I think what he meant was that the philosophy of Mao Tse-Tung is dead and his true believers dead or wiser. It's unlikely that someone studying the philosophy of Mao Tse-Tung is going to be a threat to the US today. As opposed to the webpages of Al-Quida which he was sending students to in his other class...
Do you really work your way through the whole menu on a resteraunt, when you don't like anything you've had? They're not invalid conclusions; they're conclusions made in real life with the tools we have, and they work well enough. What's not valid is to argue from pure reason, without having ever set foot inside the resteraunt. You've provided reasons without evidence; you have no right to criticize those who have worked from evidence, even if they haven't performed a scientific study.
Most people don't go to a resteraunt and edit the whole menu; they try one or two items and make their judgement from that. A formal randomly-sampled experiment is complex; people make judgements based on examination of a few items all the time.
I've backed up my claims with facts, as has Nature. Just because you didn't like them, doesn't mean they aren't backed up. It's a little absurd to claim that because no one is running out and offering results of a formal study, that it's all right to toss unfounded accusations against Wikipedia.
A sampling of science articles tells us about the science articles. That is a proper subject to judge an encyclopedia on. Not every study covers the entire world, nor should it.
Is this how you treat restaraunts, too? I've never eaten there, but you're wrong about their food being any good? The proof of the pudding is in the eating.
Neutral point of view is encouraged by Wikipedia. It is a formal rule, and those who do not follow it can be sanctioned. It's really irrelevant how it's achieved; what matters is that it is achieved, and it is a triumph of philosophy over science and reality to say that it isn't without actually having looked.
I've read the Mother Teresa article, and find it to be a detailed balanced look at the issue, and I've watched the history and have seen that there are people who will fix any errors added. It is one thing to look at these articles and disagree with me, but to call my conclusions flawed without even looking at the articles is absurd.
What matters is whether it works or not. All the theory in the world can only tell you why it does or doesn't.
It is the best category of articles to use to judge the accuracy of Wikipedia on science. That's a reasonable question to ask, especially for a journal of science.
Have you ever actually checked Wikipedia and judged the quality for yourself? Personally, I suspect our articles on John Kerry and Mother Teresa, for example, are among the best in the world, having been produced by a process that encourages a neutral point of view and having every fact and accusation been fought over by both sides.
What gives England the right to insist that the US conform to a standard of spelling that developed after we won our independence? It's not like one spelling is fundamentally more correct than another.
The owner is not taking steps to deter the presence of loiters. He's taking steps to deter the presence of teens. If in your example, he did take steps to get rid of 45 year-olds, he'd be facing a discrimenation suit.
The sound is only annoying with constant exposure, and the only way someone is going to be constantly exposed is if they're loitering around outside the store. [...] No one, regardless of age, should be loitering outside this guy's store.
Why not pick a sound in a range that everyone can hear? Since, you know, you want to drive away loiters of any age and it's only annoying to loiters.
That's because the Sony execs will have decent lawyers and listen to them, and won't have been caught bragging about what they could do with this power.
If and when our government has become so corrupt that reform through the ballot boxes is impossible, then it is time to turn to the ammo boxes.
You can't fight a war against a modern military with civilian weapons. You can let civilians have military weapons, sure; and then some guy in an Abrams tank will roadrage on an Interstate in a traffic jam, and we will be reminded that nothing can stop an Abrams tank and not annhilate all the people in their Civics in the nearby lanes.
What do you mean, the lack of accurate spellings? They were accurately spelled, as well as anything could be at the time. There wasn't really much of a standard spelling at the time, but the spellings in the First Folio, modulo printer's errors, were as accurate as any. Likewise, it's unreasonable to judge the grammar by the modern literary language of today; Shakespeare's grammar was much closer to the English of the day, which is almost half a millenia before now.
