3. Code that determines which passengers get flagged for pre-flight searches. Armed with this information criminals could fashion profiles that guarantee they will not be probed in-depth.
Hah! My random number generator can't be circumvented.^-^
"But, sir, if the Vice President is such a Very Important Person, shouldn't we keep his Personal Computer on the Quick Time, 'cause if it leaks to the Venture Capitalists he could end up Missing in Action and we'd all be sent to maintain www.goatse.kp (North Korea)."
On a side note, if the use of he is discriminatory against women, isn't they discriminatory against individuals?
IMHO, if you as an individual are not discriminated against when I refer to you with a pronoun that unambiguously refers to any integer number of individuals from one up, then they as an individual are not discriminated against when I refer to them with a pronoun that unambiguously refers to any integer number of individuals up.;)
I don't think anyone has ever turned "she/he/it forever" into a battlecry of individualism. "I forever" and "ego forever" are popular. There probably is a good reason for that.^-^
Personally, I like individualism and I don't think that it faces any threat from this.:)
I am speaking out of my ass, but it could well have been both. Observe the way French and Russian have the exclusively singular "tu" and "tih" while recommending the use of the plural "vous" and "vih" when being excessively polite.
Even if "thou" was nothing more than a colloquialism, my point of it having its own form of verbs that needlessly complicated the elegance of the English language stands.
Also, the transition still gives precedent for what I am advocating even if the leap is larger for the singular "they".:)
This is a commonly mistake; 'they' is always plural.
On the other hand, modifying a noun with an adverb is not a common mistake.;)
'They' must refer to more than one person, or you're wrong.
Who died and put you in charge of our language?^-^
English ditched "thou" in favour of a singular "you" without any issues. Interestingly enough, one advantage of the singular "they" is that we might eventually be able to phase out the bloody useless third-person-singular verb forms onto the same rubbish heap that we piled the second-person-singular verb forms on.:)
In informal contexts, I always use the singular "they". Fuck, it's been part of the English language for seven centuries. Just because Latin-misinterpreting prescriptive grammarians didn't like it doesn't mean it's a bad idea.
Come senators, congressmen
Please heed the call
Don't stand in the doorway
Don't block up the hall
For he that gets hurt
Will be he who has stalled
There's a battle outside
And it is ragin'.
It'll soon shake your windows
And rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin'.
Are we talking about real software pirates (ones that actually sell their illgotten goods on the street and prevent legimate profits) or pimply-faced teenagers proud of having two hundred copies of Photoshop on their hard drive? IMHO, saying that actual money was lost in the latter case is absurd.
It is myopic. That's the point. I want a leader who understands that somethings, some actions, and some people act in an evil manner.
Whatever your feelings about the actions of someone may be, it doesn't change the fact that believing in absolute Good and Evil is supremely anthropocentric.
They are personal interpretations of behaviour that have no bearing on the atoms making that behaviour, the quarks making that behaviour, or whatever other fundamental physical things there are. They are emergent properties of human or even specific cultural understanding of social behaviour.
A person who cannot recognize evil is unqualified to lead a girl scout troup, let alone a country, let alone a powerful country.
No, that person is merely speaking a different language than you. Their values may be the same, but they do not intentionally dumb them down to a simplistic single-bit model when communicating (or at least that particular model).
Without a concept of evil anything can be justified, rationalized, and ignored. Without the idea of good and evil no system that is just can be devised.
Without a concept of function and for, no programming language that's easy to code can be devised.;)
Feel free to claim victory because I'm moving on from this thread.^-^
Captain's log, stardate November 18th... point two. I may have failed to uphold Brannigan's Law, but I did make it with a hot alien babe and did buy the Family Guy DVD... and isn't that what Mankind has dreamt of ever since they first looked up at the stars?
(and at least for Adult Swim, they seem to limit the censorship to a tolerable level).
Good news, everyone. They bleep out the "Jesus" in "Sweet Zombie Jesus". Oh, wait. Those aren't good news at all. If anyone needs me, I'll be in the shouting room.
I hope you dont support this guy for President, because at the end of the day, no matter who you want to win, it shouldn't be someone who fundamentally refuses to acknowlegde the presense of evil in the world.
