Given the nature of the Internet, if that were true, a lot of people would need to spend the rest of their lives just correcting web sites, discussion groups etc. etc.
You obviously aren't obliged to correct every error on the internet. But when a community has the sole purpose of creating an encyclopedic resource, and you make yourself a part of that community (which you do when you read wiki), you have the moral obligation to correct any errors that you might find. It's the right thing to do.
Clearly it is my own standard. It is morally wrong to allow the spread of incorrect information when you have the ability make corrections.
How does anyone have a 'moral obligation' to a web site?
You have a moral obligation to do the right thing - in this case the right thing is to correct the information you know to be incorrect.
I do not doubt McHenry could make an enlightening addition to the entry on Alexander Hamilton, but by what standard are you skarmor qualified to pronounce his obligation?
My only qualification in this regard is that I have an innate sense of what is right and what is wrong. I use that sense to judge the morality of others' actions. In this case i have judged the action, where McHenry allowed incorrect information to be spread despite his ability to correct the information, to be immoral.
Well obviously chaos will be the result in the system because anyone can make changes to any article at any time. That's why wikipedia is more of a starting point for some general (and possibly inacurate) information rather than a definitive source.
A million monkeys decide to throw shit around, and suddenly I am obligated to check on their shit throwing, what, every 15 minutes?, to make sure that none of the basically random shit landed anyplace inaccurate.
Why are you wading around in the monkey shit? If you don't like it as a source of information then don't use it. If you are going to make use of it then I am arguing that you have a moral obligation to make it better. Incidentally, you should be thinking critically about every bit of information you read even if it is HARD WORK. If you want to be sure that you have reasonably accurate information you need to get off your lazy ass and find additional sources.
His point was that the millions (well eventually maybe) of junior high students going to wiki as an authoritative source for their school reports would have no way of knowing the article is wrong.
Well any student that relies on wikipedia as a sole source of information risks failure on their reports; when they do they will have learned a valuable lesson. One must use more than one source of information and generally books are more reliable than internet sources that are created and edited by the general public.
In addition, how many other countless articles, that he doesn't know anything about and hasn't checked, are also wrong.
Possibly many. I'm not arguing that Wikipedia is as good or better than books - it is not. But I do think that it can be a good source of information provided that it is read critically.
First, Wiki is hardly Britannica's "fiercest competitor" - Encyclopedia Britannica makes big profits from selling to libraries around the world - believe me, they aren't worried about Wiki.
Secondly, if he find errors in wikipedia he has a moral obligation to provide the correct information. You may not agree.
Also, this 'obligation' would make wikipedia by definition faultless because every fault once found is immediatly corrected.
Yep, that's the theory anyway.
This obviously ignores the time dimension: the article might well have been correct after his visit, but what of the naive reader that visited before?
Well, that user would probably be using more than one source of information for the sake of being thorough. If they only use one source of information and it is incorrect - well then they would have incorrect information - and that would be their problem.
I think most educators would prefer that students use a variety of information sources including the internet, books and academic journals to learn about a subject. The student is obliged to be critical of all sources of information, to look for confirmation of facts in multiple sources and to trust what is verfiable. Then the student must use this information to form their own ideas about a subject. After all education isn't about looking up the "right answers" but rather it is to learn to think for yourself.
I would hope that most students would use more than one source of information before writing a report. Wikipedia is one source of inforation, not the source of information.
Oh, you mean after going to a known reputable source of information...This isn't meant as flamebait, but doesn't that right there nullify the point of going to Wikipedia as a source?
It would indeed. But in this case Mr. McHenry wasn't going to Wikipedia as a source but rather to check its accuracy. Once he found the article to be internally inconsistent due to the uncertainty surrounding the date of Hamilton's birth, it was his obligation to edit the article. It would only take a minute or two to add a paragraph noting that Hamilton's birth date is either 1755 or 1757 and that even though Hamilton wasn't sure he used the 1757 date.
Well, the statutes will be different from state to state and obviously I don't have a copy of them in front of me. That said, I doubt very much that what you described would be considered theft in any state.
