These days if a linguistic convention, such as a word, is in common enough usage it makes its way into the Oxford dictionary. I don't think it's a mistake, it's understood by too many people that it may well be regarded a convention.
And further, a new word is one thing, there is no ambiguity if you use the word "rootkit"; it has only one meaning. But if you start to randomly redefine existing usages, as you are, you will only cause confusion. I suppose the idea struck someone that they didn't use single quotes much, so why not give them a special meaning. (Actually, this occurs in programming languages, eg bash scripts.) But you are apparently unaware that in British English, for example, single quotes are used much more extensively, and in both dialects you alternate single and double quotes with nested quotes -- e.g. "He said 'I was told "Always use double quotes"'." Some writers use double quotes for speech and single for text; odd but not too confusing.
He didn't misquote it. He used single quotes, which are what you would use if you slightly paraphrased a sentence.
I'm a professional editor, and this is the first time I've heard this "rule". Please give me a reference so I can get current with this new usage.
Or alternatively, admit you made it up. Whether you use single or double quotes is mainly a manner of style, (British prefer single, Americans double in most cases); the meaning is ALWAYS the exact words spoken or written.
Google Earth makes it about a billion (well, some large amount) times easier to discover and access the data.
If I was planning a "terrorist attack", getting aerial photos might be an important part of the plan, but a tiny part of the whole process. I'd want much more intelligence, of the interior layout and guard schedules, etc etc. I'd find an inside source, or preferably several. (Recall that Indira Gandhi was assassinated by her own guards.) If I have any foreign government connections, they can supply me with current high resolution images, much better than the often years old stuff you find on Google.
So the risks are minimal, just a pretext for reflexive government secrecy that affects teh public, not the "terrorists". As the NRA might say, if you outlaw satellite photographs, only outlaws will have satellite photographs.
Since the ones you cited earlier were stated to be dreams, I don't see why I should bother to chase up more. Basically, I don't think the Bible says anything about this; the shape of the planet just is not a matter for theology. You keep stating the Bible says the world is flat, you're the one who has to support that.
One can only see all the Kingdoms if the earth was flat.
Firstly, I think if you saw the hemisphere centred on Israel, you could see all the kingdoms of the earth at that time, except perhaps the Mayans. Secondly, you're assuming light travelled in straight lines. If Satan can lift Jesus up to a mountain, he can refract light to show him the entire world in a Mercator projection (with four corners) if he wants to. Though again, this is most likely meant to be undrstood as a vision rather than objective reality; as to get high enough to see even half the globe would leave Jesus rather short of air to breathe.
The dupes make it so we don't have to check regularly, silly.
Yes, since Zonk posted the same story yesterday. That referenced the BBC, this the SMH. A moment's searching brings you to the original story at the American Association for the Advancement of Science's Science magazine.
This article is from the Sydney Morning Herald, reporting the American Association for the Advancement of Science's "Top 10". Yesterday the Evolution Named Scientific Achievement of 2005 story was the BBC reporting the same fucking list. By cleverly putting "evolution" in the title then Zonk got the standard 800 posts you always get when you wave that red flag.
>No, but it could be a sphere with the sun orbiting it.
But not when you take the other references into account.
OK, let's see. Your other refs were:
"earths four corners" something that's only possible if the earth was flat
Revelation 7:1... I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding back the four winds of the earth...
Revelation 20:8...go out to deceive the nations in the four corners of the earth...
Revelations is a vision, a prophecy; there's a great deal there that has no basis in physical reality, as even the most literal fundamentalist would agree. In any case, the angels could be simply forming a square surrounding the earth.
Daniel 4:10-11 references a tall tree that is visible to the farthest reaches of the earth. Also only possible if the earth was flat.
Daniel 4:9 Here is my dream; interpret it for me...
Okay, it states it was Nebuchadnezzar's DREAM.
The bible states numerous times that the earth is "firm" and "immovable". Therefore it cannot be a sphere orbiting the sun now can it?
