"We spell check the correct, original way, instead of the silly Cheque that developed later."
Oh, but that's one that bugs me the most!:P Having a sentence like "Have you checked the checks?" is just confusing. There's enough words with difference meanings depending on context as it is. I suppose it doesn't affect us that much in Australia as cheques (he he) just aren't used that much any more, we've moved by and large to just cash and electronic transfers. When I was living in the States for a bit I was amazed at how much cheques were still used... just amazed!
Still, the differences in what things are called and how they are spelt is just a source for amusement more often than not rather than annoyance. We kind of just get used to the US way of doing things by virtue of the fact that so much of our entertainment comes from there... no point getting riled up every time something is different.
I suppose it's more that the few times that it happens to the US they get all ansy about it. Or, other countries pander to it. Like how scenes in the first Harry Potter movie were shot twice, once for the US, and once for the rest of the world... because heaven forbid things were mentioned that those in the US were not familiar with. (And I have absolutely zero idea why they figured the US couldn't handle it being called the Philosopher's Stone, with all its intrinsic meaning and history, and had to call it the Sourceror's Stone).
Yeah, from looking into it more it really does seem a shame that it's weighed down with that name. I don't know whether I've even seen it over here in Australia, but I'll have to look out for it now.
I am reading more on them right at the moment, the about page actually, and indeed I do like the sound of it. Having their own reporters doing the ground work rather than using the news wires is great, need more groups doing that to spread the sources of the news out a bit.
I'm just forever weary of anything that is tied to the church, from days of tagging along with friends to youthgroups which stated that they were non-religious and then having them edge in church thoughts whenever they could. Including the bad ones regarding being against gays and biggotry.
I'm not saying the CSM does any of that, I'm just gun-shy because of prior experiences, and the number of religious people who I've known who like to think and say that they are living a good christian life while at the same time being some of the most homophobic and anti women's rights I've come across.
Ahh, Slashdot, home of the well thought out comment.
I applaud you sir for being a) Polite b) Rational c) Well thought out.
No... wait, None of them... that's right, none of those things.
I mean really, grow up. I'm having a discussion here with a bunch of people who by and large are being perfectly civil and discussing the publication, the church's beliefs and bias in journalism. That you, a little AC, decide that I'm being an unscientific shit is of little concern to me.
As I mentioned in a reply to another post, I actually do think that it's a good thing how clear and open their bias is, certainly compared to most news outlets. So yeah, I agree on that. I just find it odd that a church group, who has issues with some portions of modern science (medicine etc.) would be such avid watchers of a science show that they'd do a writeup on its presenters.
That is how we say it in Australia, and it's how it's said in England, where the word comes from http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=patent&x= 0&y=0 I see that you say patent like, pat-ent, which is fine I guess, makes more sense from the way it's spelt. But really, the US is a treasure trove of horribly mangled english words.
I happy that you at least get one example of hearing a word pronounced in a way that you don't like, we get FAR more US media here than you get Australian/English media, and we cringe A LOT!
"Love it; "You must conform. If you don't, you are somehow mal-adjusted. ""
I don't think they were saying that you must conform, it's more the case that you really, really don't like social interaction. Interacting with people is not necessarily conforming, it's merely living.
Your comments that the world is a scary place that you don't think anyone should be socialising in is a very sad commentary on the world. I don't see it that way at all, and love getting out into it, amongst it, and being with people. If that puts me at greater risk of something bad happening just due to the fact that I'm doing more things, then so be it, I've lived a richer and fuller life than if I staying in the relative safety of my home.
I'm not saying that everyone needs to be a social butterfly to be 'normal' or 'healthy', but if you're that scared of other people and 'society' in general, perhaps you should think about exactly what it is that scares you so much, and what you may be missing out on by avoiding society as a whole.
"Have you ever actually read an article published in the CSM?"
To be perfectly honest, no I don't think I ever have. And I'm sure they do have many fine articles, as do all sorts of other publications that have their own biases. As long as you do read with any possible biases in mind (which I always try to), I agree that good information can be gathered from a lot of sources.
However, it strikes me as odd that an organisation that doesn't believe in things like conventional medicine and certain strains of science etc. would be doing a piece on a scientific show.
If Mythbusters did some myth that involved asprin or the like, would they have to not watch? It's just an odd match to me that's all.
"The CSM is generally a high-quality paper, with well-known and unhidden biases, as pretty much everyone agrees."
