They also didn't have sharks with frickin' lasers on their heads. What's your point?
My point is that if Rome had established a strategic moon base staffed by ninjasharks with head mounted laser cannons, then we'd all be speaking hyper-talian today.
there is no way that wikipedia should ever be used as an authoritative source for formal research.
Replace "wikipedia" with "any single source, professionally edited or not".
Everyone makes mistakes. Britannica makes fewer mistakes, but the mistakes they do make last for an entire year (or longer, for people who don't buy the new set every year). Wikipedia makes more mistakes, but they are corrected as soon as they are uncovered.
It's just two different sides of the coin. Considering the cross referencing capabilities you have online compared to a printed encyclopedia, I prefer wikipedia + google.
Who uses an encyclopedia as an authoritative source anyway?
"So, how'd you research your thesis?"
"I looked up 'nanotechnology' in the encyclopedia."
Encyclopedias, printed or online, are meant as primers, or starting points. Not as a source for research.
Why is it that when someone uses the word clearly in this context, it often means just the opposite?
Because the person knows they're making a highly questionable, opinionated statement. Specifying how "clear" it is to him will hopefully make you distrust and disregard your own opinion in favor of theirs. He tries to convey to the listener that his confidence is greater than the listener's on this subject, and thus he must be right. It's a classic, however juvenile, debate trick.
If you have such a great system of putting homeless people to work then why are they still homeless?
That doesn't happen up north because of all the labor unions.
Sure it does. I live in a suburb outside new york, and there's a corner nearby where you see all sorts of laborers gather each morning waiting for the contractors who come by needing workers for the day.
We don't "prop them up forever" as you mentioned. Some homeless people in NY have untreated mental or drug or alcohol problems; it'd be difficult to employ them as day laborers without first treating their ailments. So what you see as "propping them up", we see as treating the less fortunate of our population.
Looking back, I don't know how I got along with WinAmp's retarded playlist system. It was literally just a list of however many hundreds or thousands of MP3's you had. iTunes was much better in terms of organizing your music.
This is a troll, and an unsightful one at that. He meant Google Desktop. Not Google.com Nice try at trolling AC but better luck next time.
If you're referring to me, you're wrong, I'm not trolling. You did get my initials right, at least.
I now see he meant the google desktop search, but still that's not really a browser feature, it's a program that runs in a browser. It currently works in IE or Mozilla or any browser you have on your PC. So I still ask, why would Firefox, a browser, implement a local file search tool?
Or a third party tool like google desktop search, but it shouldn't be a part of your browser. Now if it's a new mozilla product, that's cool, but it should be added to firefox.
Out of about 110 million votes cast, if there are a total of 250,000 that are in question that is a very good outcome. A.020% spoilage rate would very agreeable
That's nice if you're a statistics professor, but when elections can be won by 500 votes (florida in 2000), a.020% spoilage rate is still way too high.
Coming from someone writing for the big dogs I can honestly say I'm not surprised. What the hell else was he going to say? "Oh, the mainstream media is fucking dead. The Internet will take over as the true purveyor of news? Yeah, that would have been printed...
Right... I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the network news to put out a story that network news has become sensationalistic garbage.
The only fact checking I've seen was in the presidential debate after the VP one. Some reporter came on afterwards and debunked a few claims made by bush and kerry, ala factcheck.org. Still, they presented just a small handful of claims, and they presented them evenly - two for bush, two for kerry.
But to any news broadcaster reading this: Sometimes things ARE UNEVEN! And you must report it! Unbiased does not mean you massage every story until it sounds like both sides have equally balanced and valid points.
Often you'll hear "A 10 year study from [insert respected non-partisan group here] revealed today that [insert political statistic here]. [Political party] dismissed the claims."
So network news broadcasters are content to let a spokeman "dismiss the claims" as a valid rebuttal? Why, at a press conference or in a phone call, don't they insist on a real answer? An explanation? Are reporters really so trusting of their politicians, that if they "dismiss the claims" then the 10 year study is ignored?
God, it's frightneing how lazy major media outlets are these days...
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Eternal September (also September that never ended or endless September) are Usenet slang expressions for the period of time beginning September 1993. The use of these expressions implies the belief that standards of discourse and behavior on Usenet have declined since 1993 due to an unending influx of new users.
Usenet originated among universities. Every year, in September, a large number of new university students got access to Usenet, and took some time to acclimate themselves to the network's standards of conduct and netiquette. September, thus, represented the network's largest regular influx of newbies. After a month or so, the new users would (it is supposed) learn to comport themselves as normal Usenet users.
In 1993, the online service America Online began offering Usenet access to its tens of thousands (now millions) of users. To many old-timers, these "AOLers" were far less prepared to learn netiquette than university freshmen, and their sheer numbers dwarfed the ability of the network's culture to assimilate new users.
Since that time, the dramatic rise in the popularity of the Internet has led to a constant stream of new users -- in some people's view, drowning out the old Usenet community. Thus, from the point of view of the pre-1993 Usenet user, the regular "September" newbie influx never ended.
Software programs exist which display the date in accordance with this reckoning -- for instance, September 3840, 1993 for the date March 6, 2004.
