Not a sword, a dagger. And no, you shouldn't be allowed to carry either on an airplane. 9/11 happened because 4 guys with box-cutters could commandeer an airplane. Obviously, this tactic would not work today, but I think that Sikhs can check their daggers. Not wanting the general public carrying weapons on a plane is neither paranoid nor moronic.
In Switzerland, if you want a church wedding, you have to get "married" twice, once at the city hall, once by the church. The church part is optional, but you aren't legally married unless you go to city hall.
States don't marry people, churches do. When a couple goes before a justice of the peace and get married, they're really just entering a civil-union. The state has allowed religious officiants to create these unions as part of a church's marriage ceremony, but they are two distinct institutions. For instance if one get's married in the Catholic church, and later gets a civil divorce the church still views that person as being married. In order to get remarried in the Catholic church, you have to have the first marriage annulled by the church. Conversely, just having one's church marriage annulled doesn't leave one legally eligible for remarriage until they get a civil divorce.
Of course the source of confusion is that the state refers to civil unions with the religious term marriage. When people hear about gay marriage being legalized, in their minds they think of the religious part of it, and no one likes the state messing around with their religion. If gays are allowed to get married, no church is obligated to marry them. There are plenty of churches that will (some already do) but the state can't mandate that a church violate its religious beliefs.
Gays need to drop the gay-marriage campaign, and go for civil-unions which are identical, yet more palatable to the general(voting) public.
No one would have blinked if the headline was Pittsburgh switches to letter only grading system, which is basically what they did.
Here's a much worse way to solve the "problem" the Pittsburgh school board is addressing. When I took Intro To Logic, my professor for that class believed that if a student got an A on one test, and an F on another, the average should always be a C (this is basically what the Pittsburgh school board believes). His solution was to give you the first 50 points on the test, and you earned the next 50, so the lowest score you could get was a 50. What he apparently failed to consider was that you only needed to get 20% of the questions correct to get a D, 40% to get a C, 60% to get a B, and 80% to get an A. And this guy was teaching logic...What is more amazing to me is that I'm pretty sure not everyone passed that class.
At least the Pittsburgh Solution doesn't lower the bar to get an A on an individual test.
At the risk of being labeled an insufferable know it all, the submission should read "...raises the question...," not "...begs the question...." If you think I'm being a English usage Nazi, ask yourself(raise the question), "Why would someone use 'begs the question' instead of 'raises the question'?" The only answer I have to that is that "begs the question" sounds fancier. Well, it sounds fancier, because it is fancier, or at least a little more complex. "Begging the question" is a logical fallacy where the only proof of an argument is a restatement of the premise. A simple example...
"I think George Bush is stupid"... "Why do you think that?"..."Because he's not smart"
So, why does this matter...because it's important. That begs the question...
It matters, because when people misuse the expression they dilute the actual meaning. Some people people reading the line above might ask, "That begs what question," because the incorrect usage of this expression over time has conditioned them to have a different expectation when they hear the expression. The correct response to hearing that a question is begged, is to assess whether or not this is the case, not to wait with bated breath for the question.
All of this raises the question, when do I use beg, and when do I use raise. The simple answer is if your asking a new question, you're raising it, but if your trying to point out that no real proof has been provided to support the premise except for the premise itself, you're begging the question.
Society benefits from copyright extending past the life of the creator of the work. If I were an author in my late seventies, what would be the monetary motivation for writing a book. One need only attend the funerals of a few close friends before one realizes that one's life on earth is near its end. Knowing that my work would financially benefit my children would be a good incentive for me to spend my golden years working on my craft. Obviously money is not the primary reason that artists create, but it is one of the reasons (a minor one in most cases).
1. If you didn't buy it and it wasn't legitimately given to you, you stole it 2. I'm not sure what the impact of you listening to a song is on its sales. 3. Artists do put their time into an album, and record companies put time and money in to an album, both deserve compensation. 4. If you steal caviar that you can't afford, or wouldn't otherwise buy, you're still stealing. See #2 5. I guess I agree with you, though I think the artist's heirs are entitled to compensation. 6. I want artists to have an incentive to write music that lasts, I can still listen to Abbey Road, but I don't see anyone listening to some of the crap on the radio today in ten years. However, I agree that copyrights do last too long, especially when the holder is a corporation.
I assume these kids can get all of the Time-Warner catalog for free anyway, so what are they stealing? I guess those Time-Life music collections aren't as comprehensive as advertised.
Everyone knows exposure to this radiation is nearly always benign...in fact, 75% of the people exposed to this radiation found it to be beneficial. The remaining 25% were less pleased, apparently having super-strength and near invulnerability does not make up for the fact that one's body is covered with rocks and people call you a "Thing."
Slashdot Mirror
Not a sword, a dagger. And no, you shouldn't be allowed to carry either on an airplane. 9/11 happened because 4 guys with box-cutters could commandeer an airplane. Obviously, this tactic would not work today, but I think that Sikhs can check their daggers. Not wanting the general public carrying weapons on a plane is neither paranoid nor moronic.
I remember when the post-Starbuck crew of BattleStar Galactica made it to Earth and solved this problem, too bad the computer went on the fritz
In Switzerland, if you want a church wedding, you have to get "married" twice, once at the city hall, once by the church. The church part is optional, but you aren't legally married unless you go to city hall.
