Yeah, they do evolve. But saying "I'm not wrong I'm just using a more evolved form of language" is laughably pretentious and stupid. In current idiom, "begging the question" still retains its original meaning. If language had evolved away from it, we wouldn't be having this argument. Nobody complains about using "gay" to refer to homosexuals rather than happiness. That is an example of an evolution in language - it has become common parlance.
People using "begging the question" incorrectly aren't participating in the evolution of language, any more than people who use their instead of there, or it's instead of its are. They're just ignorant.
Oh great, another one of you "living language" morons, who try and use the evolution of language as an excuse for illiteracy and general laziness. Just because a handful of idiots don't know how to use a phrase properly doesn't mean it has "evolved" into a new meaning. It just means there are lots of pretentious idiots. If "begging the question" had really changed its meaning into a synonym of "raising the question", then there wouldn't be any argument about it; it would have general acceptance. By the way, all the examples you list are changes in grammar, not changes in meaning, and are therefore not applicable to the alleged change in meaning of "begging the question".
Rolling your own is fine. But when you can't get it out the door, you can't use the excuse that it's some innovative thing that nobody's ever done before. Other people have done it, and successfully.
1. OSX was based on the FreeBSD kernel and leveraged a LOT of UNIX structure under the covers. Lift the GUI off of OSX and you essentially have a BSD box. This means, for Apple, a lot of the engineering had already been completed. They were just adding in their own layers of stuff. Vista on the otherhand is supposedly a near-completely rewrite from the NT kernel OSs (NT, 2k, XP). That's a massive difference in work effort involved.
So in other words, the problems MS needs to solve have already been solved, MS is just pig-headed and wants to roll their own solution instead of using one that's been tempered over the last 20 years. I'm not sure that's a good thing.
2. Vista has to run on a near infinite combination of hardware. OS X has to work on a very controlled set. This alone will make coding and testing a hellish experience.
That makes it harder for driver writers, but not much more. When windows talks to hardware, it doesn't really talk to hardware. It talks to drivers, and drivers talk to hardware. Since all the windows drivers have the seem interface, it really doesn't matter what hardware you run it on, as long as the drivers you write implement the interface correctly. Since MS already has the drivers from old versions of windows, it should be fairly simple to rework them to use the new interface; unless there are major changes in driver-OS interaction (and there really shouldn't be - they've had time enough to get it right) it shouldn't be too time-consuming even to do that.
Because an OS now isn't what it used to be. Vista isn't an OS. It's an OS that comes bundled with a whole stack of other applications. I'm pretty sure all the OS functions would be together - I mean, they've pulled any improvements that might conceivably fall into that arena (WinFS, for example) and they're not the sort of things you can make flashy. Vista isn't an OS upgrade, it's a windowing manager "upgrade", with a bunch of config tool upgrades, and some new and improved apps.
An OS used to be the bare essentials needed to run a computer. It used to be a hardware abstraction to make for easier application development. Now most users consider an OS needs to be the only thing they need to install on their computer (as well as Office, but that comes bundled with most computers I see selling these days anyway, so most probably don't know it isn't bundled).
That used to be how Australian telecommunications was setup. Telstra was Australia's major telco. It owned all the lines, and was entirely owned by the government. Then the government sold 49% of their shares. Now we have a situation where a private company controls the vast majority of the telecommunications lines in the country. According to the law, they are supposed to follow certain practices when it comes to reselling access to the lines, but just take a brief look at whirlpool.net.au (Australian broadband forums) and you'll see some of the shenanigans they've pulled to get out of that one.
I'm guessing it'd be more the Society for Creative Anachronism types. They're sort of like D&Ders, but they skip the dice-throwing but and just hit each other with the swords. I'm sure you can see where chainmail would be useful in this scenario.
Go back and read my post again. This time do it without any prejdugement just because it does not necessarily endorse your perspective. I didn't take any side in the debate, I merely outlined the central question of the debate.
