TL;DR no, it should not have been translated, but whomever decided to had some damned reason or another, so you'll have to ask that person to see if this was justified.
It's an interesting question, and I'm on both sides of the fence. God and Allah are both the God of Abraham, spiritual head of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.
"God" in western Christianity seems to be nameless, with the generic "god" becoming a proper name. We capitalize the word because there is only one god, and that is the god to which we refer by "God". Same with the difference between "his grace" and "His grace", only "his" is not a name.
But you suggest God is a proper name. It's more of a convention than a proper proper name, but whatever.
Why is the Muslim god called Allah?
A better question is, why would a Muslim and a Jew worship differently, have different beliefs, and want to blow each other up?
It is not the same God. There is your answer.
The Muslim God spoke through Muhammad - and the followers are Muslim. The Christian God spoke through Jesus - and the followers are Christian. The Jewish God spoke through Moses, without further distillation.
The worship of Allah is not the worship of the Christian God. The worship of the Jewish Lord is not the worship of either one. Yes, it is the same God, but not the same religion. All 3 refer to the same God of Abraham, but God is not Allah because the followers are not the same.
If you are a Copt, dominated by Arabic culture, the proper translation is probably "There is no God but God," because this is very definitely not Allah. But clearly the second half, "Mohammed is the prophet of God," tells us that this is Allah, not God.
"Allahu akbar" does, in fact, mean "God is great" to both people. That is, if I translate for you so you can understand, it means that my God, who is also your God, is great. The key is in how you use translation. Do you mean that you literally translate without regard for idiom? Because most people don't do that. If I translate as "Allah, who is the God of these people but also in many ways the god of Christians and Jews, is great" it gets wordy, leaves lots of holes for questions and disagreements, and generally is worthless.
It is much closer in meaning and sentiment to say "God is great." It is not "God who hates Jews is great" or "God who thinks America is the Great Satan is great." It means "God of our faith is great", and is more clearly translated as you said.
Now to the quote in question: "There is no God but God and Mohammed is the prophet of God." Should that mean Allah instead? As I read it, it does in fact exclude the Jewish God and the Christian God, specifically because it excludes other prophets. BahÃ'Ã is out because they recognize many other prophets in addition to the one claimed in the quote. Mormonism obviously as well.
So this is the God of Muhammad, which can be summed up easily by saying "Allah" instead of God. Of course, this is redundant since the quote says that directly.
Since the quote comes from CNN, which cites Seven Network, we must consider whether Seven Network was right in translating it the way it did. I'm not going to go into the complexities of deciding who your audience is and whether you want to slant the news or appear unbiased, or whether someone put this much thought into the translation. Because they probably didn't. And no one cares by this point. And unless you majored in another language in preparation to be a translator, with formal education, the subtleties would be lost.
The choice is always to color someone's perceptions or avoid coloring - there is rarely neutral ground. So finally your question: Should Allah be translated to God? The answer of course is sometimes. Not in this case.
When your argument starts with something so ridiculous as hit squads, you should really stop to think if you have a point or not.
Actavis has a fairly huge industry employing ex-cheerleaders (I am not exaggerating) telling doctors all about how Namenda is better than whatever else was available. Doctors are free to look up the generic name, but they don't. That's the problem you want to solve. Nothing in your statement shows you understand the problem, so you won't have a solution.
Actavis now has pharma reps saying that Namenda is old hat, and Namenda XR is available. If the doc writes down Namenda XR, generics that can't be produced due to patents won't be.
The basis of this lawsuit seems to be that taking the old version off the market means telling docs that the old version is off the market so switch everyone to the XR version. The article says specifically that doctors prescribe the brand name, and that generics are only filled because state or local laws require substitution when possible.
It's true that this is "unprecedented and extraordinary", especially since critics refer to the practice as "evergreening" and "product hopping" - in other words it happens so often there is a name for it. As Actavis argues, there will be "unnecessary manufacturing" costs in keeping two lines open when only the newer one should be running. I don't follow the "marketing costs" argument.
This is a poor decision, and a poorly argued case, because it basically is trying to get around the Constitutionally granted protection of a patent, and flies in the face of how business has been done for 30 years (considering the U.S and legally done only). If you object to this decision, it should be on that basis. Or the doctor education process, or the lack of patient education as to their options, or any number of other problems in the pipeline.
Otherwise let me paraphrase what you said: "Dragons aren't real, so here are facts that, while true, demonstrate that I have no idea what's going on."
Spending time to do something doesn't mean you give it worth.
