To answer your question, I believe the spirit of the law is to prevent changing the text of the Torah. I would think anything that is clearly demarked would be okay, as seen in bound copies of the Torah available at your local Jewish bookstore. Of course I'm sure there are those that would disagree, just how some Jews believe that driving a car or even tearing toilet paper on the Sabbath violates God's commandment to not work on the Sabbath.
The Koran has a similar text restriction about it. Only the Koran written in Arabic is considered the true Koran. The reason is that Koran itself is miracle. Mohammed was illiterate, yet he was able to write the Koran in a single sitting as God dictated it to him. The Koran is considered the actual words of God, any translation could result in a slight change in meaning or emphasis and therefore change the meaning of God's words. Therefore, translations do not count. The Torah and the Bible on the other hand are simply oral histories written down and so have a long tradition of multiple translations. That is why it is said Musilims revere the Koran more than Christians revere the Bible.
Also not all words, are represented by a single glyph. The word "da4", which means "big", can be combined with "xiao3", which means "small", to create "da4xiao3" which means "size". (The numbers after the syllables indicate the tone.) Some characters must be used in combination with others, because the individual character has no intrinsic meaning.
Further complicating matters is when Western words are transliterated into Chinese. (Japanese and Korean words sometimes have Chinese characters already associated with them. It appears to me that in the few cases I know the words also have a common ancestor, but I'm not a Asian linguist.) While the meanings of the individual characters or even the combination of characters carry little weight, care must still be used lest you transliterate "George Bush" to "Robot Monkey Carburetor", or even worse, "Butt Fucker". For instance, the fast food chain "Subway" is transliterated to something that sounds like "sa ba wei", and means "10,000 Tastes" or something like that, instead of "di4xia4tie3" which means "underground train".
Explaining why creating nonsense words that bear a striking resembelence to English words in order to prevent saying something stupid in a non-English langauge is left as an exercise to the reader. Please note, that the "Mexican Chevy Nova" story is a myth. It assumes Spanish speakers don't have enough command over their native langauge to distinguish between "nova" and "no va", unlike English speakers ability to distribuish between "notable" and "no table". Futhermore the myth hinges on the listener to have ignorance of the fact that the Mexican government sells gasoline under the brand name "Nova".
Look, a buisness doesn't come crashing down with the loss of a single individual. Sure there's differences in individual abilities, but in the end these don't really matter as each individual contributes only a small amount to the entire whole. The ream is bigger than any individual.
The idea of a single indespensible uber-coder is a myth. (Conviently, everyone thinks of themselves as that uber-coder.) It always has been, and it always will be.
I hate to tell you this, but the vast majority of coders in the gaming industry are not replacable. The management would like to think they are though, and that's why we get so many poorly coded titles on the shelf.
Really? The reason why working standards are so low in the games industry is because developers are replaceable. Want to spend more time with your family? There's the door. We have 4 wide-eyed grads waiting outside to take your job. Everyone is replaceble.
Because I for one consider a chip which purposefully takes control of my computer away from me and gives it to someone else without my authorization to be broken.
You''re missing how things like this is done. It will work exactly like licensing agreements. "You don't want to enable (Dis)Trusting Compuing? Well then, the OS won't run. Sucks for you." "Oh you're running an OS that doesn't use DRM? Well, we won't enable these features." No one steals the authority over your computer, you cede it.
There's a bit of a fencepost problem with your solution though. If someone comes in at 0:00, he get's the password for the current WLAN. If someone comes in at 0:59 he should get the password for the next WLAN since we can assume it will take more than a minute to find a seat and get connected to the WLAN. If it takes less than a minute, he can wait the extra minute before going online. Now what happens if someone comes in at 0:30? They need the current password, but in order to give them the whole hour you have to give them the next password as well. In the best case you give them 1:30, which is fine, but now the customer will have to stop and reconfigure his connection in the middle of stay. That's potentially confusing, and could lead to a lot "Miss? Could you help me? I can't connect to the WLAN." Requiring a helpdesk is Bad Thing(tm).
The correct answer depends on what you want out of your career.
