Right. How many of your by-laws do you know? I don't know your age, but I'd hazard a guess it's actually physically impossible for you to have read every law and ordinance that applies to you. You might research your by-laws if you were planning on erecting a construction, but for changing your garden? I certainly wouldn't.
Free speech is a right that can't be abridged by anyone. YouTube deleting videos from their own server, however, does not violate free speech. Nor does being asked to leave a store when you're distributing pamphlets, or me kicking you out of my house if you bust in raving about TimeCube. The only way your freedom of speech can be abridged is by preventing you from speaking at all.
The only entity that has the power to do this is the government (through jail, or injunction), so while free speech technically applies to all, the only ones that actually have the capacity to abuse it are the government, so, in practice they're the only ones it applies to.
Is it right that corporations have more ability to muzzle people than the government? I don't know. My opinion is that neither should be able to, barring defamation of character or other malicious speech.
Corporations don't have more ability to muzzle people than the government. FoS was introduced because, absent that, governments have the power to prevent you speaking. Corporations only have the ability to prevent you speaking on their property - whether that be their main office or their server farm, they have the ability to ask you to leave. In other words, Google can't stop you from showing your video. They can stop you from showing it on YouTube. Take it to another provider, or host it yourself - your speech is still possible. If it was the government, they'd just shove you in jail and prohibit contact with the outside world. Now that is abridgement of Freedom of Speech.
A law like you seem to be wanting would be forcing corporations to use their property in a manner that they don't want. It would be analagous to, say, a PETA member papering your house with posters, and you being compelled to keep them there for fear of abridging their freedom of speech.
Which would be amusing, since Quest for Glory had to be renamed (it was originally Hero Quest, in keeping with the other *Quest series) due to trademark infringement against Milton Bradley's Hero Quest boardgame. At least it'll be a thorough re-creation.
I'm Australian, and don't have a passport. I've also had a number of bank accounts in my life. To open an account, you need proof of identity. There's a whole list of things that can satisfy this - driver's license, passport, birth certificate, etc. There's hardly a unified ID system.
Besides, you think fraud is bad now, try it when there's no way to uniquely identify people.
Ok, I should have been more precise. I thought it was implied by context that "no evolution" meant "no loss of energy-inefficient mechanisms due to evolution".
Not to mention that it would still require that energy be hard to aquire in it's environment. Natural selection only works if there is some sort of environmental pressure to force selection. If there's a plentiful supply of energy => no selection of efficient mechanisms => no evolution.
Service has been around for a while. They're called "Private Investigators". Much more expensive, but basically the same thing. So what you're complaining about isn't that something new is now possible, but that something old is now possible more cheaply. If the service in question is indeed a problem, then it needs to be solved upstream - if its "bad" to do it cheaply, it's "bad" to do it expensively, so both should be made illegal.
Which basically means that there was still a problem before, it just flew under the radar. Like "security by obscurity", "security by requiring effort" equals no security at all when somebody's determined to exploit it - it only dissuades those with no real incentive to break it.
Etymologically, in English, the distinction was class-based. Swear words generally have Germanic roots (fuck, shit, etc), while the clinical terms (copulate, excrete) have French/Romantic roots. At the time English as a language was developing, Germanic was considered barbarous, and French/Latin was considered cultured. Language is often one of the hallmarks of social groups (think of the vocabulary shift between generations - hip, groovy, cool, etc). If you want to fit in to a particular group, one of the first things you do is adopt the linguistic mannerisms of the group. Our society, as we have become more egalitarian, has tended to adopt "high culture" artefacts in preference to "low culture", so we've essentially inherited those manerisms, and relegated low culture to vulgarity.
Personally, my reaction to swear words varies in regards to context. The most common useage I see is generally people who use them deliberately to shock, or to show how much of a rebel they are by not conforming to social acceptable behaviour. I'm not offended by that, but I don't have much respect for the speaker.
Similarly, I see cathartic profanity ("Shit! The server's down") as indecision, or a lack of self control. When I hear this at work, it generally means something's gone wrong, and someone's standing around swearing instead of actually trying to fix it. The competent people don't usually swear when something happens, they act immediately to correct it.
Emphatic swearing ("Fucking awesome"), I don't really mind, but don't particularly see a point to it either.
Then you'd assume wrong. Expletives are a feature of languages the world over, and, in some cultures, predate exposure to Christianity. That injunction wasn't particularly to cover the use of God's name as a swear word, but to forbid people from using God's name in a manner that doesn't refelect well on God. That includes use as an expletive, but also swearing an oath in God's name and then breaking it, claiming to be a follower of God and then ignoring his laws, etc. It's basically saying, if you use God's name, you better be upholding what God says. Think of it as the world's first libel law.
The queues that you write in your software probably are spelled "queue": that is, a sequential list of items, generally typified by a first-in, first-out progression. Example: I queued for hours = I lined up for hours.
But cue, from the context you used it in, is a signal indicating that a particular action should be performed. Example: cue the lights = turn the lights on.
