscape API's, rather than OS API's, would be portable, rendering the underlying OS irrelevant, or at least much less significant. This "middleware" aspect to Netscape -- a platform on the platform -- was what frightened Microsoft (according to Netscape, mind you), causing Bill and company to come after Netscape with chains and knives.
iWhatever, AFAIK, are simply programs that do stuff themselves, not platforms upon which other programs are to be built.
Ah, but you say that you've never seen a database or word-processor written as a Netscape plugin? Me neither, nor did Netscape ever bring one out and show it to people as a proof-of-concept. Still, they convinced the court.
They collect a check, and they can be fired (mostly -- even tenure can be broken). Most of the rest of it is a fiction created by professors to reassure themselves on cold nights, not unlike the stories reporters tell themselves about their "special status".
It doesn't sound weird and archaic to me, just weird and nonsensical. My personal guess is that bad tranlations are involved -- I've read that Aristotle used the phrase, which suggest to me that it's been through Greek to Latin (and maybe through Arabic) before making it to English. It wouldn't be the first time that phrases have gone seriously awry -- white rhinos are just as gray as every other rhino.
As I say, I'm perfectly happy to concede its correctness within its field, just as I will, in fact, pee in the head aboard ship. I just don't like Popeye telling me I'm wrong when I put my hat on my head ashore -- I'm using perfectly ordinary words in the dictionary fashion. I have yet to hear a logician tell me why "begs the question" means "circular argument", just flat statements that, "it just does, that's all!"
How about we view this as convergent evolution? There happens to be a technical phrase in use in a particular field that is a homonym for another phrase in common use. Neither is "right", except in their fields.
If we start using the term to mean something else? That's the point -- everybody but the logicians already does.
The Christian Science Monitor, for instance, was taken to task on this point, and examined their usage of the term over the course of 20 years. Sixty-three out of 63 times, they used it in the sense of "calling for the question", and these are not ignorant fools for whom English is a second language.
I'm willing to bow to history enough to concede that "begs the question" has a technical meaning in a niche field, but I resent being corrected on this point in much the same way that I would resent a sailor telling me that the thing that sits on my shoulders isn't my "head", because a "head" is the bathroom. For the tail to wag the dog in this way is simply foolish.
Lovely. No, I really mean that. The only example they have of this usage is, in fact, the point in question. In fact, the logicians' demonstration of their meaning of "begs the question" itself "begs the question".
Even at that, it comes in third. Try dropping any of the synonyms listed into the phrase and see whether it makes any sense, or whether any of the synonyms take on this meaning in any other context, or include it in their definitions:
"Implore the question"?
"Importune the question"?
(my favourite) "Crave the question"?
"Beseech the question"?
"Entreat the question"?
Re:I don't expect I'll ever sync a Zaurus to Outlo
on
Bad Review for the Zaurus
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Yeah. I keep seeing this, and it still makes no damned sense to me. In what language does "beg" mean "self-reference" or anything like it?
It seems that logicians have used this phrase in the way you describe for hundreds of years, and I say it's about time they examine their usage and realize that it's nonsensical and a poor translation of "petitio principii". "Assumes the proposition" or even "circular argument" would describe the problem better and would release "beg the question" for such times as a discussion in fact "cries out for" a question to be raised.
On occasion, sure. I also talk to my wife, to my daughters, and to the waiter. I manage to do all these without shouting.
On the other hand, I've sat 30 feet away from people talking to each other across a small table and heard every word, either because they're elderly and deaf or young and just loud -- they're often the same people who yell down the length of the bus to their friends ("YO, my man Duane!" "Yo, yo, yo, Tyrone!").
Nothing this side of the Cone of Silence will even dent these people. They were loud before telephones were invented, and they're not getting any quieter.
Keep track for a day of all the conversations you hear in public places. How many of them are "cell-yell", and how many are just plain loud people? (For that matter, how many of the ones yelling on the phone hang up and yell at their companions?)
You're absolutely right! Restaurants should be places of complete, funereal silence, broken only by the occasional soft clang of a fork on a plate. Better yet, we'll ban forks too, and allow only soup. The waiters could mime the daily specials, and customers would point to items on the menu...
Gimme a break. People talk. Sometimes they talk too loudly. Sometimes they're on the phone, but believe me, SOME PEOPLE JUST TALK TOO LOUDLY, all the damned time, whether or not they have phones. I'll bet Cicero complained about it.
1) What reviewers? We've got links to the other versions of the docs, but no links to anybody who has compared them. Any chance of reading what they have to say? 2) I d/l'ed the M'soft document, and although it refers to the license, I don't see the actual thing that I would be expected to sign and return. Am I missing it, or has Microsoft stashed it somewhere else?
I sort of thought the key word was "build" -- most of the companies I recall from a few years back either sold services, sold software, retailed existing products, or were somehow going to grow money. These guys may have a goofy product, but it sounds like they are actually manufacturing something and selling it, a dreadfully "old-economy" way of doing things.
How about a simple "vibrate-only or off, talk in the lobby" (and make that for regular conversation as well -- good luck) policy? If a phone rings, ask the customer to leave, same as you would if he were talking too loudly to the guy next to him.
Otherwise, you've lost my business. I chose my phone precisely because it has a silent mode.
Slashdot Mirror
Because it uses the names of portions of the female anatomy? If I said "paw" and "muzzle", would you consider that a possible attack on dogs?
I'm not saying I like the work, but what the hell...
Since from when Google chose to automate that process, leaving themselves to be represented by a computer program.
We're supposed to be running a free society. The theory is that we explain things to people, and they decide what to do. We explain that we feel that gas is too important to waste, and people (perhaps) agree with us and use it carefully. Or maybe they don't, but that's because they're free adults, and they don't have to agree with anybody, not even the Forces of Truth and Justice.