All institutions must act in accord with government regulation. Period. It has long been held that private sector entities do not have an arbitrary right to bar you; Souter, in the majority decision for the Supreme Court on "Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian & Bisexual Group of Boston":
The Massachusetts public accommodations law under which respondents brought suit has a venerable history. At common law, innkeepers, smiths, and others who "made profession of a public employment," were prohibited from refusing, without good reason, to serve a customer. Lane v. Cotton, 12 Mod. 472, 484-485, 88 Eng. Rep. 1458, 1464-1465 (K.B. 1701) (Holt, C. J.); see Bell v. Maryland, 378 U.S. 226, 298, n. 17 (1964) (Goldberg, J., concurring); Lombard v. Louisiana, 373 U.S. 267, 277 (1963) (Douglas, J., concurring). As one of the 19th century English judges put it, the rule was that "[t]he innkeeper is not to select his guests[;] [h]e has no right to say to one, you shall come into my inn, and to another you shall not, as every one coming and conducting himself in a proper manner has a right to be received; and for this purpose innkeepers are a sort of public servants." Rex v. Ivens, 7 Car. & P. 213, 219, 173 Eng. Rep. 94, 96 (N.P. 1835); M. Konvitz & T. Leskes, A Century of Civil Rights 160 (1961).
The ERA is not a constitutional amendment; it was a proposed constitutional amendment. The civil rights legistlations are based on the principle that the private sector is a large part of American life, and that we don't want to let people of a certain race, religion, or gender be arbitrarily excluded from a large part of American life.
Here the ideal to be upheld is that an American is permitted to express his or her opinion and to talk freely; if the associations the schools had with their students were voluntary, like those a college has with its students, it would be different. The value of private schooling should not be that it produces a student terrified of exercising his or her rights, or worse, unfamiliar with them.
Not at all! The Pentium Pro doesn't emulate the x86 instructions in software. It "emulates" them in firmware; no program running on the Pentium Pro can tell that there's emulating going on. It made no difference to the OS writer; it offers the same interface to write to.
English (or Engrish, whatever it is) is not my mother language,
Engrish is the mangling of English by the Japanese, when they use English words in ways that are absurd English. Words have more than simple definitions; you have to understand the context. It's an example of what someone whose speaking a language that's not their mother tongue produces at times.
try to learn what those words mean, not only to you, but to anyone that uses English (or Engrish, whatever it is), so the tool can be used to its most efficiency.
It's using the tool to its most efficiency to marginalize a meaning in any context where it's ambiguious with a more common, useful meaning. It does not make the language more efficient to make someone wonder everytime the word politics is used if it means the entire space of human activity.
So you know how to use a dictionary, just like everyone who produces Engrish. I bet you use gay to mean happy, too. Language is supposed to be about communication, not the most pedantic use of words.
I was speaking English, not Greek. It really helps when people avoid using creative meanings for words that have little connection to how the words are actually used in real life.
THE PROBLEM WITH BLOGGING IS THE SELF DELUSION THAT YOU BELIEVE YOU MATTER OR THAT PEOPLE GIVE A FUCK WHAT YOU SAY.
And what is the difference between someone posting a message on Slashdot and running their own blog? A blog is about me me me with frequent updates about me me me in some way. Posting to slashdot is offering a one-time statement in a community of voices regarding the current subject.
And how does posting to slashdot make people give a fuck what you say? Posting on Slashdot is worse than posting on the blog, because you're raising your voice in a place where people are trying to have a discussion, and as we've established, no one gives a fuck what you say, so you're interferring in the conversation. If you were posting on a blog, no one would be forced to wade through your crap when trying to read about the subject.
"these blogs provide no long-term value[...]more professionally done blogs [will] take over."? Neither do the conversations I have with people all day. Should I ignore everyone that I don't think will provide long-term value? Should I let professionals take over my personal conversations? Someone who blogs about the guy who flipped them off in traffic today, is blowing off steam talking to some friends, and doesn't have to justify that to anyone.