In your response, you totally ignore that, and start talking about the source of stem cells. That has absolutely no relevance to my post, nor to the rest of this discussion. This article isn't talking about stem cells derived from fertility clinic leftovers, this is talking about cloning an embryo specifically for the purpose of harvesting it's stem cells. So no, in this case, you're absolutely, totally, one hundred percent, wrong. In this article at least, they do not "get them from microscopic embryos that would be *thrown away* otherwise."
Read the article, read my post, and stop wasting everyone's time posting meaningless little pre-prepared soap-box speeches that contribute nothing to the discussion.
People always act in their own self-interest. That may not always be true, but it's true enough to serve as a useful heuristic. But just because you look out for number one, doesn't mean that you actually are "more equal than others", or even that you believe you are. You can believe in the equal value of all men, but also believe that your responsibility is solely the preservation of yourself. That's not necessarily a contradiction.
Yes. Saying all men are equal in ability is obviously false. My point was that all men are equal in value - that the life of one human is not greater or lesser than the life of any other.
I don't know, would you go murder a homeless child, butcher it, remove it's heart, and take it to this man for a transplant? After all, the homeless child has no family, home, guarantee of survival, have not built up a life, and their death would probably go pretty much unnoticed.
Most people seem to consider that all human life is equally valuable, no matter their station in life. You know, the whole "all men are created equal" thing. The real question is whether or not embryonic humans are really humans. If they are, then this sort of organ farming is morally reprehensible. If they are not, then no harm done. Both sides are blathering on about "usurping God's authority" or "superstition hindering science", but really it comes down to that single question: Are embryoes human. And nobody has found a really satisfactory answer to that - they just say "yes they are" or "no they're not", whichever supports their view.
It's ok, Skype can just cross-license their patent for powering said processing units with a stream of moving electrons and they can both go along their merry way.
I love the parallels O'Reilly draws in his radar article. Wikipedia is trademarked by Wikipedia, Linux is trademarked by Linus, Mozilla is trademarked by the Mozilla Foundation, therefore it's ok for CMP to trademark Web 2.0. People generally don't have a problem with trademarks, people have a problem with abusive trademarks. ie, trademarking a term for the value of the term itself, not because your company is necessarily linked to that term. All that said, I'm not sure how Web 2.0 can be a valid trademark. Web is an invalid trademark since it's already in common currency, so how can you stick a version number on the end of it and suddenly make it trademarkable?
If you'd already started downloading, you shouldn't have a problem. BitTorrent uses the tracker to hook you up to other peers. If your download's already going, and you already have a list of peers, the tracker dying shouldn't affect you. Unless you disconnected from the torrent and reconnected, or all the peers decided to close their torrents too.
Um...how is religion in any way relevant to the topic? Are the CPSC a cover for some Christian cult? And what has hating people got to do with authorities becoming more heavy-handed when it comes to chemical suppliers?
I don't get this. Terrorists are not out to make American un-free. They're not going to be satisfied or gain any pleasure from stuff like this. Terrorist activity in America is primarily due to it's foreign policy. That's what terrorists want to see change. "Exactly what the terrorists want"? Terrorists couldn't care less.
Re:The Register's new market: tabloids
on
Online Revenge
·
· Score: 1
Well, the website has self-shot pictures of Amir topless. Assuming these really are shots of Amir (not unreasonable, as of they weren't the site would be easy to discredit) then either the author is telling the truth and Amir sent him a faulty laptop (believing that the laptop being broken would prevent retrievel of the images) or that he sent him a fully functional laptop, which he knew still contained all his personal details, photos of himself, and his porn collection. So Amir is either a fraudster or incredibly stupid. Based on the fact that he had the ability to set up a sale on ebay, I'd say he's not stupid enough for the latter to be the case. No proof, but the balance of the evidence is there.
Of course, I'm not sure it's responsible reporting, but I don't have a problem with the guy setting up the website in the first place.
Yep. That results in some truly wonderful miscarriages of justice. We've had a couple like that over here. You treat the home invasion and the subsequent thumping of the home invader with a baseball bat as separate crimes. Result? Home invader gets a slap on the wrist, home owner gets charged with greivous bodily harm with a deadly weapon. Or the trespasser who tripped on the garden host and sued the owner of the yard they were trespassing in.
