Starting Forth by Leo Brodie -- especially the "under the hood" chapter. Runner-up for me is the PostScript Language Tutorial and Cookbook. These books gave me whole news way of thinking about programming, which doesn't happen very often.
English did not get the word "father" from Latin "pater" because it has undergone the germanic sound shift. If we had taken the word modern from latin, we would have a word like: "priest", "paster" or "padre". Note that all three of these words are decended from the Latin word "pater". But "father" is definitely not.
Padre is from Latin pater via Spanish; the others aren't from pater at all. Pastor is a borrowing of the Latin word for "shepherd" and priest is ultimately from Greek presbyteros "elder".
When you obtain software released under the GPL, you are granted certain conditional rights. When you violate those conditions, you lose the rights. It's as simple as that.
We could argue for years over when dictionary-writing became serious, but most people would probably cite Samuel Johnson's dictionary, published in 1755, about 75 years before Websters.
Note that it included only spellings, not definitions.
(Emphasis mine.)
Are you sure?? I was just in the Dr. Johnson House in London and the facsimile there most certainly had definitions. One of the great things about his dictionary is that it had much more meaningful definitions than other dictionaries of its time -- e.g., some dictionaries would have absurd definitions like "the staff of life" for bread.
Anyone who has lived in the United States all his or her life and still cannot pronounce the word "nuclear" is a dumbass.
By cannot pronounce [it] I gather you mean doesn't pronounce it the way I think he should.
Sequences of speech sounds that are unusual in a language tend to be lost in that language. Do you pronounce February with, or without, an r?
Languages change. Dialects diverge. Bush et al. don't have to be stupid (or smart) to speak a variety of English other than your own. You et al. don't have to be stupid (or smart) to speak the variety of English that you speak.
It's sneaky that Apple requires QuickTime 6.2 to play their AAC files, since many Windows users won't have it yet.
Sneaky? It seems pretty straightforward to me: satisfy your existing customers first. I do hope Apple doesn't wait long, though.
Also, maybe QuickTime 6.2 is only required to encode AAC, not to play it: I could have sworn AAC playback appeared in 6.0. Then again, my memory sucks, and I'm afraid it's too late for me to test this, since I already installed 6.2. If anyone else wants to check, the
movies here have AAC audio.
The embedded videos are nifty, and render nicely in Mozilla.
Furthermore, HTML does not render. A browser renders HTML.
The original poster is using the verb render in an unaccusative construction, which is common in English. (For example, The door opened is the unaccusative counterpart to the passive form The door was opened.) I've used render this way myself and it's perfectly grammatical to me. Of course your lect may differ from mine.
What's really wrong about forbidding National socialism? Don't answer "that's against free speech", because National socialism is basically promoting genocide, with is morally and ethically just wrong, and by not forbidding it you indirectly promote it.
But I really wanted to answer "That's against free speech.":-)
Seriously, it is against free speech. People often believe certain speech should not be free -- perjury, for example, or religious heresy. The German government includes speech promoting Nazism in the category of speech that should not be free. Would you agree with my characterization of this?
Of course, you haven't said that the wrongness of Nazism is the only reason to forbid it, or that if there are other reasons its wrongness alone is sufficient reason to forbid it. Do you think there are other good reasons?
I think it's safe to say that the widespread condemnation of Germany's actions under Nazism is an important factor. Rhetorical question: What country, once widely reviled for its actions, would not be tempted to simply forbid speech that would be pointed to, every time it occurred, as a sign that the country deserved continuing revilement?
Two factual questions: are people in Germany actively prevented from speaking when the authorities believe their speech will promote Nazism? Or are they simply charged with a crime after they've spoken?
(To me, a prohibition on the Nazi Party implies that the first of those is true.)
More non-rhetorical questions for whoever's interested in answering...
Should everything that's wrong be illegal? Or only some particularly wrong things? Or only some particularly harmful things?
Should it be illegal for someone to say "I don't think genocide is such a bad thing"? Should it be illegal for someone to say "I think people should be allowed to advocate genocide, Nazism, and everything else I believe is harmful, contemptible, or evil"? (OK, that one may have been a little bit rhetorical.)
Should it be wrong, but legal, for someone to say these things?
Does permitting something always indirectly promote it? Or just usually? Or just in a small number of instances?
Should we forbid everything that we don't want to promote? Or just some things?
