If there's one thing that deserves to make a comeback in this mobile world, it's chorded keyboards. QWERTY sucks on mobile devices because it takes up too much space, especially a physical board. On the other hand, you could probably put enough keys (say, three for each hand) on the back of a mobile device to make them practical physical keyboards without taking up valuable real estate that could be used for the screen.
So it's not Samsung doing the blaming, it's an independent, third party investigating party. And the scare quotes around the mysterious "External Energy Source" actually refer to a microwave, which the owner's friend apparently used to dry out his phone.
So, why wasn't the title "Microwave discovered to be cause of Galaxy SIII Burn"? Why are we trying to spin the headline to make it look like Samsung's making excuses for itself?
Probably eactly what the client deserves; the likelihood is they're internal developers from an organisation that specifies Internet Explorer as part of the standard operating environment and refuses to allow people to use alternatives.
Sorry, how exactly to Facebook users impact your usage of the rest if the internet such that moving them off to different infrastructure would benefit you?
As far as I can see, you're getting nothing but benefit from Facebook existing; namely, it gives you a group of people to whinge about and feel smugly superior to. Bitching about AOL users just isn't enough to satisfy your ego any more.
I don't know about the US, but here in Australia, all paper is made from either recycled sources, or managed plantations. All lumber should be as well, but there are frequent allegations to the contrary.
So were the authorized ones; they were generally translating from the vulgate, so it was at best, a translation of a translation. The Wycliffe translation was the most widespread unauthorized translation, and one of the reasons it was so widespread was that it was accurate enough (relative to other translations of the time) that even the clergy weren't able to readily distinguish it from other versions.
Most of the banned translations were banned because the people who used them tended to be heretical, rather than for innaccuracy - as was the case with the Wycliffe version, which was banned because of it's association with the Lollards (who preceded the reformers in many regards - they even endorsed, pretty much, the American idea of a separation of church and state).
Oh, and it was another 200 years before the church allowed an "authorized" English version to be published.
Not true,, not true, not true! There were several translations of the Latin Vulgate into the vernacular. The Vulgate was the official translation, however
It is indeed true. Pope Innocent III banned unauthorized translations of the bible in 1199. Yes, people still did it anyway, and yes, enforcement was patchy, but translations were officially banned, and some people (although not all) were persecuted for performing such translations. The Wycliffe version was the most widespread translation, and it too was explicitly banned in 1409. However, scribes just fudged the date whenever they produced one, so that the date of writing purported to precede the ban, and it became so widespread as to become a de facto standard.
What kept it from being common was the great expense. Only the wealthy could afford their own copy, whether in the vernacular or in latin.
Well, it's true they were very expensive. But even in Wycliffe's time, it wasn't so much the expense (although they were expensive) as illiteracy that kept Bibles out of the hands of individuals. Wycliffe's translation wasn't intended to increase personal Bible ownership, so much as it was to allow people to hear the Bible in their own language, the same way the apostles taught it to the Gentiles. The "personal study of the Bible" thing really gained steam a hundred years later with the Reformation.
"Cult" is one of those words that used to have a meaning, but has been so thoroughly divorced from its roots through perjorative use, that it now has no more actual meaning than any other curse word.
A "cult" was originally a subset of a religion; it was most applicable to pantheistic religions (like ancient Greek religion). You'd have, within the overall religious framework, the "cult of Diana" or "the cult of Dionysus". They were all part of the same religion, but there were specific rituals and observances that related to specific deities within that framework.
Within the rise of monotheism, "cult" became a lot less useful as a term. It basically came to mean a "branch" off of an existing religion, that is, a subset of religious believe that eventually came to be a distinct religion - you can see the similarity between this and its original meaning. Thus, Christianity would be a cult of Judaism, and Islam would be a cult of Christianity, as would Mormonism, Protestantism and the Latter-Day Saints.
Of course, the dominant religion doesn't like it when people break away from it (see: the inquisition), so at this time, cult began to take on a negative connotation. Previously, it had been purely descriptive. Cults were outlawed (the church at this time was a political player, so it had the power to do this), disbanded and demonised. Over time, the church's political power waned, and it no longer had the opportunity to squash its cults.
