XML doesn't magically make something compliant and open. Mostly it just makes it bloated. Well-documented formats unencumbered by patents are what makes something open, and that doesn't depend on the latest flavour-of-the-month serialization format.
At a guess - none. The air is being warmed by the sun, and rising, just as it always has done. It's just being forced to do so in an area which can be populated with turbines.
By the same token, ask ten people to describe the same table in enough detail, and you'll get ten mutually exclusive tables. Humans aren't very good at remembering detailed, factual information - which is why eye-witnesses aren't always considered reliable.
Except that you'd be wrong. If she was miserable because couldn't her backside into a standard chair, or because she couldn't walk more than a couple of steps without getting out of breath, or because she had to have reconstructive surgery on her knees due to excessive weight, these are all due to her weight.
Copping abuse from other people due to her weight is entirely due to the presence of assholes in society, and nothing to do with weight at all.
Any man who allows himself to be beaten up by a woman is a coward, a pussy, and deserves to be ridiculed until he finally mans up, grows a pair of balls, and decides to stand up for himself.
It may be unhealthy, but there are plenty of examples of people who become "addicted" to their career to the detriment of things like spouses, family, etc (or perhaps in reaction to a bad home life). It can also be a case of a misplaces sense of duty/overinflated ego - you believe that the company can't function without you, and your job tends to become your highest priority.
As for power, while most "normal" people don't have it as a goal in and of itself, I'd posit that people who have a significant amount of it, tend to desire more. People like politicians, company executives, etc. When you have so much money that it becomes an insufficient means of measuring your self-worth, power seems to take its place.
Instead of using all to mean "everything", treat it as meaning "whole" or "total".
Thus: "I've totally finished the book" is equivelant to "I've all finished the book" (except it sounds awkward) And "I've all but finished the book" becomes "I've totally finished the book, except..."
Of course, the last sentance doesn't parse correctly - "all but", like so many phrases, is a short-hand, a lazy way of speaking. It's sort of like saying "it's over for the duration" - the duration of what? The reader or hearer is supposed to supply their own interpretation of "duration", based on context. In the same way, "all but finished this book" can be taken to mean "I've totally finished the book, except for one page".
A birth rate of greater than 2 per couple is required to offset all the people who die before reproducing (infertility, early death, never get laid, etc). If all couples in a given pool produced only 2 children, then the size of that pool would dwindle (i.e. decline)
Actually, the phrase "all but" is perfectly logical. In the context of your example - "the house is all but destroyed" - it means that the house is one step away from total destruction. It means that there is one tiny part left undestroyed that disqualifies the house from the definition of "destroyed".
Most of the "illogical" phrases in English are perfectly logical if you understand the grammatical and linguistic contexts in which they were coined. Frequest misuse of them doesn't indicate someone is stupid - it means either they're uneducated, or they're stupid. If they're from a country in which education is compulsory and state-funded, one of those options is eliminated.
Don't get me wrong, the sort of qualities it encompasses are valuable. Empathy and diplomacy are essential abilities for any civilized society. But calling it "emotional intelligence" is nothing but a marketing scam. It's trying to hijack the term "intelligence" because "intelligence" is seen as something valuable.
People are good at various things. Some are talented emotionally, some are musical, some are good at working with their hands, and some excel at manipulating abstract symbols.
If you try and lump it all under "intelligence", you make the term meaningless. Saying something is intelligent in that scenario doesn't mean a thing. You have to specify that they're "intelligence in music". At that point, "intelligence" has lost any meaning of it's own, and become just a synonym for "good at".
If you want to convince people that those that are talented in understanding and responding to emotion are just as valuable as those gifted with intelligence, by all means, go ahead - I agree. But don't do it by playing tricks with the language - it proves nothing.
I never realised how badly Slashdot needed a "-1, Moron" mod until I read your post.
If a man is hit by a woman, he's not a man unless he hits her back? The only power differential that counts is muscle-mass, not psychological or social factors? Leave off posting until you've finished growing up thanks.
Yes, the woman gets more say 'cause it's her body, so forcing her to either abort or give birth to a kid she doesn't want is a violation of her rights over her own body. That's just a matter of how the universe assigned biological functions.
As long as the man gets more say over child welfare payments, as forcing him to pay is a violation of his rights over his own property. The fact that a man is able to knock-up a woman and bugger of is just a matter of how the universe assigned biological functions.