No, but it could be a sphere with the sun orbiting it. And for many earthbound purposes, this is as sensible way to model it. We still say "the sun is rising", e.g.
if they did some sort of presto based internet renderer for security,
They would never do that, it would be admitting that IE is unfixably insecure. Businesses especially would take it as a cue to replace IE wholesale. They'll just keep patching and layering security over the holes as they appear.
I would *hope* ( and no, I didn't read the article ), that the meta data for each file would have the same security permissions as the original file.
I did RTFA. The "problem" is you may deliberately send a file, eg a spreadsheet, but along with the file, Windows will have your indexing info, which may give away more than you want ("generic fuck off message", etc). Of course, this information comes courtesy of a company that has a "metadata cleaning" system they want to sell you. Everyone seems to be thinking about porn, but as you said, the metadata should be attached to the file, so if they don't get the file they won't get the metadata.
If MS actually wanted Opera technology, instead of paying $400 million for the company, they could just spend 1% of that and hire away a few top coders. They've done that to competitors many times. Otherwise, MS has been working to embed IE into the OS. The function of IE is to forestall the installation of a stand-alone browser that could serve as a platform for competing apps (e.g. office, email, media). They're not going to unbundle or replace it.
the bit about how Microsoft has no reason to develop Mac programs anymore becuse they can just use the Intel-based versions?
That was a big WTF? moment for me. Though it is likely there will be more and better Windows emulation as Mac goes to Intel, to run IE means running Windows itself, as IE won't be a separate product, which will not be cheap in either cost (you'd probably need Longhorn licence) or resources (how many GB of disk and RAM and cycles will it suck up?). Compared with the free stand-alone version of IE for Mac now (for a week anyway) avaialable, this does not seem attractive.
It's inevitable, the more pedantic you are, the more likely you will make a dumb typo. I've done it myself too often to gloat.
By the way, the DCSA has nothing whatsoever to do with fair use.
I wasn't making a legal argument, just as "He needed killin'" isn't a defence in court, it can nevertheless be true.
marginal references are the quotes, not the things in the book, it means citation, not transcription
I don't think so. I think the meaning is now generally understood to be "the exact words as spoken or written"; something you'd put in quote marks. And while the OED has at least 10 different senses, they include: "Repeat a passage from or statement by;" and tellingly almost all the examples given are of this type (except those referring to quoting a price). The senses you cite are described as "rare".
tautology is an argument
Again, true, but not the only or most common use. The first definition in the OED is "The contextual repetition, orig. of the same word or phrase, now usu. of the same idea or statement in different words", the original logical senses are listed later.
Nobody said anything about copyright infringement. This is plagiarism, which is different.
Well, the subject of your post "You are violating the act" made me assume that's (copyright infringement) what the subject was. Sorry about that. But I think every single story posted on Salshdot is "plagiarised" by those standards.
"I think "verbatim quoting" is a tautology; moving on, it's one or two paragraphs, making about 20% of the entire story. I'd consider this "fair use", especially as it links back to the source. But of course lots of copyright owners don't believe there is such a thing as "fair use", as witness the topic of the story.
And then there all the ATM's which run OS/2 which will now have to be converted to much crappier, more failure prone windows models. Of I don't know why IBM doesn't steer people to eComStation.
I don't understand why they will be "forced to" convert to Windows, when, as you say, eComStation is available and apparently actively under development.
I realize that I could just remap my current keyboard, but I would like something with all the keys marked.
With many keyboards you can pop the keys (or the top part of them) off and swap them around. You can probably find a QWERTY board for $5 if you don't want to mess with your current one. Keyboards are like power cords, they usually last longer than the PC they came with and accumulate. I've got 4 old ones somewhere, including a couple of the iconic IBM Model M I picked out of the trash.
It's certainly not "new". The last burst of publicity was 11 months ago, in January, when it got its first Slashdot outing (as noted above). It remains no more than a novelty, a keyboard for people who don't want to learn to type. A demographic that probably doesn't want to spend $70 on a keyboard either; they'd do better to look at speech recognition.
Are adaptations of books, old movies and sequels all that Hollywood can produce now?