How do you figure that? More specifically, what worth would I give all of the things I didn't do while doing whatever I spent time on? Would that be negative worth?
Also, there are piles of databases and information sources that I am willing to pay X dollars per month to access, where X represents the cost of my internet connection. I am not willing to spend more than that, but it is worth the cost of access. If it were all worth zero, I would not have an internet connection. Why pay to access something with zero worth?
The original intent of Twitter was to be able to send and view the whole tweet on mobile platforms. 140 characters plus 20 for the username is the typical SMS limit of 160 characters.
If they converted the hash tag into a href={link} with angle brackets, one character becomes 16. As it is, the pound, hash, or number sign still represents a link, but in compressed form.
You are thinking about viewing on a web platform. The creators were thinking about transfer over SMS. Two entirely different platforms and problems. Without considering the original problem, you may find a different solution, because you are solving a different problem.
Now that you know, how would you solve the problem? When you convert a hashtag to a link you drop the hash? How then do you differentiate between actual links, hashtag links, and username links? By hovering? I don't have hover on my phone, and link shortening doesn't tell you where something will end up.
I like the shorthand of knowing if I'm clicking on a user (@) or tag (#) or user-supplied link (normal hyperlink). The last one works on the twitter app, and on the web, and in normal text messages.
But I am going on record to say that mis-hearing and mis-understanding words means that you are either not talking to people about things you read, or not reading the same thing that the people you talk to read.
There is a disconnect in your linguistic vocabulary and your verbal vocabulary.
I'm not saying that one is deficient, but I am saying that you have not connected the two. And while that doesn't make you stupid, you really have to dig yourself out of that hole where I think you're stupid if you make that mistake.
Language does not evolve when people make stupid, obvious mistakes. It progresses when people misuse words or phrases honestly, and understandably.
If I spend a lot of time interacting with people in my geographic area, or in my age group, or in some other well defined group, people will take on my speech patterns or refuse to depending on things like familiarity with me, or identification with how much they accept or reject existing norms.
Ebonics, for example, is the kind of thing I would expect if a closed society (black folk) communicated with itself via rejection of white folk speech. A third cousin talking with someone in another state might spread some thing new, and people pick that up.
If you think that it's an artifact of twitter, then you have studied the least informative articles published on this type of thing.
Individuals are free. But according to people who study these things, geography is important. Yes, we can propagate things. But I have never heard "ard" - I have heard "aiit" and "right" and "ite", and I have relatives in the studied geography.
People pick things up from the people they communicate most frequently with, and especially with K-12 students, this is constrained geographically. As in my example, parents frequently interact with their children, and sometimes adopt (correctly or not), their language.
Think again. And this time, have something behind what you are saying other than your opinion.
The NDA is likely something that gradually came in to place, as someone in the business decided that displacing American workers would generate some sort of pushback.
First you say it's not a conspiracy, and I believe that. But does knowledge gained stay with the originator?
Are you asserting that because one company does not care about the industry at large, that the OBVIOUS solution of displacing people with H-1B workers, with the OBVIOUS corollary of silencing displaced workers, somehow is not widespread?
I'm not saying it's a conspiracy. You did.
Seriously, we're such ideologues on this issue that we're going to believe that there's some massive, industry wide conspiracy to cover this up?
That was you, Charliemopps, being an idiot.
If I were going to pay someone for 3 months of work without them actually doing work, it would be legally required, or contractual, or I wouldn't bribe someone to do it. Or else it would be seen as A FUCKING BRIBE.
And I would expect them to be afraid of legal costs. So afraid that they would not talk back.
I challenged you to defend your position, and you basically repeated the same errors. Stop it. Stop being an idiot.
I interviewed someone with certifications. They had no skill.
I work in an office with no certifications.
Certifications might get you a raise, might not, averages on not. Won't get you a job. Averages on won't.
It might get you past the HR filter. But the best way to get past the HR filter is know someone. Good old fashioned networking.
If you have a job, get a cert and get a raise. If you have nothing else to do, get a cert and possibly get past the HR filter. But be prepared for the non-cert questions. Cos those are what matters.
What do you read that makes you so sure of this position? I'm hearing about this for the first time today, and while skepticism is due, it sounds like something business would do.
And I'm usually on the side of defending or explaining business or capitalism to the willfully ignorant.
Given factual errors already pointed out, you're going to need to defend your position with something more than incredulity and rhetoric.