Most people here are quite satisfied with being essentially code monkeys that take the current "Teach Yourself Foo in 24 Days" book, and use that. If all you want to be is a guy that churns out VB code for an insurance company, make webpages, or reboot windows boxes, then no. There's no point to keep up with the field, because you're doing anything new. All you're doing is taking advantage of essentialy commodity techniques and technology.
It is important to note many of these same people are hostile to research, criticizing academic papers as pointless, crap, and full of big-words (aka technical terms). These same people tend to think of themselves as God's gift to engineers, and therefore react negatively to anything they can't understand. Computer science is still a young field that is dominated by the young and experienced. It is no wonder, why the same mistakes are continously repeated in this field.
Now, if you want to work and actually create new technologies (as opposed to simply products) then you need to keep up with the research. As a lowly coder, you can't take necessarily take advantage of what you read, but as a lead designer you can take advantage of some of it.
If you decide you want more, then just focus on one or two lead journals most relavant to what you're doing. If you decide you want to write VB all your life, then don't bother. The choice is yours.
You admit you don't understand them, and yet, you feel you can criticise them as "BS" and "fluff". Interesting. Somehow I think the fault lies you.
I particularly liked your complaint about "esoteric terms". Apparently you have something about using technical terms. Perhaps we should all just say things like "thingy" so that you can understand them. That, or you can get an education, because you're in dire need of one.
But you know what, it is perfectly reasonable to try to bring up that this is a glaring problem in the presentation of OpenOffice as a non-prorietary open office suite.
It's widely available to all takers, can be redistributed at will, and can be modified by anyone. That is the definition of nonproprietary. If you have any doubts, I suggest you consult a dictionary.
The people who do so are not whining, or demanding, and they aren't being rude ASSHOLES (that would be you). They are simply putting light on a rather crucial issue.
Actually it's not a "crucial issue". It's not even an issue. It's a manufactured controversy, by those that would use politics and dogma to dictate engineering decisions. Not just the refusal, but out right hostility to objectively superior technical solutions inevitably leads to subpar products where the development process breaks down to needlessly reimplementing the wheel and hissy fits filled with grandiose allegations of sabotage and oppression.
Most reasonable people would rather have software that works, thank you very much.
C, since objects really are overrated for anything that normal developers might want to maintain?
C can too be object oriented! It's powerful and great, and can link with anything because you don't have to deal with marshalling, and everything supports linking with C, and you just don't appreciate it because you've been spoiled by syntatic sugar. That's why you don't appreciate creating two different structs and explicitily calling both allocators and constructors and implementing 'isa' with #defines.
I even followed up to my own post pointing out my own mistake. I think he was hawking another movie, but he was most definatlely on Conan and he most definitely made that point. Brooks tells that story whenever ratings are discussed.
Thats the thing. The Internet is a World Wide (W)network. It would take all the governements in the world working together to control it!!!
But you don't have to control the whole thing. You only have to control you're little part. The part that's used by those who are a danger to you.
This university block bittorrent. Does that stop everyone from using it? No. Of course not, but it prevents anyone from using this network from using it. Some ISPs block incoming connections to port 80. That prevents most people from running their own webserver.
The nodes are called "gateways" for a reason. You control that node, you control everything that goes in or out.
Well classified information does tend to get leaked don't it? Abu Grav anyone, tell me that the those trainning photos were supposed to be allowed out of the facility?
Because they weren't training photos at all, but rather souvenirs taken by the abusive guards themselves. The photos were emailed back to friends with comments like, "Havin' fun!". The photos were never considered secret because abuse became the standard operating proceedure there. The photos are obviously souvenirs because they have the guards posing and smiling in them. Documentary photos don't have that.
Contrast this with the identities of (not even of the individuals, but of the organization) of those at Abu Ghraib that wore uniforms, but no insignia. The identities of those who oversaw the abuse. Am I supposed to believe that for some reason that information wants to remain secret protect the higher ups?
The maxim is dead? The Internet is merely just routing around China. The fact that Chinese citizens can't access the information doesn't mean it isn't out there.
That's not what the maxim meant and you know that. It meant "censorship isn't effective". I realized that was an absurd meme at 18. You control the network, you control information.
"The information wants to be free," is also a stupid meme. Information doesn't want to be free. It doesn't want to do anything. If information always moved flowed out, then classified information would never exist.
