"Alteration Frequents From Space-Age Poetry Bannister" "From Tabletop Mannered Asterisk Will Age Understood" "Community Comments To Security Absurdity Article" "Likely Georgetown Under Wisely Instantiation If"
Mod Parent Up, and NOT as Funny, but as Insightful. He is effectively mocking the silly line Google has inadvertently given online attackers a new tool, indeed, the whole silly article.
According the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, "inadvertantly" means "not duly attentive", or "marked by unintentional lack of care". Creating a generally useful tool is not "inadvertant". Imagine these news headlines:
"Diffie and Hellman Inadvertantly Give Slanderers a New Tool" "Shovel Inventor Inadvertantly Gives Grave Robbers a New Tool"
Do you think that Google's 'sneak peak' search access increases sales or violates copyrights on intellectual property?
Aside from the unfortunate false dichotomy that so many have pointed out, there is another major flaw in that sentence. It is incoherent to speak of "copyrights on intellectual property". The copyright in a work (the exclusive right granted by the state to copy the work) is intellectual property. The work itself is NOT intellectual property, notwithstanding the intentional misuse of the phrase by the likes of the RIAA and the MPAA. They like to call works of art "intellectual property" because it has the effect of making their false claims that copying those works is "stealing" sound plausible.
Is there no-one with a modicum of common sense vetting slashdot stories? Please, please, spare us these ludicrous something-for-nothing 'physics' stories! But then, maybe I'm wasting my breath. I'm beginning to think that they are put forth with full knowledge, just so we can all get worked up over the silliness and generate thousands of posts. Hmm. I think I'll start charting their occurrence. I'll bet there is a slashdot formula, much like a Star Trek: TOS episode formula, calling for a certain number of blatantly silly pseudo-physics (or provably impossible data compression) stories per week.
Someone please mod parent up. When articles and/or summaries toss around hilarious units like "megawatts per day", they need to be called on it. And the poster's detractors need to actually read what he wrote, all of it, and stop presuming to lecture him as though he were the one confused about the units in question. His opening paragraph is not a mistake, but a perfectly good bit of rhetoric aimed at showing the meaninglessness of "megawatts per day".
By showing a 0 (zero) page rank for KinderStart, they are NOT saying that they don't like them. They are claiming (probably falsely) that a certain algorithm has so ranked them.
And why shouldn't the New York Times be free to accuse KinderStart of molesting little boys? It's their wholly-owned newspaper, so is there any reason they should be kept from writing their own news articles?
$100 million over the past five years -- For a large corporation, this kind of claimed cost saving out of an IT budget is so small as to be highly questionable. That's not to say deliberately false, but rather that the person or group that spearheaded this plan would naturally be inclined to boast of the savings in salaries, while overlooking less obvious costs resulting from the decision, including some that are intangible and impossible to objectively measure. It is quite possible that in the long term the costs will outweigh the benefits.
Propellors use Bernouilli's [sic] principle to create a pressure difference between the front and the rear of the propellor, thereby 'sucking' themselves forward.
Baloney. This is not true of airplane wings, and it is not true of propellers. If you believe it, then ask yourself how airplanes fly inverted, toy planes with flat wings fly, toy helicopters with flat propeller blades rise, and fans with flat blades blow air.
There are a good number of English words borrowed from Greek, mostly longish words that only educated folks use. But they are a small percentage of English words, and their frequency of use very low. There are also some recognizable cognates. My experience with introductory NT Greek textbooks has led me to think that they deliberately over-represent cognates and loan-words in their vocabulary lists and sample sentences, I suppose to make the student feel more comfortable.