States don't marry people, churches do. When a couple goes before a justice of the peace and get married, they're really just entering a civil-union. The state has allowed religious officiants to create these unions as part of a church's marriage ceremony, but they are two distinct institutions. For instance if one get's married in the Catholic church, and later gets a civil divorce the church still views that person as being married. In order to get remarried in the Catholic church, you have to have the first marriage annulled by the church. Conversely, just having one's church marriage annulled doesn't leave one legally eligible for remarriage until they get a civil divorce.
Of course the source of confusion is that the state refers to civil unions with the religious term marriage. When people hear about gay marriage being legalized, in their minds they think of the religious part of it, and no one likes the state messing around with their religion. If gays are allowed to get married, no church is obligated to marry them. There are plenty of churches that will (some already do) but the state can't mandate that a church violate its religious beliefs.
Gays need to drop the gay-marriage campaign, and go for civil-unions which are identical, yet more palatable to the general(voting) public.
Snap!
Like anyone's going to listen to someone who thinks irregardless is a word, regardless of the merit of what they said
Am I the only one who's shocked that Stroustrup is an Aggie?
Next they'll be blocking our powers too.
No one would have blinked if the headline was Pittsburgh switches to letter only grading system, which is basically what they did.
Here's a much worse way to solve the "problem" the Pittsburgh school board is addressing. When I took Intro To Logic, my professor for that class believed that if a student got an A on one test, and an F on another, the average should always be a C (this is basically what the Pittsburgh school board believes). His solution was to give you the first 50 points on the test, and you earned the next 50, so the lowest score you could get was a 50. What he apparently failed to consider was that you only needed to get 20% of the questions correct to get a D, 40% to get a C, 60% to get a B, and 80% to get an A. And this guy was teaching logic...What is more amazing to me is that I'm pretty sure not everyone passed that class.
At least the Pittsburgh Solution doesn't lower the bar to get an A on an individual test.
It kept Hank Pym out of prison...Curse you Egghead!
...it also lacks opposable thumbs.
If I recall my chemistry correctly, I think you mean 70 Kelvin, the Kelvin scale does not use degrees.
I think you mean Shi 'Ar Danger Room technology(though I'm sure someone else had this idea before the X-Men)
Ruh Roh!
I was shooting for funny...
Dude, he only gave him an 8/10!
I thought Roku got killed by the Fire Lord over 100 years ago!
So, while the Moon is positioned such that it reflects the Sun's rays back at earth, astronauts could get fried, would that be a Soleil Moon Frye?
http://ask.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/11/18/1853254
'nuff said
At the risk of being labeled an insufferable know it all, the submission should read "...raises the question...," not "...begs the question...." If you think I'm being a English usage Nazi, ask yourself(raise the question), "Why would someone use 'begs the question' instead of 'raises the question'?" The only answer I have to that is that "begs the question" sounds fancier. Well, it sounds fancier, because it is fancier, or at least a little more complex. "Begging the question" is a logical fallacy where the only proof of an argument is a restatement of the premise. A simple example...
... "Why do you think that?" ..."Because he's not smart"
"I think George Bush is stupid"
So, why does this matter...because it's important. That begs the question...
It matters, because when people misuse the expression they dilute the actual meaning. Some people people reading the line above might ask, "That begs what question," because the incorrect usage of this expression over time has conditioned them to have a different expectation when they hear the expression. The correct response to hearing that a question is begged, is to assess whether or not this is the case, not to wait with bated breath for the question.
All of this raises the question, when do I use beg, and when do I use raise. The simple answer is if your asking a new question, you're raising it, but if your trying to point out that no real proof has been provided to support the premise except for the premise itself, you're begging the question.
Flame On!
Of course, they are also made in China...
Society benefits from copyright extending past the life of the creator of the work. If I were an author in my late seventies, what would be the monetary motivation for writing a book. One need only attend the funerals of a few close friends before one realizes that one's life on earth is near its end. Knowing that my work would financially benefit my children would be a good incentive for me to spend my golden years working on my craft. Obviously money is not the primary reason that artists create, but it is one of the reasons (a minor one in most cases).
I disagree with most of your arguments...
1. If you didn't buy it and it wasn't legitimately given to you, you stole it
2. I'm not sure what the impact of you listening to a song is on its sales.
3. Artists do put their time into an album, and record companies put time and money in to an album, both deserve compensation.
4. If you steal caviar that you can't afford, or wouldn't otherwise buy, you're still stealing. See #2
5. I guess I agree with you, though I think the artist's heirs are entitled to compensation.
6. I want artists to have an incentive to write music that lasts, I can still listen to Abbey Road, but I don't see anyone listening to some of the crap on the radio today in ten years. However, I agree that copyrights do last too long, especially when the holder is a corporation.
I assume these kids can get all of the Time-Warner catalog for free anyway, so what are they stealing? I guess those Time-Life music collections aren't as comprehensive as advertised.
Everyone knows exposure to this radiation is nearly always benign...in fact, 75% of the people exposed to this radiation found it to be beneficial. The remaining 25% were less pleased, apparently having super-strength and near invulnerability does not make up for the fact that one's body is covered with rocks and people call you a "Thing."