Besides, even the Chinese can get around it. Alternatives exist for dissidents to get their polically sensitive information, look no further than excrypted communication via proxy, Freenet, etc. What enables all of this? Oh yeah, it's the Internet.
Oh yeah, proxies. They're blocked as soon as their found. Freenet? Port blocked. Hell even an university can block a protocol. The most insidious challenge is controlling the name servers. Want to go to google.com? It's not 64.233.167.147. It's something else. But how would you know? You can't even run an nslookup.
What frightens me is that the Chinese simply don't realize they're being censored.
What scares me is that many don't even care. The old attitude of, "Eh. It's just politics," and "I can email my friends and get my photos, music, and movies." I can see why they say that, it doesn't effect them.
I always find these movie ratings hilarious. Titanic featured a fully naked female(we are talking boobs, pubic hair etc) and still received a pg-13 rating, whereas movies that use the word "fuck" are given R ratings.....
Albert Brooks had a great comment about the very use of the word "fuck" with regard to ratings. He was hawking "Lost in America" on Conan O'Brien. He mentioned the movie got an R raiting because "fuck" was "used in a sexual context". Brooks pointed out, "[Say,] 'I want to fuck you over this desk' you'll get an R, but if you say, 'I want to fuck you over with this desk,' you'll get a PG-13. Exactly what are minors being protected from?"
Slashdot Mirror
To answer your question, I believe the spirit of the law is to prevent changing the text of the Torah. I would think anything that is clearly demarked would be okay, as seen in bound copies of the Torah available at your local Jewish bookstore. Of course I'm sure there are those that would disagree, just how some Jews believe that driving a car or even tearing toilet paper on the Sabbath violates God's commandment to not work on the Sabbath.
The Koran has a similar text restriction about it. Only the Koran written in Arabic is considered the true Koran. The reason is that Koran itself is miracle. Mohammed was illiterate, yet he was able to write the Koran in a single sitting as God dictated it to him. The Koran is considered the actual words of God, any translation could result in a slight change in meaning or emphasis and therefore change the meaning of God's words. Therefore, translations do not count. The Torah and the Bible on the other hand are simply oral histories written down and so have a long tradition of multiple translations. That is why it is said Musilims revere the Koran more than Christians revere the Bible.
Further, 'character' is pretty specific to alphabetic writing. I wonder if a Chinese idiograph or Egyptian hieroglyph count as a 'character'?
You're incorrect. "Character" is generic, "letter" is not. As seen in "Chinese characters". The term "glyph" is equally generic.
Chinese characters aren't strictly pictograms or even ideograms. Some characters combinations of other characters where some parts of the compound character are used hint at the proper pronouciation.
Also not all words, are represented by a single glyph. The word "da4", which means "big", can be combined with "xiao3", which means "small", to create "da4xiao3" which means "size". (The numbers after the syllables indicate the tone.) Some characters must be used in combination with others, because the individual character has no intrinsic meaning.
Further complicating matters is when Western words are transliterated into Chinese. (Japanese and Korean words sometimes have Chinese characters already associated with them. It appears to me that in the few cases I know the words also have a common ancestor, but I'm not a Asian linguist.) While the meanings of the individual characters or even the combination of characters carry little weight, care must still be used lest you transliterate "George Bush" to "Robot Monkey Carburetor", or even worse, "Butt Fucker". For instance, the fast food chain "Subway" is transliterated to something that sounds like "sa ba wei", and means "10,000 Tastes" or something like that, instead of "di4xia4tie3" which means "underground train".
Explaining why creating nonsense words that bear a striking resembelence to English words in order to prevent saying something stupid in a non-English langauge is left as an exercise to the reader. Please note, that the "Mexican Chevy Nova" story is a myth. It assumes Spanish speakers don't have enough command over their native langauge to distinguish between "nova" and "no va", unlike English speakers ability to distribuish between "notable" and "no table". Futhermore the myth hinges on the listener to have ignorance of the fact that the Mexican government sells gasoline under the brand name "Nova".
Thus concludes your linguistic lesson.