Homophones (words that sound the same but have different spellings/meanings) are one of the (many) banes of the English language. Homonyms (same spelling with different meaning) are even worse. For instance, "cue" could either have the definition above, or refer to a stick used to poke balls around a pool table.
It generally revolves around killing people and taking their stuff. With 1% doing the killing and taking, and waxing lyrical about how nobody queues up to the slaighterhouse anymore, as modern MMORPGs are less "realistic", and don't allow griefing.
The very fact that the gap has narrowed indicates that either:
a) The gap was a product of circumstance, not race, and IQ as a measure of "intelligence potential" is therefore flawed.
b) The makeup of the "black" race has changed, indicating that the notion of race is therefore flawed.
c) All of the above
If you're at a "very good" university, then probably the reason is because black people are more likely to be unable to afford the truly ludicrous fees the more prestigious institutions tend to charge.
Asking for famous black mathematicians is a bit disingenuous: given that they've only really been allowed into tertiary institutions in the last ~50 years, they've had less chance to produce recognisable genuis than other racial groups, in addition to the economic disadvantages.
Of course, if you want to expand your definition of "black" to include Indians or Arabs, you'll find plenty of influential mathematicians.
Perhaps if their competitors know that Google's recently increased it's hiring of Indian developers, they might be trying to expand their market in India?
Or because they just want people to go on feeling warm fuzzies when they hear the word "diverse", instead of actually engaging their brains and understanding what the word means.
They can say they're diverse, and people will think that Google is a nice company. They can even be telling the truth. But if the stats come out, and it shows that their diversity is a product of hiring many different types of East Europeans, Asians and Indians, people will realise that "diverse" doesn't necessarily mean equal hiring practices - it just means diverse.
No, he's saying that all workers should be held to the same standard, regardless of gender/race.
That's what having quotas ignores. If you mandate "you must have 1 female for every 5 males", and you can't find a qualified female (because qualified females in that particular area are statistically uncommon) then you've got a choice between breaking the quota and getting raked over the coals, or of hiring an under-qualified person. That's a no-win situation, and some people are going to choose to hire the under-qualified person.
The grand-parent choose fire-fighting (I assume) because it's a simple, dramatic illustration of the consequences of stupid policies impacting effectiveness, not necessarily because fire-fighters have such policies in place.
Slashdot Mirror
Right. How many of your by-laws do you know? I don't know your age, but I'd hazard a guess it's actually physically impossible for you to have read every law and ordinance that applies to you. You might research your by-laws if you were planning on erecting a construction, but for changing your garden? I certainly wouldn't.
Free speech is a right that can't be abridged by anyone. YouTube deleting videos from their own server, however, does not violate free speech. Nor does being asked to leave a store when you're distributing pamphlets, or me kicking you out of my house if you bust in raving about TimeCube. The only way your freedom of speech can be abridged is by preventing you from speaking at all.
The only entity that has the power to do this is the government (through jail, or injunction), so while free speech technically applies to all, the only ones that actually have the capacity to abuse it are the government, so, in practice they're the only ones it applies to.
Is it right that corporations have more ability to muzzle people than the government? I don't know. My opinion is that neither should be able to, barring defamation of character or other malicious speech.
Corporations don't have more ability to muzzle people than the government. FoS was introduced because, absent that, governments have the power to prevent you speaking. Corporations only have the ability to prevent you speaking on their property - whether that be their main office or their server farm, they have the ability to ask you to leave. In other words, Google can't stop you from showing your video. They can stop you from showing it on YouTube. Take it to another provider, or host it yourself - your speech is still possible. If it was the government, they'd just shove you in jail and prohibit contact with the outside world. Now that is abridgement of Freedom of Speech.
A law like you seem to be wanting would be forcing corporations to use their property in a manner that they don't want. It would be analagous to, say, a PETA member papering your house with posters, and you being compelled to keep them there for fear of abridging their freedom of speech.
You do. Until you give them away.
Naw, get the board games they were based off (those two games were based off Milton Bradley/Games Workshop properties)
Which would be amusing, since Quest for Glory had to be renamed (it was originally Hero Quest, in keeping with the other *Quest series) due to trademark infringement against Milton Bradley's Hero Quest boardgame. At least it'll be a thorough re-creation.
I'm Australian, and don't have a passport. I've also had a number of bank accounts in my life. To open an account, you need proof of identity. There's a whole list of things that can satisfy this - driver's license, passport, birth certificate, etc. There's hardly a unified ID system.
Besides, you think fraud is bad now, try it when there's no way to uniquely identify people.
Ok, I should have been more precise. I thought it was implied by context that "no evolution" meant "no loss of energy-inefficient mechanisms due to evolution".
Not to mention that it would still require that energy be hard to aquire in it's environment. Natural selection only works if there is some sort of environmental pressure to force selection. If there's a plentiful supply of energy => no selection of efficient mechanisms => no evolution.
