Simple rule: If it's generally pronounced as a word, it is an acronym. If the letters are generally spelled out, it's not an acronym.
Well, I guess you've lost the battle on that front, since TLA is used by an awful lot of people.
I think to most people by now (grammar nazi's notwithstanding) no longer really differentiate based on if you pronounce it or not. (Oh, sure, it's not technically correct in a grammatical sense -- but, who is nowadays?;-)
Then try to explain why Vancouver BC is constantly ranked near or at the top of the most livable cities in the world. The northwest is a great place to live.
I guess it depends on personality. I know people who absolutely love Vancouver. I've also known people who found that it was perpetually gray and dismal and consequently depressing.
For people whose mood is highly affected by gray skies, such places can wear you down. I think I'd give up a milder climate in exchange for more sun days.
why not? Have a problem with acronyms containing other acronyms (recursive ones, at that!)?
Amusing story, though not relevant to anything.
I was at a student physics conference in the early '90s. The presenter had an acronym that expanded 3 levels deep. Of course, one of the letters in the 3rd level was "L" for laser, which I pointed out was also an acronym (which most of the physicists had forgotten about), so it became 4-deep.
I wish I could remember what the full expansion was, but a 5 character (or so) acronym turned into about 25 or more words when it was fully expanded. Quite amusing, and quite a mouthful.
I seem to recall that NASA has published a list of 10,000 or so "official" acronyms so people could keep track.
Running with that assumption for a moment, most of the replies totally ignore the *fact* that Management is unwilling to pay OR EVEN CONSIDER using a system that would guard those "certain things."
Well, you laid down the choice of "either accept snooping or encrypt everytyhing".
The real choice is that companies expect to trust their employees, and, rightly or wrongly building your infrastructure around the assumption that all of your people are thieves is just plain wrong.
Management intentionally made the decision that they should be able to trust the IT people to do their job and show some professional discretion in what they look at, and that they likely signed a contract saying they would.
Claiming that the IT people who are snooping at stuff they know they shouldn't is purely a lack of planning on behalf of management is just trying to act like these people involved don't bear any individual responsibility. I can't agree with that assertion.
Maybe I'm missing the point but I don't see where there is an issue.
Because, some people aren't supposed to be seeing certain things. If you're charged with protecting everyone else's crap, it's nice to develop a bit of indifference to what's in it -- I'll guard it, but I won't look in it.
Think of it this way... if your admin is reading your financials, they could be using it to do a little insider trading or taking the information for other purposes.
It really is a huge breach of trust for an admin to be doing that, and I bet it could open up some interesting (though, likely non-obvious) legal risks for companies.
OTOH, 400 pounds is a nice package size for one clandestine operative and all his gear. Hmm...
Obviously, my knowledge of such stuff is less than yours, since I've never been in the military or done air drops...
One guy with 400lbs of crap? How clandestine can you be? Give me 400 lbs of crap in the middle of nowhere, and the enemy is going to hear me grunting and cursing for miles.:-P
I guess it's enough that you could break it into smaller loads and move it. It just seems a lot of weight for one guy. Then again, I guess that's what you need to do your job.
I still see this as a reason not to use GPL, preferring instead to use BSD-style licensed software or public domain software whenever possible.
Again, I'd say this isn't a problem with the GPL.
It's a problem with commercial entities trying to use the GPLd software without abiding by the rules.
If you can find some BSD/public domain code which does what you need, fine. If you can't, that doesn't mean you should be able to just take the GPL software -- it means you should write your own.
I don't really see a problem with companies avoiding GPL software because of the license. That doesn't reflect badly on the GPL, it reflects badly on companies who are trying to do an end-run around the license.
Because proprietary software producers would be just as bad, or likely worse, does not mean that the GPL is always the best solution, since it is still a restrictive license.
Well, then if you don't like the license, don't use the software. Using GPL software against the terms of the license because you couldn't find any other free code to use is hardly an excuse.
If you can find BSD or public domain code that allows you to re-use it and not have to write it, go ahead. If you can't, then either write it yourself, or quit whining that it's unfair you can't use the GPL stuff without adhering to the terms because it cramps your business model.
A lot of companies just figure they can have the best of both worlds -- get the OSS stuff because it already does most of what they want, and then treat it as proprietary software they won't tell you anything about.