As an athiest and a patriot I have been waiting for this for years!
As a fellow atheist who considers himself lucky to live in the great, flawed, wonderful, terrible United States of America (I need a better understanding of patriot before I'll claim to be one), I was excited as all get out at the ruling. Then quickly annoyed at some of the brainless comments I heard on TV (though a few others were brainful), especially by some of our elected representatives in Congress who are evidently much too cowardly to stand on principle and support the constitution in this case as they might well do in other cases. Not that I should have been surprised.
BTW, CNN's banner on the ruling spelled "atheist" as "athiest", just as the poster I'm quoting did. I'm fine with alternative spellings among Slashdot readers -- the more, the merrier -- but on CNN it felt like a slap in the face. OTOH, they probably misspell things all the time (I usually ignore the obnoxious things so can't be sure); I guess that's some small, twisted kind of consolation.
In god we trust is the only thing left on the chopping block!
Well, maybe not the only thing, though IMO it should be the next to fall, but I'm not going to get my hopes up; I have a feeling today's ruling won't stand for long, let alone a hypothetical ruling against the blatant theism-promoting "In God we trust".
With any luck, we will now see a bunch of public figures make fools out of themselves rushing to support the promotion of God by the State. Strike that: no luck will be required; it's a sure thing.
WARNING: The questions I ask below are not meant to be rhetorical questions!
It will never work until people realize that actions have consequences, and that they must take responsibility for them.
Yes, but...
People must realize that actions have probabilities of consequences with degrees of responsibility. People (not that I'm any different) are sometimes very bad at estimating those probabilities and foreseeing the nature of the consequences.
Suppose I get in my car and drive to the grocery store. At some point, I take an action (such as changing lanes) that has some probability of causing a bad consequence (e.g., broken headlight, broken bones, death). Am I wrong (and to what extent) to put other people (and myself) at risk like this? It depends on the circumstances: am I drunk? do I check my mirrors? do I do it on purpose? etc. Likewise, are the consequences solely my responsibility? Again, it depends: was the other driver speeding? did they swerve to avoid a falling tree? etc.
Or suppose I have sex with someone. Birth control is imperfect. If (say) I'm opposed to abortion and I'm sleeping with someone who shares my views, and neither of us wants (or is emotionally ready for, or has the means to support) a child, is it wrong for us to have sex anyhow? Or rather, how wrong is it? If the chance of pregnancy resulting is one in ten thousand (say), are we taking too great a risk? What if the probability is zero (no sperm, hysterectomy, whatever)? What if it's very nearly zero?
One should generally try to avoid actions that are likely to cause harm, while remembering that we share risk (not necessarily all risk); our lives are too interconnected for it to be otherwise. I think this is an important, but seldom talked about, point.
If you go about creating a child, why should you expect that you can just "dump" it on society?
Do you believe that every (or nearly every) case of giving a child up for adoption is "dumping"? Or is it sometimes a good thing, sometimes a bad thing, usually some of each?
(FWIW, I have an ex-lover who works with adopted children who are full of hurt. But the sources of their pain are not limited to the (admittedly misery-making) fact that their birth parents chose to give them up.)
As long as sex is seen as nothing more than a cheap momentary pleasure without ramifications, the problem only gets worse.
Sex that's not a "cheap momentary pleasure" has the same probability of resulting in pregnancy as sex that is. (Or does it? I wonder if any scientific studies have been made. Female orgasm is thought to increase the chances of fertilization. Is an orgasm "cheap"?) Do you see a strong positive correlation between "cheap momentary pleasure" sex and unwanted pregnancy? Or between "cheap momentary pleasure" sex outside of a committed relationship and unwanted pregnancy? Again, these are not rhetorical questions!
Personally, I doubt very much that pregnancy discriminates against people wanting "cheap momentary pleasure" in favor of loving, committed couples.
I'm tired of other people taking the easy way out, and having it cost me the "billions" you mention to pay for their bad choices.
Agreed, in general. But remember that certain big consequences (such as these "billions") are the sum of a lot of small consequences, so if there's blame then there's plenty of people among which to spread it.
Consider air pollution due to fossil fuel emissions. It seems clear that driving a gas-powered car is an easy way out in most cases (as compared to walking, riding a bicycle, taking a bus, etc.); is it a bad choice?