It would most likely be considered unauthorized distribution on the part of the cable subscriber. Now, some states have included unauthorized distribution as a part of the violation of law that is called "theft of service". Others have not. Keep in mind that this is a specifically defined violation of the law called "theft of service" and as such is not the same as "theft". If we want to include copyright infrignement in our definition of theft, or create a new offense called "theft of intellectual property" which includes copyright infringement, it could probably be done.
All I am saying is that as it stands copyright infringement is not theft. I personally would like things to stay that way while many companies would like that to change.
Most other people, most of the time, don't give a rat's ass. They know what you mean sufficiently for their interest.
I think this is the problem. People don't care to know what the actual definitions of words are - but they still feel free to throw them around in a legal context as if they did understand them. Obviously it is much simpler to say that theft=priacy=copyright infringement - but it does a disservice to us all to allow this to happen.
Companies who have an interest in the area are keen to make each of these violations equal under the law. Half the battle in this case is to get the public to use the terms interchangably such that it is generally accepted that they are the same thing. In this way, even though theft and copyright infringement are not the same people will *think they are* which helps cut down greatly on the amount of copyright infringement as people are scared of being charged with theft.
If most people agree that theft=piracy=copyright infringement it also makes it easier to have the law changed such that this really is the case. It's scary really...
Then piracy *IS* considered a theft of services under your definition. The recipient did not exchange the appropriate consideration before taking the software...thus it is theft.
If by "piracy" you mean copyright infringement then no, I don't think it is theft. (Actually, even if you really mean piracy, it is still not theft.)
If I buy a copy of Photoshop then I exchange consideration (payment) for a copy of the software for my personal use. I can make a backup copy of this software if I want - no problem. If I make multiple copies and give them to my friends, I am commiting copyright infingement. I don't have the right to make copies of the software for distribution.
However, my friends are not guilty of theft for taking the software. They have no relationship with the company who originally created the software and made no agreement to exchange consideration for their own copy. Therefore they are without guilt under the law.
Do you see how that is different from actual theft (like in the cable tv example above)?
A pure and rational conclusion using the words in your post and the agreeance with my post.
Piracy is theft. Pure and simple...
That's only rational if you don't understand the difference between theft and copyright infringement.
Stealing cable from the cableguys is listed as Theft Of Services under most state statues in the US.
Well perhaps that would be because in the case of theft of service, where one party is deprived of due consideration in exchange for service, theft is occuring.
On your property, if you were to remove the filter, and wire everything back up the same way, ensuring that the filter was undamaged and put back into this same box, you could be charged with Theft Of Service.
That is not suprising - if you commit theft you can be charged with theft. This not exactly earth shaking news...
Nothing was taken in such a manner that it deprived anyone else of its usage, and it was on your property, but it is still theft under most US State regs...
In the case of cable the recipient of the service agrees to give due consideration (payment) in exchange for service. Taking the service without giving due consideration is theft.
Then again, I don't expect folks to be lawyers and use lawyer terms every time something can be described in plain ol' english that everyone knows and understands.
The problem with "plain ol' english" is that it is often "plain ol' wrong" usage. At the very least it can be misleading.
Re:It's like a free ride when you've already paid.
on
GTA: San Andreas Leaked
·
· Score: 4, Informative
You *DO* know the english language is almost designed to incorporate new word uses over time, or are you not a linguist and just want to continually bombarding folks with the idea that you know more than most?
Do you really think the general public wants a new word for copyright infringing when most will look at it as Hey Why Don't They Just Say Theft Or Piracy, Because Thats What It Is. Other than the morons that take 1984 to heart and want to shape public perception by forcing the use of word choice to promote their lifestyles
I know this wasn't directed at me but I'm gonna jump in here anyway. English, like most other languages, is evolving over time as new words are introduced and others fall into disuse. Generally this is not a problem as new words are required to describe new things/concepts and older words may describe things/concepts that are no longer useful or relevant.
I agree that sometimes new meanings are attached to words that already used to mean something else. This is perfectly acceptable for most words where meaning can be derived from context. But, when we are talking about legal language, or words used in a legal context, we have to restrict ourselves to very specific definitions. "Piracy" is used to describe a specific violation (or group of violations)of the law while "theft" describes another. They are not interchangeable in the legal context. The same is true for "copyright infringement". This is a specific violation of law that is separate from both theft and piracy.