There's no other interest to create a standard than politics? But of course; who needs to port a program from one system to another, or plug a random electrical appliance into the wall and expect it to work, or buy a set of screws from the store and expect them to fit? Nah, it's pure politics.
the rpm isnt a good universal package, it requires too much
A LSB standard RPM is a stripped down version of RPM that doesn't take much to support.
by posting a rpm, a company isnt stating that the package is for rh and friends, not that is for all distros. as oposite, a neutral.LPKG would say that it should work fine in all LSB distros, without favoring any one
The "standard" extension for an LSB RPM is.lsb. Forcing everyone to support a completely different packaging standard for pure politics is pointless.
Bwah ha ha. Have you tried to recompile a program lately? Non-standard C++ programs (all of them, or at least all of them written before 2004) break fairly consistenly on new version of GCC. Even old C programs won't compile anymore out of the box.
These people are pure evil.
Oh yes, I'm sure they're evil to the core. So evil. If people disagree with us and do things we wouldn't, that means there's not a shred of goodness in their soul.
It had the beneficial {at least, it was beneficial when processors were slow and disk space small} side effect that you did not have to spend CPU time and disk space compiling applications locally; but now that disk space and processor power are cheap, the benefits of pre-compiled applications are diminished substantially.
Let's take a M68k that Debian and NetBSD and a few other OSs support. Assuming that it has a free gigabyte of disk space, how long do you think that XFree86 build is going to take?
Heck, I try compiling GCC on my AMD-64 every so often, and it can take a couple hours. I don't want to spend the time to compile everything.
If programs compiled on my computer would only ever be able to run on my computer, and any program compiled on anyone else's computer would never be able to run on mine, then there would be no such thing as viruses or buffer overrun vulnerabilities.
There would still be buffer overruns; it would just take more work and luck to exploit them. At best, it would make them remote DOSs. Heaven forbid debugging the things.
For example, why oh why is RPM support required for LSB compliance?
So there is some standard way of packaging a program for all LSB distros. Joey Hess's Alien can turn an LSB-RPM into about any package format you can need.
LSB only covers the very core of the system.
Right; that very core has taken years to standardize.
The APIs that 90% of programs rely on are not even mentioned in the LSB spec.
What programs? It's designed to be sufficient for commerical binaries, which historically statically link everything. There's no way to standardize GNOME or KDE libraries.
To prove this they would have to reveal that Confidential info at trial to show the judge and jury the facts and I doubt the judge would seal the transcript. So then everyone would know.
Why wouldn't the judge seal the relevant parts of the transcript? From what I understand, they do that all the time.
Slashdot Mirror
I think what he meant was that the philosophy of Mao Tse-Tung is dead and his true believers dead or wiser. It's unlikely that someone studying the philosophy of Mao Tse-Tung is going to be a threat to the US today. As opposed to the webpages of Al-Quida which he was sending students to in his other class...
Do you really work your way through the whole menu on a resteraunt, when you don't like anything you've had? They're not invalid conclusions; they're conclusions made in real life with the tools we have, and they work well enough. What's not valid is to argue from pure reason, without having ever set foot inside the resteraunt. You've provided reasons without evidence; you have no right to criticize those who have worked from evidence, even if they haven't performed a scientific study.
Most people don't go to a resteraunt and edit the whole menu; they try one or two items and make their judgement from that. A formal randomly-sampled experiment is complex; people make judgements based on examination of a few items all the time.
I've backed up my claims with facts, as has Nature. Just because you didn't like them, doesn't mean they aren't backed up. It's a little absurd to claim that because no one is running out and offering results of a formal study, that it's all right to toss unfounded accusations against Wikipedia.
A sampling of science articles tells us about the science articles. That is a proper subject to judge an encyclopedia on. Not every study covers the entire world, nor should it.
Does Wikipedia have more of a problem with the editorial voice taking sides than other encyclopedias? I'd be surprised if it does.
Is this how you treat restaraunts, too? I've never eaten there, but you're wrong about their food being any good? The proof of the pudding is in the eating.