You demonstrate some knowledge of the usage of the words give and gift, but your argument that the etymology of the word shows the parent to be incorrect is invalid. You would have us believe that "gift" (by itself, as distinct from "give") was originally a verb derived from "geban", and that it "grew to be a noun, but kept its verb meaning as well." I doubt it. But even if true, then it must have lost its "verb meaning" at some point, at least in everyday, nonspecialized usage, as you yourself eventually acknowledge when you say that it has only "recently raised its head" as a synonym for "give" outside of specialized jargon. You rudely ridicule the parent poster by saying that such usage only "seems" to be a new use, and is really only "new" to him. But you have no knowledge of whether or not he is aware of the specialized use of "gift" as a verb. He was only criticizing an instance of its recent appearance as a synonym for "give". Your use of etymology to argue for the validity of such use is an example of the "etymological fallacy" (which a Google search will explain).
Why is it that when these topics are discussed, someone always points out the obvious fact that ultimately the signal must become analog for delivery to the human ears, so we can hold a mike in front of the speakers, and we're home free! and then they get modded up to "5, Insightful" in short order? Sorry, but pointing out the obvious, and then suggesting that you will get anything worth listening to by holding a microphone in front of your speakers, is anything but insightful.
People keep insisting that ISPs are common carriers because they intuit that ISPs are by nature common carriers, despite the silly US regs that state otherwise. They do in fact provide telecommunications services, not information services. They are like highways or POTS. They simply provide the pipes that we communicate with each other through. If there is any class of utility that should be treated as a common carrier, they are it.
Discover how many high school kids are planning to order subversive tomes like 1984 and Slaughterhouse Five! See maps that reveal that wishlist owners tend to be in major population centers!
Given the state of modding these days, we should not be surprised that a pile of pure bilge by someone ignorant of the most rudimentary, fundamental principal of the field of knowledge on which he pontificates can reach "5, Insightful".
I'm keen to see how these technically-inclined *ahem* folks intend to remove the digital-analog conversion: to the very best of my knowledge our eyes and ears are analog devices.
I simply can't wait to view the fine images we will get by pointing camcorders at our DRM'd digital monitors! If the analog hole is reduced to the span between speakers and ears and screen and eyes, it is nothing for the MPAA to lose any sleep over.
Actually, no. Both use neurons, and neurons are binary devices... The illusion of analogueness is simply due to the extremely high number of neurons, thus offering a very small granularity, almost to the point of looking analogue.
If you believe that, my friend, then you are in serious need of an introductory neurology textbook.
Eliminating any monopoly in the United States of America has been impossible for some time now (see: campaign contributions)
I don't know about other states, but in Tennessee, the blame lies squarely with 'liberal' state supreme court justices who make a mockery of their oath of office. Tennessee has a provision (Section 22) in its state constitution explicitly outlawing the granting of monopolies by the state. This section (which reads "That perpetuities and monopolies are contrary to the genius of
a free state, and shall not be allowed.") has managed to survive the periodic constitutional conventions in which most such pesky, archaic notions have been stripped away only because the Tennessee Supreme Court long ago established the precedent (Checker Cab Co. v. City of Johnson City, 216 S.W.2d 335 (Tenn.1948)) that it is a mere platitude which does not at all limit the legislature's power to create monopolies.
The agency might have made sense in the 1920s, Moglen says, when it was formed to assign specific frequencies to broadcasters so they wouldnt try to drown each other out by cranking up the transmitter power That is one of the functions performed by the FCC, although other mechanisms certainly would have taken care of that if the FCC had not. The FCC's powers went far beyond that. Congress nationalized the spectrum and took upon itself the authority to grant revocable licenses that must be used "in the public interest". Surely at this remove, we needn't parrot the simplistic grade-school excuse that was fed to the masses. Obviously, states like to control communications, and ours was no exception.
Canada no longer has law. It has only the interests of powerful businesses, enforced by Business Plan Protection Agencies, otherwise known as 'courts'.
Slashdot Mirror
Try to guess which one is a Slashdot headline:
"Alteration Frequents From Space-Age Poetry Bannister"
"From Tabletop Mannered Asterisk Will Age Understood"
"Community Comments To Security Absurdity Article"
"Likely Georgetown Under Wisely Instantiation If"
If possession of the texts mentioned in the article is all the authorities have on this woman, then Britain has clearly discarded the rule of law.
