Before it was 'IT,' it was 'IS' (Information Systems), which had been called 'DS' (Data Systems), which previously had been referred to as 'DP' (Data Processing). For those outside the field, anyone working with IT (or whatever it's called this season) will be lumped in with the 'IT guys.' I've concluded that it's pointless (as well as futile) to expect everyone else to grasp the differences between the 'network guys', the 'database guys,' the 'programmer guys,' etc.
Christians -- at least, English-speaking Christians -- seem to be alone among the world's major religions in relying exclusively upon translations of their sacred texts. Muslims believe that one can truly understand the Koran only in the original Arabic; Jews are instructed in Hebrew in their youth; Hindus learn Sanskrit in order to read the Bhagavad Gita and other writings. But among Christians, only scholars and specialists have even the slightest knowledge of the Greek in which the New Testament is written.
If this book was just as old, but NOT the bible, would it have been submitted?
Yes, yes, (forgive the expression) my god, YES! Have you no idea how rare books of this age are? This would be worthy of interest no matter what the subject.
Why is it wrong for "the oil companies to position themselves to . . . provide the alternative energy sources?" This is just good business sense, to recognize changing realities and adapt to them.
My great-grandfather was a blacksmith; and when the first automobiles appeared in his county, he added a gas pump to his shop and learned to work on cars. That was a wise decision on his part; just as it is a wise decision for Exxon, et al. to diversify into other energy sources.
You seem to share the reflexive disdain for business which is all too common (especially on/.) . . .
Spam is bad because the costs to society are greater than the benefits.
No. Sorry, but the "costs to society" don't enter into it. "Spam is bad because" the costs are borne by the recipient without his consent. This is why spam is fundamentally different from junk mail (with which it is often -- but erroneously -- equated). If someone sends me unsolicited mail, he bears the cost of its postage. I can choose to read it or discard it, but the cost to me is nil. However, if someone sends me unsolicited email, I am paying to receive it, without the choice of whether to do so because I have no knowledge of it until the transaction has already been made.
This is why spammers are evil; they are parasitic thieves, stealing bandwidth and storage from every single one of their addressees.
So stupid, in fact, that only a professional educator could have thought of it.
Seriously, such early over-specialization can only be detrimental to the goal of developing a truly educated person. What is needed is broader general education; those whose knowlege, however great, is limited entirely to their own narrow field of interest will have no understanding of how their particular discipline relates to -- affects, and is affected by -- the rest of the world.
Journalists have all the rights of regular citizens. No more, not fewer. If the government starts setting up special privileges for journalists, the interests of journalists and citizens diverge, and there goes the press' incentive to protect our rights.
True, and insightful. Makes me wish I had mod points today.
To equate "freedom of the press" to "the right never to reveal a source no matter what" reflects either faulty logic or a deliberate attempt to mislead. Guaranteeing the right to write and publish does not imply the establishment of a protected class immune from the laws that govern the citizenry.
Suppose for example that someone reveals to you information concerning a crime which has been committed. Under the "shield law" logic, if you tell one person what you heard, but refuse to reveal your source, this could be a crime; but if you tell a million people, and likewise refuse to reveal your source, this is a noble gesture, worthy of legal protection?
I strongly believe in freedom of the press, but I think that absolute protection for any and all anonymous sources will only contribute to an increase in journalistic irresponsibility.
What happened to original stories? What happened to character-driven drama? Did all those starving playwrights and composers actually die off? How do we go from West Side Story, The King and I, and Cabaret to Big, Legally Blonde, and Spiderman?
"Original stories . . .." Let's see, now:
West Side Story -- Romeo and Juliet
The King and I -- Anna and the King of Siam
Cabaret -- Berlin Stories
Adaptation has been a major part of the theater from its inception. Shakespeare never really came up with an orignial plot; nor, for that matter, did the ancient Greek dramatists. At the moment, I can't think of any of the classic American musicals that were not based on material from another medium.
Which is not to defend this specific work (for all I know, it could be the biggest Spidey-fiasco since the clone saga); but being an adaptation should not necessarily be a strike against it.
I have been told that, back in the late 70s or early 80s, when a new courthouse/office building was built in a nearby county, someone got the idea to use the heat generated in the computer room to augment the building's heating system.
As I heard it, during the first winter, the gas company sent inspectors to check the pipelines, test the meters, etc., because they couldn't imagine that a building of that size could use so little gas in the wintertime.
In what way? To claim that a "right" has been violated here seems tantamount to making an assertion such as "Of course I may leave footprints, but no one has a right to follow them."
Why should an electronic trail have legal protections that a physical trail does not?
Slashdot Mirror
You say that like that would be a bad thing . . . .
Is that a Hawkwind tribute band?
Before it was 'IT,' it was 'IS' (Information Systems), which had been called 'DS' (Data Systems), which previously had been referred to as 'DP' (Data Processing). For those outside the field, anyone working with IT (or whatever it's called this season) will be lumped in with the 'IT guys.' I've concluded that it's pointless (as well as futile) to expect everyone else to grasp the differences between the 'network guys', the 'database guys,' the 'programmer guys,' etc.
