they can physically exert themselves for longer periods. All else being equal, in a long-distance race between a man and a woman, the woman will win.
It's interesting that you think these statements support each other, when in fact, they contradict each other.
The winner of a race - by definition - is the person who exerts his/herself for the shortest amount of time. (Because if you're forced to exert yourself for a longer amount of time, it means that someone is in front of you - think about it for a moment.)
"All things being equal", in a long-distance race between a man and a woman, the woman will lose.
Perhaps women can physically exert themselves for longer periods because they need to, in order to finish the race?:o)
Human carbon dioxide emissions raise the overall temperature.
Let me say that I agree with this part of your post 100% - it seems clear to me that this is the case, and I also believe that something must be done about it, soon.
It's proven, and it doesn't need more study. If you disagree, you are wrong
This is where I disagree with you - not with your conclusion about global warming, but with the assumptions you come to after reaching that conclusion.
First of all, it may be proven, but that doesn't mean that it no longer needs study. There is a lot we don't know about the environment, and studying temperatures is one way to gain more knowledge.
And secondly, stating that anybody is "wrong" is closed-minded thinking. By definition, no good scientist will ever close their mind to an alternate point of view.
Having said that, I don't think it's right to put off doing something about global warming, just that while we're formulating or implementing a plan, we shouldn't close our minds to any new evidence that may arise.
Maybe they've been taking lessons from the estate of John Cage?
Re:Magnusson Moss Warranty Act
on
Hack Your Car
·
· Score: 1
im 6'2" and i appreciate the room i get in a full sized american car.
I'm 6'4, and the problem with your logic is that most "full sized american cars" aren't built for "full sized americans".
You don't need a "full sized" car to be comfortable, you need a car that's designed to carry someone taller than average (which sadly, doesn't happen very often.)
I drive a 2001 Chrysler Neon. This car is hardly 'full sized'. Wanna know why I bought it? Because it has tons of room - in fact, the only car I've driven which had more leg room was a 2000 Neon (a rental, which convinced me to buy a Neon when it came time to replace my old car.)
I have a lot of friends who are taller than me. Without exception, the first thing they say when they get in is "I can't believe how much room this thing has!"
i also like being able to take 5 ppl or so with me.
How often do you do this? Most people who say "I want to take X people with me" rarely (if ever) do.
John Glover is *perfect* as Lionel Luthor - even better than he was in Brimstone.
John Glover is one of the best "sinister" actors I've ever seen. Try watching him in "52 Pickup" - it takes a special talent to take a two-dimensional character, who's only reason for existing is to give the 'hero' something to fight against, and make him as believable as Glover is able to do.
Amazingly, it seems like the worse the character is written, the more believable he makes it seem (which would explain Luthor being better than Satan.)
I was just clarifying - you stated that Canada isn't socialist, then went on to describe the real meaning of the word, which meant that it is socialist.
You will note that I said your description is accurate, right?:o)
how do you say middle if you cant use the words beginning and end?
You say "middle" as in "between two extremes".. which doesn't imply that you are transitioning between those two extremes, just that they exist.
zero is in the middle of -5 and 5; that's not to say that -5 or 5 is the beginning, and that the other is the end.
"beginning" and "end" imply a transition - middle doesn't need to imply a transition, just that something is between two extremes. Similarly, implying that our government is in a transition from capitalism to communism is just wrong - we've never been purely captialist.
Yes, we are - although the dictionary definition you provided is somewhat slanted ('not yet been successfully achieved' implies that it's a transitional state, and that communism is the end goal'), your summary is accurate.
We have private business, we have government-owned business; therefore we're between capitalism and communism.
Re:and Canada is a socialist state?
on
Canadian Privacy Act
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
I think most of the spin about Canada being a socialist state is bogus.
Actually, it's not. Our government is Socialist. (Note that most Americans seem to believe that all socialist government are totalitarian, and I think you may have fallen into that trap as well.)
We have stronger state education and health care, but I think that's only a wise application of capitalism.
We also have government-run business ("Crown Corporations", like Canada Post), which is what makes us socialist. If there were no Crown Corporations, we'd be capitalist, if there were no independent businesses, we'd be communist. (OK, it's a little more complex than that, but that's the basic gist of it.)
yes, this is correct. Canada, like most countries with high standards of living (like most of Europe) is Socialist. As a Canadian, I'm quite proud of this.
This seems to be the counterproof.
No, this is exactly proof. This is what Socialist governments do - they enact laws that benefit people instead of ones that benefit corporations.