As the GP said -- this isn't about software released under the GPL or if people should use it. This is about companies trying to get something for free.
Do you think it helps or hurts that my photos on Flickr have titles like "Tokyo - Ueno park"?
For the researchers, it probably helps. They chose pics that had either GPS or location information -- so they could manually verify where the photos originated.
If they started out with a bunch of pics they didn't have any location information about... they'd never be able to measure their results.;-)
Hundreds of thousands of images on Flickr are being used to teach a program to determine the geographic location of an image, simply by looking at it.
Well, the entire branch of software is referred to as machine learning. Meaning, starting with a given base state, and iteratively refining what the algorithm can "predict" about the data, it "learns".
Sometimes, you can only really discuss certain things by re-using terms that primarily apply to people.
I mean, it would be awful cumbersome to have to refer to "machine learning" as "automated iterative refinement of predictability results through successively better data and approximation". You just end up with a shit pile of words that don't actually help you. As much as the terms are somewhat dipping into anthropomorphism, not doing that is just too difficult -- you'd sound like lawyers all the time.
Now, if you'll excuse me, my computer is "asking me" if can reboot itself since it can "see" that it has some updates that it went "looking for" and it "knows" that rebooting pisses me off, and that seems to make it "happy".;-)
Why is that "by definition"? To admit as much is to admit that it is just supposition and superstition, w/o any basis in the real world.
Because, unless god, Shiva, the Buddha, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster come down and prove to us they exist, they are outside what we can objectively measure or prove to be true. For the same reason that science can't really intelligently speak about what happened before the big bang, or what 'caused' the big bang -- it's simply outside of what we can know or actually speak about.
"almost all forms of "moral" reasoning derive from either the belief that a diving being laid down the laws," Did they have scuba gear, or just a snorkel and fins?
Re-breathers, actually.;-) I see you've chosen to ignore anything I said about moral reasoning or its originating source.
To say that you cannot back up the existence of god with any evidence, that it mst be accepted on faith, is evidence enough that it is just another silly superstition.
Again, can you prove that murder is wrong or we have an inherent right of free speech without saying "just because I believe it to be so"? Or, are you in possession of some sort of "proof" in the veracity of those claims other than faith and belief that the rest of us haven't seen yet?
There's a lot of everything we do and believe that is not provably much more than convention or arbitrary belief. Show me a mathematical proof for anything which falls into the category of "morality", and I'll be impressed.
Anyway, I'm not trying to convince you of anything. You're not interested in that. I'm just offering a different view point.
In other words, he believes, not because of any evidence, but because that's the way he was brought up.
He believes, because he believes. I've never asked him to justify it to me.:-P But, seriously... most things most people believe is based on the way (and where) you were brought up. It's almost impossible to arrive at a set of beliefs (including science)without it having been brought up in an environment that provided you with it. Had you grown up in a Skinner Box, you'd likely not have much beliefs that take the form of abstract concepts. Your views (presumably as a Westerner) are entirely derived on "how you were brought up".
Show me evidence for the existence of god, or it's all just superstition. None of this "take it on faith" bullshit - by that token, there's more proof that I am god - after all, I can be shown to exist.
*shrug* Not my job to either prove or disprove to you the basis upon which people arrive at their own faith.
Me, I don't actually believe in "god" per se, but I don't really care that someone else does. After many years of atheism I sorta decided that I'd choose to accept some limited form of higher-power to which we're accountable -- or at least, go on the assumption there is. I don't believe in the divine, cranky old white man with a vindictive streak though.
Actually, I think you can be proven not to be god based on your reasoning... People believe god exists. By definition, no proof of the existence of god can be made, other than faith. Therefore, since we can prove you exist, you are not god. Unless, you're Hindu, in which case you believe we're all manifestations of god, and that god is all of us. Or, you could believe that neither you nor I are real, but are 'living' inside of a very contrived simulation that we can't differentiate from reality.
Let's face it -- almost all forms of "moral" reasoning derive from either the belief that a diving being laid down the laws, or there is something inherent the universe that makes truths self-evident (and self-existent) for all to see -- but, which you ultimately can't prove either.
I mean, seriously, how do you arrive at the conclusion that murder is wrong or people have the rights to certain freedoms without either appealing to a higher power, or an inherent aspect of existence? Anything else, is just saying "boy, wouldn't it be nice if everyone else agreed with me", but there is no provable basis for it to be truth other than the fact that you accept it as such.