The majority of good movies have always been adaptations of books or plays. Just look at a list of Oscar-winning movies. Remakes, sequels and TV-related (not to mention video-game inspired) though are usually crap, as we all know.
f it wasn't Malcolm X, then whoever it was ought to be sued for false advertising.
The great majority of autobiographies of famous people are ghost-written. It's like actors having stuntmen; it's remarkable only when someone claims they did it all themself.
Slashdot Mirror
And further, a new word is one thing, there is no ambiguity if you use the word "rootkit"; it has only one meaning. But if you start to randomly redefine existing usages, as you are, you will only cause confusion. I suppose the idea struck someone that they didn't use single quotes much, so why not give them a special meaning. (Actually, this occurs in programming languages, eg bash scripts.) But you are apparently unaware that in British English, for example, single quotes are used much more extensively, and in both dialects you alternate single and double quotes with nested quotes -- e.g. "He said 'I was told "Always use double quotes"'." Some writers use double quotes for speech and single for text; odd but not too confusing.
If that's so then you'll have no trouble in providing a citation.
A common mistake (eg "seperate") is still a mistake and may be forgiveable but never acceptable.
I'm a professional editor, and this is the first time I've heard this "rule". Please give me a reference so I can get current with this new usage.
Or alternatively, admit you made it up. Whether you use single or double quotes is mainly a manner of style, (British prefer single, Americans double in most cases); the meaning is ALWAYS the exact words spoken or written.
If I was planning a "terrorist attack", getting aerial photos might be an important part of the plan, but a tiny part of the whole process. I'd want much more intelligence, of the interior layout and guard schedules, etc etc. I'd find an inside source, or preferably several. (Recall that Indira Gandhi was assassinated by her own guards.) If I have any foreign government connections, they can supply me with current high resolution images, much better than the often years old stuff you find on Google.
So the risks are minimal, just a pretext for reflexive government secrecy that affects teh public, not the "terrorists". As the NRA might say, if you outlaw satellite photographs, only outlaws will have satellite photographs.
Since the ones you cited earlier were stated to be dreams, I don't see why I should bother to chase up more. Basically, I don't think the Bible says anything about this; the shape of the planet just is not a matter for theology. You keep stating the Bible says the world is flat, you're the one who has to support that.
One can only see all the Kingdoms if the earth was flat.
Firstly, I think if you saw the hemisphere centred on Israel, you could see all the kingdoms of the earth at that time, except perhaps the Mayans. Secondly, you're assuming light travelled in straight lines. If Satan can lift Jesus up to a mountain, he can refract light to show him the entire world in a Mercator projection (with four corners) if he wants to. Though again, this is most likely meant to be undrstood as a vision rather than objective reality; as to get high enough to see even half the globe would leave Jesus rather short of air to breathe.
And thank God for that! Those idiots give Christianity a bad name.
Yes, since Zonk posted the same story yesterday. That referenced the BBC, this the SMH. A moment's searching brings you to the original story at the American Association for the Advancement of Science's Science magazine.
This article is from the Sydney Morning Herald, reporting the American Association for the Advancement of Science's "Top 10". Yesterday the Evolution Named Scientific Achievement of 2005 story was the BBC reporting the same fucking list. By cleverly putting "evolution" in the title then Zonk got the standard 800 posts you always get when you wave that red flag.
But not when you take the other references into account.
OK, let's see. Your other refs were:
- "earths four corners" something that's only possible if the earth was flat
... I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding back the four winds of the earth... ...go out to deceive the nations in the four corners of the earth...
- Daniel 4:10-11 references a tall tree that is visible to the farthest reaches of the earth. Also only possible if the earth was flat.
These are so flimsy I think you must be trolling.Revelation 7:1
Revelation 20:8
Revelations is a vision, a prophecy; there's a great deal there that has no basis in physical reality, as even the most literal fundamentalist would agree. In any case, the angels could be simply forming a square surrounding the earth.
Daniel 4:9 Here is my dream; interpret it for me...
