If you're in an English class designed for native speakers, grammar is really a non-issue. Even the most remedial writing relies more on a writer's ear than adherence to syntax, since (content aside) good writing is a matter of style. I could write "The worst teacher in the department is I," but "The worst teacher in the department is me" is better-- despite being incorrect. "It is I" sounds you wear a hat with a feather in it.
More to the point, "These are the times that try mens' souls" beats "Mens' souls are in these times being tried" or even "Soulwise, these are trying times." Why? I could talk about things like rhythm or alliteration, but that's shaky ground. Unless Criteria can tell Paine's sentence from its painful variants, it's not much use.
That being said, Criteria might be useful in ESL or translation environments. But probably not for a vanilla English class.
Except some of us don't particularly want "free" health care or ruthlessly tidy streets. Maybe I'd rather spend my money on something else, like fixing my house or educating my children.
The reason taxes are evil is that they interfere with individual agency in a violent way-- politicians (or "the majority" in a democracy) get to decide how my money should be spent, and if they don't think my kids are worth educating, or my street is worth cleaning, I'm out of luck: after paying whatever the politicians decide is my "fair share," I probably won't have the money to do those things myself.
Of course you don't have to worry about that, since Europe is barren of corrupt politicians and institutional discrimination.
You're right. That would also save me the hassle of choosing whether to buy cable. I wish all my decisions could be made by someone else who knows how to spend my money. Then I'd have more time to pay taxes.
The found papers were a translation of Beowulf: see this story . That he had his own translation isn't really surprising since his Beowulf: The Monsters and the Critics is probably the most significant piece of Beowulf scholarship out there-- in doing any (good) criticism, you translate the subject text yourself. What we've got, in other words, is probably more like a protracted set of notes than a book.
Most of the time, at least in my experience, these working translations aren't very good reading. What you write for publication is usually very different (hopefully less confusing) than what you note-- if you've ever picked up Aristotle, you'll know what I mean.
If you want a great lyrical translation of Beowulf, though, try Seamus Heaney's.
You have got to be kidding. Seriously. Your phone analogy fits the Xbox like socks fit a chicken.
When you "purchase" a subsidized cell phone with a service contract you sign a contract. When you buy an Xbox, you don't. You don't agree not to take it apart, hack it, play non-Xbox games on it or not to use it in an anti-Microsoft advertisement showing why your console is better.
If MS wanted to attach the Xbox to games (or whatever else) with a contract, they have that freedom. They can make the contract as restrictive as they want. But they don't. So I don't have an obligation, legal or moral, to buy any games at all, or to use it the way MS wants me to.
In the absence of an explicit contract, I can use the Xbox any way I choose (within just bounds of the law). I own it. That's not a consumer "right" like fair use; that's a right to property-- the same right I acknowledge by buying my Xbox from the retailer instead of stealing it.
There's (thankfully) no valid law that says a company should be guaranteed a profit by virtue of an "implied" contract of any sort. Profit, personal, corporate, or otherwise, is not a thing to which terms like "fair" apply. I sure as hell don't have an obligation to make a poorly-planned business venture profitable.
Screw them if they sell it below cost-- that doesn't obligate me to anything. I mean, if they gave me one for free, with no contract, would I be obligated to pay for their service or buy games? You might as well tell me that if you wash my car without my permission I'm obligated to pay you.
Most of my teachers aren't willing to walk over to my computer and type in a password every minutes so that I can actually see the pictures of Mussolini's dead body. (We are covering WWI).
Perhaps they're too busy teaching history. They seem to be doing a fine job so far.
It's going into space. The plan is that you don't have leaks.
The backup plan is that you die.
This is why shuttles don't have eject seats. The conditions under which they operate make error fatal. The only safety you consider in the event of a leak is for people on the ground.
No, Having a monopoly is not illegal, as long as the monopoly position isn't leveraged so as to extend into other areas. Even then, monopoly extension may not be illegal unless it describes "unfair competition," which is a whole different rock of crack.
Microsoft's so-called "monopoly" is only illegal if it provides a competitive advantage in areas of business in which it does not have a monopoly and that advantage is "unfair."
Like T.S. Eliot said in The Waste Land, "The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity".