Lol was my first thought. Many older generation users seem to think it is lots of love, and use it inappropriately. The example is common enough that it is likely not copycat humor.
A generational divide that makes lol intuitive in different ways certainly would be the kind of cultural gap studied, though this was more geographical.
How information spreads is still not well understand, at least not to having a predictive model. Once we do, expect advertising and politics to be painful. That's the down side to knowing these things
It is worth the money if you have a security breach, and you were using software unsupported by the vendor. If you can't blame a vendor, then you accept all liability. For some businesses this is acceptable. For others this is too much of a gamble, and support is worth the money.
You seem focused only on "when things break", and not focused on "when things are so bad you wish you had a better legal department". And the people who pay lots for a well written support contract often don't care about the level of support - only in having a valid contract.
In business-to-business, being able to say "Red Hat is investigating" sounds better than "we have a guy looking at it". In business to consumer it is not as important outside of losing revenue, because the customer usually doesn't care the cause. But wither way customers may be placated to know it's not your fault, and the losses are minimized.
The silly thing is... they NEVER hold these companies accountable.
Define accountable? Your support contract outlines what can be expected. You have problems, they try to resolve the problems. That's one kind of accountable. Outage causes millions in losses? That's a different accountable, and they legally will fight any attempt to collect on that. If you pay for support, and never hold them "accountable" i.e. never contact support, then that's stupid.
When have you ever heard Microsoft pushing a patch for Windows early or an extra update merely because a customer was 'upset'.
Never, because no one does that and no one expects that. They expect the opposite. And who is even talking about Microsoft here other than you?
And Redhat is actually pretty bad about support; they only support a VERY SMALL set of very old releases (vs Ubuntu which keeps their releases pretty up to date). The excuse is 'it might break something' which is a pile of BS since it wouldn't be in the core supported repo.
Then why would you pay Red Hat for such limited support? Unless that's all you need? And otherwise shouldn't you find someone willing to take your money and provide that support?
Here's the problem with Linux - pushing a bug fix does not mean you have a huge lab with all kinds of software you can run regression tests on. Different versions of packages, including anything anyone found once that solved a problem, could be on any box. Microsoft knows what its customers run, and it can focus on whatever has broken in past support tickets to prevent similar issues. But Red Hat actually has to be more conservative due to the ecosystem.
I would laugh if companies actually DID hold companies accountable because then no one would provide support. Its a silly house of cards that I call BULLSHIT on.
Do you mean lawsuits? Because the kind of lawsuit that would make support a poor business plan simply is not possible due to the wording of the contracts, and established case law. Support means having a contract, and you can hold the company to that contract. But you can't hold them beyond that contract. So someone wrote the wrong contract, or someone (you) has no idea what the contract says. You should find out and give specifics, or get off the internet with your ignorance.
it would also use language in a way we are unlikely to understand. Does that mean that it should +always+ be written in some sort of incomprehensible syntax?
The author makes certain assumptions toward the audience. One I have always allowed when reading is that I speak the language. Near-future I expect to be in my native tongue, with differences in usage and wording similar to the same distance in the past. 2050 slang should be as unintelligible but learnable as 1950 slang, in other words.
But 1000 years on, it will be as alien as Chaucer. And unless the story is about piecing together what something 1000 years old means, I assume I speak the language or it has been translated. Of course the idea of translation can serve as a crutch to explain things you otherwise would not explain, but that's cheating.
So no, it is not reasonable to argue "ad absurdum". Remove that bit about syntax and your point still stands, so it is not needed, and distracts as a point of attack unrelated to the point you are trying to make.
It is in a different galaxy, closer to the Big Bang. And therefore the humanoids aren't even humans. But it does represent a point where a humanoid intelligence similar to ours has reached FTL travel and has met other intelligent beings.
It is the future relative to our position. If we evolved faster, or if they evolved slower, it could easily have been in the absolute future. And the culture is otherwise an extension of today into what would be our future. Which is the topic we are discussing.
In fact, because there is no way we could have influenced that culture, it is a much more egregious example of what Stross complained about. They should be so utterly alien that Lando's actions are expected or normal, or that family ties don't cause surprise or unease, or any number of divergences from people today.
And keep in mind that none of my critique suggests it is wrong. Your pedantry is not useful, informative, nor helpful, and in fact should be both redundant because everyone here should know the first words of the crawl, and off-topic as I illustrated.
There are plenty of bright ideas that don't require the elaborate setup, and the point could be lost if constructed against that background. This expectation seems to be a preference for a particular style of far-future sci-fi, where other people may have a different preference. Stross is mistaking his own preferences for wisdom.