Americans seem to equate 'socialism' with 'totalitarianism', when the two have exactly zero in common. Perhaps if you understood what the terms actually mean, you wouldn't be so confused.
He has stolen my right to distribute my work on my terms.
It's not possible to 'steal' a right. You violate rights, you don't steal them. Even if the government said "you don't have that right anymore", it's still not stolen.
My novel is still there, but I have lost something
No, you haven't. You still have that right, even if some people are violating it. You also have the legal right to go after them in a court of law. They haven't 'stolen' that either.
Please put this "it's not stealing, it's infringement" argument to rest
Yes, let's. You should start by taking your troll elsewhere.
That's a typo; what they meant was...
on
SCOoby Snacks
·
· Score: 1
Unencumbered
That's actually a typo. SCO knows that Patriotic Americans don't eat salad - only Unamerican hippy freaks eat vegetables.
What they meant was that it was legally uncucumbered.
This is especially useful for wardriving and warflying...
Not quite. Read the specs.
I have constant stability issues and in the extreme temps we experience here (it got down to -22 without windchill in January)
According to the page, these things are good only to 0C - so it would be useless for you.. and to add insult to injury, max. temp is only +40C.
With a temperature rage that limited (and the fact that it's not waterproof - not even IPX2), I gotta wonder what the market for something like this is? ("Hey, let's make a GPS specifically for people who don't go outside!")
All Shirkey has accomplished on that page is to prove that a semantic web that contains incorrect information will produce incorrect results.
I disagree. While his examples do show that (my initial assessment was on par with yours) he does address this issue.
In each case he uses a flawed set of axioms to produce a flawed result and decides that the TECHNIQUE is at fault.
Not quite - in each case he uses a flawed set of axioms, then expands on them to show that the world is not a black-and-white place, which then shows that the technique is invalid when applied to most real-world data.
It's a subtle point which is easily missed, especially considering the way it's presented - but it is there.
If you make accurate claims, then you can reach accurate conclusions.
Not true. You example ("Some people who live in Brooklyn speak with a Brooklyn accent") is an accurate claim, but you admit that no conclusion (accurate or otherwise) can be drawn from it. That is the danger of exclusively using this type of deductive logic.
My actual response at the time is brief and chatty. The response from Dan Brickley is also short and sweet.
Thanks, I find both of these much better than the two you gave - you're both pretty succinct.
One issue I have with Brickley's response is his criticism of Shirkey's alternative that we 'do nothing'.. he seems to have fallen inot the trap of 'we should to do something, this is something, therefore we should do this' (if you'll pardon the syllogism.:o)
Sometimes it is better to do nothing than to do the wrong thing; even if you don't see anything better, once that something better does come along, it is often difficult to undo that something once it's become entrenched. (Note, I'm not saying that's what's happening here, this is just a general response to someone who implies that doing nothing is always worse than doing something.)
The "misquoting" is to suggest that my "how you buy a book on the Semantic Web" sketch should possibly cause Jeff Bezos to lose sleep. I was trying to explain an experimental protocol in a way I hoped my grandmother could understand
Ahh, I see.. I remember that passage pretty well.. I didn't put too much stock into the 'Jeff Bezos' comment - to me, it sounded like a joke, I don't think he was seriously suggesting that anyone involved in the SW project had any such plans for Amazon (or anyone else.)
All in all, thanks for your responses, they've been quite informative.
It's poorly researched and poorly considered. (Speaking as someone misquoted in the article...)
Perhaps you could clarify then - I'd be interested in your feedback (specifically where you were misquoted), so I can go and re-read the article with your quotes in context.
For good responses see Peter Van Dijck or Paul Ford.
I consider neither of these to be "good" responses.
I was unable to get through the first, as it was incredibly difficult to read with all those pictures and quotes interrupting the text flow.
I stopped reading the second when I saw the following:
'Shirky defines the Semantic Web as "a machine for creating syllogisms." This is an over-simplification. The Semantic Web cannot "create", any more than the current Web can create.'
This obvious straw-man setup comes immediately after the author decries Shirkey's article as being full of them. (Note that Shirkey doesn't say "the semantic web will create syllogisms", he says that it's a machine for doing so.)
Australia could hardly get anything on agriculture, one of its biggest export areas and one where America's trade barriers really hurt. And yet we are still planning to sign it as a good deal.
And the funniest part is that whoever signed it (and so obviously thinks it's a good deal) believes the Americans will actually honor it.
Your facts are incorrect. The Toaster most definitely was video quality.
basiclly a 68030 Amiga with a fancy linear video i/o board and some software for basic effects.