Look, a buisness doesn't come crashing down with the loss of a single individual. Sure there's differences in individual abilities, but in the end these don't really matter as each individual contributes only a small amount to the entire whole. The ream is bigger than any individual.
The idea of a single indespensible uber-coder is a myth. (Conviently, everyone thinks of themselves as that uber-coder.) It always has been, and it always will be.
I hate to tell you this, but the vast majority of coders in the gaming industry are not replacable. The management would like to think they are though, and that's why we get so many poorly coded titles on the shelf.
Really? The reason why working standards are so low in the games industry is because developers are replaceable. Want to spend more time with your family? There's the door. We have 4 wide-eyed grads waiting outside to take your job. Everyone is replaceble.
Because I for one consider a chip which purposefully takes control of my computer away from me and gives it to someone else without my authorization to be broken.
You''re missing how things like this is done. It will work exactly like licensing agreements. "You don't want to enable (Dis)Trusting Compuing? Well then, the OS won't run. Sucks for you." "Oh you're running an OS that doesn't use DRM? Well, we won't enable these features." No one steals the authority over your computer, you cede it.
I always enjoyed the SGI's use of lava lights. There's an open source implementation available, that was mentioned previously.
There's a bit of a fencepost problem with your solution though. If someone comes in at 0:00, he get's the password for the current WLAN. If someone comes in at 0:59 he should get the password for the next WLAN since we can assume it will take more than a minute to find a seat and get connected to the WLAN. If it takes less than a minute, he can wait the extra minute before going online. Now what happens if someone comes in at 0:30? They need the current password, but in order to give them the whole hour you have to give them the next password as well. In the best case you give them 1:30, which is fine, but now the customer will have to stop and reconfigure his connection in the middle of stay. That's potentially confusing, and could lead to a lot "Miss? Could you help me? I can't connect to the WLAN." Requiring a helpdesk is Bad Thing(tm).
You forget, people are usually helpful.
Cost: $$$$$
Versus
Unplug the router every Friday at close, plug the router back in every Monday at open.
Cost: 0
Yeah. Option one is way easier.
Just as turkeys don't vote for Christmas,
Why wouldn't turkeys vote for Christmas? Afterall, its "Christmas hams". Well I guess, the animal kingdom has to stick to together.
I'm not the one who crticized the use of big-words.
And sometimes it just means you're damn fool for cursing those muckity-mucks for using the proper terms.
The correct answer depends on what you want out of your career.
Most people here are quite satisfied with being essentially code monkeys that take the current "Teach Yourself Foo in 24 Days" book, and use that. If all you want to be is a guy that churns out VB code for an insurance company, make webpages, or reboot windows boxes, then no. There's no point to keep up with the field, because you're doing anything new. All you're doing is taking advantage of essentialy commodity techniques and technology.
It is important to note many of these same people are hostile to research, criticizing academic papers as pointless, crap, and full of big-words (aka technical terms). These same people tend to think of themselves as God's gift to engineers, and therefore react negatively to anything they can't understand. Computer science is still a young field that is dominated by the young and experienced. It is no wonder, why the same mistakes are continously repeated in this field.
Now, if you want to work and actually create new technologies (as opposed to simply products) then you need to keep up with the research. As a lowly coder, you can't take necessarily take advantage of what you read, but as a lead designer you can take advantage of some of it.
If you decide you want more, then just focus on one or two lead journals most relavant to what you're doing. If you decide you want to write VB all your life, then don't bother. The choice is yours.
I forgot to point out the irony of your sig. A more appropriate one has yet been found.
You admit you don't understand them, and yet, you feel you can criticise them as "BS" and "fluff". Interesting. Somehow I think the fault lies you.
I particularly liked your complaint about "esoteric terms". Apparently you have something about using technical terms. Perhaps we should all just say things like "thingy" so that you can understand them. That, or you can get an education, because you're in dire need of one.
I think you mean mangling.
No. I don't.
But you know what, it is perfectly reasonable to try to bring up that this is a glaring problem in the presentation of OpenOffice as a non-prorietary open office suite.
It's widely available to all takers, can be redistributed at will, and can be modified by anyone. That is the definition of nonproprietary. If you have any doubts, I suggest you consult a dictionary.