Actually, that quote's from Yeats' "The Second Coming." I don't think "The Waste-Land" is quite so lucid. And, for what it's worth, I don't think Eliot's syntax was ever that inventive.
I'm afraid our friend, in spite of his hysterics, is quite correct-- provided data can be played, it can alwaysbe copied. This is a very simple matter-- if there exists a device capable of recording audio or video data, playback can always, by definition, be reproduced: even if it's by some moron pointing his super 8 at a movie screen.
Furthermore, while such crude methods of reproduction (...sounds like an alien watching a porno...) are imperfect, recent history shows us that these things really don't matter where piracy is concerned-- just because something's an analog (or imperfect digital) copy doesn't mean it can't be of exceptional quality (look at a high quality VHS dub of a DVD, or dub a cassette tape if you have one of those 2-deck dinosaurs lying around). All it takes is a single person willing to convert a high-quality analog copy of a movie, music, or whatever to a more portable format (DivX, Ogg-Vorbis, or MP3 for the Morloks) and we're back to square one.
A company is well within its rights to test an employee for genetic conditions, especially when those conditions might interfere with his ability to do a job well or safely.
Whatever else might be true of CTS, it's a nasty any painful condition, and makes tasks that require fine motor skills (like conducting a train) exceptionally difficult. So far as I know, it's also characterized by relatively sudden onset-- meaning that the guy running the 5:15 from NYC to Boston could find himself unable to perform necessary operations with little prior warning.
That the employees were subject to examinations in the first place implies that they were in positions where their ability to perform physical tasks was important-- if that's the case, testing for CTS seems like a good idea.
Yet another issue: At least in the United States, snail mail is (as one would expect given it's ruthless inefficiency and hefty price tag) a government operated system. This means that direct mailers are afforded some degree of protection under the First Amendment, as are door-to-door salespeople-- solicitation using public property or resources is generally considered free or protected speech, as it should be.
The use of someone else's private property in an effort to solicit is another matter entirely-- Freedom of speech is not a right that can be extended to another individual's property (hence the right of Slashdot not to post my idiotic message if they so decide).
Hence, while legislation isn't an effective method of dealing with spam (or much else, for that matter), I think a legitimate case could be made against spammers in civil court, especially where the wasted time of employees is concerned. While damages might not be significant, and malicious spammers can remain anonymous easily enough, the risk of a lawsuit might deter enough people to make civil action worthwhile.
Slashdot Mirror
Not quite.
If you're in an English class designed for native speakers, grammar is really a non-issue. Even the most remedial writing relies more on a writer's ear than adherence to syntax, since (content aside) good writing is a matter of style. I could write "The worst teacher in the department is I," but "The worst teacher in the department is me" is better-- despite being incorrect. "It is I" sounds you wear a hat with a feather in it.
More to the point, "These are the times that try mens' souls" beats "Mens' souls are in these times being tried" or even "Soulwise, these are trying times." Why? I could talk about things like rhythm or alliteration, but that's shaky ground. Unless Criteria can tell Paine's sentence from its painful variants, it's not much use.
That being said, Criteria might be useful in ESL or translation environments. But probably not for a vanilla English class.
N.E.
Good, fast, cheap. Choose two.
Nate
Except some of us don't particularly want "free" health care or ruthlessly tidy streets. Maybe I'd rather spend my money on something else, like fixing my house or educating my children.
The reason taxes are evil is that they interfere with individual agency in a violent way-- politicians (or "the majority" in a democracy) get to decide how my money should be spent, and if they don't think my kids are worth educating, or my street is worth cleaning, I'm out of luck: after paying whatever the politicians decide is my "fair share," I probably won't have the money to do those things myself.
Of course you don't have to worry about that, since Europe is barren of corrupt politicians and institutional discrimination.
Nate
Of course he's right. He's an economist.
Nate
Nate
Sell it all to ClearChannel.
Virtually.
Most of the time, at least in my experience, these working translations aren't very good reading. What you write for publication is usually very different (hopefully less confusing) than what you note-- if you've ever picked up Aristotle, you'll know what I mean.
If you want a great lyrical translation of Beowulf, though, try Seamus Heaney's.
Nate
When you "purchase" a subsidized cell phone with a service contract you sign a contract. When you buy an Xbox, you don't. You don't agree not to take it apart, hack it, play non-Xbox games on it or not to use it in an anti-Microsoft advertisement showing why your console is better.