Nowadays, the perjorative connotation of the word "cult" is about all that remains. Technically, Christianity is still a cult of Judaism, but nobody (except atheists pushing the "all religions are cults" agenda) really describes it that way (and even the atheists are just using it as a perjorative, not in the technical sense).
Between those three religions you have tens of millions slaughtered in pointless wars over minor differences in doctrine.
Man, how many times have I seen this line trotted out? For a group of people who pride yourself on free thinking (I'm assuming you're an atheist here) you certainly seem to find it hard to come up with an original argument.
Religion has been the sole cause of zero wars. Even if you find some way to measure the relative import of the various causes, I doubt religion is up there. It's a popular way to rabble-rouse, to create an artificial divide between "us" and "them", much the same way the U.S. used "capitalism vs communism" in the cold war, or "democracy vs tyranny" in the current terrorism debate (no, they really don't hate your freedom, they hate your politics).
Some examples that are often given: Crusades: Bear in mind that during this time, the Catholic church was not only a religion, but also the most powerful political entity in the west. The Muslims (or rather, the Seljuks - like the situation in the west, they were a political entity that was also officially Muslim) were expanding, and conquering territory previously held by the Catholics (including Jerusalem, which has actually conquered 400 years prior to the first crusade). The first crusades were territorial disputes between two empires who also happened to be different religions. They were motivated by land, though, not religion. Later crusades still included territorial reasons, but they were also used for political means, either to attack people who threatened the Pope's power, or to start a foreign war to prop up a weak Pope.
Ireland: I'm just going to quote Wikipedia here, because it says it much more clearly and succinctly than I do:
For example, there is a common perception of The Troubles in Northern Ireland as a religious conflict, as one side (Nationalists) was predominantly composed of Catholics and the other (Unionists) of Protestants. However, the more fundamental cause is the attachment of Northern Ireland to either the Republic of Ireland or the United Kingdom and while religion played a role as a cultural marker, the conflict was in fact ethnic or nationalistic rather than religious in nature.[3] Since the native Irish were mostly Catholic and the later British-sponsored immigrants were mainly Protestant, the terms become shorthand for the two cultures, but it is inaccurate to describe the conflict as a religious one.[3]
Palestine: Again, I'll start with a quote from wikipedia, although this is about only a particular incident, rather than the hostilities as a whole:
The Shaw Commission found that the fundamental cause of the violence "....is the Arab feeling of animosity and hostility towards the Jews consequent upon the disappointment of their political and national aspirations and fear for their economic future."
Beyond that, the U.N. created the nation of Israel by decree, and basically forced the current occupants of that to make way for Jewish immigrants. Again, while the opposing factions are both of different religions, the primary causes for conflict are territoriality and political sovereignty, not religion.
Al Qaeda and Islamic Terrorism: This one actually has the best case for it being a religious war, as one of Al Qaeda's stated missions is the construction of a worldwide Islamic Caliphate. However, their other stated mission is the ending of foreign influence (notably American) in Islamic countries. It has been argued that without the United State's continual meddling in Middle Eastern politics, Al Qaeda might never have formed, or at least, not have attracted the influence it has. At best, this is an issue of both religion and political sovereignty.
Not exactly the same, but pre-reformation Catholicism almost fits the bill. They just had all their texts in latin, and forbid translating it into any language the common people knew. The only people who had the time or opportunity to learn latin were the priests, so the reading and interpretation of their holy texts was exclusively the domain of the clergy. They didn't have law suits back then, but they did issue legal bans against the translations.
A judge shouldn't be publicly trying to change the laws, just like a politician should not try to get involved in a court case to get someone convicted.
Huh? A judge should totally try and change the laws, just like any other citizen should. No, he shouldn't do it in the context of his job, but this doesn't appear to be the case. He's not denying the validity of patents in the cases that come before him, but in his office, when he's not behind the bench, he's offering critical opinion of existing law based on his experience as a judge. More power to him! Wish there were more doing the same.