If it's really urgent, then be up front about it. Ration gas, if you think the situation warrants it and the public will stand for it. But rationing through taxation is a horrible idea -- it creates the impression that taxation is arbitrary, certainly encouraging tax evasion ("Oh, they don't need the money -- they're just using taxes to manipulate you!"), it creates a government dependance on the very thing that they're supposed to be discouraging (how much has gambling increased in the US since states found it such a lucrative thing and started actively encouraging it? What would they do if gas tax revenues rose for several years and then fell?), and it's simply dishonest. If you feel it necessary to be the nation's parent, then be an honest parent -- don't let people buy their way out of the rules.
So more than doubling the fuel price isn't enough? Jeez, how about every third tankfull explodes or something, would that be sufficient disincentive for you?
The newly built Chrysler Building? Wasn't that completed ~1930, right along with the Empire State Building? (I seem to recall reading that the competition between the two was fierce, with elements of each design kept secret as long as possible, in the hopes that the other would fail to build tall enough -- the Empire State people had to tack on a zeppelin mooring mast to make the grade.)
Bit of history, because we're all forgetting this stuff: Back in the day, Netscape's claim was that Navigator was more than a browser, that because of its plug-in architecture people would write applications that would run under Netscape. Since Netscape ran on multiple OS'es, applications written to Netscape API's, rather than OS API's, would be portable, rendering the underlying OS irrelevant, or at least much less significant. This "middleware" aspect to Netscape -- a platform on the platform -- was what frightened Microsoft (according to Netscape, mind you), causing Bill and company to come after Netscape with chains and knives.
iWhatever, AFAIK, are simply programs that do stuff themselves, not platforms upon which other programs are to be built.
Ah, but you say that you've never seen a database or word-processor written as a Netscape plugin? Me neither, nor did Netscape ever bring one out and show it to people as a proof-of-concept. Still, they convinced the court.
They collect a check, and they can be fired (mostly -- even tenure can be broken). Most of the rest of it is a fiction created by professors to reassure themselves on cold nights, not unlike the stories reporters tell themselves about their "special status".
Well, I'm an eminently reasonable guy. Everybody tells me so, and when they don't, I have them killed. :)
But isn't Beta the one that evolved into a professional standard, while VHS has stayed the same lo-res crap it was from the beginning?
As I say, I'm perfectly happy to concede its correctness within its field, just as I will, in fact, pee in the head aboard ship. I just don't like Popeye telling me I'm wrong when I put my hat on my head ashore -- I'm using perfectly ordinary words in the dictionary fashion. I have yet to hear a logician tell me why "begs the question" means "circular argument", just flat statements that, "it just does, that's all!"
How about we view this as convergent evolution? There happens to be a technical phrase in use in a particular field that is a homonym for another phrase in common use. Neither is "right", except in their fields.
The Christian Science Monitor , for instance, was taken to task on this point, and examined their usage of the term over the course of 20 years. Sixty-three out of 63 times, they used it in the sense of "calling for the question", and these are not ignorant fools for whom English is a second language.
I'm willing to bow to history enough to concede that "begs the question" has a technical meaning in a niche field, but I resent being corrected on this point in much the same way that I would resent a sailor telling me that the thing that sits on my shoulders isn't my "head", because a "head" is the bathroom. For the tail to wag the dog in this way is simply foolish.
Even at that, it comes in third. Try dropping any of the synonyms listed into the phrase and see whether it makes any sense, or whether any of the synonyms take on this meaning in any other context, or include it in their definitions:
It seems that logicians have used this phrase in the way you describe for hundreds of years, and I say it's about time they examine their usage and realize that it's nonsensical and a poor translation of "petitio principii". "Assumes the proposition" or even "circular argument" would describe the problem better and would release "beg the question" for such times as a discussion in fact "cries out for" a question to be raised.
Can cartoons vote in California? It might explain some things...
Inappropriate capitalization of Apparently randomly selected Words.
On the other hand, I've sat 30 feet away from people talking to each other across a small table and heard every word, either because they're elderly and deaf or young and just loud -- they're often the same people who yell down the length of the bus to their friends ("YO, my man Duane!" "Yo, yo, yo, Tyrone!").
Nothing this side of the Cone of Silence will even dent these people. They were loud before telephones were invented, and they're not getting any quieter.
Keep track for a day of all the conversations you hear in public places. How many of them are "cell-yell", and how many are just plain loud people? (For that matter, how many of the ones yelling on the phone hang up and yell at their companions?)
Gimme a break. People talk. Sometimes they talk too loudly. Sometimes they're on the phone, but believe me, SOME PEOPLE JUST TALK TOO LOUDLY, all the damned time, whether or not they have phones. I'll bet Cicero complained about it.
No, the "whore hose" is attached to me. The "whore house" is the place to use it.
1) What reviewers? We've got links to the other versions of the docs, but no links to anybody who has compared them. Any chance of reading what they have to say?
2) I d/l'ed the M'soft document, and although it refers to the license, I don't see the actual thing that I would be expected to sign and return. Am I missing it, or has Microsoft stashed it somewhere else?
I suspect that previous speculation was bang-on -- it's a gift item.
I sort of thought the key word was "build" -- most of the companies I recall from a few years back either sold services, sold software, retailed existing products, or were somehow going to grow money. These guys may have a goofy product, but it sounds like they are actually manufacturing something and selling it, a dreadfully "old-economy" way of doing things.
LOL!
What's so terrible about spaces in usernames? Me, I like 'em that way.
Otherwise, you've lost my business. I chose my phone precisely because it has a silent mode.
Now if they could jam babies...