I do actually have to agree it's a good thing when the bias and beliefs of the owners of the publication are easily known and studied. This is very favourable when compared to, say, Murdoch, who I have no idea of his beliefs and theological leanings (although I'm sure it's not that hard to discover). Even if I did find out about those things, it's not stated anywhere that his views are pushed down to his outlets, although that seems to be the case.
That they are open about their ownership, and that ownership is open about what they believe is all good.
I just would have a hard time putting that much credence in a group of people who believe that all 'bad' things are not real, but are lies.
And you obviously didn't read any further when it mentions that it is indeed vetted for content that disagrees with the Church's views.
Your definition of science taken from the dictionary, I believe tends to go completely against what the church (not this one in particular, but organised religion as a whole) has done for centuries, which is hold back the true understanding of things because it goes against what the bible states.
That it may well be, and I see that it has received accolades etc. BUT it is run by the Christian Science church, and they do vet it for content, especially that which mentions death and suffering, because they believe:
"given the absolute goodness and perfection of God, sin, disease, and death were not created by Him, and therefore cannot be truly real."
Sorry, but given that they have to tiptoe around anything relating to those subjects because they don't believe them to be actually real... well, sorry, but I can't put much 'faith' (sorry, terrible pun) in such a publication.
"I think a trip to wikipedia should dispell your ignorant view."
Sorry, but my view remains the same really... Sure it seems like it might be a relatively decent publication, but: a) It is a religious publication which includes religious sections & b) Is subjected to church vetting
And the Christian Science church is a group who believes in faith healing, and calls that Science.
I realise that it's all for the ads, but realistically, each page has a lot of content, with screenshots, detailed rundown of the game etc. It's a lot better than I've seen on other sites.
If there are 5 reviewers (I didn't count), then a game a page plus some extra fluff for intros and you have 29 pages.
Erm from the summary:"Apple's Showtime event was all well and good, but the big news today was on Anandtech.com. "
Which was my point really. It's pretty cool and all, and hell, I would like 8 CPUs (although you're talking mucho power drain I imagine.) It's just not the BIG news as the submitter tries to suggest.
The other things were bigger news... this is just cool geekiness.
Yeah, forget the set top box, forget the tinsy, tiny shuffle, forget all of that... what we really wanted to know is whether we could put in 6 more CPUs that we can afford into our Macs... THAT's what we really care about.
Really, who the frig cares from a general computing standpoint? Who needs 8 CPUs?
No, I'm not making a '640k will be enough for anyone' comment... I know 8 CPUs WILL be useful one day, and MAY be nice to have now, but generally... it's in no way the BIG news of today.
"Penn & Teller are basically full of biased... bullshit. I don't know why anyone would take their agenda seriously."
Sure I can see right through their selective picking of their interviewees on each side (whack jobs on the side they don't like, and rational sorts on the side they do)... but it's the same tactics that right wing nuts use as well, so it kinda balances out.
In any case it's amusing, and I put it out there as a starting point for discussion, which it has indeed been.
I mean really, you all talk about glowing green, getting two tounges etc.
I caught my first episode of Penn & Teller's Bullshit the other night, and it just so happened to have a piece on GM food.
Some clips: A short clip outline The entire segment
It painted a pretty good argument FOR GM food... to feed the millions who are otherwise dying because it's hard to get crops to grow in their parts of the world.
Aren't the 'GM' crops really just an extension of grafting and selective breeding that has been going on for thousands of years?
Please enlighten me if I'm wrong, but in their piece they/those they interviewed stated that two of the things I thought were true about GM foods aren't:
* GM foods contain genes spliced from frogs/fish/other animals: Apparently bullshit * GM foods don't require any testing/checks before being used: Also apparently bullshit, that they are more heavily regulated than any other food.
Is this true, or have Penn & Teller hoodwinked me?
What a very nicely built unit. The final look, while a tad chunky, is very much in keeping with the 360 styling, and would make for a really, really nice portable gaming rig.
I am so very much not keen on the water cooling, but I just never trust having liquid flowing around inside any computing equipment... surely they'll leak someday? Surely?
Slashdot Mirror
"We spell check the correct, original way, instead of the silly Cheque that developed later."
:P Having a sentence like "Have you checked the checks?" is just confusing. There's enough words with difference meanings depending on context as it is. I suppose it doesn't affect us that much in Australia as cheques (he he) just aren't used that much any more, we've moved by and large to just cash and electronic transfers. When I was living in the States for a bit I was amazed at how much cheques were still used... just amazed!
Oh, but that's one that bugs me the most!
Still, the differences in what things are called and how they are spelt is just a source for amusement more often than not rather than annoyance. We kind of just get used to the US way of doing things by virtue of the fact that so much of our entertainment comes from there... no point getting riled up every time something is different.
