He's not an idiot, and he's not incompetent; corrupt remains to be decided - I voted for him and I'm somewhat disappointed in some of the things he's done, this included.
That said, for what it's worth, what his administration has been doing thus far is more or less in line with what he said he'd do during the campaign, at least with respect to policy proposals - he's made diplomatic overtures to Iran, he's started the process of closing Guantanamo bay, he's gotten a stimulus bill passed. You might not like any of those things, but they're part of what he said he wanted to do. I voted for him because on the balance he was a better choice than McCain/Palin.
However, judging from the vitriolic tone of your post, you're a right winger, so I find the fact that his being president makes you want to weep and die to be a feature, not a bug. Our country would be far better off without the crazy right wing freak show that's run rampant in our society over the last 20-30 years.
You seem to be under the illusion that the international treaties the US is a party to are only valid when we feel like obeying them. In fact, they have the force of law in the US, making deliberate violence against civilians in war not just immoral, but an actual crime.
Vy jste Cesky? Just curious. Studoval jsem cestinu, ale mluvim ted' velmi spatne.
And, for what it's worth, I've also read that Karel's brother, Josef was actually the one who coined the term, hence my hedging about who came up with the term.
In Russian, yes; not in Czech - same root, different meaning - in Czech the standard verb for "to work" is "pracovat," or more generically, "delat" (the e should have a hacheck over it - Slashdot's support of anything but ASCII sucks), which is the same as in Russian.
Actually, Russian and Czech are a fun pair of languages, in terms of false cognates. "Stool", meaning "chair" in Russian is "table" in Czech, and "krasny" is "red" in Russian, but "beautiful" in Czech (same root, and the origin of "krasivy" in Russian) - if you've ever seen the movie Kolya, there's a pun about the latter pair cognate as little boy is saying "Nash krasny" ("our [flag is] red") and the main character wonders what's so beautiful about it.
Also, sorry about my choices for Russian transliteration - I don't write Russian very often, and particularly not in roman characters, so I don't know how the kids do it these days.
What's interesting is that they don't note the origin of the word "robot," itself, which is most likely the Karel Chapek play "R.U.R". Robota means drudgery in Czech.
Neither, as it turns out. I was merely indicating that the post I was responding to, which cited the passage of text from the article that I reproduced in my post, appeared to completely miss the point of the cited passage.
If you read my post, you'll find the following:
Your rant may well be spot on in terms of the general attitude of librarians. But please note what the man actually said:
Which, in simple English that you'll hopefully be better able to understand, means "the stuff you quoted from the librarian man has nothing to do with what your rant is about. You may be correct, but you aren't responding to what the man actually said." I didn't endorse either side, as evidenced by the statement towards the end:
You can debate if that's the case or not, but at least address what the man's talking about.
And now, to examine something you said:
Are you pissed because you think they will charge you to see the books? And you think thats bad?
I'm not pissed at anything; I personally love the convenience of having books available through Google, and I'd pay to use them online if I had to. But your rant has nothing to do with what I said, at all. I was merely pointing out that the person I was responding to was off on a rant, supposedly in relation to a bit of quoted text, that had nothing to do with the quoted text. What the quoted librarian said was meant as a serious argument about the possible consequences of this project, and that argument deserves to be taken seriously, even if you disagree. Taking an argument seriously is not the same as endorsing it; taking an argument seriously is a crucial part of rational discussion.
Now, to circle back:
Are you stupid or just dense?
Which category do you fall into? Honestly, I'd assume neither - I think you're just an average Slashdot boor that likes to engage in namecalling and galloping off on rants about your hobby-horse topics, however little bearing they have on the matter at hand, and however little justification there might be in doing so. But I'm willing to consider another viewpoint, if you're interested in presenting it.
Your rant may well be spot on in terms of the general attitude of librarians. But please note what the man actually said:
The settlement, 'takes the vast bulk of books that are in research libraries and makes them into a single database that is the property of Google,' said Robert Darnton, head of the Harvard University library system. 'Google will be a monopoly
Given that specific bit you quote, the man is concerned about Google being the exclusive source of access to these books; he's not expressing fear that his industry is going away, but that what's replacing it will have less freedom of access. You can debate if that's the case or not, but at least address what the man's talking about.
It's probably an either/or proposition*, since the system calls and basic libraries aren't the same across the platforms.
*FreeBSD has a kernel level Linux binary compatibility layer, so I guess with enough pain and suffering you could make things switchable, at least with userland stuff.
Just saying that, you've proven yourself to be a gigantic asshole and/or moron.
If you really think there's any due process of law that warrants seizure of all machines in a data center without respect to ownershi, you're part of the fucking problem with this country.
Kid, I just bothered to read your other response to me; based on that, I can say pretty confidently on that basis, you're really not qualified to judge conviction, sincerity, or experience in anything.
Sorry I picked on you; it's hard to tell the earnest kids from the pure assholes.