Why not? Not that I support Kucinich -- Carol Moseley Braun is the only one of the current Democrats I could consider supporting were I American -- but a worldview that does not include Good and Evil is just as valid (IMHO more so;) than one that does. Being so rabidly intolerant of such a worldview as to outright reject anyone who holds it seems rather myopic.
A lot of the goals Microsoft is aiming at with "Sparkle" are the same as those Flash is looking to accomplish, one source said. But the tool goes beyond Flash in delivering a.NET application that has access to all the APIs (define) in Longhorn, and effectively takes animation beyond the browser to enable, say, three videos running at the same time as other graphics and animation.
Ah, yes, because giving access to the user's system to outsiders has worked so well with ActiveX, IE, and pretty much every other product Microsoft has put out.
You think they get free:
a) Studio Time (one-time non-scaling cost whereas the mp3 can be resold n times where n approaches infinity)
b) Engineers (one-time non-scaling cost whereas the mp3 can be resold n times where n approaches infinity)
c) Promotion (what promotion? how much does it cost to offer a few thousand reviewers free downloads or even send them old-fashioned CDs?)
d) Management (more like mismanagement)
e) Administration (outsource the bean-counters to India or something)
Add to those all the other costs of doing business - even if the result is a PRODUCT that doesn't take up physical space on a shelf... It has to cost something.
And that something isn't $0.99.;)
It's up to the market to decide what consumers will pay. If that number is lower than the cost to produce the product, the companies would stop making them.
Well, RIAA members are making a very healthy profit. Presumably, it's not because they are cutting their throat by offering it at $0.99 per track. Anyways, the market is not involved because copyright is by definition a monopoly, while artist contracts tend to prevent even comparable products from competing.
Consumers are buying this product at the current market price. So lowing the price would be retarded for music companies (from the musicians to the retailers, etc.)
Many consumers are also buying CDs at $19.99. That doesn't mean that there's a good reason to charge more than $1.99 for them.
A retail blank CD in a jewel case and a piece of cardboard together cost less than $1.99 virtually everywhere. Wholesale, the whole thing is in no way costs more than $0.10. The added value of putting a copy of something they already have onto the CD is absolutely not worth more than two dollars.
Paying for a candy bar covers:
a) the recipe
b) ingredients
c) packaging
d) shipping and handling
e) display
f) cashier's salary
Paying for an mp3 covers:
a) the recipe
b) bandwidth (a cent at most)
Yes, ninety-nine cents for a copy of a work of art is a total ripoff that's not justified by anything. Also, the fact that the recent Canadian music service used $.99 CAD (about $.75 USD) for the same imaginary product should be a dead give away that the price has nothing to do with their actual costs.
Thanks for the info. I still disagree on the appropriateness of having guns in what is basically a tightly-packed crowd setting, but you are probably right that decompression wouldn't be the main threat.
If just one person (any "individual" of "the People") on a certain two planes had been carrying a gun a couple of years ago, several hundred children would not have lost their parents in a heap of concrete and steel
Or, more likely, a few passengers would have been bleeding to death and others would be dead when the plane crashed into the WTC. That, of course, assumes that the person with the gun were insane enough to pull it out instead of just waiting for the plane to land and the crazy loons to voice their demands.
Oh, and there's the interesting little subject of decompression to deal with...
and we very well would never have gone to war with Iraq.
What makes you think so? You definitely wouldn't have gone to war with Afghanistan (which, IMHO, would be bad because I positively loathe the Taliban and everything it stood for), but Bush had his panties in a wad over Iraq long before 9/11.
Slashdot Mirror
I've scroogled for the following:
- world conquest (0 missing)
- pr0n (0 missing)
- evil (0 missing)
- microsoft (0 missing)
- computers (16 missing -- all crap)
- end of the internet (4 missing - 3 crap)
- lpetrazickis (0 missing)
- deviancy (0 missing)
- PNG 256x256 icons (2 missing - all crap)
- jargon file (0 missing)
- bofh (0 missing)
- unix humor (1 missing - all crap)
Excuse me for not crying.
3. Code that determines which passengers get flagged for pre-flight searches. Armed with this information criminals could fashion profiles that guarantee they will not be probed in-depth.