No, the Original video toaster didn't come with an Amiga.. the toaster was the "fancy linear i/o board and some software for basic effects."
It was basiclly a fancy video switch / mixer.
Yes, that's the point.
the Toaster didn't even do ful 640x480, it was a bit less than that
First of all, "640x480" isn't "full" video, it's "VGA", which is significantly different than a TV signal. (VGA is underscanned, with a 1:1 aspect ratio, NTSC video is overscanned, with a 4:3 aspect ratio.)
And second, the Toaster did do full 752x480 - full overscanned NTSC.
There is no way this was used for film work.
It was used for film work - just not the way you think. Although it wasn't used in the final cut, it was used to do rough-ups for staging.
Re:(OT)No plot holes in the Three Amigos
on
Review: KDE 3.2
·
· Score: 1
There are some things in this world you can't explain. Invisible swordsmen would be one of those.
Uhh, howzat again?
The villagers had no apparent supernatural powers
Sure they did - as you so deftly pointed out, they had the power to rebuild their village. QED.
It was the same with DeCSS, it will be the same here.
No, this is nothing like DeCSS case.
Everyone thinks they know what the result will be because they can't imagine the other side will pull something out of their hat
What the hell are you talking about? In the DeCSS case (at least the 2600 one) nothing was 'pulled out of a hat' - the Judge was biased against 2600.
SCO's comments in the media are not SCO's legal case
Yes, they are. Read IBM's court filings, read the transcript. IBM continues to pull out SCO's public statements, and use them to discredit SCO completely.
They know they have a pretty strong case against IBM.
Bullshit. If they have a case at all they'd move ahead with it. There wouldn't be any of this 'well, we didn't comply because we didn't have enough time, or any of the evidence. Pretty please can we see IBM's code now' bullshit.
Re:(OT)No plot holes in the Three Amigos
on
Review: KDE 3.2
·
· Score: 1
Again, I gotta point out the invisible swordsman.
If you can have a bush that sounds like Randy Newman, it's reasonable to expect the villagers to be able to rebuild in a couple of days
Slashdot Mirror
many young women win ANY compo when it comes to e.g. grabbing things with their hands.
:o)
Really? Do you have their names and phone numbers?
they can physically exert themselves for longer periods. All else being equal, in a long-distance race between a man and a woman, the woman will win.
:o)
It's interesting that you think these statements support each other, when in fact, they contradict each other.
The winner of a race - by definition - is the person who exerts his/herself for the shortest amount of time. (Because if you're forced to exert yourself for a longer amount of time, it means that someone is in front of you - think about it for a moment.)
"All things being equal", in a long-distance race between a man and a woman, the woman will lose.
Perhaps women can physically exert themselves for longer periods because they need to, in order to finish the race?
I would, but an empty wiki page doesn't do anything for me
Maybe fixing this might help:
Can someone think of one serious use.
:o)
It would make it easier for dogs to use computers
Seriously, I can think of one use - internet perfume sales.
Human carbon dioxide emissions raise the overall temperature.
Let me say that I agree with this part of your post 100% - it seems clear to me that this is the case, and I also believe that something must be done about it, soon.
It's proven, and it doesn't need more study. If you disagree, you are wrong
This is where I disagree with you - not with your conclusion about global warming, but with the assumptions you come to after reaching that conclusion.
First of all, it may be proven, but that doesn't mean that it no longer needs study. There is a lot we don't know about the environment, and studying temperatures is one way to gain more knowledge.
And secondly, stating that anybody is "wrong" is closed-minded thinking. By definition, no good scientist will ever close their mind to an alternate point of view.
Having said that, I don't think it's right to put off doing something about global warming, just that while we're formulating or implementing a plan, we shouldn't close our minds to any new evidence that may arise.
It's actually a good response in situations where any response would be the wrong one.
No, at most, he should have simply said "we have a fundamental disagreement in our philosophies" and left it at that.
Insulting people who criticize you is never a "good" response.
They even referenced the blank lines 30 and 33.
Maybe they've been taking lessons from the estate of John Cage?
im 6'2" and i appreciate the room i get in a full sized american car.
I'm 6'4, and the problem with your logic is that most "full sized american cars" aren't built for "full sized americans".
You don't need a "full sized" car to be comfortable, you need a car that's designed to carry someone taller than average (which sadly, doesn't happen very often.)
I drive a 2001 Chrysler Neon. This car is hardly 'full sized'. Wanna know why I bought it? Because it has tons of room - in fact, the only car I've driven which had more leg room was a 2000 Neon (a rental, which convinced me to buy a Neon when it came time to replace my old car.)