Neutral point of view is encouraged by Wikipedia. It is a formal rule, and those who do not follow it can be sanctioned. It's really irrelevant how it's achieved; what matters is that it is achieved, and it is a triumph of philosophy over science and reality to say that it isn't without actually having looked.
I've read the Mother Teresa article, and find it to be a detailed balanced look at the issue, and I've watched the history and have seen that there are people who will fix any errors added. It is one thing to look at these articles and disagree with me, but to call my conclusions flawed without even looking at the articles is absurd.
What matters is whether it works or not. All the theory in the world can only tell you why it does or doesn't.
It is the best category of articles to use to judge the accuracy of Wikipedia on science. That's a reasonable question to ask, especially for a journal of science.
Have you ever actually checked Wikipedia and judged the quality for yourself? Personally, I suspect our articles on John Kerry and Mother Teresa, for example, are among the best in the world, having been produced by a process that encourages a neutral point of view and having every fact and accusation been fought over by both sides.
What gives England the right to insist that the US conform to a standard of spelling that developed after we won our independence? It's not like one spelling is fundamentally more correct than another.
The owner is not taking steps to deter the presence of loiters. He's taking steps to deter the presence of teens. If in your example, he did take steps to get rid of 45 year-olds, he'd be facing a discrimenation suit.
The sound is only annoying with constant exposure, and the only way someone is going to be constantly exposed is if they're loitering around outside the store. [...] No one, regardless of age, should be loitering outside this guy's store.
Why not pick a sound in a range that everyone can hear? Since, you know, you want to drive away loiters of any age and it's only annoying to loiters.
That's because the Sony execs will have decent lawyers and listen to them, and won't have been caught bragging about what they could do with this power.
If and when our government has become so corrupt that reform through the ballot boxes is impossible, then it is time to turn to the ammo boxes.
You can't fight a war against a modern military with civilian weapons. You can let civilians have military weapons, sure; and then some guy in an Abrams tank will roadrage on an Interstate in a traffic jam, and we will be reminded that nothing can stop an Abrams tank and not annhilate all the people in their Civics in the nearby lanes.
What do you mean, the lack of accurate spellings? They were accurately spelled, as well as anything could be at the time. There wasn't really much of a standard spelling at the time, but the spellings in the First Folio, modulo printer's errors, were as accurate as any. Likewise, it's unreasonable to judge the grammar by the modern literary language of today; Shakespeare's grammar was much closer to the English of the day, which is almost half a millenia before now.
In what way were the "associations the schools had with their students" not voluntary?
The schools voluntarily associated with the parents. The students' association with the school was not completely voluntary.
The ERA is not a constitutional amendment; it was a proposed constitutional amendment. The civil rights legistlations are based on the principle that the private sector is a large part of American life, and that we don't want to let people of a certain race, religion, or gender be arbitrarily excluded from a large part of American life.
Here the ideal to be upheld is that an American is permitted to express his or her opinion and to talk freely; if the associations the schools had with their students were voluntary, like those a college has with its students, it would be different. The value of private schooling should not be that it produces a student terrified of exercising his or her rights, or worse, unfamiliar with them.
Not at all! The Pentium Pro doesn't emulate the x86 instructions in software. It "emulates" them in firmware; no program running on the Pentium Pro can tell that there's emulating going on. It made no difference to the OS writer; it offers the same interface to write to.
English (or Engrish, whatever it is) is not my mother language,
Engrish is the mangling of English by the Japanese, when they use English words in ways that are absurd English. Words have more than simple definitions; you have to understand the context. It's an example of what someone whose speaking a language that's not their mother tongue produces at times.
try to learn what those words mean, not only to you, but to anyone that uses English (or Engrish, whatever it is), so the tool can be used to its most efficiency.
It's using the tool to its most efficiency to marginalize a meaning in any context where it's ambiguious with a more common, useful meaning. It does not make the language more efficient to make someone wonder everytime the word politics is used if it means the entire space of human activity.