Science is objective. Morality and beliefs, are not, and can't really ever be to the level of mathematical rigor you're looking for.
He doesn't have a full pause between every syllable. Sometimes, he'll put a couple of words together in one go as well "Spock. How. Areweto. Know. Whattodo?" or "Nurse. Chapel. Let's. Gotomyroom".;-)
My irony meter pegged. Of course, critical thinking and logic are anathema to anyone who believes in god.
Hmmmm.... I think that's a bit of a broad statement.
I know someone with two Masters degrees (comp sci and physics) and a PhD in astrophysics.
He has done an excellent job of resolving his faith and his science -- his faith covers his morality and his actions, and how he thinks things should, his science covers how the real world operates, and what we can observe in the universe. He's a rigid empiricist, but his Catholic upbringing and Jesuit education are still firmly entrenched in his life. He's also one of the smartest people I've ever met.
I think you're unfairly conflating any religious belief, and the beliefs of those people who choose to ignore science.
As a Buddhist (well... mostly) it's pretty easy to reconcile that any belief I have in spirituality is bounded by actual, observable science. Oddly enough, many people have no problem whatsoever with reconciling the two. They're not in such flagrant conflict as some people seem to think.
Oh, sure, give the RIAA reason to get involved in encrypted phone calls.
They'll try to make sure you're not using unlicensed music to mask your conversations. We'll be seeing John Doe subpoenas to get access to what music you were playing.:-P
In case you can't figure it out: good encryption makes data look completely random. Do you know of any algorithms which compress PURELY RANDOM data? I sure as hell don't.
Sure, drop every other byte. It'll be half as big.;-)
So, ummm, what we should do to, umm, well, protect ourselves from, ummm, yaknow, eavesdroppers, heh-heh, is well, make sure there's enough, ummmmmmm, yaknow, like extra noise, like, mixed in, dude.
Oh my god, thats like, totally, like, a great idea, yaknow. I mean, like, they'll never figure out what we're, like, saying, yaknow?
Dear Son, It's time you paid the royalties you owe on my DNA. After all, you're running half of it in each and every one of your cells, clearly an unlicensed derivative work. And don't you dare "make it available" without a license!
Dad:-)
Dear Dad,
As your 'property' was provided freely in collaboration with Mom with no stipulated conditions at time of release, my DNA can be considered to be the results of a legitimate collaborative effort and a voluntary submission. Therefore, it is presumptive that a co-licensing agreement was implicit at time of production.
While I will refrain from directly competing with you in this market place, I do reserve the right to produce a limited amount of derivative works, and long as I do not use it for commercial purposes.
Also, I will be making it available for limited distribution for experimental purposes to the first girl willing to have it. However, I will make efforts to ensure that no further copies are created.
This is about border agents, so it has nothing to do with bombs. It is about illegal or undeclared goods being smuggled into the country.
Well, let's face it. Rightly or wrongly, border agents have become the "first line of defense" for the security apparatchik -- they cover much more than undeclared good and duties.
Governments have made their function much more about securing the borders and keeping out people we don't want lately. And, consequently, their searches have become much more invasive.
Slashdot Mirror
For me, black text on a wheat background (#F5DEB3 or #EEDDBB -- "original" and "web safe" according to this).
I find it has sufficient contrast to make the text visible, and not so much as to hurt the eyes.
Used it on xterms and the like for well over a decade.
Cheers
Well, I guess you've lost the battle on that front, since TLA is used by an awful lot of people.
I think to most people by now (grammar nazi's notwithstanding) no longer really differentiate based on if you pronounce it or not. (Oh, sure, it's not technically correct in a grammatical sense -- but, who is nowadays? ;-)
Cheers
I guess it depends on personality. I know people who absolutely love Vancouver. I've also known people who found that it was perpetually gray and dismal and consequently depressing.
For people whose mood is highly affected by gray skies, such places can wear you down. I think I'd give up a milder climate in exchange for more sun days.
Cheers
Amusing story, though not relevant to anything.
I was at a student physics conference in the early '90s. The presenter had an acronym that expanded 3 levels deep. Of course, one of the letters in the 3rd level was "L" for laser, which I pointed out was also an acronym (which most of the physicists had forgotten about), so it became 4-deep.