Except none of the other political parties are going to give their preferences to the Pirate Party. That's how they keep out any radical changes they don't like. Only good little parties that toe the line get preferences.
I doubt that cursive writing will go away anymore than concept sketching will go away. The neuro-motor connection is valuable in enhancing learning and understanding. People will still write in notebooks and journals that don't need electricity
The neuro-motor connection is just as present in printing as in cursive. Your argument is for the persistance of handwriting in general, not any particular mode of it, such as cursive.
A few months ago a lawyer friend of mine mentioned that her son couldn't read an analog watch. He wears one, but it doesn't tell him the time. There is a whole level of understanding about the world that came from learning to tell time.
I'm sure he can tell the time. Give him a digital watch and see. You seem to be complaining that losing a specific technique implies the loss of a general skill.
In my field, I have already been all but replaced by people who are called programmers, but can't do Boolean Algebra or Assembly language.
Why should programmers need to know assembly language, unless they are working in a field that specifically requires it? Understand the general concepts, maybe, but they don't need to be able to sit down and hack it out. Boolean algebra, I'll give you, but then, it's a general skill that can usefully be applied to any number of specific situations.
They rely, as they should, on solutions painstakingly solved by the programmers of my generation which have been combined into large complex systems and placed in books and repositories.
I doubt that's particularly programmers of your generation, but rather programmers of your class. In practice, there's a lot more demand for application developers than there are library developers (which is essentially the distinction your drawing). As the IT industry grew, application developers were, of necessity, going to become more numerous than those developing the underlying tools. But there are still people writing low-level libraries, and improving the ones written by "your generation". I doubt that those developers are going to become extinct when everyone born in the 20th century shuffles of this mortal coil.
Cursive penmanship did give us a common ground for understanding the ideas of other people.
No, it didn't. Penmanship gave us common ground; cursive penmanship reduced stress for people required to exercise penmanship for large periods of time, a class of people that are now all but extinct. For most people, I think you'll find cursive penmanship retards comprehension.
Linguists tell us that the actual understanding of written communication is tremendously difficult, even if the communication is simple and clearly presented.
Which, given the nature of most cursive, means its death will result in a win for communication.
I'm not disputing your underlying point that a lack of emphasis on the fundamentals appears to be undermining many modern students' grasp of the complexities, but many of the examples you present - particularly cursive - just aren't representative of this.
If you have a look at the article he's responding to, it's about a dutch political party campaigning to have the age of consent lowered to 12, instead of 16. That's generally the onset of adolescence (ephebophilia), not pre-adolescence (pedophilia).
He may have meant children. However "child" is an ambiguous word, that has multiple meanings, and whose meaning has changed over the years. It wasn't too long ago, historically, that a boy would be considered a man at around 13. Our society's legal definition has "child" defined at ~18. It's perfectly consonant that Stallman was talking about our society's legal definition of "child" rather than the biological definition of pre-pubescence.
parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing.
That doesn't look like he's talking about pre-pubescents. He's talking about people beginning to awaken to their own sexuality.
The rest of your post I generally agree on, but is largely irrelevant, as you're working of a faulty premise.
That's because society in general has conflated pedophilia with ephebophilia. Pedophilia, in it's technical sense, means "sex with pre-pubescents" (or rather, an inclination to such sex). Ephebophilia is an inclination towards sex with adolescents.
Society, in it's endless quest to eliminate fine distinctions, uses "pedophilia" to mean "sex with children". It then uses the legal definition of child - "under 18" - rather than the biological one, and ends up with "pedophilia is sex with under 18s". Which leads to the cases like the 18 year-old with the 17 year-old girlfriend who's convicted of statuatory rape.
What (I assume) Stallman means is probably quite true. 16 year olds having consensual sex is probably not going to do them any more harm than having consensual sex two years later.
Slashdot Mirror
Vampires don't sparkle in sun light, they burn.
Dracula didn't.
XML doesn't magically make something compliant and open. Mostly it just makes it bloated. Well-documented formats unencumbered by patents are what makes something open, and that doesn't depend on the latest flavour-of-the-month serialization format.
At a guess - none. The air is being warmed by the sun, and rising, just as it always has done. It's just being forced to do so in an area which can be populated with turbines.