Look at my posting history. I actually convince people of stuff.
No offense (seriously), but if you think you actually convince people of anything they're not already convinced of, you're a pretty naive person. I won't even bother calling out the silliness of you calling me full of myself - you're just not sufficiently grown up to know what you're talking about.
Yeah, College educated white male American in his 30's from the Northeast US is pretty much me, and I've definitely heard that used before. Are you west or east of the Appalachians?
How old are you, where did you learn to speak English, and is it your native language?
Serious questions - I found the sentence mostly unexceptional (I'd probably have left out "that"), and I'm curious about the difficulty you had in parsing it.
Yes, my young man, you've totally won this battle with a random internet jackass. My lack of conscious thought is deep and unparalleled, and you good sir, are naught but a font of unadulterated wisdom from which mankind would do well to drink in deep draughts, for in you solely may his insatiable thirst for some meaning above the quotidian be slaked.
Please congratulate yourself, my good man, on a hard won victory; please, take several hours - days, even - to feel buoyed by your indubitable superiority, your wit, your charm, your education. The sheer lightness and wonder of your facticity must be unbearable.
And yet I still have far more relevance than you, someone who chimes in well after the fact to futilely point out the unimportance of things that don't matter.
When you die, not a single soul will mourn you, as is proper and right.
No it's not; it's indicated for people with depression, obsessive compulsive disorder, and panic disorder. If it's prescribed for people who "need to calm the fuck down", it's an off-label use by a doctor who doesn't know shit about what he's prescribing.
And I'm not a badass on the internet; I'm a badass everywhere in life - I'd just as soon wish cancer on you and your family in person as over the intertubes.
Let me guess, you're just picking a psychoactive drug out of your ass without any understanding of what it does or the side effects. Here's a hint: it typically wouldn't help with ranting lunatics.
Cancer for you and your family, now - hopefully one that's both quick AND painful.
Dear fucking god, you dumb sacks of shit. You're just not fucking funny. Stop it. One -maybe two - April Fool's stories are ok, assuming they're funny. You guys have the problem of 1) way fucking overdoing it and, 2) being the least funny people (so it appears) on the face of the earth. Seriously, in comparison to you, Hitler and Stalin were goddamn laugh riots.
Slashdot Mirror
He's not an idiot, and he's not incompetent; corrupt remains to be decided - I voted for him and I'm somewhat disappointed in some of the things he's done, this included.
That said, for what it's worth, what his administration has been doing thus far is more or less in line with what he said he'd do during the campaign, at least with respect to policy proposals - he's made diplomatic overtures to Iran, he's started the process of closing Guantanamo bay, he's gotten a stimulus bill passed. You might not like any of those things, but they're part of what he said he wanted to do. I voted for him because on the balance he was a better choice than McCain/Palin.
However, judging from the vitriolic tone of your post, you're a right winger, so I find the fact that his being president makes you want to weep and die to be a feature, not a bug. Our country would be far better off without the crazy right wing freak show that's run rampant in our society over the last 20-30 years.
Oh well. Some AP reporting has been kind of shitty in the last 10 years or so, anyway.
You seem to be under the illusion that the international treaties the US is a party to are only valid when we feel like obeying them. In fact, they have the force of law in the US, making deliberate violence against civilians in war not just immoral, but an actual crime.
Ano, vim - mluvim drohu cesky. Drugery is the best I could come up with online without having to go dig out my Cesko-Anglicky slovnik.
Very droll, and sadly true. For this HP killed off PA-RISC?
Vy jste Cesky? Just curious. Studoval jsem cestinu, ale mluvim ted' velmi spatne.
And, for what it's worth, I've also read that Karel's brother, Josef was actually the one who coined the term, hence my hedging about who came up with the term.
In Russian, yes; not in Czech - same root, different meaning - in Czech the standard verb for "to work" is "pracovat," or more generically, "delat" (the e should have a hacheck over it - Slashdot's support of anything but ASCII sucks), which is the same as in Russian.
Actually, Russian and Czech are a fun pair of languages, in terms of false cognates. "Stool", meaning "chair" in Russian is "table" in Czech, and "krasny" is "red" in Russian, but "beautiful" in Czech (same root, and the origin of "krasivy" in Russian) - if you've ever seen the movie Kolya, there's a pun about the latter pair cognate as little boy is saying "Nash krasny" ("our [flag is] red") and the main character wonders what's so beautiful about it.
Also, sorry about my choices for Russian transliteration - I don't write Russian very often, and particularly not in roman characters, so I don't know how the kids do it these days.
What's interesting is that they don't note the origin of the word "robot," itself, which is most likely the Karel Chapek play "R.U.R". Robota means drudgery in Czech.
Heh. You're out of your league, kid, by miles or more.
Neither, as it turns out. I was merely indicating that the post I was responding to, which cited the passage of text from the article that I reproduced in my post, appeared to completely miss the point of the cited passage.