I wish I could remember what the full expansion was, but a 5 character (or so) acronym turned into about 25 or more words when it was fully expanded. Quite amusing, and quite a mouthful.
I seem to recall that NASA has published a list of 10,000 or so "official" acronyms so people could keep track.
Cheers
Well, you laid down the choice of "either accept snooping or encrypt everytyhing".
The real choice is that companies expect to trust their employees, and, rightly or wrongly building your infrastructure around the assumption that all of your people are thieves is just plain wrong.
Management intentionally made the decision that they should be able to trust the IT people to do their job and show some professional discretion in what they look at, and that they likely signed a contract saying they would.
Claiming that the IT people who are snooping at stuff they know they shouldn't is purely a lack of planning on behalf of management is just trying to act like these people involved don't bear any individual responsibility. I can't agree with that assertion.
Cheers
Because, some people aren't supposed to be seeing certain things. If you're charged with protecting everyone else's crap, it's nice to develop a bit of indifference to what's in it -- I'll guard it, but I won't look in it.
Think of it this way
It really is a huge breach of trust for an admin to be doing that, and I bet it could open up some interesting (though, likely non-obvious) legal risks for companies.
Cheers
Obviously, my knowledge of such stuff is less than yours, since I've never been in the military or done air drops
One guy with 400lbs of crap? How clandestine can you be? Give me 400 lbs of crap in the middle of nowhere, and the enemy is going to hear me grunting and cursing for miles.
I guess it's enough that you could break it into smaller loads and move it. It just seems a lot of weight for one guy. Then again, I guess that's what you need to do your job.
Cheers
I for one welcome our new barrel-jumping, protagonist overlords.
In other news, a large orangutan has escaped from the zoo.
Cheers
Again, I'd say this isn't a problem with the GPL.
It's a problem with commercial entities trying to use the GPLd software without abiding by the rules.
If you can find some BSD/public domain code which does what you need, fine. If you can't, that doesn't mean you should be able to just take the GPL software -- it means you should write your own.
I don't really see a problem with companies avoiding GPL software because of the license. That doesn't reflect badly on the GPL, it reflects badly on companies who are trying to do an end-run around the license.
Cheers
Well, then if you don't like the license, don't use the software. Using GPL software against the terms of the license because you couldn't find any other free code to use is hardly an excuse.
If you can find BSD or public domain code that allows you to re-use it and not have to write it, go ahead. If you can't, then either write it yourself, or quit whining that it's unfair you can't use the GPL stuff without adhering to the terms because it cramps your business model.
A lot of companies just figure they can have the best of both worlds -- get the OSS stuff because it already does most of what they want, and then treat it as proprietary software they won't tell you anything about.
As the GP said -- this isn't about software released under the GPL or if people should use it. This is about companies trying to get something for free.
Cheers
For the researchers, it probably helps. They chose pics that had either GPS or location information -- so they could manually verify where the photos originated.
If they started out with a bunch of pics they didn't have any location information about
Cheers
Wait
For what and where? I know the last time I was in San Francisco it was about $2k for 800 square feet or so.
I just can't fathom what the hell you'd be paying $25 K for rent on unless you're renting a mansion or something.
That just hurts my head.
Cheers
Well, the entire branch of software is referred to as machine learning. Meaning, starting with a given base state, and iteratively refining what the algorithm can "predict" about the data, it "learns".
Sometimes, you can only really discuss certain things by re-using terms that primarily apply to people.
I mean, it would be awful cumbersome to have to refer to "machine learning" as "automated iterative refinement of predictability results through successively better data and approximation". You just end up with a shit pile of words that don't actually help you. As much as the terms are somewhat dipping into anthropomorphism, not doing that is just too difficult -- you'd sound like lawyers all the time.
Now, if you'll excuse me, my computer is "asking me" if can reboot itself since it can "see" that it has some updates that it went "looking for" and it "knows" that rebooting pisses me off, and that seems to make it "happy".
Cheers
Divide by zero error. Program halted.
Because, unless god, Shiva, the Buddha, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster come down and prove to us they exist, they are outside what we can objectively measure or prove to be true. For the same reason that science can't really intelligently speak about what happened before the big bang, or what 'caused' the big bang -- it's simply outside of what we can know or actually speak about.