By the same token, ask ten people to describe the same table in enough detail, and you'll get ten mutually exclusive tables. Humans aren't very good at remembering detailed, factual information - which is why eye-witnesses aren't always considered reliable.
The gods are kind and benevolent.
Methinks you should take a closer look at pagain mythology.
Except that you'd be wrong. If she was miserable because couldn't her backside into a standard chair, or because she couldn't walk more than a couple of steps without getting out of breath, or because she had to have reconstructive surgery on her knees due to excessive weight, these are all due to her weight.
Copping abuse from other people due to her weight is entirely due to the presence of assholes in society, and nothing to do with weight at all.
Sort of like the web you mean? Cause we all know there's no security vulnerabilities there...
-1: Can't follow a thread
Any man who allows himself to be beaten up by a woman is a coward, a pussy, and deserves to be ridiculed until he finally mans up, grows a pair of balls, and decides to stand up for himself.
I was replying to Shiftless, not you.
It may be unhealthy, but there are plenty of examples of people who become "addicted" to their career to the detriment of things like spouses, family, etc (or perhaps in reaction to a bad home life). It can also be a case of a misplaces sense of duty/overinflated ego - you believe that the company can't function without you, and your job tends to become your highest priority.
As for power, while most "normal" people don't have it as a goal in and of itself, I'd posit that people who have a significant amount of it, tend to desire more. People like politicians, company executives, etc. When you have so much money that it becomes an insufficient means of measuring your self-worth, power seems to take its place.
Instead of using all to mean "everything", treat it as meaning "whole" or "total".
Thus: "I've totally finished the book" is equivelant to "I've all finished the book" (except it sounds awkward)
And "I've all but finished the book" becomes "I've totally finished the book, except..."
Of course, the last sentance doesn't parse correctly - "all but", like so many phrases, is a short-hand, a lazy way of speaking. It's sort of like saying "it's over for the duration" - the duration of what? The reader or hearer is supposed to supply their own interpretation of "duration", based on context. In the same way, "all but finished this book" can be taken to mean "I've totally finished the book, except for one page".
A birth rate of greater than 2 per couple is required to offset all the people who die before reproducing (infertility, early death, never get laid, etc). If all couples in a given pool produced only 2 children, then the size of that pool would dwindle (i.e. decline)
Actually, the phrase "all but" is perfectly logical. In the context of your example - "the house is all but destroyed" - it means that the house is one step away from total destruction. It means that there is one tiny part left undestroyed that disqualifies the house from the definition of "destroyed".
Most of the "illogical" phrases in English are perfectly logical if you understand the grammatical and linguistic contexts in which they were coined. Frequest misuse of them doesn't indicate someone is stupid - it means either they're uneducated, or they're stupid. If they're from a country in which education is compulsory and state-funded, one of those options is eliminated.
Emotional intelligence is a load of bull.
Don't get me wrong, the sort of qualities it encompasses are valuable. Empathy and diplomacy are essential abilities for any civilized society. But calling it "emotional intelligence" is nothing but a marketing scam. It's trying to hijack the term "intelligence" because "intelligence" is seen as something valuable.
People are good at various things. Some are talented emotionally, some are musical, some are good at working with their hands, and some excel at manipulating abstract symbols.
If you try and lump it all under "intelligence", you make the term meaningless. Saying something is intelligent in that scenario doesn't mean a thing. You have to specify that they're "intelligence in music". At that point, "intelligence" has lost any meaning of it's own, and become just a synonym for "good at".
If you want to convince people that those that are talented in understanding and responding to emotion are just as valuable as those gifted with intelligence, by all means, go ahead - I agree. But don't do it by playing tricks with the language - it proves nothing.
One sensible reason to aim for money and power is because men believe women are attracted to it.
Which means you're not really aiming for money and power - you're aiming to get a chick, and money and power are the means to that end.
I never realised how badly Slashdot needed a "-1, Moron" mod until I read your post. If a man is hit by a woman, he's not a man unless he hits her back? The only power differential that counts is muscle-mass, not psychological or social factors? Leave off posting until you've finished growing up thanks.
Yes, the woman gets more say 'cause it's her body, so forcing her to either abort or give birth to a kid she doesn't want is a violation of her rights over her own body. That's just a matter of how the universe assigned biological functions.