It's about time Wikileaks lived up to its initial stated mission [archive.org] of "exposing oppressive regimes in Asia, the former Soviet bloc, Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East,"
What, like releasing 2.5 million emails from Syrian political figures? I just love how you brainless "patriots" will praise people as long as they only criticize the people your leaders have decided are "bad guys", but as soon as they reveal how close the "good guys" come to being bad, you decry them for being anti-American. You're not looking for information, you're looking for useful propaganda. A true patriot would be backing what America stands for, not what America does just because it's America doing it.
All it takes is to read your second reply to the OP to see how incapable you are of ever believing your country could do any wrong. Your attitude is blinkered, and foolish, and only leads to you being exploited by those gaming the political system to maintain power. I don't care so much about that - you deserve it. But unfortunately, people like you take the rest of the country down with you.
Also, good job avoiding the major thrust of my argument, which was that the corporate shield against liability was the distinguishing feature of a corporation. I notice you didn't even try to address that.
I was going to insult you, but...no, actually I am going to insult you. Can you fucking read?
Even in cases of gross criminal conduct, the people composing a corporation are rarely charged
Rarely does not equal "never". Pulling out two examples doesn't counter my assertion; because my assertion is that it happens rarely, not "never".
usually the agents hired to run the joint effort (executives) not the people that actually compose the corporation (shareholders)
An obvious recent example is BP. The other obvious example is Enron.
The people charged in both BP and Enron were the executive. The owners of the corporation (the shareholders) were not held liable.
Also, good job avoiding the major thrust of my argument, which was that the corporate shield against liability was the distinguishing feature of a corporation. I notice you didn't even try to address that.
Second, if the "scientist" wants public funds merely because that's how they get paid rather than the value they hypothetically delivery, then why should we fund them? Sounds to me like they need to find real jobs (which might well be research-based, just funded by someone who wants actual science to be done).
Oh, I agree. You either need to produce results, or work with someone who doesn't expect them, and understands that what they're seeing is a long-term investment in human knowledge.
But this article is really those scientists shoving the governments nose in their choices not to fund. "See all this publicity? Astounding discoveries on physics? This could have been about US instead of CERN, it could be us getting the attention, getting a reputation for cutting-edge physics, etc, etc". They're drawing attention to the consequences of letting someone else get there first. It's not showing hypothetical value, it's showing real value that got away.
Now, maybe the smart answer on the part of Texas was not to fund, despite all the benefits that making the discovery there would have wrought. That's a call that has to be made by the bureaucrats I guess. But it still deserves to be pointed out.
This seems like a really good idea in that a lot of people who really should get tested never will due to the stigma of going to a clinic.
On the other hand, it seems like now 1 in 12 will never go to a clinic because the home test gave them a clean bill of health when really, they were carrying the virus. I understand that a false positive is going to be hugely upsetting to the individual, but on a society-wide level, such a massive false negative rate is really much more concerning. In my opinion, it makes the test not only useless (as a high false-positive rate would) but counter-productive.
Get out of your ivory tower; science is a career, much like any other, and scientists need to eat, just like everyone else. Yeah, in the scope of human history, where it's discovered is meaningless, but for the careers of the scientists and the state of funding for their future endeavours, it makes a huge difference. Moreover, it just reinforces the fact that no matter how good or skilled a scientist you are, these days your ability to do science doesn't depend on your merit, but on the state of science funding by your government. It's a perfectly valid point to bring up.
You're missing the OP's point. He's not saying Microsoft isn't going to fall, he's saying it hasn't yet and publishing a book entitled "Microsoft's Downfall" is making a prediction that isn't based on any actual fact, but just sounding portentous and drumming up controversy.
Slashdot Mirror
If there's one thing that deserves to make a comeback in this mobile world, it's chorded keyboards. QWERTY sucks on mobile devices because it takes up too much space, especially a physical board. On the other hand, you could probably put enough keys (say, three for each hand) on the back of a mobile device to make them practical physical keyboards without taking up valuable real estate that could be used for the screen.