If MS wanted to attach the Xbox to games (or whatever else) with a contract, they have that freedom. They can make the contract as restrictive as they want. But they don't. So I don't have an obligation, legal or moral, to buy any games at all, or to use it the way MS wants me to.
In the absence of an explicit contract, I can use the Xbox any way I choose (within just bounds of the law). I own it. That's not a consumer "right" like fair use; that's a right to property-- the same right I acknowledge by buying my Xbox from the retailer instead of stealing it.
There's (thankfully) no valid law that says a company should be guaranteed a profit by virtue of an "implied" contract of any sort. Profit, personal, corporate, or otherwise, is not a thing to which terms like "fair" apply. I sure as hell don't have an obligation to make a poorly-planned business venture profitable.
Screw them if they sell it below cost-- that doesn't obligate me to anything. I mean, if they gave me one for free, with no contract, would I be obligated to pay for their service or buy games? You might as well tell me that if you wash my car without my permission I'm obligated to pay you.
Perhaps they're too busy teaching history. They seem to be doing a fine job so far.
The backup plan is that you die.
This is why shuttles don't have eject seats. The conditions under which they operate make error fatal. The only safety you consider in the event of a leak is for people on the ground.
The other half, of course, is killing.
Yeah, but then we'd never see Nicholas cage lose to Sebulba.
The Wizard. The name of that travesty was The Wizard.
Microsoft's so-called "monopoly" is only illegal if it provides a competitive advantage in areas of business in which it does not have a monopoly and that advantage is "unfair."
$hecky
Like T.S. Eliot said in The Waste Land, "The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity".
Actually, that quote's from Yeats' "The Second Coming." I don't think "The Waste-Land" is quite so lucid. And, for what it's worth, I don't think Eliot's syntax was ever that inventive.
shantih shantih shantih
Nate
w00t!
I'm afraid our friend, in spite of his hysterics, is quite correct-- provided data can be played, it can alwaysbe copied. This is a very simple matter-- if there exists a device capable of recording audio or video data, playback can always, by definition, be reproduced: even if it's by some moron pointing his super 8 at a movie screen.
Furthermore, while such crude methods of reproduction (...sounds like an alien watching a porno...) are imperfect, recent history shows us that these things really don't matter where piracy is concerned-- just because something's an analog (or imperfect digital) copy doesn't mean it can't be of exceptional quality (look at a high quality VHS dub of a DVD, or dub a cassette tape if you have one of those 2-deck dinosaurs lying around). All it takes is a single person willing to convert a high-quality analog copy of a movie, music, or whatever to a more portable format (DivX, Ogg-Vorbis, or MP3 for the Morloks) and we're back to square one.
A company is well within its rights to test an employee for genetic conditions, especially when those conditions might interfere with his ability to do a job well or safely.
Whatever else might be true of CTS, it's a nasty any painful condition, and makes tasks that require fine motor skills (like conducting a train) exceptionally difficult. So far as I know, it's also characterized by relatively sudden onset-- meaning that the guy running the 5:15 from NYC to Boston could find himself unable to perform necessary operations with little prior warning.
That the employees were subject to examinations in the first place implies that they were in positions where their ability to perform physical tasks was important-- if that's the case, testing for CTS seems like a good idea.
?
Hence the use of "generally" as a qualifier.
It is, however, OK to rape a public servant on public property.
--SheckyYet another issue: At least in the United States, snail mail is (as one would expect given it's ruthless inefficiency and hefty price tag) a government operated system. This means that direct mailers are afforded some degree of protection under the First Amendment, as are door-to-door salespeople-- solicitation using public property or resources is generally considered free or protected speech, as it should be. The use of someone else's private property in an effort to solicit is another matter entirely-- Freedom of speech is not a right that can be extended to another individual's property (hence the right of Slashdot not to post my idiotic message if they so decide). Hence, while legislation isn't an effective method of dealing with spam (or much else, for that matter), I think a legitimate case could be made against spammers in civil court, especially where the wasted time of employees is concerned. While damages might not be significant, and malicious spammers can remain anonymous easily enough, the risk of a lawsuit might deter enough people to make civil action worthwhile.