Service has been around for a while. They're called "Private Investigators". Much more expensive, but basically the same thing. So what you're complaining about isn't that something new is now possible, but that something old is now possible more cheaply. If the service in question is indeed a problem, then it needs to be solved upstream - if its "bad" to do it cheaply, it's "bad" to do it expensively, so both should be made illegal.
Which basically means that there was still a problem before, it just flew under the radar. Like "security by obscurity", "security by requiring effort" equals no security at all when somebody's determined to exploit it - it only dissuades those with no real incentive to break it.
Etymologically, in English, the distinction was class-based. Swear words generally have Germanic roots (fuck, shit, etc), while the clinical terms (copulate, excrete) have French/Romantic roots. At the time English as a language was developing, Germanic was considered barbarous, and French/Latin was considered cultured. Language is often one of the hallmarks of social groups (think of the vocabulary shift between generations - hip, groovy, cool, etc). If you want to fit in to a particular group, one of the first things you do is adopt the linguistic mannerisms of the group. Our society, as we have become more egalitarian, has tended to adopt "high culture" artefacts in preference to "low culture", so we've essentially inherited those manerisms, and relegated low culture to vulgarity.
Personally, my reaction to swear words varies in regards to context. The most common useage I see is generally people who use them deliberately to shock, or to show how much of a rebel they are by not conforming to social acceptable behaviour. I'm not offended by that, but I don't have much respect for the speaker.
Similarly, I see cathartic profanity ("Shit! The server's down") as indecision, or a lack of self control. When I hear this at work, it generally means something's gone wrong, and someone's standing around swearing instead of actually trying to fix it. The competent people don't usually swear when something happens, they act immediately to correct it.
Emphatic swearing ("Fucking awesome"), I don't really mind, but don't particularly see a point to it either.
Then you'd assume wrong. Expletives are a feature of languages the world over, and, in some cultures, predate exposure to Christianity. That injunction wasn't particularly to cover the use of God's name as a swear word, but to forbid people from using God's name in a manner that doesn't refelect well on God. That includes use as an expletive, but also swearing an oath in God's name and then breaking it, claiming to be a follower of God and then ignoring his laws, etc. It's basically saying, if you use God's name, you better be upholding what God says. Think of it as the world's first libel law.
!atomic != safe
magic_quotes_gpc is not your friend.
The queues that you write in your software probably are spelled "queue": that is, a sequential list of items, generally typified by a first-in, first-out progression. Example: I queued for hours = I lined up for hours.
But cue, from the context you used it in, is a signal indicating that a particular action should be performed. Example: cue the lights = turn the lights on.
Homophones (words that sound the same but have different spellings/meanings) are one of the (many) banes of the English language. Homonyms (same spelling with different meaning) are even worse. For instance, "cue" could either have the definition above, or refer to a stick used to poke balls around a pool table.
It generally revolves around killing people and taking their stuff. With 1% doing the killing and taking, and waxing lyrical about how nobody queues up to the slaighterhouse anymore, as modern MMORPGs are less "realistic", and don't allow griefing.
If he reached some form of settlement with them, or made some other valid form of agreement not to badmouth them, they might have a case.
As I read this, there are three comments. Two are about porn. Slashdot in a nutshell.
The very fact that the gap has narrowed indicates that either:
a) The gap was a product of circumstance, not race, and IQ as a measure of "intelligence potential" is therefore flawed.
b) The makeup of the "black" race has changed, indicating that the notion of race is therefore flawed.
c) All of the above
If you're at a "very good" university, then probably the reason is because black people are more likely to be unable to afford the truly ludicrous fees the more prestigious institutions tend to charge.
Asking for famous black mathematicians is a bit disingenuous: given that they've only really been allowed into tertiary institutions in the last ~50 years, they've had less chance to produce recognisable genuis than other racial groups, in addition to the economic disadvantages.
Of course, if you want to expand your definition of "black" to include Indians or Arabs, you'll find plenty of influential mathematicians.
Perhaps if their competitors know that Google's recently increased it's hiring of Indian developers, they might be trying to expand their market in India?
That would be "caucasian".
Or because they just want people to go on feeling warm fuzzies when they hear the word "diverse", instead of actually engaging their brains and understanding what the word means.
They can say they're diverse, and people will think that Google is a nice company. They can even be telling the truth. But if the stats come out, and it shows that their diversity is a product of hiring many different types of East Europeans, Asians and Indians, people will realise that "diverse" doesn't necessarily mean equal hiring practices - it just means diverse.
No, he's saying that all workers should be held to the same standard, regardless of gender/race.
That's what having quotas ignores. If you mandate "you must have 1 female for every 5 males", and you can't find a qualified female (because qualified females in that particular area are statistically uncommon) then you've got a choice between breaking the quota and getting raked over the coals, or of hiring an under-qualified person. That's a no-win situation, and some people are going to choose to hire the under-qualified person.
The grand-parent choose fire-fighting (I assume) because it's a simple, dramatic illustration of the consequences of stupid policies impacting effectiveness, not necessarily because fire-fighters have such policies in place.