The difficulty is in framing the story, so that the reader is a natural audience for the narrator.
If you are a tyrant of Jupiter, for example, there are things that people on Earth might not be aware of, and those things can be described as if they are new. There are things, though, that you would not explain, because they are universal. Communications would need no description, fashion would need only the differences pointed out.
It is no different from telling a timeless story of just people, without describing the people directly. Letting their actions define if they are good or bad, friendly or distant, all with no actual descriptions. Only now you have to have a narrative point to describe all of the differences, without sounding like a dictionary.
Stross doesn't seem to care about the readability or art - just the scenarios. Sure he claims the opposite. But if I created an entirely new culture for every story, there would be so much work going in to the backgrounding, of the environment and the people and how everything is interconnected - you're asking for epic invention every time. Vast amounts of outlining would be required, just to make sure that points don't contradict each other. The notes and fact sheets or "encyclopedia" could well be hundreds of times larger than it would be in order to get a point across. And none of that work is the actual writing that people will read.
A thousand page book would benefit from a huge amount of background work. But there's the normal work, and on top of that creating a new culture. I would expect that from maybe 10% of the writers, with the rest forgiven for not being so thorough because the writing is better, or the ideas are better, or even the books are cheaper, or are popular among people not named Stross.
I'm curious what frequent contributor Bennety Assleton thinks about this petition. Usually, he can summarize a complex issue succinctly, and convey useful information quickly. I'd love his take on this.
Also, some other topics:
Fart ordering- quick sort or bubble sort? What equals 6, emacs or vi? What's life like being consummately oblivious? How many sticks are up my ass? (A Slashdot pole) Deadly auto-erotic asphyxiation methods, a hands on review.
I don't know what the expectation of modern websites would be, but smart people disable JavaScript until they trust the site. Yours has no graceful fallback. It looks terrible, and it doesn't even have the normal "you blocked javascript" telltale signs - it's just ugly and pointless.
And are my only two choices to sign up or log in? I don't want to contribute anything other than my IP address and user-agent until I know what I get in trade.
Maybe your audience isn't privacy-conscious nerds who remember drive-by browser hacks. So here's not the best place for opinions, since it's obviously not part of your target audience.
No. An IPO raises capital so a company can expand the business, promising potential for dividends and or buyback when it is stable.
The secondary market is a combination of blind men, suckers, oracles, addicts, and lemmings furiously masturbating over the idea that they are the lone seer in a mob of idiots. Gambling over the internet effectively, since material facts may exist but may not yet be made public.
It was easy. They read the fucking article. The threat probably sent selected data home, and from there these words were typed:
They sought data that included drafts of U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filings, documents on merger activity, discussions of legal cases, board planning documents and medical research results, she said.
"They are pursuing sensitive information that would give them privileged insight into stock market dynamics," Weedon said.
Not any more. Unless you still differentiate between a gay girl and knave girl. Since you don't type like a Canterbury Tale, I assume you agree that language evolves.
Even in a plainly informative response, the context of logica. fallacy must be included.Because otherwise that's not normally what it is intended to convey.
A modem modulates and demodulates. Voiceband modem, what POTS was intended to carry, was the 56k limit.
DSL appears to be an acoustic signal carried over POTS, not a digital signal. It is just as digital as voiceband, I should say, by which I mean it is digital, but clearly not in the way you mean it.
If we are talking about cable modems, which are modems as well, the signal I believe is RF. Analog cable TV and digital cable TV are both possible, and I believe cable internet over both is likewise possible, meaning that it may or may not be a pure digital connection and it may or may not carry pure digital data.
As I understand it, fiber is pure digital all the way.
What you meant to say is that the 56k limit was based on the infrastructure which was intended to carry the characteristics of speech and considered frequency loss acceptable. DSL is interesting because it sits on top of all but the most antiquated of the existing POTS infrastructure, but it is distance limited because frequency loss is not allowed.
I skimmed over some details, but in your rush to be pedantic you just kind of ignored a whole mess of important distinction, and you ended with a completely untrue statement.
"We hear that there's a couple of medallion owners that have offered to sell at 425 and nobody's touched them
If he can't sell them at all, or not fast enough to keep up loan payments or whatever expenses he might have, he declares bankruptcy.
That doesn't mean he has no more money or saleable assets, just that he isn't liquid enough to keep up with bills. Maybe he owns some but took financing for others with the owned bits as collateral.