The first part of his suit seems reasonable.
Precisely as reasonable as saying that the NBA should make their league more accessible to wheelchair basketball players . . . .
Christians -- at least, English-speaking Christians -- seem to be alone among the world's major religions in relying exclusively upon translations of their sacred texts. Muslims believe that one can truly understand the Koran only in the original Arabic; Jews are instructed in Hebrew in their youth; Hindus learn Sanskrit in order to read the Bhagavad Gita and other writings. But among Christians, only scholars and specialists have even the slightest knowledge of the Greek in which the New Testament is written.
Curious . . . .
Yes, yes, (forgive the expression) my god, YES! Have you no idea how rare books of this age are? This would be worthy of interest no matter what the subject.
Why is it wrong for "the oil companies to position themselves to . . . provide the alternative energy sources?" This is just good business sense, to recognize changing realities and adapt to them.
My great-grandfather was a blacksmith; and when the first automobiles appeared in his county, he added a gas pump to his shop and learned to work on cars. That was a wise decision on his part; just as it is a wise decision for Exxon, et al. to diversify into other energy sources.
You seem to share the reflexive disdain for business which is all too common (especially on /.) . . .
"Singing hi, hi, hey, it's a watery day
"On my way to an unhappy grave."
- Iggy Pop, "The Ballad of Cookie McBride"
I thought the German courts took a very dim view of scentology . . . .
I remember when I first bought a CD player, and found that it would not play either vinyl records or cassette tapes!
. . . go quite a non-meterian distance to obtain a device which emits "non-Hertzian frequencies."
Especially if I can pay for it with non-monetary currency.
"Cmdr" . . . is that "Commander" or "Commodore"?
You must be new here . . . .
Why is it so much easier to post an uninformed question than to RTFA . . . ?
Only if you stop too soon . . . .
No. Sorry, but the "costs to society" don't enter into it. "Spam is bad because" the costs are borne by the recipient without his consent. This is why spam is fundamentally different from junk mail (with which it is often -- but erroneously -- equated). If someone sends me unsolicited mail, he bears the cost of its postage. I can choose to read it or discard it, but the cost to me is nil. However, if someone sends me unsolicited email, I am paying to receive it, without the choice of whether to do so because I have no knowledge of it until the transaction has already been made.
This is why spammers are evil; they are parasitic thieves, stealing bandwidth and storage from every single one of their addressees.
So stupid, in fact, that only a professional educator could have thought of it.
Seriously, such early over-specialization can only be detrimental to the goal of developing a truly educated person. What is needed is broader general education; those whose knowlege, however great, is limited entirely to their own narrow field of interest will have no understanding of how their particular discipline relates to -- affects, and is affected by -- the rest of the world.
True, and insightful. Makes me wish I had mod points today.
To equate "freedom of the press" to "the right never to reveal a source no matter what" reflects either faulty logic or a deliberate attempt to mislead. Guaranteeing the right to write and publish does not imply the establishment of a protected class immune from the laws that govern the citizenry.
Suppose for example that someone reveals to you information concerning a crime which has been committed. Under the "shield law" logic, if you tell one person what you heard, but refuse to reveal your source, this could be a crime; but if you tell a million people, and likewise refuse to reveal your source, this is a noble gesture, worthy of legal protection?
I strongly believe in freedom of the press, but I think that absolute protection for any and all anonymous sources will only contribute to an increase in journalistic irresponsibility.
. . . who has never even heard of Fark?
I'm off to look for it right now . . . .
Kucinich is such a marginal figure that even his democratic colleagues are distancing themselves from his antics:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artiWhat happened to original stories? What happened to character-driven drama? Did all those starving playwrights and composers actually die off? How do we go from West Side Story, The King and I, and Cabaret to Big, Legally Blonde, and Spiderman?
"Original stories . . . ." Let's see, now:
West Side Story -- Romeo and Juliet
The King and I -- Anna and the King of Siam
Cabaret -- Berlin Stories
Adaptation has been a major part of the theater from its inception. Shakespeare never really came up with an orignial plot; nor, for that matter, did the ancient Greek dramatists. At the moment, I can't think of any of the classic American musicals that were not based on material from another medium.
Which is not to defend this specific work (for all I know, it could be the biggest Spidey-fiasco since the clone saga); but being an adaptation should not necessarily be a strike against it.
"The PR companies want to take this to the people rather than to the journals."
Exactly as Al Gore is doing . . . ?
I have been told that, back in the late 70s or early 80s, when a new courthouse/office building was built in a nearby county, someone got the idea to use the heat generated in the computer room to augment the building's heating system.
As I heard it, during the first winter, the gas company sent inspectors to check the pipelines, test the meters, etc., because they couldn't imagine that a building of that size could use so little gas in the wintertime.
. . . when someone could actually write, in all sincerity, "There's not much that's bad on the Net."
Because now you have a lot fewer of those rights.
In what way? To claim that a "right" has been violated here seems tantamount to making an assertion such as "Of course I may leave footprints, but no one has a right to follow them."
Why should an electronic trail have legal protections that a physical trail does not?