If someone commits a crime, the law should not protect them from the repercussions of that crime. If we take the article at face value, the guy in this story intentionally sold a non-functional laptop. Because the laptop was non-functional, he erroneously assumed that his porn collection was inaccessible. If he had been selling a fully-functional laptop, he wouldn't have made that assumption, and he wouldn't have had a trouble. The direct cause of his current predicament is his own attempt to defraud another person.
If you've ever tried to reclaim money through a small claims court, you know how farcical it is. You can get all the judgements made in your favour, but you still have to pay out for anything you want done. Send out the sherif to repossess goods? Pay up. Need a locksmith to get into the place where the goods are kept? You need to foot the bill. And there are no guarantees that when you do all that you'll find anything able to be sold, especially if your complaint is against a company. You'll have shelled out $300 and all you'll have to show for it is an unenforcable judgement.
On the issue of vigilante justice: yes, it's bad. But people generally only take the law into their own hands when the authorities aren't holding on to it tightly enough. A recent story on the news over here was that of the manager of a hotel, whose rooms had been broken into over 60 times in the last year. On a number of occasions, he filmed the thieves as they robbed him, and handed in the tape to police. There have been no arrests in connection to any of the robberies. When it comes to a choice between vigilante justice and no justice, you don't have to be a genius to guess what people will decide to go for.
Embryonic stem cells would most likely not be useful for regrowing an aorta; at least, if they were, your friend would constantly have to be taking anti-rejection drugs, as they wouldn't be his stem cells used. Embryonic stem cells are mainly being used (AFAIK) to research techniques. It's easier to use embryonic than adult in research. But once the techniques are refined, they'll actually use adult stem cells from the patient, as that would not result in rejection by the body.
Even if embryonic stem cells could be used for your friends aorta, your comment in the previous post would still be wrong - the stem cells mentioned in the article will have absolutely no effect on your friend.
Slashdot Mirror
Am I speaking Middle English?
I didn't say language doesn't evolve, I said that using it as an excuse for illiteracy is moronic.
Like it or not, languages DO evolve.
Yeah, they do evolve. But saying "I'm not wrong I'm just using a more evolved form of language" is laughably pretentious and stupid. In current idiom, "begging the question" still retains its original meaning. If language had evolved away from it, we wouldn't be having this argument. Nobody complains about using "gay" to refer to homosexuals rather than happiness. That is an example of an evolution in language - it has become common parlance.
People using "begging the question" incorrectly aren't participating in the evolution of language, any more than people who use their instead of there, or it's instead of its are. They're just ignorant.
I would mod you up, but for some reason when I view a collapsed comment, there are no mod options there. The new layout is broken, methinks.
Oh great, another one of you "living language" morons, who try and use the evolution of language as an excuse for illiteracy and general laziness. Just because a handful of idiots don't know how to use a phrase properly doesn't mean it has "evolved" into a new meaning. It just means there are lots of pretentious idiots. If "begging the question" had really changed its meaning into a synonym of "raising the question", then there wouldn't be any argument about it; it would have general acceptance. By the way, all the examples you list are changes in grammar, not changes in meaning, and are therefore not applicable to the alleged change in meaning of "begging the question".
Rolling your own is fine. But when you can't get it out the door, you can't use the excuse that it's some innovative thing that nobody's ever done before. Other people have done it, and successfully.
1. OSX was based on the FreeBSD kernel and leveraged a LOT of UNIX structure under the covers. Lift the GUI off of OSX and you essentially have a BSD box. This means, for Apple, a lot of the engineering had already been completed. They were just adding in their own layers of stuff. Vista on the otherhand is supposedly a near-completely rewrite from the NT kernel OSs (NT, 2k, XP). That's a massive difference in work effort involved.
So in other words, the problems MS needs to solve have already been solved, MS is just pig-headed and wants to roll their own solution instead of using one that's been tempered over the last 20 years. I'm not sure that's a good thing.
2. Vista has to run on a near infinite combination of hardware. OS X has to work on a very controlled set. This alone will make coding and testing a hellish experience.