Unless you have more information about his financial situation, of course. I love schadenfreude, but can't stand ignorant twats.
Slashdot Mirror
TL;DR no, it should not have been translated, but whomever decided to had some damned reason or another, so you'll have to ask that person to see if this was justified.
It's an interesting question, and I'm on both sides of the fence. God and Allah are both the God of Abraham, spiritual head of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.
"God" in western Christianity seems to be nameless, with the generic "god" becoming a proper name. We capitalize the word because there is only one god, and that is the god to which we refer by "God". Same with the difference between "his grace" and "His grace", only "his" is not a name.
But you suggest God is a proper name. It's more of a convention than a proper proper name, but whatever.
Why is the Muslim god called Allah?
A better question is, why would a Muslim and a Jew worship differently, have different beliefs, and want to blow each other up?
It is not the same God. There is your answer.
The Muslim God spoke through Muhammad - and the followers are Muslim. The Christian God spoke through Jesus - and the followers are Christian. The Jewish God spoke through Moses, without further distillation.
The worship of Allah is not the worship of the Christian God. The worship of the Jewish Lord is not the worship of either one.
Yes, it is the same God, but not the same religion. All 3 refer to the same God of Abraham, but God is not Allah because the followers are not the same.
If you are a Copt, dominated by Arabic culture, the proper translation is probably "There is no God but God," because this is very definitely not Allah. But clearly the second half, "Mohammed is the prophet of God," tells us that this is Allah, not God.
"Allahu akbar" does, in fact, mean "God is great" to both people. That is, if I translate for you so you can understand, it means that my God, who is also your God, is great. The key is in how you use translation. Do you mean that you literally translate without regard for idiom? Because most people don't do that. If I translate as "Allah, who is the God of these people but also in many ways the god of Christians and Jews, is great" it gets wordy, leaves lots of holes for questions and disagreements, and generally is worthless.
It is much closer in meaning and sentiment to say "God is great." It is not "God who hates Jews is great" or "God who thinks America is the Great Satan is great." It means "God of our faith is great", and is more clearly translated as you said.
Now to the quote in question: "There is no God but God and Mohammed is the prophet of God." Should that mean Allah instead? As I read it, it does in fact exclude the Jewish God and the Christian God, specifically because it excludes other prophets. BahÃ'Ã is out because they recognize many other prophets in addition to the one claimed in the quote. Mormonism obviously as well.
So this is the God of Muhammad, which can be summed up easily by saying "Allah" instead of God. Of course, this is redundant since the quote says that directly.
Since the quote comes from CNN, which cites Seven Network, we must consider whether Seven Network was right in translating it the way it did. I'm not going to go into the complexities of deciding who your audience is and whether you want to slant the news or appear unbiased, or whether someone put this much thought into the translation. Because they probably didn't. And no one cares by this point. And unless you majored in another language in preparation to be a translator, with formal education, the subtleties would be lost.
The choice is always to color someone's perceptions or avoid coloring - there is rarely neutral ground. So finally your question: Should Allah be translated to God? The answer of course is sometimes. Not in this case.
When your argument starts with something so ridiculous as hit squads, you should really stop to think if you have a point or not.
Actavis has a fairly huge industry employing ex-cheerleaders (I am not exaggerating) telling doctors all about how Namenda is better than whatever else was available. Doctors are free to look up the generic name, but they don't. That's the problem you want to solve. Nothing in your statement shows you understand the problem, so you won't have a solution.
Actavis now has pharma reps saying that Namenda is old hat, and Namenda XR is available. If the doc writes down Namenda XR, generics that can't be produced due to patents won't be.
The basis of this lawsuit seems to be that taking the old version off the market means telling docs that the old version is off the market so switch everyone to the XR version. The article says specifically that doctors prescribe the brand name, and that generics are only filled because state or local laws require substitution when possible.
It's true that this is "unprecedented and extraordinary", especially since critics refer to the practice as "evergreening" and "product hopping" - in other words it happens so often there is a name for it. As Actavis argues, there will be "unnecessary manufacturing" costs in keeping two lines open when only the newer one should be running. I don't follow the "marketing costs" argument.
This is a poor decision, and a poorly argued case, because it basically is trying to get around the Constitutionally granted protection of a patent, and flies in the face of how business has been done for 30 years (considering the U.S and legally done only). If you object to this decision, it should be on that basis. Or the doctor education process, or the lack of patient education as to their options, or any number of other problems in the pipeline.