How about this one?
http://megaupload.com/
So it's not Samsung doing the blaming, it's an independent, third party investigating party. And the scare quotes around the mysterious "External Energy Source" actually refer to a microwave, which the owner's friend apparently used to dry out his phone.
So, why wasn't the title "Microwave discovered to be cause of Galaxy SIII Burn"? Why are we trying to spin the headline to make it look like Samsung's making excuses for itself?
Probably eactly what the client deserves; the likelihood is they're internal developers from an organisation that specifies Internet Explorer as part of the standard operating environment and refuses to allow people to use alternatives.
How well do you expert an organisation like the UN to function?
I think the OP was pretty clear that he doesn't :P
Sorry, how exactly to Facebook users impact your usage of the rest if the internet such that moving them off to different infrastructure would benefit you?
As far as I can see, you're getting nothing but benefit from Facebook existing; namely, it gives you a group of people to whinge about and feel smugly superior to. Bitching about AOL users just isn't enough to satisfy your ego any more.
Yes; that was the original usage. The cult of Dionysus, say, was all the rituals surrounding the worship (adoration) of Dionysus.
Ahh, I meant to throw Jehovah's Witnesses in there instead of the LDS.
I don't know about the US, but here in Australia, all paper is made from either recycled sources, or managed plantations. All lumber should be as well, but there are frequent allegations to the contrary.
So were the authorized ones; they were generally translating from the vulgate, so it was at best, a translation of a translation. The Wycliffe translation was the most widespread unauthorized translation, and one of the reasons it was so widespread was that it was accurate enough (relative to other translations of the time) that even the clergy weren't able to readily distinguish it from other versions.
Most of the banned translations were banned because the people who used them tended to be heretical, rather than for innaccuracy - as was the case with the Wycliffe version, which was banned because of it's association with the Lollards (who preceded the reformers in many regards - they even endorsed, pretty much, the American idea of a separation of church and state).
Oh, and it was another 200 years before the church allowed an "authorized" English version to be published.
Not true,, not true, not true! There were several translations of the Latin Vulgate into the vernacular. The Vulgate was the official translation, however
It is indeed true. Pope Innocent III banned unauthorized translations of the bible in 1199. Yes, people still did it anyway, and yes, enforcement was patchy, but translations were officially banned, and some people (although not all) were persecuted for performing such translations. The Wycliffe version was the most widespread translation, and it too was explicitly banned in 1409. However, scribes just fudged the date whenever they produced one, so that the date of writing purported to precede the ban, and it became so widespread as to become a de facto standard.
What kept it from being common was the great expense. Only the wealthy could afford their own copy, whether in the vernacular or in latin.
Well, it's true they were very expensive. But even in Wycliffe's time, it wasn't so much the expense (although they were expensive) as illiteracy that kept Bibles out of the hands of individuals. Wycliffe's translation wasn't intended to increase personal Bible ownership, so much as it was to allow people to hear the Bible in their own language, the same way the apostles taught it to the Gentiles. The "personal study of the Bible" thing really gained steam a hundred years later with the Reformation.
Damn, meant to reply to Kenja, not the humorous coward.
"Cult" is one of those words that used to have a meaning, but has been so thoroughly divorced from its roots through perjorative use, that it now has no more actual meaning than any other curse word.
A "cult" was originally a subset of a religion; it was most applicable to pantheistic religions (like ancient Greek religion). You'd have, within the overall religious framework, the "cult of Diana" or "the cult of Dionysus". They were all part of the same religion, but there were specific rituals and observances that related to specific deities within that framework.
Within the rise of monotheism, "cult" became a lot less useful as a term. It basically came to mean a "branch" off of an existing religion, that is, a subset of religious believe that eventually came to be a distinct religion - you can see the similarity between this and its original meaning. Thus, Christianity would be a cult of Judaism, and Islam would be a cult of Christianity, as would Mormonism, Protestantism and the Latter-Day Saints.
Of course, the dominant religion doesn't like it when people break away from it (see: the inquisition), so at this time, cult began to take on a negative connotation. Previously, it had been purely descriptive. Cults were outlawed (the church at this time was a political player, so it had the power to do this), disbanded and demonised. Over time, the church's political power waned, and it no longer had the opportunity to squash its cults.