I'm a charitable person, and quite willing to help those who need a hand up. But don't demand it of me,
Amen!
especially if you're not willing to make the lifestyle changes to avoid having the same problem next year.
Yup. My point is that there are degrees of "badness". Responsibility is not absolute. Wrongness is not an either-or proposition. The world is full of shades of gray, and our ability to discern these different shades is imperfect. (And our eyes aren't always fully open!)
Quality paperback and hardbacks cost about the same to produce.
I would think that hardcover books would cost at least a little more to produce, because of the (generally) higher quality binding.
Certainly hardcover books last longer than paperbacks; I work in a large library and see the difference every day. To me, this merits a significant difference in price (for those, like most libraries, who need this).
But we can pretty much do this at the moment by using the various suspend and hibernate options. Ok, so it's a different technology but the effect is the same. But nobody not using a laptop ever does.
That would be because 8/10 times, your computer doesn't come back when you try to wake it up.
That was true of my old computer, too, but recently I got a new one (dual 1GHz G4 Mac) that doesn't have that problem. (What's more, it wakes up very quickly, usually in 4-6 seconds.)
The fact that I can just leave it on all the time has really changed my habits: I sit at my computer for much shorter periods of time, which means I don't get as much muscle fatigue and as I used to; I can go do something else for a while to clear my thoughts when stuck on a problem, so I don't code/etc. obsessively as much as I used to; and by and large I just waste a lot less time in front of my computer.
I was disappointed that the blindfold confrontation was left out along with Gimli getting a lock of Kate's (I can't spell her characters name, and I'm too lazy to look it up) hair.
Galadriel. I was also disappointed with the time spent in Lothlórien; I particularly wanted to see mellyrn (mallorn trees). Were they there and I just missed them?
Aside: I read a book as a teenager whose main character was named Galadriel; everyone called her Gilly. Somehow I don't think that would fit our Galadriel.
Id recommend caution over just hoping popping a pill will wash those blues away, with out some deeper examination of the problem, it will just treat the symptoms without addressing the causes.
Caution is good. The thing is, plain old symptom relief can be a big big help. It's harder to address the causes when you're in pain (physical/emotional/psychic/whatever) than when you're feeling OK. Trying to feel better is A Good Thing. Side effects suck, though, and it can take a while (maybe never) to find the right pill for you. *Voice of experience* <g>
But enough preaching. As for CS, I took a course in assembler programming at a time when I was starting to get burned out, and getting down to bits was a great change of pace for me. There's serenity down there. YMMV of course.
Slashdot Mirror
Starting Forth by Leo Brodie -- especially the "under the hood" chapter. Runner-up for me is the PostScript Language Tutorial and Cookbook. These books gave me whole news way of thinking about programming, which doesn't happen very often.
Padre is from Latin pater via Spanish; the others aren't from pater at all. Pastor is a borrowing of the Latin word for "shepherd" and priest is ultimately from Greek presbyteros "elder".
For simple dictionary use, I swear by dict.
Consider the fact that it's not voluntary for the teachers. In my book, that in and of itself is enough to make such laws unconstitutional.
Here's mine:
(Emphasis mine.)
Are you sure?? I was just in the Dr. Johnson House in London and the facsimile there most certainly had definitions. One of the great things about his dictionary is that it had much more meaningful definitions than other dictionaries of its time -- e.g., some dictionaries would have absurd definitions like "the staff of life" for bread.
Anyone who has lived in the United States all his or her life and still cannot pronounce the word "nuclear" is a dumbass.
By cannot pronounce [it] I gather you mean doesn't pronounce it the way I think he should.
Sequences of speech sounds that are unusual in a language tend to be lost in that language. Do you pronounce February with, or without, an r?
Languages change. Dialects diverge. Bush et al. don't have to be stupid (or smart) to speak a variety of English other than your own. You et al. don't have to be stupid (or smart) to speak the variety of English that you speak.
It's sneaky that Apple requires QuickTime 6.2 to play their AAC files, since many Windows users won't have it yet.
Sneaky? It seems pretty straightforward to me: satisfy your existing customers first. I do hope Apple doesn't wait long, though.
Also, maybe QuickTime 6.2 is only required to encode AAC, not to play it: I could have sworn AAC playback appeared in 6.0. Then again, my memory sucks, and I'm afraid it's too late for me to test this, since I already installed 6.2. If anyone else wants to check, the movies here have AAC audio.