Okay, it states it was Nebuchadnezzar's DREAM.
No, but it could be a sphere with the sun orbiting it. And for many earthbound purposes, this is as sensible way to model it. We still say "the sun is rising", e.g.
They would never do that, it would be admitting that IE is unfixably insecure. Businesses especially would take it as a cue to replace IE wholesale. They'll just keep patching and layering security over the holes as they appear.
I did RTFA. The "problem" is you may deliberately send a file, eg a spreadsheet, but along with the file, Windows will have your indexing info, which may give away more than you want ("generic fuck off message", etc). Of course, this information comes courtesy of a company that has a "metadata cleaning" system they want to sell you. Everyone seems to be thinking about porn, but as you said, the metadata should be attached to the file, so if they don't get the file they won't get the metadata.
If MS actually wanted Opera technology, instead of paying $400 million for the company, they could just spend 1% of that and hire away a few top coders. They've done that to competitors many times. Otherwise, MS has been working to embed IE into the OS. The function of IE is to forestall the installation of a stand-alone browser that could serve as a platform for competing apps (e.g. office, email, media). They're not going to unbundle or replace it.
That was a big WTF? moment for me. Though it is likely there will be more and better Windows emulation as Mac goes to Intel, to run IE means running Windows itself, as IE won't be a separate product, which will not be cheap in either cost (you'd probably need Longhorn licence) or resources (how many GB of disk and RAM and cycles will it suck up?). Compared with the free stand-alone version of IE for Mac now (for a week anyway) avaialable, this does not seem attractive.
It's inevitable, the more pedantic you are, the more likely you will make a dumb typo. I've done it myself too often to gloat.
By the way, the DCSA has nothing whatsoever to do with fair use.
I wasn't making a legal argument, just as "He needed killin'" isn't a defence in court, it can nevertheless be true.
marginal references are the quotes, not the things in the book, it means citation, not transcription
I don't think so. I think the meaning is now generally understood to be "the exact words as spoken or written"; something you'd put in quote marks. And while the OED has at least 10 different senses, they include: "Repeat a passage from or statement by;" and tellingly almost all the examples given are of this type (except those referring to quoting a price). The senses you cite are described as "rare".
tautology is an argument
Again, true, but not the only or most common use. The first definition in the OED is "The contextual repetition, orig. of the same word or phrase, now usu. of the same idea or statement in different words", the original logical senses are listed later.
Well, the subject of your post "You are violating the act" made me assume that's (copyright infringement) what the subject was. Sorry about that. But I think every single story posted on Salshdot is "plagiarised" by those standards.
"I think "verbatim quoting" is a tautology; moving on, it's one or two paragraphs, making about 20% of the entire story. I'd consider this "fair use", especially as it links back to the source. But of course lots of copyright owners don't believe there is such a thing as "fair use", as witness the topic of the story.
I don't understand why they will be "forced to" convert to Windows, when, as you say, eComStation is available and apparently actively under development.
I assume that it would use the same interface as a standard keyboard; pressing the "A" key would send the same scancode as on a QWERTY board.
With many keyboards you can pop the keys (or the top part of them) off and swap them around. You can probably find a QWERTY board for $5 if you don't want to mess with your current one. Keyboards are like power cords, they usually last longer than the PC they came with and accumulate. I've got 4 old ones somewhere, including a couple of the iconic IBM Model M I picked out of the trash.
It's certainly not "new". The last burst of publicity was 11 months ago, in January, when it got its first Slashdot outing (as noted above). It remains no more than a novelty, a keyboard for people who don't want to learn to type. A demographic that probably doesn't want to spend $70 on a keyboard either; they'd do better to look at speech recognition.
The majority of good movies have always been adaptations of books or plays. Just look at a list of Oscar-winning movies. Remakes, sequels and TV-related (not to mention video-game inspired) though are usually crap, as we all know.
The great majority of autobiographies of famous people are ghost-written. It's like actors having stuntmen; it's remarkable only when someone claims they did it all themself.
In this case, that would be Pleistocene Park.