Under communism, the MPAA doesn't just use the state; it is the state.
Mod Parent Up, and NOT as Funny, but as Insightful. He is effectively mocking the silly line Google has inadvertently given online attackers a new tool, indeed, the whole silly article.
According the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, "inadvertantly" means "not duly attentive", or "marked by unintentional lack of care". Creating a generally useful tool is not "inadvertant". Imagine these news headlines:
"Diffie and Hellman Inadvertantly Give Slanderers a New Tool"
"Shovel Inventor Inadvertantly Gives Grave Robbers a New Tool"
Do you think that Google's 'sneak peak' search access increases sales or violates copyrights on intellectual property?
Aside from the unfortunate false dichotomy that so many have pointed out, there is another major flaw in that sentence. It is incoherent to speak of "copyrights on intellectual property". The copyright in a work (the exclusive right granted by the state to copy the work) is intellectual property. The work itself is NOT intellectual property, notwithstanding the intentional misuse of the phrase by the likes of the RIAA and the MPAA. They like to call works of art "intellectual property" because it has the effect of making their false claims that copying those works is "stealing" sound plausible.
Is there no-one with a modicum of common sense vetting slashdot stories? Please, please, spare us these ludicrous something-for-nothing 'physics' stories! But then, maybe I'm wasting my breath. I'm beginning to think that they are put forth with full knowledge, just so we can all get worked up over the silliness and generate thousands of posts. Hmm. I think I'll start charting their occurrence. I'll bet there is a slashdot formula, much like a Star Trek: TOS episode formula, calling for a certain number of blatantly silly pseudo-physics (or provably impossible data compression) stories per week.
Someone please mod parent up. When articles and/or summaries toss around hilarious units like "megawatts per day", they need to be called on it. And the poster's detractors need to actually read what he wrote, all of it, and stop presuming to lecture him as though he were the one confused about the units in question. His opening paragraph is not a mistake, but a perfectly good bit of rhetoric aimed at showing the meaninglessness of "megawatts per day".
By showing a 0 (zero) page rank for KinderStart, they are NOT saying that they don't like them. They are claiming (probably falsely) that a certain algorithm has so ranked them.
And why shouldn't the New York Times be free to accuse KinderStart of molesting little boys? It's their wholly-owned newspaper, so is there any reason they should be kept from writing their own news articles?
$100 million over the past five years -- For a large corporation, this kind of claimed cost saving out of an IT budget is so small as to be highly questionable. That's not to say deliberately false, but rather that the person or group that spearheaded this plan would naturally be inclined to boast of the savings in salaries, while overlooking less obvious costs resulting from the decision, including some that are intangible and impossible to objectively measure. It is quite possible that in the long term the costs will outweigh the benefits.
Not to a reader fluent in English.
Propellors use Bernouilli's [sic] principle to create a pressure difference between the front and the rear of the propellor, thereby 'sucking' themselves forward.
Baloney. This is not true of airplane wings, and it is not true of propellers. If you believe it, then ask yourself how airplanes fly inverted, toy planes with flat wings fly, toy helicopters with flat propeller blades rise, and fans with flat blades blow air.
Your resemblance to the most uninformed, oversimplifying, screeching members of the creationist camp is remarkable.
There are a good number of English words borrowed from Greek, mostly longish words that only educated folks use. But they are a small percentage of English words, and their frequency of use very low. There are also some recognizable cognates. My experience with introductory NT Greek textbooks has led me to think that they deliberately over-represent cognates and loan-words in their vocabulary lists and sample sentences, I suppose to make the student feel more comfortable.