Nowadays, the perjorative connotation of the word "cult" is about all that remains. Technically, Christianity is still a cult of Judaism, but nobody (except atheists pushing the "all religions are cults" agenda) really describes it that way (and even the atheists are just using it as a perjorative, not in the technical sense).
Between those three religions you have tens of millions slaughtered in pointless wars over minor differences in doctrine.
Man, how many times have I seen this line trotted out? For a group of people who pride yourself on free thinking (I'm assuming you're an atheist here) you certainly seem to find it hard to come up with an original argument.
Religion has been the sole cause of zero wars. Even if you find some way to measure the relative import of the various causes, I doubt religion is up there. It's a popular way to rabble-rouse, to create an artificial divide between "us" and "them", much the same way the U.S. used "capitalism vs communism" in the cold war, or "democracy vs tyranny" in the current terrorism debate (no, they really don't hate your freedom, they hate your politics).
Some examples that are often given:
Crusades: Bear in mind that during this time, the Catholic church was not only a religion, but also the most powerful political entity in the west. The Muslims (or rather, the Seljuks - like the situation in the west, they were a political entity that was also officially Muslim) were expanding, and conquering territory previously held by the Catholics (including Jerusalem, which has actually conquered 400 years prior to the first crusade). The first crusades were territorial disputes between two empires who also happened to be different religions. They were motivated by land, though, not religion. Later crusades still included territorial reasons, but they were also used for political means, either to attack people who threatened the Pope's power, or to start a foreign war to prop up a weak Pope.
Ireland: I'm just going to quote Wikipedia here, because it says it much more clearly and succinctly than I do:
For example, there is a common perception of The Troubles in Northern Ireland as a religious conflict, as one side (Nationalists) was predominantly composed of Catholics and the other (Unionists) of Protestants. However, the more fundamental cause is the attachment of Northern Ireland to either the Republic of Ireland or the United Kingdom and while religion played a role as a cultural marker, the conflict was in fact ethnic or nationalistic rather than religious in nature.[3] Since the native Irish were mostly Catholic and the later British-sponsored immigrants were mainly Protestant, the terms become shorthand for the two cultures, but it is inaccurate to describe the conflict as a religious one.[3]
Palestine: Again, I'll start with a quote from wikipedia, although this is about only a particular incident, rather than the hostilities as a whole:
The Shaw Commission found that the fundamental cause of the violence "....is the Arab feeling of animosity and hostility towards the Jews consequent upon the disappointment of their political and national aspirations and fear for their economic future."
Beyond that, the U.N. created the nation of Israel by decree, and basically forced the current occupants of that to make way for Jewish immigrants. Again, while the opposing factions are both of different religions, the primary causes for conflict are territoriality and political sovereignty, not religion.
Al Qaeda and Islamic Terrorism: This one actually has the best case for it being a religious war, as one of Al Qaeda's stated missions is the construction of a worldwide Islamic Caliphate. However, their other stated mission is the ending of foreign influence (notably American) in Islamic countries. It has been argued that without the United State's continual meddling in Middle Eastern politics, Al Qaeda might never have formed, or at least, not have attracted the influence it has. At best, this is an issue of both religion and political sovereignty.
What's metaphysical and scientifically un-provable about "if I make up a religion, I can make me lots of money"?
Not exactly the same, but pre-reformation Catholicism almost fits the bill. They just had all their texts in latin, and forbid translating it into any language the common people knew. The only people who had the time or opportunity to learn latin were the priests, so the reading and interpretation of their holy texts was exclusively the domain of the clergy. They didn't have law suits back then, but they did issue legal bans against the translations.
A judge shouldn't be publicly trying to change the laws, just like a politician should not try to get involved in a court case to get someone convicted.
Huh? A judge should totally try and change the laws, just like any other citizen should. No, he shouldn't do it in the context of his job, but this doesn't appear to be the case. He's not denying the validity of patents in the cases that come before him, but in his office, when he's not behind the bench, he's offering critical opinion of existing law based on his experience as a judge. More power to him! Wish there were more doing the same.