The people who do so are not whining, or demanding, and they aren't being rude ASSHOLES (that would be you). They are simply putting light on a rather crucial issue.
Actually it's not a "crucial issue". It's not even an issue. It's a manufactured controversy, by those that would use politics and dogma to dictate engineering decisions. Not just the refusal, but out right hostility to objectively superior technical solutions inevitably leads to subpar products where the development process breaks down to needlessly reimplementing the wheel and hissy fits filled with grandiose allegations of sabotage and oppression.
Most reasonable people would rather have software that works, thank you very much.
C, since objects really are overrated for anything that normal developers might want to maintain?
C can too be object oriented! It's powerful and great, and can link with anything because you don't have to deal with marshalling, and everything supports linking with C, and you just don't appreciate it because you've been spoiled by syntatic sugar. That's why you don't appreciate creating two different structs and explicitily calling both allocators and constructors and implementing 'isa' with #defines.
Now shut up and drink the kool-aid.
@_@
I even followed up to my own post pointing out my own mistake. I think he was hawking another movie, but he was most definatlely on Conan and he most definitely made that point. Brooks tells that story whenever ratings are discussed.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2000110/entry/1001238/
Thats the thing. The Internet is a World Wide (W)network. It would take all the governements in the world working together to control it!!!
But you don't have to control the whole thing. You only have to control you're little part. The part that's used by those who are a danger to you.
This university block bittorrent. Does that stop everyone from using it? No. Of course not, but it prevents anyone from using this network from using it. Some ISPs block incoming connections to port 80. That prevents most people from running their own webserver.
The nodes are called "gateways" for a reason. You control that node, you control everything that goes in or out.
Well classified information does tend to get leaked don't it? Abu Grav anyone, tell me that the those trainning photos were supposed to be allowed out of the facility?
Because they weren't training photos at all, but rather souvenirs taken by the abusive guards themselves. The photos were emailed back to friends with comments like, "Havin' fun!". The photos were never considered secret because abuse became the standard operating proceedure there. The photos are obviously souvenirs because they have the guards posing and smiling in them. Documentary photos don't have that.
Contrast this with the identities of (not even of the individuals, but of the organization) of those at Abu Ghraib that wore uniforms, but no insignia. The identities of those who oversaw the abuse. Am I supposed to believe that for some reason that information wants to remain secret protect the higher ups?
The maxim is dead? The Internet is merely just routing around China. The fact that Chinese citizens can't access the information doesn't mean it isn't out there.
That's not what the maxim meant and you know that. It meant "censorship isn't effective". I realized that was an absurd meme at 18. You control the network, you control information.
"The information wants to be free," is also a stupid meme. Information doesn't want to be free. It doesn't want to do anything. If information always moved flowed out, then classified information would never exist.
Besides, even the Chinese can get around it. Alternatives exist for dissidents to get their polically sensitive information, look no further than excrypted communication via proxy, Freenet, etc. What enables all of this? Oh yeah, it's the Internet.
Oh yeah, proxies. They're blocked as soon as their found. Freenet? Port blocked. Hell even an university can block a protocol. The most insidious challenge is controlling the name servers. Want to go to google.com? It's not 64.233.167.147. It's something else. But how would you know? You can't even run an nslookup.
What frightens me is that the Chinese simply don't realize they're being censored.
What scares me is that many don't even care. The old attitude of, "Eh. It's just politics," and "I can email my friends and get my photos, music, and movies." I can see why they say that, it doesn't effect them.
[Albert Brooks] was hawking "Lost in America" on Conan O'Brien.
Actually he was hawking a different movie, but the quote is still from an appereance on that show.
I always find these movie ratings hilarious. Titanic featured a fully naked female(we are talking boobs, pubic hair etc) and still received a pg-13 rating, whereas movies that use the word "fuck" are given R ratings.....
Albert Brooks had a great comment about the very use of the word "fuck" with regard to ratings. He was hawking "Lost in America" on Conan O'Brien. He mentioned the movie got an R raiting because "fuck" was "used in a sexual context". Brooks pointed out, "[Say,] 'I want to fuck you over this desk' you'll get an R, but if you say, 'I want to fuck you over with this desk,' you'll get a PG-13. Exactly what are minors being protected from?"