The definition of these terms aren't kept separate because there is some plot by the "man" to restrict your freedom of expression. They are kept separate in order to prevent chaos within the legal system and to maintain some sort of societal order.
If this was not the case we might see this situation:
Person 1: I want to charge that guy for "theft", and by theft I mean the guy walked on my lawn.
Actual logic is the doctrine that our ideas, to be correct, must conform to reality. That is, ideas must be derived from reality primarily by observation and by processes which are themselves derived from the actual relationships amongst actual things in the physical world (again, observation).
But this rational/empirical epistemology is laid to waste by the fallacy of induction as first described by Hume. Even with Popper's attempt to "save sceince" with the falsifiability approach it is still difficult to demonstrate that we can really know anything.
Then read the analysis written by such person. Voila - problem solved, while requiring spending less time on it, which can then be spent with reading something more interesting - especially when you are more into engineering than into humanities.
Well I guess the problem is solved if you consider the problem to be - "how to pass English 101". But you won't have acquired the critical and analytical thinking skills that you would acquire had you taken the time to actually read the books and think the analysis through.
In fact, someone who solves problems in such a superficial way will likely be not only a poor English student but also a poor engineer.
It takes TIME to get to know what you really, REALLY like - time and close attention. Forget the "college" years where most chicks are busy just trying to fit in, trying not to be insecure.
Well it's not so much time as it is experience that gets you to know what you like. In college you can have more sex in one year than the average man has in two or three - certainly enough sex to determine what you find good and what you really dislike. By my junior year I had pretty well determined what was good for me...
Credit is tricky. The old fashioned virtue of paying your bills in full every month is not the way to get the best credit rating these days.
But if you are paying your bills in full every month and only buy what you can afford then you don't need credit or a credit rating.
Credit card companies hate that kind of customer, and when you want to get a mortgage it might matter.
This is just credit card company bullshit. The truth is, when you graduate and start making real money (say 50k) then you will have no problem getting a mortgage even if you have never had a credit card.
Live as poor as you really are and scrimp and save.
I agree with you here although I would focus on just getting through to graduation rather than any actual saving...
>What ever happened to reading a book for the shear enjoyment and pleasure that comes out of reading a book without having to worry about analyzing every little detail in the book and looking for parallel in the real world or some pointless piece of symbolism?
There's nothing wrong with reading a book simply for the pleasure of it. But when you are reading a book with the purpose of writing an analysis for your literature classes (which is what we are discussing here) it is a good idea to consider symbolism, structure and allegory. In order to make a thorough analysis one must put the work in context.
Why should you have to read 3 different books to understand the first (which is what you are saying by promoting your "lack of encompassing knowledge" point of view)?
You can have a good understanding of a work itself without reading any other books. For example, Animal Farm has many blatantly obvious themes concerning totalitarianism - these can be understood by anyone who picks up the book. But a thorough analysis of Animal Farm would put the work into historical and literary context by making the obvious links between the book, Orwell's personal experiences, other books of the period, the political situation at it's time of publication and so on.
This kind of understanding can only be accomplished by a person who has read multiple books from and about the era.
Without advertising tech, they are a search engine that can be superceded at any time.
But they do have advertising technology. The advertising technology that Google uses was determined to be owned by Overture/Yahoo. In order to settle the legal issues surrounding Google's use of this tech Yahoo was given a chunk of class A voting shares - not a controlling number of shares but a decent chunk. So now Google is free to use the Yahoo advertising tech in conjunction with its various products including webmail, usenet groups and search products.
That means their stock is worth nothing. Their only income is adverts, and their advertising business is owned by Yahoo!.
The business model still looks good to me. I'd say they are far from being "joke" with "stock that is worth nothing".
Efficiency. With the exception of pickups, the vehicles on your list *need* to be large in order to perform the tasks for which they were disgned. The problem is that the H2 is essentially an oversized family vehicle which, for most tasks, could easily be replaced by a Toyota Echo.
I don't know where they found this Planet of Meek Women, but in any area of business I've been in the females are just as deadly as the males. This sounds like what someone _wants_ to believe.