I have a lot of friends who are taller than me. Without exception, the first thing they say when they get in is "I can't believe how much room this thing has!"
i also like being able to take 5 ppl or so with me.
How often do you do this? Most people who say "I want to take X people with me" rarely (if ever) do.
John Glover is *perfect* as Lionel Luthor - even better than he was in Brimstone.
John Glover is one of the best "sinister" actors I've ever seen. Try watching him in "52 Pickup" - it takes a special talent to take a two-dimensional character, who's only reason for existing is to give the 'hero' something to fight against, and make him as believable as Glover is able to do.
Amazingly, it seems like the worse the character is written, the more believable he makes it seem (which would explain Luthor being better than Satan.)
thats what i was saying.
:o)
I was just clarifying - you stated that Canada isn't socialist, then went on to describe the real meaning of the word, which meant that it is socialist.
You will note that I said your description is accurate, right?
how do you say middle if you cant use the words beginning and end?
You say "middle" as in "between two extremes".. which doesn't imply that you are transitioning between those two extremes, just that they exist.
zero is in the middle of -5 and 5; that's not to say that -5 or 5 is the beginning, and that the other is the end.
"beginning" and "end" imply a transition - middle doesn't need to imply a transition, just that something is between two extremes. Similarly, implying that our government is in a transition from capitalism to communism is just wrong - we've never been purely captialist.
canada isnt socialist
Yes, we are - although the dictionary definition you provided is somewhat slanted ('not yet been successfully achieved' implies that it's a transitional state, and that communism is the end goal'), your summary is accurate.
We have private business, we have government-owned business; therefore we're between capitalism and communism.
I think most of the spin about Canada being a socialist state is bogus.
Actually, it's not. Our government is Socialist. (Note that most Americans seem to believe that all socialist government are totalitarian, and I think you may have fallen into that trap as well.)
We have stronger state education and health care, but I think that's only a wise application of capitalism.
We also have government-run business ("Crown Corporations", like Canada Post), which is what makes us socialist. If there were no Crown Corporations, we'd be capitalist, if there were no independent businesses, we'd be communist. (OK, it's a little more complex than that, but that's the basic gist of it.)
I see of /. Canada called socialist
yes, this is correct. Canada, like most countries with high standards of living (like most of Europe) is Socialist. As a Canadian, I'm quite proud of this.
This seems to be the counterproof.
No, this is exactly proof. This is what Socialist governments do - they enact laws that benefit people instead of ones that benefit corporations.
Americans seem to equate 'socialism' with 'totalitarianism', when the two have exactly zero in common. Perhaps if you understood what the terms actually mean, you wouldn't be so confused.
He has stolen my right to distribute my work on my terms.
It's not possible to 'steal' a right. You violate rights, you don't steal them. Even if the government said "you don't have that right anymore", it's still not stolen.
My novel is still there, but I have lost something
No, you haven't. You still have that right, even if some people are violating it. You also have the legal right to go after them in a court of law. They haven't 'stolen' that either.
Please put this "it's not stealing, it's infringement" argument to rest
Yes, let's. You should start by taking your troll elsewhere.
Unencumbered
That's actually a typo. SCO knows that Patriotic Americans don't eat salad - only Unamerican hippy freaks eat vegetables.
What they meant was that it was legally uncucumbered.
This is especially useful for wardriving and warflying...
Not quite. Read the specs.
I have constant stability issues and in the extreme temps we experience here (it got down to -22 without windchill in January)
According to the page, these things are good only to 0C - so it would be useless for you.. and to add insult to injury, max. temp is only +40C.
With a temperature rage that limited (and the fact that it's not waterproof - not even IPX2), I gotta wonder what the market for something like this is? ("Hey, let's make a GPS specifically for people who don't go outside!")
All Shirkey has accomplished on that page is to prove that a semantic web that contains incorrect information will produce incorrect results.
I disagree. While his examples do show that (my initial assessment was on par with yours) he does address this issue.
In each case he uses a flawed set of axioms to produce a flawed result and decides that the TECHNIQUE is at fault.
Not quite - in each case he uses a flawed set of axioms, then expands on them to show that the world is not a black-and-white place, which then shows that the technique is invalid when applied to most real-world data.
It's a subtle point which is easily missed, especially considering the way it's presented - but it is there.
If you make accurate claims, then you can reach accurate conclusions.
Not true. You example ("Some people who live in Brooklyn speak with a Brooklyn accent") is an accurate claim, but you admit that no conclusion (accurate or otherwise) can be drawn from it. That is the danger of exclusively using this type of deductive logic.