Otherwise let me paraphrase what you said: "Dragons aren't real, so here are facts that, while true, demonstrate that I have no idea what's going on."
How do you figure that? More specifically, what worth would I give all of the things I didn't do while doing whatever I spent time on? Would that be negative worth?
Also, there are piles of databases and information sources that I am willing to pay X dollars per month to access, where X represents the cost of my internet connection. I am not willing to spend more than that, but it is worth the cost of access. If it were all worth zero, I would not have an internet connection. Why pay to access something with zero worth?
In the information age, is providing data an actual job?
I'm sure you meant something else, but your biases did not permit you to translate. Consider it again, and explain yourself more clearly.
The original intent of Twitter was to be able to send and view the whole tweet on mobile platforms. 140 characters plus 20 for the username is the typical SMS limit of 160 characters.
If they converted the hash tag into a href={link} with angle brackets, one character becomes 16. As it is, the pound, hash, or number sign still represents a link, but in compressed form.
You are thinking about viewing on a web platform. The creators were thinking about transfer over SMS. Two entirely different platforms and problems. Without considering the original problem, you may find a different solution, because you are solving a different problem.
Now that you know, how would you solve the problem? When you convert a hashtag to a link you drop the hash? How then do you differentiate between actual links, hashtag links, and username links? By hovering? I don't have hover on my phone, and link shortening doesn't tell you where something will end up.
I like the shorthand of knowing if I'm clicking on a user (@) or tag (#) or user-supplied link (normal hyperlink). The last one works on the twitter app, and on the web, and in normal text messages.
Language evolves. And I understand that.
But I am going on record to say that mis-hearing and mis-understanding words means that you are either not talking to people about things you read, or not reading the same thing that the people you talk to read.
There is a disconnect in your linguistic vocabulary and your verbal vocabulary.
I'm not saying that one is deficient, but I am saying that you have not connected the two. And while that doesn't make you stupid, you really have to dig yourself out of that hole where I think you're stupid if you make that mistake.
Language does not evolve when people make stupid, obvious mistakes. It progresses when people misuse words or phrases honestly, and understandably.
What you think is not really important.
If I spend a lot of time interacting with people in my geographic area, or in my age group, or in some other well defined group, people will take on my speech patterns or refuse to depending on things like familiarity with me, or identification with how much they accept or reject existing norms.
Ebonics, for example, is the kind of thing I would expect if a closed society (black folk) communicated with itself via rejection of white folk speech. A third cousin talking with someone in another state might spread some thing new, and people pick that up.
If you think that it's an artifact of twitter, then you have studied the least informative articles published on this type of thing.
Individuals are free. But according to people who study these things, geography is important. Yes, we can propagate things. But I have never heard "ard" - I have heard "aiit" and "right" and "ite", and I have relatives in the studied geography.
People pick things up from the people they communicate most frequently with, and especially with K-12 students, this is constrained geographically. As in my example, parents frequently interact with their children, and sometimes adopt (correctly or not), their language.
Think again. And this time, have something behind what you are saying other than your opinion.
More rhetoric.
The NDA is likely something that gradually came in to place, as someone in the business decided that displacing American workers would generate some sort of pushback.
First you say it's not a conspiracy, and I believe that. But does knowledge gained stay with the originator?
Are you asserting that because one company does not care about the industry at large, that the OBVIOUS solution of displacing people with H-1B workers, with the OBVIOUS corollary of silencing displaced workers, somehow is not widespread?
I'm not saying it's a conspiracy. You did.
That was you, Charliemopps, being an idiot.
If I were going to pay someone for 3 months of work without them actually doing work, it would be legally required, or contractual, or I wouldn't bribe someone to do it. Or else it would be seen as A FUCKING BRIBE.
And I would expect them to be afraid of legal costs. So afraid that they would not talk back.
I challenged you to defend your position, and you basically repeated the same errors. Stop it. Stop being an idiot.
I interviewed someone with certifications. They had no skill.
I work in an office with no certifications.
Certifications might get you a raise, might not, averages on not. Won't get you a job. Averages on won't.
It might get you past the HR filter. But the best way to get past the HR filter is know someone. Good old fashioned networking.
If you have a job, get a cert and get a raise. If you have nothing else to do, get a cert and possibly get past the HR filter. But be prepared for the non-cert questions. Cos those are what matters.
What do you read that makes you so sure of this position? I'm hearing about this for the first time today, and while skepticism is due, it sounds like something business would do.
And I'm usually on the side of defending or explaining business or capitalism to the willfully ignorant.