You demonstrate some knowledge of the usage of the words give and gift, but your argument that the etymology of the word shows the parent to be incorrect is invalid. You would have us believe that "gift" (by itself, as distinct from "give") was originally a verb derived from "geban", and that it "grew to be a noun, but kept its verb meaning as well." I doubt it. But even if true, then it must have lost its "verb meaning" at some point, at least in everyday, nonspecialized usage, as you yourself eventually acknowledge when you say that it has only "recently raised its head" as a synonym for "give" outside of specialized jargon. You rudely ridicule the parent poster by saying that such usage only "seems" to be a new use, and is really only "new" to him. But you have no knowledge of whether or not he is aware of the specialized use of "gift" as a verb. He was only criticizing an instance of its recent appearance as a synonym for "give". Your use of etymology to argue for the validity of such use is an example of the "etymological fallacy" (which a Google search will explain).
Why is it that when these topics are discussed, someone always points out the obvious fact that ultimately the signal must become analog for delivery to the human ears, so we can hold a mike in front of the speakers, and we're home free! and then they get modded up to "5, Insightful" in short order? Sorry, but pointing out the obvious, and then suggesting that you will get anything worth listening to by holding a microphone in front of your speakers, is anything but insightful.
People keep insisting that ISPs are common carriers because they intuit that ISPs are by nature common carriers, despite the silly US regs that state otherwise. They do in fact provide telecommunications services, not information services. They are like highways or POTS. They simply provide the pipes that we communicate with each other through. If there is any class of utility that should be treated as a common carrier, they are it.
Discover how many high school kids are planning to order subversive tomes like 1984 and Slaughterhouse Five! See maps that reveal that wishlist owners tend to be in major population centers!
Given the state of modding these days, we should not be surprised that a pile of pure bilge by someone ignorant of the most rudimentary, fundamental principal of the field of knowledge on which he pontificates can reach "5, Insightful".
I'm keen to see how these technically-inclined *ahem* folks intend to remove the digital-analog conversion: to the very best of my knowledge our eyes and ears are analog devices.
I simply can't wait to view the fine images we will get by pointing camcorders at our DRM'd digital monitors! If the analog hole is reduced to the span between speakers and ears and screen and eyes, it is nothing for the MPAA to lose any sleep over.
Actually, no. Both use neurons, and neurons are binary devices... The illusion of analogueness is simply due to the extremely high number of neurons, thus offering a very small granularity, almost to the point of looking analogue.
If you believe that, my friend, then you are in serious need of an introductory neurology textbook.
How could a law possibly concern "violent speech"? It might as well address suspicious bathtubs, tall emotions or purple numbers.
Eliminating any monopoly in the United States of America has been impossible for some time now (see: campaign contributions)
I don't know about other states, but in Tennessee, the blame lies squarely with 'liberal' state supreme court justices who make a mockery of their oath of office. Tennessee has a provision (Section 22) in its state constitution explicitly outlawing the granting of monopolies by the state. This section (which reads "That perpetuities and monopolies are contrary to the genius of a free state, and shall not be allowed.") has managed to survive the periodic constitutional conventions in which most such pesky, archaic notions have been stripped away only because the Tennessee Supreme Court long ago established the precedent (Checker Cab Co. v. City of Johnson City, 216 S.W.2d 335 (Tenn.1948)) that it is a mere platitude which does not at all limit the legislature's power to create monopolies.
The agency might have made sense in the 1920s, Moglen says, when it was formed to assign specific frequencies to broadcasters so they wouldnt try to drown each other out by cranking up the transmitter power
That is one of the functions performed by the FCC, although other mechanisms certainly would have taken care of that if the FCC had not. The FCC's powers went far beyond that. Congress nationalized the spectrum and took upon itself the authority to grant revocable licenses that must be used "in the public interest". Surely at this remove, we needn't parrot the simplistic grade-school excuse that was fed to the masses. Obviously, states like to control communications, and ours was no exception.
Canada no longer has law. It has only the interests of powerful businesses, enforced by Business Plan Protection Agencies, otherwise known as 'courts'.