As long as the man gets more say over child welfare payments, as forcing him to pay is a violation of his rights over his own property. The fact that a man is able to knock-up a woman and bugger of is just a matter of how the universe assigned biological functions.
I'll say your confused, you seem to be thinking of the corpus of slashdotters as a single entity. Do you even read the comments on stories?
...which will teach you sorts of interesting things to do with the data that nobody will let you see.
Except none of the other political parties are going to give their preferences to the Pirate Party. That's how they keep out any radical changes they don't like. Only good little parties that toe the line get preferences.
I doubt that cursive writing will go away anymore than concept sketching will go away. The neuro-motor connection is valuable in enhancing learning and understanding. People will still write in notebooks and journals that don't need electricity
The neuro-motor connection is just as present in printing as in cursive. Your argument is for the persistance of handwriting in general, not any particular mode of it, such as cursive.
A few months ago a lawyer friend of mine mentioned that her son couldn't read an analog watch. He wears one, but it doesn't tell him the time. There is a whole level of understanding about the world that came from learning to tell time.
I'm sure he can tell the time. Give him a digital watch and see. You seem to be complaining that losing a specific technique implies the loss of a general skill.
In my field, I have already been all but replaced by people who are called programmers, but can't do Boolean Algebra or Assembly language.
Why should programmers need to know assembly language, unless they are working in a field that specifically requires it? Understand the general concepts, maybe, but they don't need to be able to sit down and hack it out. Boolean algebra, I'll give you, but then, it's a general skill that can usefully be applied to any number of specific situations.
They rely, as they should, on solutions painstakingly solved by the programmers of my generation which have been combined into large complex systems and placed in books and repositories.
I doubt that's particularly programmers of your generation, but rather programmers of your class. In practice, there's a lot more demand for application developers than there are library developers (which is essentially the distinction your drawing). As the IT industry grew, application developers were, of necessity, going to become more numerous than those developing the underlying tools. But there are still people writing low-level libraries, and improving the ones written by "your generation". I doubt that those developers are going to become extinct when everyone born in the 20th century shuffles of this mortal coil.
Cursive penmanship did give us a common ground for understanding the ideas of other people.
No, it didn't. Penmanship gave us common ground; cursive penmanship reduced stress for people required to exercise penmanship for large periods of time, a class of people that are now all but extinct. For most people, I think you'll find cursive penmanship retards comprehension.
Linguists tell us that the actual understanding of written communication is tremendously difficult, even if the communication is simple and clearly presented.
Which, given the nature of most cursive, means its death will result in a win for communication. I'm not disputing your underlying point that a lack of emphasis on the fundamentals appears to be undermining many modern students' grasp of the complexities, but many of the examples you present - particularly cursive - just aren't representative of this.
If you have a look at the article he's responding to, it's about a dutch political party campaigning to have the age of consent lowered to 12, instead of 16. That's generally the onset of adolescence (ephebophilia), not pre-adolescence (pedophilia). He may have meant children. However "child" is an ambiguous word, that has multiple meanings, and whose meaning has changed over the years. It wasn't too long ago, historically, that a boy would be considered a man at around 13. Our society's legal definition has "child" defined at ~18. It's perfectly consonant that Stallman was talking about our society's legal definition of "child" rather than the biological definition of pre-pubescence.
parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing.
That doesn't look like he's talking about pre-pubescents. He's talking about people beginning to awaken to their own sexuality. The rest of your post I generally agree on, but is largely irrelevant, as you're working of a faulty premise.
Besides, I would imagine that the majority of Windows users won't ever see or hear of this campaign anyway
Not if they're running on a Trusted Computing platform they won't.
That's because society in general has conflated pedophilia with ephebophilia. Pedophilia, in it's technical sense, means "sex with pre-pubescents" (or rather, an inclination to such sex). Ephebophilia is an inclination towards sex with adolescents. Society, in it's endless quest to eliminate fine distinctions, uses "pedophilia" to mean "sex with children". It then uses the legal definition of child - "under 18" - rather than the biological one, and ends up with "pedophilia is sex with under 18s". Which leads to the cases like the 18 year-old with the 17 year-old girlfriend who's convicted of statuatory rape. What (I assume) Stallman means is probably quite true. 16 year olds having consensual sex is probably not going to do them any more harm than having consensual sex two years later.