Hah! My random number generator can't be circumvented.^-^
"But, sir, if the Vice President is such a Very Important Person, shouldn't we keep his Personal Computer on the Quick Time, 'cause if it leaks to the Venture Capitalists he could end up Missing in Action and we'd all be sent to maintain www.goatse.kp (North Korea)."
You make a strong point.
On a side note, if the use of he is discriminatory against women, isn't they discriminatory against individuals?
IMHO, if you as an individual are not discriminated against when I refer to you with a pronoun that unambiguously refers to any integer number of individuals from one up, then they as an individual are not discriminated against when I refer to them with a pronoun that unambiguously refers to any integer number of individuals up.;)
I don't think anyone has ever turned "she/he/it forever" into a battlecry of individualism. "I forever" and "ego forever" are popular. There probably is a good reason for that.^-^
Personally, I like individualism and I don't think that it faces any threat from this.:)
I am speaking out of my ass, but it could well have been both. Observe the way French and Russian have the exclusively singular "tu" and "tih" while recommending the use of the plural "vous" and "vih" when being excessively polite.
Even if "thou" was nothing more than a colloquialism, my point of it having its own form of verbs that needlessly complicated the elegance of the English language stands.
Also, the transition still gives precedent for what I am advocating even if the leap is larger for the singular "they".:)
This is a commonly mistake; 'they' is always plural.
On the other hand, modifying a noun with an adverb is not a common mistake.;)
'They' must refer to more than one person, or you're wrong.
Who died and put you in charge of our language?^-^
English ditched "thou" in favour of a singular "you" without any issues. Interestingly enough, one advantage of the singular "they" is that we might eventually be able to phase out the bloody useless third-person-singular verb forms onto the same rubbish heap that we piled the second-person-singular verb forms on.:)
In informal contexts, I always use the singular "they". Fuck, it's been part of the English language for seven centuries. Just because Latin-misinterpreting prescriptive grammarians didn't like it doesn't mean it's a bad idea.
Good point.:)
No, it would make NSync a Beowulf cluster of this.;)
0. There are two commas in your title.;)
1. Could you please give an example?:)
Come senators, congressmen
Please heed the call
Don't stand in the doorway
Don't block up the hall
For he that gets hurt
Will be he who has stalled
There's a battle outside
And it is ragin'.
It'll soon shake your windows
And rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin'.
Copyright's brief existence is over.:)
Only a mac user would compare Jobbs to the son of god, that's for sure.
Yeah! Steve Jobs has nothing on Hercules, that's for sure.;)
Are we talking about real software pirates (ones that actually sell their illgotten goods on the street and prevent legimate profits) or pimply-faced teenagers proud of having two hundred copies of Photoshop on their hard drive? IMHO, saying that actual money was lost in the latter case is absurd.
It is myopic. That's the point. I want a leader who understands that somethings, some actions, and some people act in an evil manner.
Whatever your feelings about the actions of someone may be, it doesn't change the fact that believing in absolute Good and Evil is supremely anthropocentric.
They are personal interpretations of behaviour that have no bearing on the atoms making that behaviour, the quarks making that behaviour, or whatever other fundamental physical things there are. They are emergent properties of human or even specific cultural understanding of social behaviour.
A person who cannot recognize evil is unqualified to lead a girl scout troup, let alone a country, let alone a powerful country.
No, that person is merely speaking a different language than you. Their values may be the same, but they do not intentionally dumb them down to a simplistic single-bit model when communicating (or at least that particular model).
Without a concept of evil anything can be justified, rationalized, and ignored. Without the idea of good and evil no system that is just can be devised.
Without a concept of function and for, no programming language that's easy to code can be devised.;)
Feel free to claim victory because I'm moving on from this thread.^-^
Captain's log, stardate November 18th... point two. I may have failed to uphold Brannigan's Law, but I did make it with a hot alien babe and did buy the Family Guy DVD... and isn't that what Mankind has dreamt of ever since they first looked up at the stars?
o_0
Kif, I am asking you a question, dammit.
(and at least for Adult Swim, they seem to limit the censorship to a tolerable level).
Good news, everyone. They bleep out the "Jesus" in "Sweet Zombie Jesus". Oh, wait. Those aren't good news at all. If anyone needs me, I'll be in the shouting room.