That makes it harder for driver writers, but not much more. When windows talks to hardware, it doesn't really talk to hardware. It talks to drivers, and drivers talk to hardware. Since all the windows drivers have the seem interface, it really doesn't matter what hardware you run it on, as long as the drivers you write implement the interface correctly. Since MS already has the drivers from old versions of windows, it should be fairly simple to rework them to use the new interface; unless there are major changes in driver-OS interaction (and there really shouldn't be - they've had time enough to get it right) it shouldn't be too time-consuming even to do that.
Because an OS now isn't what it used to be. Vista isn't an OS. It's an OS that comes bundled with a whole stack of other applications. I'm pretty sure all the OS functions would be together - I mean, they've pulled any improvements that might conceivably fall into that arena (WinFS, for example) and they're not the sort of things you can make flashy. Vista isn't an OS upgrade, it's a windowing manager "upgrade", with a bunch of config tool upgrades, and some new and improved apps.
An OS used to be the bare essentials needed to run a computer. It used to be a hardware abstraction to make for easier application development. Now most users consider an OS needs to be the only thing they need to install on their computer (as well as Office, but that comes bundled with most computers I see selling these days anyway, so most probably don't know it isn't bundled).
That used to be how Australian telecommunications was setup. Telstra was Australia's major telco. It owned all the lines, and was entirely owned by the government. Then the government sold 49% of their shares. Now we have a situation where a private company controls the vast majority of the telecommunications lines in the country. According to the law, they are supposed to follow certain practices when it comes to reselling access to the lines, but just take a brief look at whirlpool.net.au (Australian broadband forums) and you'll see some of the shenanigans they've pulled to get out of that one.
I'm guessing it'd be more the Society for Creative Anachronism types. They're sort of like D&Ders, but they skip the dice-throwing but and just hit each other with the swords. I'm sure you can see where chainmail would be useful in this scenario.
Go back and read my post again. This time do it without any prejdugement just because it does not necessarily endorse your perspective. I didn't take any side in the debate, I merely outlined the central question of the debate.
In your response, you totally ignore that, and start talking about the source of stem cells. That has absolutely no relevance to my post, nor to the rest of this discussion. This article isn't talking about stem cells derived from fertility clinic leftovers, this is talking about cloning an embryo specifically for the purpose of harvesting it's stem cells. So no, in this case, you're absolutely, totally, one hundred percent, wrong. In this article at least, they do not "get them from microscopic embryos that would be *thrown away* otherwise."
Read the article, read my post, and stop wasting everyone's time posting meaningless little pre-prepared soap-box speeches that contribute nothing to the discussion.
People always act in their own self-interest. That may not always be true, but it's true enough to serve as a useful heuristic. But just because you look out for number one, doesn't mean that you actually are "more equal than others", or even that you believe you are. You can believe in the equal value of all men, but also believe that your responsibility is solely the preservation of yourself. That's not necessarily a contradiction.
Yes. Saying all men are equal in ability is obviously false. My point was that all men are equal in value - that the life of one human is not greater or lesser than the life of any other.
I don't know, would you go murder a homeless child, butcher it, remove it's heart, and take it to this man for a transplant? After all, the homeless child has no family, home, guarantee of survival, have not built up a life, and their death would probably go pretty much unnoticed.
Most people seem to consider that all human life is equally valuable, no matter their station in life. You know, the whole "all men are created equal" thing. The real question is whether or not embryonic humans are really humans. If they are, then this sort of organ farming is morally reprehensible. If they are not, then no harm done. Both sides are blathering on about "usurping God's authority" or "superstition hindering science", but really it comes down to that single question: Are embryoes human. And nobody has found a really satisfactory answer to that - they just say "yes they are" or "no they're not", whichever supports their view.
It's ok, Skype can just cross-license their patent for powering said processing units with a stream of moving electrons and they can both go along their merry way.
Because having a link to the article the summary was lifted from doesn't count as attribution
Past tense of "rise" is "rose". I usually don't bother correcting grammar on Slashdot, but you used it so many times I figured it was worth it.