My actual response at the time is brief and chatty. The response from Dan Brickley is also short and sweet.
:o)
Thanks, I find both of these much better than the two you gave - you're both pretty succinct.
One issue I have with Brickley's response is his criticism of Shirkey's alternative that we 'do nothing'.. he seems to have fallen inot the trap of 'we should to do something, this is something, therefore we should do this' (if you'll pardon the syllogism.
Sometimes it is better to do nothing than to do the wrong thing; even if you don't see anything better, once that something better does come along, it is often difficult to undo that something once it's become entrenched. (Note, I'm not saying that's what's happening here, this is just a general response to someone who implies that doing nothing is always worse than doing something.)
The "misquoting" is to suggest that my "how you buy a book on the Semantic Web" sketch should possibly cause Jeff Bezos to lose sleep. I was trying to explain an experimental protocol in a way I hoped my grandmother could understand
Ahh, I see.. I remember that passage pretty well.. I didn't put too much stock into the 'Jeff Bezos' comment - to me, it sounded like a joke, I don't think he was seriously suggesting that anyone involved in the SW project had any such plans for Amazon (or anyone else.)
All in all, thanks for your responses, they've been quite informative.
It's poorly researched and poorly considered. (Speaking as someone misquoted in the article...)
Perhaps you could clarify then - I'd be interested in your feedback (specifically where you were misquoted), so I can go and re-read the article with your quotes in context.
For good responses see Peter Van Dijck or Paul Ford.
I consider neither of these to be "good" responses.
I was unable to get through the first, as it was incredibly difficult to read with all those pictures and quotes interrupting the text flow.
I stopped reading the second when I saw the following:
'Shirky defines the Semantic Web as "a machine for creating syllogisms." This is an over-simplification. The Semantic Web cannot "create", any more than the current Web can create.'
This obvious straw-man setup comes immediately after the author decries Shirkey's article as being full of them. (Note that Shirkey doesn't say "the semantic web will create syllogisms", he says that it's a machine for doing so.)
When I first read about "the semantic web", my first thoughts were "how the hell is this useful?"
About a year later, I noticed that Clay Shirkey had written an interesting article on the Semantic Web...
It's a bit of a long read, but it does sum up the issues with it quite handily.
Australia could hardly get anything on agriculture, one of its biggest export areas and one where America's trade barriers really hurt. And yet we are still planning to sign it as a good deal.
And the funniest part is that whoever signed it (and so obviously thinks it's a good deal) believes the Americans will actually honor it.
Talk to Canada to see how well that works out.
Your facts are incorrect. The Toaster most definitely was video quality.
basiclly a 68030 Amiga with a fancy linear video i/o board and some software for basic effects.
No, the Original video toaster didn't come with an Amiga.. the toaster was the "fancy linear i/o board and some software for basic effects."
It was basiclly a fancy video switch / mixer.
Yes, that's the point.
the Toaster didn't even do ful 640x480, it was a bit less than that
First of all, "640x480" isn't "full" video, it's "VGA", which is significantly different than a TV signal. (VGA is underscanned, with a 1:1 aspect ratio, NTSC video is overscanned, with a 4:3 aspect ratio.)
And second, the Toaster did do full 752x480 - full overscanned NTSC.
There is no way this was used for film work.
It was used for film work - just not the way you think. Although it wasn't used in the final cut, it was used to do rough-ups for staging.
There are some things in this world you can't explain. Invisible swordsmen would be one of those.
Uhh, howzat again?
The villagers had no apparent supernatural powers
Sure they did - as you so deftly pointed out, they had the power to rebuild their village. QED.
It was the same with DeCSS, it will be the same here.
No, this is nothing like DeCSS case.
Everyone thinks they know what the result will be because they can't imagine the other side will pull something out of their hat
What the hell are you talking about? In the DeCSS case (at least the 2600 one) nothing was 'pulled out of a hat' - the Judge was biased against 2600.
SCO's comments in the media are not SCO's legal case
Yes, they are. Read IBM's court filings, read the transcript. IBM continues to pull out SCO's public statements, and use them to discredit SCO completely.
They know they have a pretty strong case against IBM.
Bullshit. If they have a case at all they'd move ahead with it. There wouldn't be any of this 'well, we didn't comply because we didn't have enough time, or any of the evidence. Pretty please can we see IBM's code now' bullshit.
Again, I gotta point out the invisible swordsman.
If you can have a bush that sounds like Randy Newman, it's reasonable to expect the villagers to be able to rebuild in a couple of days