Original post:
Furthermore, HTML does not render. A browser renders HTML.
The original poster is using the verb render in an unaccusative construction, which is common in English. (For example, The door opened is the unaccusative counterpart to the passive form The door was opened.) I've used render this way myself and it's perfectly grammatical to me. Of course your lect may differ from mine.
But I really wanted to answer "That's against free speech." :-)
Seriously, it is against free speech. People often believe certain speech should not be free -- perjury, for example, or religious heresy. The German government includes speech promoting Nazism in the category of speech that should not be free. Would you agree with my characterization of this?
Of course, you haven't said that the wrongness of Nazism is the only reason to forbid it, or that if there are other reasons its wrongness alone is sufficient reason to forbid it. Do you think there are other good reasons?
I think it's safe to say that the widespread condemnation of Germany's actions under Nazism is an important factor. Rhetorical question: What country, once widely reviled for its actions, would not be tempted to simply forbid speech that would be pointed to, every time it occurred, as a sign that the country deserved continuing revilement?
Two factual questions: are people in Germany actively prevented from speaking when the authorities believe their speech will promote Nazism? Or are they simply charged with a crime after they've spoken?
(To me, a prohibition on the Nazi Party implies that the first of those is true.)
More non-rhetorical questions for whoever's interested in answering...
Should everything that's wrong be illegal? Or only some particularly wrong things? Or only some particularly harmful things?
Should it be illegal for someone to say "I don't think genocide is such a bad thing"? Should it be illegal for someone to say "I think people should be allowed to advocate genocide, Nazism, and everything else I believe is harmful, contemptible, or evil"? (OK, that one may have been a little bit rhetorical.)
Should it be wrong, but legal, for someone to say these things?
Does permitting something always indirectly promote it? Or just usually? Or just in a small number of instances?
Should we forbid everything that we don't want to promote? Or just some things?
Questions, questions, so many questions... :-)
As an athiest and a patriot I have been waiting for this for years!
As a fellow atheist who considers himself lucky to live in the great, flawed, wonderful, terrible United States of America (I need a better understanding of patriot before I'll claim to be one), I was excited as all get out at the ruling. Then quickly annoyed at some of the brainless comments I heard on TV (though a few others were brainful), especially by some of our elected representatives in Congress who are evidently much too cowardly to stand on principle and support the constitution in this case as they might well do in other cases. Not that I should have been surprised.
BTW, CNN's banner on the ruling spelled "atheist" as "athiest", just as the poster I'm quoting did. I'm fine with alternative spellings among Slashdot readers -- the more, the merrier -- but on CNN it felt like a slap in the face. OTOH, they probably misspell things all the time (I usually ignore the obnoxious things so can't be sure); I guess that's some small, twisted kind of consolation.
In god we trust is the only thing left on the chopping block!
Well, maybe not the only thing, though IMO it should be the next to fall, but I'm not going to get my hopes up; I have a feeling today's ruling won't stand for long, let alone a hypothetical ruling against the blatant theism-promoting "In God we trust".
With any luck, we will now see a bunch of public figures make fools out of themselves rushing to support the promotion of God by the State. Strike that: no luck will be required; it's a sure thing.
WARNING: The questions I ask below are not meant to be rhetorical questions!
It will never work until people realize that actions have consequences, and that they must take responsibility for them.
Yes, but...
People must realize that actions have probabilities of consequences with degrees of responsibility. People (not that I'm any different) are sometimes very bad at estimating those probabilities and foreseeing the nature of the consequences.
Suppose I get in my car and drive to the grocery store. At some point, I take an action (such as changing lanes) that has some probability of causing a bad consequence (e.g., broken headlight, broken bones, death). Am I wrong (and to what extent) to put other people (and myself) at risk like this? It depends on the circumstances: am I drunk? do I check my mirrors? do I do it on purpose? etc. Likewise, are the consequences solely my responsibility? Again, it depends: was the other driver speeding? did they swerve to avoid a falling tree? etc.
Or suppose I have sex with someone. Birth control is imperfect. If (say) I'm opposed to abortion and I'm sleeping with someone who shares my views, and neither of us wants (or is emotionally ready for, or has the means to support) a child, is it wrong for us to have sex anyhow? Or rather, how wrong is it? If the chance of pregnancy resulting is one in ten thousand (say), are we taking too great a risk? What if the probability is zero (no sperm, hysterectomy, whatever)? What if it's very nearly zero?