I think you mean a wiinner
I love the parallels O'Reilly draws in his radar article. Wikipedia is trademarked by Wikipedia, Linux is trademarked by Linus, Mozilla is trademarked by the Mozilla Foundation, therefore it's ok for CMP to trademark Web 2.0. People generally don't have a problem with trademarks, people have a problem with abusive trademarks. ie, trademarking a term for the value of the term itself, not because your company is necessarily linked to that term. All that said, I'm not sure how Web 2.0 can be a valid trademark. Web is an invalid trademark since it's already in common currency, so how can you stick a version number on the end of it and suddenly make it trademarkable?
If you'd already started downloading, you shouldn't have a problem. BitTorrent uses the tracker to hook you up to other peers. If your download's already going, and you already have a list of peers, the tracker dying shouldn't affect you. Unless you disconnected from the torrent and reconnected, or all the peers decided to close their torrents too.
Um...how is religion in any way relevant to the topic? Are the CPSC a cover for some Christian cult? And what has hating people got to do with authorities becoming more heavy-handed when it comes to chemical suppliers?
I don't get this. Terrorists are not out to make American un-free. They're not going to be satisfied or gain any pleasure from stuff like this. Terrorist activity in America is primarily due to it's foreign policy. That's what terrorists want to see change. "Exactly what the terrorists want"? Terrorists couldn't care less.
Well, the website has self-shot pictures of Amir topless. Assuming these really are shots of Amir (not unreasonable, as of they weren't the site would be easy to discredit) then either the author is telling the truth and Amir sent him a faulty laptop (believing that the laptop being broken would prevent retrievel of the images) or that he sent him a fully functional laptop, which he knew still contained all his personal details, photos of himself, and his porn collection. So Amir is either a fraudster or incredibly stupid. Based on the fact that he had the ability to set up a sale on ebay, I'd say he's not stupid enough for the latter to be the case. No proof, but the balance of the evidence is there.
Of course, I'm not sure it's responsible reporting, but I don't have a problem with the guy setting up the website in the first place.
Yep. That results in some truly wonderful miscarriages of justice. We've had a couple like that over here. You treat the home invasion and the subsequent thumping of the home invader with a baseball bat as separate crimes. Result? Home invader gets a slap on the wrist, home owner gets charged with greivous bodily harm with a deadly weapon. Or the trespasser who tripped on the garden host and sued the owner of the yard they were trespassing in.
If someone commits a crime, the law should not protect them from the repercussions of that crime. If we take the article at face value, the guy in this story intentionally sold a non-functional laptop. Because the laptop was non-functional, he erroneously assumed that his porn collection was inaccessible. If he had been selling a fully-functional laptop, he wouldn't have made that assumption, and he wouldn't have had a trouble. The direct cause of his current predicament is his own attempt to defraud another person.
If you've ever tried to reclaim money through a small claims court, you know how farcical it is. You can get all the judgements made in your favour, but you still have to pay out for anything you want done. Send out the sherif to repossess goods? Pay up. Need a locksmith to get into the place where the goods are kept? You need to foot the bill. And there are no guarantees that when you do all that you'll find anything able to be sold, especially if your complaint is against a company. You'll have shelled out $300 and all you'll have to show for it is an unenforcable judgement.
On the issue of vigilante justice: yes, it's bad. But people generally only take the law into their own hands when the authorities aren't holding on to it tightly enough. A recent story on the news over here was that of the manager of a hotel, whose rooms had been broken into over 60 times in the last year. On a number of occasions, he filmed the thieves as they robbed him, and handed in the tape to police. There have been no arrests in connection to any of the robberies. When it comes to a choice between vigilante justice and no justice, you don't have to be a genius to guess what people will decide to go for.
Embryonic stem cells would most likely not be useful for regrowing an aorta; at least, if they were, your friend would constantly have to be taking anti-rejection drugs, as they wouldn't be his stem cells used. Embryonic stem cells are mainly being used (AFAIK) to research techniques. It's easier to use embryonic than adult in research. But once the techniques are refined, they'll actually use adult stem cells from the patient, as that would not result in rejection by the body.
Even if embryonic stem cells could be used for your friends aorta, your comment in the previous post would still be wrong - the stem cells mentioned in the article will have absolutely no effect on your friend.