I've seldom worked with women who were truly "deadly". In my experience women act the role of the aggressive Type-A male in an attempt to have a successful career. This generally doesn't get them very far though....
WHERE ARE THESE GUYS WORKING???
This kind of behaviour is very common for advertising firms, marketing departments at most companies, and of course investment banks (if any women are employed there at all)
In particular, it points out that alchemy wasn't so much about discovering new things as about rediscovering the supposed 'wisdom of the ancients'.
That's true - however there was a rational reason for this belief in the knowledge of the ancients.
Under the rule of Diocletian the Roman empire was divided and a second capital was formed in Nicomedia. Diocletian's successor Constantine unified the broken Empire but made the capital his own city - Constantinople. At the end of Constantine's reign the empire was divided among his three sons only to be reunited a century later by Theodosius with the capital in Constantinople in the near-east
This discussion of the late empire is relevant to our discussion because it shows how the power, wealth and knowledge of the roman empire moved eastward. Copies of texts containing the summation of western thought(including Aristotle, Plato, the pre-Socratics, Pythagoras and many others)were stored in libraries and schools throughout the near east.
When the western roman empire eventually collapsed the "original" copies of these texts were lost/destroyed and Europe was plunged into the dark ages. However, the centers of thought in the near east continued to teach in the western tradition.
In the fourteenth century the Moors began to push out of the near east, across north africa and into the iberian peninsula (spain). They brought with them Arabic translations of ancient Greek and Roman texts. These manuscripts eventually made their way into the hands of the Europeans. It was like a mini renaissance in the 12th century - books on optics, astronomy, geometry, philosophy surfaced and the knowledge spread. Becasue so much knowledge was attributable to the ancient greeks,the western europeans thought them all knowing and all powerful. It was thought that there must be books on all manner of subjects, including alchemy, if only they could be found..
This belief lasted well into the 18th century and beyond.
Re:He was a philosopher, not a physicist.
on
The Unknown Newton
·
· Score: 1
Aren't Sc.D. degrees granted by Berkley/CIT/MIT ?
- sort of a way for the elite to recognize each other without having to ask what school they graduated from....
Slashdot Mirror
Given the nature of the Internet, if that were true, a lot of people would need to spend the rest of their lives just correcting web sites, discussion groups etc. etc.
You obviously aren't obliged to correct every error on the internet. But when a community has the sole purpose of creating an encyclopedic resource, and you make yourself a part of that community (which you do when you read wiki), you have the moral obligation to correct any errors that you might find. It's the right thing to do.
By what standard?
Clearly it is my own standard. It is morally wrong to allow the spread of incorrect information when you have the ability make corrections.
How does anyone have a 'moral obligation' to a web site?
You have a moral obligation to do the right thing - in this case the right thing is to correct the information you know to be incorrect.
I do not doubt McHenry could make an enlightening addition to the entry on Alexander Hamilton, but by what standard are you skarmor qualified to pronounce his obligation?
My only qualification in this regard is that I have an innate sense of what is right and what is wrong. I use that sense to judge the morality of others' actions. In this case i have judged the action, where McHenry allowed incorrect information to be spread despite his ability to correct the information, to be immoral.
Well obviously chaos will be the result in the system because anyone can make changes to any article at any time. That's why wikipedia is more of a starting point for some general (and possibly inacurate) information rather than a definitive source.
A million monkeys decide to throw shit around, and suddenly I am obligated to check on their shit throwing, what, every 15 minutes?, to make sure that none of the basically random shit landed anyplace inaccurate.
Why are you wading around in the monkey shit? If you don't like it as a source of information then don't use it. If you are going to make use of it then I am arguing that you have a moral obligation to make it better. Incidentally, you should be thinking critically about every bit of information you read even if it is HARD WORK. If you want to be sure that you have reasonably accurate information you need to get off your lazy ass and find additional sources.
His point was that the millions (well eventually maybe) of junior high students going to wiki as an authoritative source for their school reports would have no way of knowing the article is wrong.
Well any student that relies on wikipedia as a sole source of information risks failure on their reports; when they do they will have learned a valuable lesson. One must use more than one source of information and generally books are more reliable than internet sources that are created and edited by the general public.