Given factual errors already pointed out, you're going to need to defend your position with something more than incredulity and rhetoric.
Lol was my first thought. Many older generation users seem to think it is lots of love, and use it inappropriately. The example is common enough that it is likely not copycat humor.
A generational divide that makes lol intuitive in different ways certainly would be the kind of cultural gap studied, though this was more geographical.
How information spreads is still not well understand, at least not to having a predictive model. Once we do, expect advertising and politics to be painful. That's the down side to knowing these things
A wise man once told me, always suspect ladyboy. Then, is only mild surprise when find you right!
It's never been applicable before, and I hope to God now's the time, instead of yesterday evening.
It is worth the money if you have a security breach, and you were using software unsupported by the vendor. If you can't blame a vendor, then you accept all liability. For some businesses this is acceptable. For others this is too much of a gamble, and support is worth the money.
You seem focused only on "when things break", and not focused on "when things are so bad you wish you had a better legal department". And the people who pay lots for a well written support contract often don't care about the level of support - only in having a valid contract.
In business-to-business, being able to say "Red Hat is investigating" sounds better than "we have a guy looking at it". In business to consumer it is not as important outside of losing revenue, because the customer usually doesn't care the cause. But wither way customers may be placated to know it's not your fault, and the losses are minimized.
Define accountable? Your support contract outlines what can be expected. You have problems, they try to resolve the problems. That's one kind of accountable. Outage causes millions in losses? That's a different accountable, and they legally will fight any attempt to collect on that. If you pay for support, and never hold them "accountable" i.e. never contact support, then that's stupid.
Never, because no one does that and no one expects that. They expect the opposite. And who is even talking about Microsoft here other than you?
Then why would you pay Red Hat for such limited support? Unless that's all you need? And otherwise shouldn't you find someone willing to take your money and provide that support?
Here's the problem with Linux - pushing a bug fix does not mean you have a huge lab with all kinds of software you can run regression tests on. Different versions of packages, including anything anyone found once that solved a problem, could be on any box. Microsoft knows what its customers run, and it can focus on whatever has broken in past support tickets to prevent similar issues. But Red Hat actually has to be more conservative due to the ecosystem.
Do you mean lawsuits? Because the kind of lawsuit that would make support a poor business plan simply is not possible due to the wording of the contracts, and established case law. Support means having a contract, and you can hold the company to that contract. But you can't hold them beyond that contract. So someone wrote the wrong contract, or someone (you) has no idea what the contract says. You should find out and give specifics, or get off the internet with your ignorance.
The author makes certain assumptions toward the audience. One I have always allowed when reading is that I speak the language. Near-future I expect to be in my native tongue, with differences in usage and wording similar to the same distance in the past. 2050 slang should be as unintelligible but learnable as 1950 slang, in other words.
But 1000 years on, it will be as alien as Chaucer. And unless the story is about piecing together what something 1000 years old means, I assume I speak the language or it has been translated. Of course the idea of translation can serve as a crutch to explain things you otherwise would not explain, but that's cheating.
So no, it is not reasonable to argue "ad absurdum". Remove that bit about syntax and your point still stands, so it is not needed, and distracts as a point of attack unrelated to the point you are trying to make.
False.
It is in a different galaxy, closer to the Big Bang. And therefore the humanoids aren't even humans. But it does represent a point where a humanoid intelligence similar to ours has reached FTL travel and has met other intelligent beings.
It is the future relative to our position. If we evolved faster, or if they evolved slower, it could easily have been in the absolute future. And the culture is otherwise an extension of today into what would be our future. Which is the topic we are discussing.
In fact, because there is no way we could have influenced that culture, it is a much more egregious example of what Stross complained about. They should be so utterly alien that Lando's actions are expected or normal, or that family ties don't cause surprise or unease, or any number of divergences from people today.
And keep in mind that none of my critique suggests it is wrong. Your pedantry is not useful, informative, nor helpful, and in fact should be both redundant because everyone here should know the first words of the crawl, and off-topic as I illustrated.
There are plenty of bright ideas that don't require the elaborate setup, and the point could be lost if constructed against that background. This expectation seems to be a preference for a particular style of far-future sci-fi, where other people may have a different preference. Stross is mistaking his own preferences for wisdom.
The difficulty is in framing the story, so that the reader is a natural audience for the narrator.
If you are a tyrant of Jupiter, for example, there are things that people on Earth might not be aware of, and those things can be described as if they are new. There are things, though, that you would not explain, because they are universal. Communications would need no description, fashion would need only the differences pointed out.