With my last breath, I curse Zoidberg!
I hope you dont support this guy for President, because at the end of the day, no matter who you want to win, it shouldn't be someone who fundamentally refuses to acknowlegde the presense of evil in the world.
Why not? Not that I support Kucinich -- Carol Moseley Braun is the only one of the current Democrats I could consider supporting were I American -- but a worldview that does not include Good and Evil is just as valid (IMHO more so;) than one that does. Being so rabidly intolerant of such a worldview as to outright reject anyone who holds it seems rather myopic.
War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. IE is Windows.;)
A lot of the goals Microsoft is aiming at with "Sparkle" are the same as those Flash is looking to accomplish, one source said. But the tool goes beyond Flash in delivering a .NET application that has access to all the APIs (define) in Longhorn, and effectively takes animation beyond the browser to enable, say, three videos running at the same time as other graphics and animation.
Ah, yes, because giving access to the user's system to outsiders has worked so well with ActiveX, IE, and pretty much every other product Microsoft has put out.
You think they get free:
a) Studio Time (one-time non-scaling cost whereas the mp3 can be resold n times where n approaches infinity)
b) Engineers (one-time non-scaling cost whereas the mp3 can be resold n times where n approaches infinity)
c) Promotion (what promotion? how much does it cost to offer a few thousand reviewers free downloads or even send them old-fashioned CDs?)
d) Management (more like mismanagement)
e) Administration (outsource the bean-counters to India or something)
Add to those all the other costs of doing business - even if the result is a PRODUCT that doesn't take up physical space on a shelf... It has to cost something.
And that something isn't $0.99.;)
It's up to the market to decide what consumers will pay. If that number is lower than the cost to produce the product, the companies would stop making them.
Well, RIAA members are making a very healthy profit. Presumably, it's not because they are cutting their throat by offering it at $0.99 per track. Anyways, the market is not involved because copyright is by definition a monopoly, while artist contracts tend to prevent even comparable products from competing.
Consumers are buying this product at the current market price. So lowing the price would be retarded for music companies (from the musicians to the retailers, etc.)
Many consumers are also buying CDs at $19.99. That doesn't mean that there's a good reason to charge more than $1.99 for them.
A retail blank CD in a jewel case and a piece of cardboard together cost less than $1.99 virtually everywhere. Wholesale, the whole thing is in no way costs more than $0.10. The added value of putting a copy of something they already have onto the CD is absolutely not worth more than two dollars.
Paying for a candy bar covers:
a) the recipe
b) ingredients
c) packaging
d) shipping and handling
e) display
f) cashier's salary
Paying for an mp3 covers:
a) the recipe
b) bandwidth (a cent at most)
Yes, ninety-nine cents for a copy of a work of art is a total ripoff that's not justified by anything. Also, the fact that the recent Canadian music service used $.99 CAD (about $.75 USD) for the same imaginary product should be a dead give away that the price has nothing to do with their actual costs.
Not everyone is as stupid as you.
Not everyone is as intelligent as you.^-^
Thanks for the info. I still disagree on the appropriateness of having guns in what is basically a tightly-packed crowd setting, but you are probably right that decompression wouldn't be the main threat.
Can you imagine how well the 9/11 hijackings would have gone if there would have been even half a dozen people on those airplane packing?
Can you imagine how much more dangerous air travel would be if theere were people packing on every flight?
"Gee, this flight is boring and the movie sucks. I think I'll blow a hole in the airplane. Bang. OHSHITOHSHITOHSHIT..."
If just one person (any "individual" of "the People") on a certain two planes had been carrying a gun a couple of years ago, several hundred children would not have lost their parents in a heap of concrete and steel
Or, more likely, a few passengers would have been bleeding to death and others would be dead when the plane crashed into the WTC. That, of course, assumes that the person with the gun were insane enough to pull it out instead of just waiting for the plane to land and the crazy loons to voice their demands.
Oh, and there's the interesting little subject of decompression to deal with...
and we very well would never have gone to war with Iraq.
What makes you think so? You definitely wouldn't have gone to war with Afghanistan (which, IMHO, would be bad because I positively loathe the Taliban and everything it stood for), but Bush had his panties in a wad over Iraq long before 9/11.