One should generally try to avoid actions that are likely to cause harm, while remembering that we share risk (not necessarily all risk); our lives are too interconnected for it to be otherwise. I think this is an important, but seldom talked about, point.
If you go about creating a child, why should you expect that you can just "dump" it on society?
Do you believe that every (or nearly every) case of giving a child up for adoption is "dumping"? Or is it sometimes a good thing, sometimes a bad thing, usually some of each?
(FWIW, I have an ex-lover who works with adopted children who are full of hurt. But the sources of their pain are not limited to the (admittedly misery-making) fact that their birth parents chose to give them up.)
As long as sex is seen as nothing more than a cheap momentary pleasure without ramifications, the problem only gets worse.
Sex that's not a "cheap momentary pleasure" has the same probability of resulting in pregnancy as sex that is. (Or does it? I wonder if any scientific studies have been made. Female orgasm is thought to increase the chances of fertilization. Is an orgasm "cheap"?) Do you see a strong positive correlation between "cheap momentary pleasure" sex and unwanted pregnancy? Or between "cheap momentary pleasure" sex outside of a committed relationship and unwanted pregnancy? Again, these are not rhetorical questions!
Personally, I doubt very much that pregnancy discriminates against people wanting "cheap momentary pleasure" in favor of loving, committed couples.
I'm tired of other people taking the easy way out, and having it cost me the "billions" you mention to pay for their bad choices.
Agreed, in general. But remember that certain big consequences (such as these "billions") are the sum of a lot of small consequences, so if there's blame then there's plenty of people among which to spread it.
Consider air pollution due to fossil fuel emissions. It seems clear that driving a gas-powered car is an easy way out in most cases (as compared to walking, riding a bicycle, taking a bus, etc.); is it a bad choice?
I'm a charitable person, and quite willing to help those who need a hand up. But don't demand it of me,
Amen!
especially if you're not willing to make the lifestyle changes to avoid having the same problem next year.
Yup. My point is that there are degrees of "badness". Responsibility is not absolute. Wrongness is not an either-or proposition. The world is full of shades of gray, and our ability to discern these different shades is imperfect. (And our eyes aren't always fully open!)
Quality paperback and hardbacks cost about the same to produce.
I would think that hardcover books would cost at least a little more to produce, because of the (generally) higher quality binding.
Certainly hardcover books last longer than paperbacks; I work in a large library and see the difference every day. To me, this merits a significant difference in price (for those, like most libraries, who need this).
That would be because 8/10 times, your computer doesn't come back when you try to wake it up.
That was true of my old computer, too, but recently I got a new one (dual 1GHz G4 Mac) that doesn't have that problem. (What's more, it wakes up very quickly, usually in 4-6 seconds.)
The fact that I can just leave it on all the time has really changed my habits: I sit at my computer for much shorter periods of time, which means I don't get as much muscle fatigue and as I used to; I can go do something else for a while to clear my thoughts when stuck on a problem, so I don't code/etc. obsessively as much as I used to; and by and large I just waste a lot less time in front of my computer.
I was disappointed that the blindfold confrontation was left out along with Gimli getting a lock of Kate's (I can't spell her characters name, and I'm too lazy to look it up) hair.
Galadriel. I was also disappointed with the time spent in Lothlórien; I particularly wanted to see mellyrn (mallorn trees). Were they there and I just missed them?
Aside: I read a book as a teenager whose main character was named Galadriel; everyone called her Gilly. Somehow I don't think that would fit our Galadriel.
Good advice overall.
Id recommend caution over just hoping popping a pill will wash those blues away, with out some deeper examination of the problem, it will just treat the symptoms without addressing the causes.
Caution is good. The thing is, plain old symptom relief can be a big big help. It's harder to address the causes when you're in pain (physical/emotional/psychic/whatever) than when you're feeling OK. Trying to feel better is A Good Thing. Side effects suck, though, and it can take a while (maybe never) to find the right pill for you. *Voice of experience* <g>
But enough preaching. As for CS, I took a course in assembler programming at a time when I was starting to get burned out, and getting down to bits was a great change of pace for me. There's serenity down there. YMMV of course.