So you know how to use a dictionary, just like everyone who produces Engrish. I bet you use gay to mean happy, too. Language is supposed to be about communication, not the most pedantic use of words.
I was speaking English, not Greek. It really helps when people avoid using creative meanings for words that have little connection to how the words are actually used in real life.
THE PROBLEM WITH BLOGGING IS THE SELF DELUSION THAT YOU BELIEVE YOU MATTER OR THAT PEOPLE GIVE A FUCK WHAT YOU SAY.
And what is the difference between someone posting a message on Slashdot and running their own blog? A blog is about me me me with frequent updates about me me me in some way. Posting to slashdot is offering a one-time statement in a community of voices regarding the current subject.
And how does posting to slashdot make people give a fuck what you say? Posting on Slashdot is worse than posting on the blog, because you're raising your voice in a place where people are trying to have a discussion, and as we've established, no one gives a fuck what you say, so you're interferring in the conversation. If you were posting on a blog, no one would be forced to wade through your crap when trying to read about the subject.
"these blogs provide no long-term value[...]more professionally done blogs [will] take over."? Neither do the conversations I have with people all day. Should I ignore everyone that I don't think will provide long-term value? Should I let professionals take over my personal conversations? Someone who blogs about the guy who flipped them off in traffic today, is blowing off steam talking to some friends, and doesn't have to justify that to anyone.
There's no other interest to create a standard than politics? But of course; who needs to port a program from one system to another, or plug a random electrical appliance into the wall and expect it to work, or buy a set of screws from the store and expect them to fit? Nah, it's pure politics.
the rpm isnt a good universal package, it requires too much
.LPKG would say that it should work fine in all LSB distros, without favoring any one
.lsb. Forcing everyone to support a completely different packaging standard for pure politics is pointless.
A LSB standard RPM is a stripped down version of RPM that doesn't take much to support.
by posting a rpm, a company isnt stating that the package is for rh and friends, not that is for all distros. as oposite, a neutral
The "standard" extension for an LSB RPM is
And right now GNU/Linux has that in spades.
Bwah ha ha. Have you tried to recompile a program lately? Non-standard C++ programs (all of them, or at least all of them written before 2004) break fairly consistenly on new version of GCC. Even old C programs won't compile anymore out of the box.
These people are pure evil.
Oh yes, I'm sure they're evil to the core. So evil. If people disagree with us and do things we wouldn't, that means there's not a shred of goodness in their soul.
It had the beneficial {at least, it was beneficial when processors were slow and disk space small} side effect that you did not have to spend CPU time and disk space compiling applications locally; but now that disk space and processor power are cheap, the benefits of pre-compiled applications are diminished substantially.
Let's take a M68k that Debian and NetBSD and a few other OSs support. Assuming that it has a free gigabyte of disk space, how long do you think that XFree86 build is going to take?
Heck, I try compiling GCC on my AMD-64 every so often, and it can take a couple hours. I don't want to spend the time to compile everything.
If programs compiled on my computer would only ever be able to run on my computer, and any program compiled on anyone else's computer would never be able to run on mine, then there would be no such thing as viruses or buffer overrun vulnerabilities.
There would still be buffer overruns; it would just take more work and luck to exploit them. At best, it would make them remote DOSs. Heaven forbid debugging the things.
For example, why oh why is RPM support required for LSB compliance?
So there is some standard way of packaging a program for all LSB distros. Joey Hess's Alien can turn an LSB-RPM into about any package format you can need.
LSB only covers the very core of the system.
Right; that very core has taken years to standardize.
The APIs that 90% of programs rely on are not even mentioned in the LSB spec.
What programs? It's designed to be sufficient for commerical binaries, which historically statically link everything. There's no way to standardize GNOME or KDE libraries.
To prove this they would have to reveal that Confidential info at trial to show the judge and jury the facts and I doubt the judge would seal the transcript. So then everyone would know.
Why wouldn't the judge seal the relevant parts of the transcript? From what I understand, they do that all the time.