In addition, how many other countless articles, that he doesn't know anything about and hasn't checked, are also wrong.
Possibly many. I'm not arguing that Wikipedia is as good or better than books - it is not. But I do think that it can be a good source of information provided that it is read critically.
First, Wiki is hardly Britannica's "fiercest competitor" - Encyclopedia Britannica makes big profits from selling to libraries around the world - believe me, they aren't worried about Wiki.
Secondly, if he find errors in wikipedia he has a moral obligation to provide the correct information. You may not agree.
Also, this 'obligation' would make wikipedia by definition faultless because every fault once found is immediatly corrected.
Yep, that's the theory anyway.
This obviously ignores the time dimension: the article might well have been correct after his visit, but what of the naive reader that visited before?
Well, that user would probably be using more than one source of information for the sake of being thorough. If they only use one source of information and it is incorrect - well then they would have incorrect information - and that would be their problem.
I think most educators would prefer that students use a variety of information sources including the internet, books and academic journals to learn about a subject. The student is obliged to be critical of all sources of information, to look for confirmation of facts in multiple sources and to trust what is verfiable. Then the student must use this information to form their own ideas about a subject. After all education isn't about looking up the "right answers" but rather it is to learn to think for yourself.
I would hope that most students would use more than one source of information before writing a report. Wikipedia is one source of inforation, not the source of information.
Oh, you mean after going to a known reputable source of information...This isn't meant as flamebait, but doesn't that right there nullify the point of going to Wikipedia as a source?
It would indeed. But in this case Mr. McHenry wasn't going to Wikipedia as a source but rather to check its accuracy. Once he found the article to be internally inconsistent due to the uncertainty surrounding the date of Hamilton's birth, it was his obligation to edit the article. It would only take a minute or two to add a paragraph noting that Hamilton's birth date is either 1755 or 1757 and that even though Hamilton wasn't sure he used the 1757 date.
Well, the statutes will be different from state to state and obviously I don't have a copy of them in front of me. That said, I doubt very much that what you described would be considered theft in any state.
It would most likely be considered unauthorized distribution on the part of the cable subscriber. Now, some states have included unauthorized distribution as a part of the violation of law that is called "theft of service". Others have not. Keep in mind that this is a specifically defined violation of the law called "theft of service" and as such is not the same as "theft". If we want to include copyright infrignement in our definition of theft, or create a new offense called "theft of intellectual property" which includes copyright infringement, it could probably be done.
All I am saying is that as it stands copyright infringement is not theft. I personally would like things to stay that way while many companies would like that to change.
Most other people, most of the time, don't give a rat's ass. They know what you mean sufficiently for their interest.
I think this is the problem. People don't care to know what the actual definitions of words are - but they still feel free to throw them around in a legal context as if they did understand them. Obviously it is much simpler to say that theft=priacy=copyright infringement - but it does a disservice to us all to allow this to happen.
Companies who have an interest in the area are keen to make each of these violations equal under the law. Half the battle in this case is to get the public to use the terms interchangably such that it is generally accepted that they are the same thing. In this way, even though theft and copyright infringement are not the same people will *think they are* which helps cut down greatly on the amount of copyright infringement as people are scared of being charged with theft.
If most people agree that theft=piracy=copyright infringement it also makes it easier to have the law changed such that this really is the case. It's scary really...
Then piracy *IS* considered a theft of services under your definition. The recipient did not exchange the appropriate consideration before taking the software...thus it is theft.
If by "piracy" you mean copyright infringement then no, I don't think it is theft. (Actually, even if you really mean piracy, it is still not theft.)
If I buy a copy of Photoshop then I exchange consideration (payment) for a copy of the software for my personal use. I can make a backup copy of this software if I want - no problem. If I make multiple copies and give them to my friends, I am commiting copyright infingement. I don't have the right to make copies of the software for distribution.
However, my friends are not guilty of theft for taking the software. They have no relationship with the company who originally created the software and made no agreement to exchange consideration for their own copy. Therefore they are without guilt under the law.
Do you see how that is different from actual theft (like in the cable tv example above)?
A pure and rational conclusion using the words in your post and the agreeance with my post.
Piracy is theft. Pure and simple...