Re-breathers, actually.
Again, can you prove that murder is wrong or we have an inherent right of free speech without saying "just because I believe it to be so"? Or, are you in possession of some sort of "proof" in the veracity of those claims other than faith and belief that the rest of us haven't seen yet?
There's a lot of everything we do and believe that is not provably much more than convention or arbitrary belief. Show me a mathematical proof for anything which falls into the category of "morality", and I'll be impressed.
Anyway, I'm not trying to convince you of anything. You're not interested in that. I'm just offering a different view point.
Cheers
He believes, because he believes. I've never asked him to justify it to me.
*shrug* Not my job to either prove or disprove to you the basis upon which people arrive at their own faith.
Me, I don't actually believe in "god" per se, but I don't really care that someone else does. After many years of atheism I sorta decided that I'd choose to accept some limited form of higher-power to which we're accountable -- or at least, go on the assumption there is. I don't believe in the divine, cranky old white man with a vindictive streak though.
Actually, I think you can be proven not to be god based on your reasoning
Let's face it -- almost all forms of "moral" reasoning derive from either the belief that a diving being laid down the laws, or there is something inherent the universe that makes truths self-evident (and self-existent) for all to see -- but, which you ultimately can't prove either.
I mean, seriously, how do you arrive at the conclusion that murder is wrong or people have the rights to certain freedoms without either appealing to a higher power, or an inherent aspect of existence? Anything else, is just saying "boy, wouldn't it be nice if everyone else agreed with me", but there is no provable basis for it to be truth other than the fact that you accept it as such.
Science is objective. Morality and beliefs, are not, and can't really ever be to the level of mathematical rigor you're looking for.
Cheers
He doesn't have a full pause between every syllable. Sometimes, he'll put a couple of words together in one go as well "Spock. How. Areweto. Know. Whattodo?" or "Nurse. Chapel. Let's. Gotomyroom".
Cheers
Hmmmm
I know someone with two Masters degrees (comp sci and physics) and a PhD in astrophysics.
He has done an excellent job of resolving his faith and his science -- his faith covers his morality and his actions, and how he thinks things should, his science covers how the real world operates, and what we can observe in the universe. He's a rigid empiricist, but his Catholic upbringing and Jesuit education are still firmly entrenched in his life. He's also one of the smartest people I've ever met.
I think you're unfairly conflating any religious belief, and the beliefs of those people who choose to ignore science.
As a Buddhist (well
Cheers
Oh, sure, give the RIAA reason to get involved in encrypted phone calls.
They'll try to make sure you're not using unlicensed music to mask your conversations. We'll be seeing John Doe subpoenas to get access to what music you were playing.
I'm only half joking.
Cheers
Sure, drop every other byte. It'll be half as big.
Cheers
Well, then what's the point in saying it at all then?
Oh, you mean someone other than the person you're talking to. My bad.
Cheers
Oh my god, thats like, totally, like, a great idea, yaknow. I mean, like, they'll never figure out what we're, like, saying, yaknow?
Oryoucouldspeakreallyfastwithoutpausesbetweenwords. Thatwaythey'llneverknowwhatyousaid =)
Or. We. Could. All. Speak. Like. Shatner. Random. Long. Pauses. Genius.
Cheers
Dear Dad,
As your 'property' was provided freely in collaboration with Mom with no stipulated conditions at time of release, my DNA can be considered to be the results of a legitimate collaborative effort and a voluntary submission. Therefore, it is presumptive that a co-licensing agreement was implicit at time of production.
While I will refrain from directly competing with you in this market place, I do reserve the right to produce a limited amount of derivative works, and long as I do not use it for commercial purposes.
Also, I will be making it available for limited distribution for experimental purposes to the first girl willing to have it. However, I will make efforts to ensure that no further copies are created.
Son.
Well, let's face it. Rightly or wrongly, border agents have become the "first line of defense" for the security apparatchik -- they cover much more than undeclared good and duties.
Governments have made their function much more about securing the borders and keeping out people we don't want lately. And, consequently, their searches have become much more invasive.
Cheers
Except, his great Chuckiness was not making fun of them. I'm pretty sure he did that show with the utmost sincerity.
Of course, that's why it's so damned funny. But, Chuck Norris is unlikely to have actually intended to mock the Texas Rangers.
Cheers