I suppose it's more that the few times that it happens to the US they get all ansy about it. Or, other countries pander to it. Like how scenes in the first Harry Potter movie were shot twice, once for the US, and once for the rest of the world... because heaven forbid things were mentioned that those in the US were not familiar with. (And I have absolutely zero idea why they figured the US couldn't handle it being called the Philosopher's Stone, with all its intrinsic meaning and history, and had to call it the Sourceror's Stone).
Yeah, from looking into it more it really does seem a shame that it's weighed down with that name. I don't know whether I've even seen it over here in Australia, but I'll have to look out for it now.
I am reading more on them right at the moment, the about page actually, and indeed I do like the sound of it. Having their own reporters doing the ground work rather than using the news wires is great, need more groups doing that to spread the sources of the news out a bit.
I'm just forever weary of anything that is tied to the church, from days of tagging along with friends to youthgroups which stated that they were non-religious and then having them edge in church thoughts whenever they could. Including the bad ones regarding being against gays and biggotry.
I'm not saying the CSM does any of that, I'm just gun-shy because of prior experiences, and the number of religious people who I've known who like to think and say that they are living a good christian life while at the same time being some of the most homophobic and anti women's rights I've come across.
Ahh, Slashdot, home of the well thought out comment.
I applaud you sir for being
a) Polite
b) Rational
c) Well thought out.
No... wait, None of them... that's right, none of those things.
I mean really, grow up. I'm having a discussion here with a bunch of people who by and large are being perfectly civil and discussing the publication, the church's beliefs and bias in journalism. That you, a little AC, decide that I'm being an unscientific shit is of little concern to me.
As I mentioned in a reply to another post, I actually do think that it's a good thing how clear and open their bias is, certainly compared to most news outlets. So yeah, I agree on that. I just find it odd that a church group, who has issues with some portions of modern science (medicine etc.) would be such avid watchers of a science show that they'd do a writeup on its presenters.
"PAY-TENT, PAY-TENTLY, PAY-TENTS"
= 0&y=0 I see that you say patent like, pat-ent, which is fine I guess, makes more sense from the way it's spelt. But really, the US is a treasure trove of horribly mangled english words.
That is how we say it in Australia, and it's how it's said in England, where the word comes from http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=patent&x
I happy that you at least get one example of hearing a word pronounced in a way that you don't like, we get FAR more US media here than you get Australian/English media, and we cringe A LOT!
"Love it; "You must conform. If you don't, you are somehow mal-adjusted. ""
I don't think they were saying that you must conform, it's more the case that you really, really don't like social interaction. Interacting with people is not necessarily conforming, it's merely living.
Your comments that the world is a scary place that you don't think anyone should be socialising in is a very sad commentary on the world. I don't see it that way at all, and love getting out into it, amongst it, and being with people. If that puts me at greater risk of something bad happening just due to the fact that I'm doing more things, then so be it, I've lived a richer and fuller life than if I staying in the relative safety of my home.
I'm not saying that everyone needs to be a social butterfly to be 'normal' or 'healthy', but if you're that scared of other people and 'society' in general, perhaps you should think about exactly what it is that scares you so much, and what you may be missing out on by avoiding society as a whole.
"Have you ever actually read an article published in the CSM?"
To be perfectly honest, no I don't think I ever have. And I'm sure they do have many fine articles, as do all sorts of other publications that have their own biases. As long as you do read with any possible biases in mind (which I always try to), I agree that good information can be gathered from a lot of sources.
However, it strikes me as odd that an organisation that doesn't believe in things like conventional medicine and certain strains of science etc. would be doing a piece on a scientific show.
If Mythbusters did some myth that involved asprin or the like, would they have to not watch? It's just an odd match to me that's all.
"The CSM is generally a high-quality paper, with well-known and unhidden biases, as pretty much everyone agrees."
I do actually have to agree it's a good thing when the bias and beliefs of the owners of the publication are easily known and studied. This is very favourable when compared to, say, Murdoch, who I have no idea of his beliefs and theological leanings (although I'm sure it's not that hard to discover). Even if I did find out about those things, it's not stated anywhere that his views are pushed down to his outlets, although that seems to be the case.
That they are open about their ownership, and that ownership is open about what they believe is all good.
I just would have a hard time putting that much credence in a group of people who believe that all 'bad' things are not real, but are lies.
And you obviously didn't read any further when it mentions that it is indeed vetted for content that disagrees with the Church's views.