That's only rational if you don't understand the difference between theft and copyright infringement.
Stealing cable from the cableguys is listed as Theft Of Services under most state statues in the US.
Well perhaps that would be because in the case of theft of service, where one party is deprived of due consideration in exchange for service, theft is occuring.
On your property, if you were to remove the filter, and wire everything back up the same way, ensuring that the filter was undamaged and put back into this same box, you could be charged with Theft Of Service.
That is not suprising - if you commit theft you can be charged with theft. This not exactly earth shaking news...
Nothing was taken in such a manner that it deprived anyone else of its usage, and it was on your property, but it is still theft under most US State regs...
In the case of cable the recipient of the service agrees to give due consideration (payment) in exchange for service. Taking the service without giving due consideration is theft.
Then again, I don't expect folks to be lawyers and use lawyer terms every time something can be described in plain ol' english that everyone knows and understands.
The problem with "plain ol' english" is that it is often "plain ol' wrong" usage. At the very least it can be misleading.
You *DO* know the english language is almost designed to incorporate new word uses over time, or are you not a linguist and just want to continually bombarding folks with the idea that you know more than most?
Do you really think the general public wants a new word for copyright infringing when most will look at it as Hey Why Don't They Just Say Theft Or Piracy, Because Thats What It Is. Other than the morons that take 1984 to heart and want to shape public perception by forcing the use of word choice to promote their lifestyles
I know this wasn't directed at me but I'm gonna jump in here anyway. English, like most other languages, is evolving over time as new words are introduced and others fall into disuse. Generally this is not a problem as new words are required to describe new things/concepts and older words may describe things/concepts that are no longer useful or relevant.
I agree that sometimes new meanings are attached to words that already used to mean something else. This is perfectly acceptable for most words where meaning can be derived from context. But, when we are talking about legal language, or words used in a legal context, we have to restrict ourselves to very specific definitions. "Piracy" is used to describe a specific violation (or group of violations)of the law while "theft" describes another. They are not interchangeable in the legal context. The same is true for "copyright infringement". This is a specific violation of law that is separate from both theft and piracy.
The definition of these terms aren't kept separate because there is some plot by the "man" to restrict your freedom of expression. They are kept separate in order to prevent chaos within the legal system and to maintain some sort of societal order.
If this was not the case we might see this situation:
Person 1: I want to charge that guy for "theft", and by theft I mean the guy walked on my lawn.
Cop: That would be trespassing.
Person 1: Not in my world buddy
Actual logic is the doctrine that our ideas, to be correct, must conform to reality. That is, ideas must be derived from reality primarily by observation and by processes which are themselves derived from the actual relationships amongst actual things in the physical world (again, observation).
But this rational/empirical epistemology is laid to waste by the fallacy of induction as first described by Hume. Even with Popper's attempt to "save sceince" with the falsifiability approach it is still difficult to demonstrate that we can really know anything.
Then read the analysis written by such person. Voila - problem solved, while requiring spending less time on it, which can then be spent with reading something more interesting - especially when you are more into engineering than into humanities.
Well I guess the problem is solved if you consider the problem to be - "how to pass English 101". But you won't have acquired the critical and analytical thinking skills that you would acquire had you taken the time to actually read the books and think the analysis through.
In fact, someone who solves problems in such a superficial way will likely be not only a poor English student but also a poor engineer.
It takes TIME to get to know what you really, REALLY like - time and close attention. Forget the "college" years where most chicks are busy just trying to fit in, trying not to be insecure.
Well it's not so much time as it is experience that gets you to know what you like. In college you can have more sex in one year than the average man has in two or three - certainly enough sex to determine what you find good and what you really dislike. By my junior year I had pretty well determined what was good for me...
Credit is tricky. The old fashioned virtue of paying your bills in full every month is not the way to get the best credit rating these days.
But if you are paying your bills in full every month and only buy what you can afford then you don't need credit or a credit rating.
Credit card companies hate that kind of customer, and when you want to get a mortgage it might matter.
This is just credit card company bullshit. The truth is, when you graduate and start making real money (say 50k) then you will have no problem getting a mortgage even if you have never had a credit card.