It is no different from telling a timeless story of just people, without describing the people directly. Letting their actions define if they are good or bad, friendly or distant, all with no actual descriptions. Only now you have to have a narrative point to describe all of the differences, without sounding like a dictionary.
Stross doesn't seem to care about the readability or art - just the scenarios. Sure he claims the opposite. But if I created an entirely new culture for every story, there would be so much work going in to the backgrounding, of the environment and the people and how everything is interconnected - you're asking for epic invention every time. Vast amounts of outlining would be required, just to make sure that points don't contradict each other. The notes and fact sheets or "encyclopedia" could well be hundreds of times larger than it would be in order to get a point across. And none of that work is the actual writing that people will read.
A thousand page book would benefit from a huge amount of background work. But there's the normal work, and on top of that creating a new culture. I would expect that from maybe 10% of the writers, with the rest forgiven for not being so thorough because the writing is better, or the ideas are better, or even the books are cheaper, or are popular among people not named Stross.
Ereader only, not a notebook, filled from project Gutenberg.
I didn't get through 5 pages at a time, now it could be 5 chapters.
Make sure it has a dictionary, or your device may become suddenly important.
I'm curious what frequent contributor Bennety Assleton thinks about this petition. Usually, he can summarize a complex issue succinctly, and convey useful information quickly. I'd love his take on this.
Also, some other topics:
Fart ordering- quick sort or bubble sort?
What equals 6, emacs or vi?
What's life like being consummately oblivious?
How many sticks are up my ass? (A Slashdot pole)
Deadly auto-erotic asphyxiation methods, a hands on review.
I don't know what the expectation of modern websites would be, but smart people disable JavaScript until they trust the site. Yours has no graceful fallback. It looks terrible, and it doesn't even have the normal "you blocked javascript" telltale signs - it's just ugly and pointless.
And are my only two choices to sign up or log in? I don't want to contribute anything other than my IP address and user-agent until I know what I get in trade.
Maybe your audience isn't privacy-conscious nerds who remember drive-by browser hacks. So here's not the best place for opinions, since it's obviously not part of your target audience.
No. An IPO raises capital so a company can expand the business, promising potential for dividends and or buyback when it is stable.
The secondary market is a combination of blind men, suckers, oracles, addicts, and lemmings furiously masturbating over the idea that they are the lone seer in a mob of idiots. Gambling over the internet effectively, since material facts may exist but may not yet be made public.
It is the second one you speak of.
It was easy. They read the fucking article. The threat probably sent selected data home, and from there these words were typed:
They sought data that included drafts of U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filings, documents on merger activity, discussions of legal cases, board planning documents and medical research results, she said.
"They are pursuing sensitive information that would give them privileged insight into stock market dynamics," Weedon said.
Not any more. Unless you still differentiate between a gay girl and knave girl. Since you don't type like a Canterbury Tale, I assume you agree that language evolves.
Even in a plainly informative response, the context of logica. fallacy must be included.Because otherwise that's not normally what it is intended to convey.
A modem modulates and demodulates. Voiceband modem, what POTS was intended to carry, was the 56k limit.
DSL appears to be an acoustic signal carried over POTS, not a digital signal. It is just as digital as voiceband, I should say, by which I mean it is digital, but clearly not in the way you mean it.
If we are talking about cable modems, which are modems as well, the signal I believe is RF. Analog cable TV and digital cable TV are both possible, and I believe cable internet over both is likewise possible, meaning that it may or may not be a pure digital connection and it may or may not carry pure digital data.
As I understand it, fiber is pure digital all the way.
What you meant to say is that the 56k limit was based on the infrastructure which was intended to carry the characteristics of speech and considered frequency loss acceptable. DSL is interesting because it sits on top of all but the most antiquated of the existing POTS infrastructure, but it is distance limited because frequency loss is not allowed.
I skimmed over some details, but in your rush to be pedantic you just kind of ignored a whole mess of important distinction, and you ended with a completely untrue statement.
"We hear that there's a couple of medallion owners that have offered to sell at 425 and nobody's touched them
If he can't sell them at all, or not fast enough to keep up loan payments or whatever expenses he might have, he declares bankruptcy.
That doesn't mean he has no more money or saleable assets, just that he isn't liquid enough to keep up with bills. Maybe he owns some but took financing for others with the owned bits as collateral.
Unless you have more information about his financial situation, of course. I love schadenfreude, but can't stand ignorant twats.