Your definition of science taken from the dictionary, I believe tends to go completely against what the church (not this one in particular, but organised religion as a whole) has done for centuries, which is hold back the true understanding of things because it goes against what the bible states.
That it may well be, and I see that it has received accolades etc. BUT it is run by the Christian Science church, and they do vet it for content, especially that which mentions death and suffering, because they believe:
"given the absolute goodness and perfection of God, sin, disease, and death were not created by Him, and therefore cannot be truly real."
Sorry, but given that they have to tiptoe around anything relating to those subjects because they don't believe them to be actually real... well, sorry, but I can't put much 'faith' (sorry, terrible pun) in such a publication.
"I think a trip to wikipedia should dispell your ignorant view."
Sorry, but my view remains the same really... Sure it seems like it might be a relatively decent publication, but:
a) It is a religious publication which includes religious sections
&
b) Is subjected to church vetting
And the Christian Science church is a group who believes in faith healing, and calls that Science.
I mean, the article is about a show I love and about a pairing that works really well, and so might be interesting.
But... Christian Science Monitor... isn't Christian Science an oxymoron?
Great version indeed... tiny... but great! :D
I realise that it's all for the ads, but realistically, each page has a lot of content, with screenshots, detailed rundown of the game etc. It's a lot better than I've seen on other sites.
If there are 5 reviewers (I didn't count), then a game a page plus some extra fluff for intros and you have 29 pages.
Chaos page in list
:)
I remember this game only after reading that... and man, yeah it was great. I think I got the whole game free on a cover cassette of Your Sinclair!
That really brought back memories, and just for that I thank those guys for their lists.
You could at least have just clicked on the contents dropdown to see that.
I don't know why I bother but...
Your point was: "Nobody claimed it was the big news of today. It was simply the buried news."
The article stated: "Apple's Showtime event was all well and good, but the big news today was on Anandtech.com. "
So, with your painful "The point. You." comment... I think perhaps you've missed the point actually.
Erm from the summary :"Apple's Showtime event was all well and good, but the big news today was on Anandtech.com. "
Which was my point really. It's pretty cool and all, and hell, I would like 8 CPUs (although you're talking mucho power drain I imagine.) It's just not the BIG news as the submitter tries to suggest.
The other things were bigger news... this is just cool geekiness.
I don't feel they're really right wing per se (I haven't watched many of the episodes as yet).
From what I've watched of their episodes on legalising drugs etc. I would say they are pretty liberal minded.
Yeah, forget the set top box, forget the tinsy, tiny shuffle, forget all of that... what we really wanted to know is whether we could put in 6 more CPUs that we can afford into our Macs... THAT's what we really care about.
Really, who the frig cares from a general computing standpoint? Who needs 8 CPUs?
No, I'm not making a '640k will be enough for anyone' comment... I know 8 CPUs WILL be useful one day, and MAY be nice to have now, but generally... it's in no way the BIG news of today.
"Penn & Teller are basically full of biased ... bullshit. I don't know why anyone would take their agenda seriously."
Sure I can see right through their selective picking of their interviewees on each side (whack jobs on the side they don't like, and rational sorts on the side they do)... but it's the same tactics that right wing nuts use as well, so it kinda balances out.
In any case it's amusing, and I put it out there as a starting point for discussion, which it has indeed been.
Thanks for that reply, the issue with companies patenting their crops etc. was one I had read a while back and forgotten about.
It is a big issue, and its sad when things that could be for the good of all are turned into the good of some and the bad of most by the greedy.
I mean really, you all talk about glowing green, getting two tounges etc.
I caught my first episode of Penn & Teller's Bullshit the other night, and it just so happened to have a piece on GM food.
Some clips:
A short clip outline
The entire segment
It painted a pretty good argument FOR GM food... to feed the millions who are otherwise dying because it's hard to get crops to grow in their parts of the world.
Aren't the 'GM' crops really just an extension of grafting and selective breeding that has been going on for thousands of years?
Please enlighten me if I'm wrong, but in their piece they/those they interviewed stated that two of the things I thought were true about GM foods aren't:
* GM foods contain genes spliced from frogs/fish/other animals: Apparently bullshit
* GM foods don't require any testing/checks before being used: Also apparently bullshit, that they are more heavily regulated than any other food.
Is this true, or have Penn & Teller hoodwinked me?
I have to say... NICE!
What a very nicely built unit. The final look, while a tad chunky, is very much in keeping with the 360 styling, and would make for a really, really nice portable gaming rig.
I am so very much not keen on the water cooling, but I just never trust having liquid flowing around inside any computing equipment... surely they'll leak someday? Surely?
Anyway, nice, nice work.