Live as poor as you really are and scrimp and save.
I agree with you here although I would focus on just getting through to graduation rather than any actual saving...
>What ever happened to reading a book for the shear enjoyment and pleasure that comes out of reading a book without having to worry about analyzing every little detail in the book and looking for parallel in the real world or some pointless piece of symbolism?
There's nothing wrong with reading a book simply for the pleasure of it. But when you are reading a book with the purpose of writing an analysis for your literature classes (which is what we are discussing here) it is a good idea to consider symbolism, structure and allegory. In order to make a thorough analysis one must put the work in context.
Why should you have to read 3 different books to understand the first (which is what you are saying by promoting your "lack of encompassing knowledge" point of view)?
You can have a good understanding of a work itself without reading any other books. For example, Animal Farm has many blatantly obvious themes concerning totalitarianism - these can be understood by anyone who picks up the book. But a thorough analysis of Animal Farm would put the work into historical and literary context by making the obvious links between the book, Orwell's personal experiences, other books of the period, the political situation at it's time of publication and so on.
This kind of understanding can only be accomplished by a person who has read multiple books from and about the era.
Without advertising tech, they are a search engine that can be superceded at any time.
But they do have advertising technology. The advertising technology that Google uses was determined to be owned by Overture/Yahoo. In order to settle the legal issues surrounding Google's use of this tech Yahoo was given a chunk of class A voting shares - not a controlling number of shares but a decent chunk. So now Google is free to use the Yahoo advertising tech in conjunction with its various products including webmail, usenet groups and search products.
That means their stock is worth nothing. Their only income is adverts, and their advertising business is owned by Yahoo!.
The business model still looks good to me. I'd say they are far from being "joke" with "stock that is worth nothing".
Efficiency. With the exception of pickups, the vehicles on your list *need* to be large in order to perform the tasks for which they were disgned. The problem is that the H2 is essentially an oversized family vehicle which, for most tasks, could easily be replaced by a Toyota Echo.
I don't know where they found this Planet of Meek Women, but in any area of business I've been in the females are just as deadly as the males. This sounds like what someone _wants_ to believe.
I've seldom worked with women who were truly "deadly". In my experience women act the role of the aggressive Type-A male in an attempt to have a successful career. This generally doesn't get them very far though....
WHERE ARE THESE GUYS WORKING???
This kind of behaviour is very common for advertising firms, marketing departments at most companies, and of course investment banks (if any women are employed there at all)
I think they were going for would've. I'm not sure that contraction is allowed though.
In particular, it points out that alchemy wasn't so much about discovering new things as about rediscovering the supposed 'wisdom of the ancients'.
That's true - however there was a rational reason for this belief in the knowledge of the ancients.
Under the rule of Diocletian the Roman empire was divided and a second capital was formed in Nicomedia. Diocletian's successor Constantine unified the broken Empire but made the capital his own city - Constantinople. At the end of Constantine's reign the empire was divided among his three sons only to be reunited a century later by Theodosius with the capital in Constantinople in the near-east
This discussion of the late empire is relevant to our discussion because it shows how the power, wealth and knowledge of the roman empire moved eastward. Copies of texts containing the summation of western thought(including Aristotle, Plato, the pre-Socratics, Pythagoras and many others)were stored in libraries and schools throughout the near east.
When the western roman empire eventually collapsed the "original" copies of these texts were lost/destroyed and Europe was plunged into the dark ages. However, the centers of thought in the near east continued to teach in the western tradition.
In the fourteenth century the Moors began to push out of the near east, across north africa and into the iberian peninsula (spain). They brought with them Arabic translations of ancient Greek and Roman texts. These manuscripts eventually made their way into the hands of the Europeans. It was like a mini renaissance in the 12th century - books on optics, astronomy, geometry, philosophy surfaced and the knowledge spread. Becasue so much knowledge was attributable to the ancient greeks,the western europeans thought them all knowing and all powerful. It was thought that there must be books on all manner of subjects, including alchemy, if only they could be found..
This belief lasted well into the 18th century and beyond.
Aren't Sc.D. degrees granted by Berkley/CIT/MIT ?
- sort of a way for the elite to recognize each other without having to ask what school they graduated from....