It's about time Wikileaks lived up to its initial stated mission [archive.org] of "exposing oppressive regimes in Asia, the former Soviet bloc, Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East,"
What, like releasing 2.5 million emails from Syrian political figures? I just love how you brainless "patriots" will praise people as long as they only criticize the people your leaders have decided are "bad guys", but as soon as they reveal how close the "good guys" come to being bad, you decry them for being anti-American. You're not looking for information, you're looking for useful propaganda. A true patriot would be backing what America stands for, not what America does just because it's America doing it.
All it takes is to read your second reply to the OP to see how incapable you are of ever believing your country could do any wrong. Your attitude is blinkered, and foolish, and only leads to you being exploited by those gaming the political system to maintain power. I don't care so much about that - you deserve it. But unfortunately, people like you take the rest of the country down with you.
Also, good job avoiding the major thrust of my argument, which was that the corporate shield against liability was the distinguishing feature of a corporation. I notice you didn't even try to address that.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/08/business/in-shift-federal-prosecutors-are-lenient-as-companies-break-the-law.html
http://corporatecrimereporter.com/deferredreport.htm
Because in reality, the people composing a corporation are charged in cases of gross criminal conduct.
Here's your assertion. Back it up. And no, providing two examples of it happening does not indicate happening in all cases, as you assert.
And I notice you're still avoiding the main issue. Nit-picking much?
I was going to insult you, but...no, actually I am going to insult you. Can you fucking read?
Even in cases of gross criminal conduct, the people composing a corporation are rarely charged
Rarely does not equal "never". Pulling out two examples doesn't counter my assertion; because my assertion is that it happens rarely, not "never".
usually the agents hired to run the joint effort (executives) not the people that actually compose the corporation (shareholders)
An obvious recent example is BP. The other obvious example is Enron.
The people charged in both BP and Enron were the executive. The owners of the corporation (the shareholders) were not held liable.
Also, good job avoiding the major thrust of my argument, which was that the corporate shield against liability was the distinguishing feature of a corporation. I notice you didn't even try to address that.
Second, if the "scientist" wants public funds merely because that's how they get paid rather than the value they hypothetically delivery, then why should we fund them? Sounds to me like they need to find real jobs (which might well be research-based, just funded by someone who wants actual science to be done).
Oh, I agree. You either need to produce results, or work with someone who doesn't expect them, and understands that what they're seeing is a long-term investment in human knowledge.
But this article is really those scientists shoving the governments nose in their choices not to fund. "See all this publicity? Astounding discoveries on physics? This could have been about US instead of CERN, it could be us getting the attention, getting a reputation for cutting-edge physics, etc, etc". They're drawing attention to the consequences of letting someone else get there first. It's not showing hypothetical value, it's showing real value that got away.
Now, maybe the smart answer on the part of Texas was not to fund, despite all the benefits that making the discovery there would have wrought. That's a call that has to be made by the bureaucrats I guess. But it still deserves to be pointed out.
This seems like a really good idea in that a lot of people who really should get tested never will due to the stigma of going to a clinic.
On the other hand, it seems like now 1 in 12 will never go to a clinic because the home test gave them a clean bill of health when really, they were carrying the virus. I understand that a false positive is going to be hugely upsetting to the individual, but on a society-wide level, such a massive false negative rate is really much more concerning. In my opinion, it makes the test not only useless (as a high false-positive rate would) but counter-productive.
Get out of your ivory tower; science is a career, much like any other, and scientists need to eat, just like everyone else. Yeah, in the scope of human history, where it's discovered is meaningless, but for the careers of the scientists and the state of funding for their future endeavours, it makes a huge difference. Moreover, it just reinforces the fact that no matter how good or skilled a scientist you are, these days your ability to do science doesn't depend on your merit, but on the state of science funding by your government. It's a perfectly valid point to bring up.
You're missing the OP's point. He's not saying Microsoft isn't going to fall, he's saying it hasn't yet and publishing a book entitled "Microsoft's Downfall" is making a prediction that isn't based on any actual fact, but just sounding portentous and drumming up controversy.