If you read my post, you'll find the following:
Which, in simple English that you'll hopefully be better able to understand, means "the stuff you quoted from the librarian man has nothing to do with what your rant is about. You may be correct, but you aren't responding to what the man actually said." I didn't endorse either side, as evidenced by the statement towards the end:
And now, to examine something you said:
I'm not pissed at anything; I personally love the convenience of having books available through Google, and I'd pay to use them online if I had to. But your rant has nothing to do with what I said, at all. I was merely pointing out that the person I was responding to was off on a rant, supposedly in relation to a bit of quoted text, that had nothing to do with the quoted text. What the quoted librarian said was meant as a serious argument about the possible consequences of this project, and that argument deserves to be taken seriously, even if you disagree. Taking an argument seriously is not the same as endorsing it; taking an argument seriously is a crucial part of rational discussion.
Now, to circle back:
Which category do you fall into? Honestly, I'd assume neither - I think you're just an average Slashdot boor that likes to engage in namecalling and galloping off on rants about your hobby-horse topics, however little bearing they have on the matter at hand, and however little justification there might be in doing so. But I'm willing to consider another viewpoint, if you're interested in presenting it.
Your rant may well be spot on in terms of the general attitude of librarians. But please note what the man actually said:
The settlement, 'takes the vast bulk of books that are in research libraries and makes them into a single database that is the property of Google,' said Robert Darnton, head of the Harvard University library system. 'Google will be a monopoly
Given that specific bit you quote, the man is concerned about Google being the exclusive source of access to these books; he's not expressing fear that his industry is going away, but that what's replacing it will have less freedom of access. You can debate if that's the case or not, but at least address what the man's talking about.
It's probably an either/or proposition*, since the system calls and basic libraries aren't the same across the platforms.
*FreeBSD has a kernel level Linux binary compatibility layer, so I guess with enough pain and suffering you could make things switchable, at least with userland stuff.
Fuck your fucking face, you goddamn fucking fascist. When the revolution comes, you and your ilk will be the first against the wall.
Just saying that, you've proven yourself to be a gigantic asshole and/or moron.
If you really think there's any due process of law that warrants seizure of all machines in a data center without respect to ownershi, you're part of the fucking problem with this country.
Kid, I just bothered to read your other response to me; based on that, I can say pretty confidently on that basis, you're really not qualified to judge conviction, sincerity, or experience in anything.
Sorry I picked on you; it's hard to tell the earnest kids from the pure assholes.
No offense (seriously), but if you think you actually convince people of anything they're not already convinced of, you're a pretty naive person. I won't even bother calling out the silliness of you calling me full of myself - you're just not sufficiently grown up to know what you're talking about.
Yeah, College educated white male American in his 30's from the Northeast US is pretty much me, and I've definitely heard that used before. Are you west or east of the Appalachians?
How old are you, where did you learn to speak English, and is it your native language?
Serious questions - I found the sentence mostly unexceptional (I'd probably have left out "that"), and I'm curious about the difficulty you had in parsing it.
Yes, my young man, you've totally won this battle with a random internet jackass. My lack of conscious thought is deep and unparalleled, and you good sir, are naught but a font of unadulterated wisdom from which mankind would do well to drink in deep draughts, for in you solely may his insatiable thirst for some meaning above the quotidian be slaked.
Please congratulate yourself, my good man, on a hard won victory; please, take several hours - days, even - to feel buoyed by your indubitable superiority, your wit, your charm, your education. The sheer lightness and wonder of your facticity must be unbearable.
And yet I still have far more relevance than you, someone who chimes in well after the fact to futilely point out the unimportance of things that don't matter.
When you die, not a single soul will mourn you, as is proper and right.
No it's not; it's indicated for people with depression, obsessive compulsive disorder, and panic disorder. If it's prescribed for people who "need to calm the fuck down", it's an off-label use by a doctor who doesn't know shit about what he's prescribing.
And I'm not a badass on the internet; I'm a badass everywhere in life - I'd just as soon wish cancer on you and your family in person as over the intertubes.
What about it?
Let me guess, you're just picking a psychoactive drug out of your ass without any understanding of what it does or the side effects. Here's a hint: it typically wouldn't help with ranting lunatics.
Cancer for you and your family, now - hopefully one that's both quick AND painful.
Dear fucking god, you dumb sacks of shit. You're just not fucking funny. Stop it. One -maybe two - April Fool's stories are ok, assuming they're funny. You guys have the problem of 1) way fucking overdoing it and, 2) being the least funny people (so it appears) on the face of the earth. Seriously, in comparison to you, Hitler and Stalin were goddamn laugh riots.
Get cancer, you fucking shitbags.
It's never been funny. Just stop.
Obama.
Now, in turn, remind me which President it was that asked the CEO of AIG, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac to step down?
What's that? Did you happen to squeak out George W. Bush?
Stop apologizing for the atrocity against our country that was his presidency.