The gag is at times extended -- for instance, the notional future date at which Usenet discourse will become sensible, mature, and educated has been called "October 1, 1993".
This probably isn't the best place for newbie feedback, but hey, anything goes:-)
I tried playing for a few minutes, and after SWG I must admit the low-end graphics did bug me a bit. I realize graphics aren't the main course but an upgrade sure would help catch a new user's eye.
I was disappointed by the character creation... in the sense that I had no idea whether I was going to create a useless character, a limited character, an uber character... It just didn't feel personal. It was almost a little too open-ended, too customizable, so I was afraid of making too much of a mixed character. Then I was also afraid of creating too specific a character. Maybe I should have just tried a few different ones to get started; but I do think some pre-configured templates would be very useful to a new player.
The initial gameplay feel was a cross between Spear Of Destiny and Aethra's Chronicles. Aethra, btw, had character classes you could choose from, but you could also mix and match a bit, and choose which skills to develop:-) I gave up after a few minutes of roaming around, not knowing how to find something to fight so I could use my acid hands on it.
The one thing that did catch me was that nearly as soon as I logged on, an admin offered his assistance (he could tell I was new... maybe the way I kept strafing left and right or bumping into doors game me away?). I didn't meet many people, but the people I did meet were very friendly and helpful.
So I won't make a final jugement; I really didn't give it enough play time tonite.
now if amazon patented no-click shopping (we send you stuff because your profile says you like the over-stock stuff we have), then they might have a case.
Sorry, but when you vote for a candidate you put him in charge of your vote. He can concede before the polls close, after they close, or resign on inauguration day if he wins. Your only recourse is what you'll do at the ballot box next time.
If the person elected as president steps down at any time after voting has begun, his vice-president takes his place, not his losing-side challenger.
Maybe secret's the wrong term, but it's illegal for you to disclose that you've been served by such a warrant. See http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html , section 215, revision to 501 (d):
"`(d) No person shall disclose to any other person (other than those persons necessary to produce the tangible things under this section) that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has sought or obtained tangible things under this section."
So a warrant exists, and no one is allowed to mention it. They must keep it a "secret". Thus you could call it a secret warrant, though a "classified" warrant might be more accurate.
So that is the section of the patriot act which gives the government the authority to obtain a "secret" warrant.
Slashdot Mirror
They also didn't have sharks with frickin' lasers on their heads. What's your point?
My point is that if Rome had established a strategic moon base staffed by ninjasharks with head mounted laser cannons, then we'd all be speaking hyper-talian today.
"Firefox fix for slashdot: Ctrl+,Ctrl-"
Dude, sweet! Any ideas what's wrong with slashcode that causes the display bugs?
PS. I know this is off topic, so don't waste your mod points...
there is no way that wikipedia should ever be used as an authoritative source for formal research.
Replace "wikipedia" with "any single source, professionally edited or not".
Everyone makes mistakes. Britannica makes fewer mistakes, but the mistakes they do make last for an entire year (or longer, for people who don't buy the new set every year). Wikipedia makes more mistakes, but they are corrected as soon as they are uncovered.
It's just two different sides of the coin. Considering the cross referencing capabilities you have online compared to a printed encyclopedia, I prefer wikipedia + google.
Who uses an encyclopedia as an authoritative source anyway?
"So, how'd you research your thesis?"
"I looked up 'nanotechnology' in the encyclopedia."
Encyclopedias, printed or online, are meant as primers, or starting points. Not as a source for research.
Of course, even Rome eventually fell, so it's a given that we'll pass the torch to someone else someday.
Maybe so, but Rome didn't have no moon base did they now?
>It is also clearly wrong.
Why is it that when someone uses the word clearly in this context, it often means just the opposite?
Because the person knows they're making a highly questionable, opinionated statement. Specifying how "clear" it is to him will hopefully make you distrust and disregard your own opinion in favor of theirs. He tries to convey to the listener that his confidence is greater than the listener's on this subject, and thus he must be right. It's a classic, however juvenile, debate trick.
I can't tell if you're trolling... but
If you have such a great system of putting homeless people to work then why are they still homeless?
That doesn't happen up north because of all the labor unions.
Sure it does. I live in a suburb outside new york, and there's a corner nearby where you see all sorts of laborers gather each morning waiting for the contractors who come by needing workers for the day.
We don't "prop them up forever" as you mentioned. Some homeless people in NY have untreated mental or drug or alcohol problems; it'd be difficult to employ them as day laborers without first treating their ailments. So what you see as "propping them up", we see as treating the less fortunate of our population.
Looking back, I don't know how I got along with WinAmp's retarded playlist system. It was literally just a list of however many hundreds or thousands of MP3's you had. iTunes was much better in terms of organizing your music.
Tall buildings, like bridges, sway in the wind. Anyone who's every been on a high floor in a manhattan skyscraper knows that.
This is a troll, and an unsightful one at that. He meant Google Desktop. Not Google.com Nice try at trolling AC but better luck next time.
If you're referring to me, you're wrong, I'm not trolling. You did get my initials right, at least.
I now see he meant the google desktop search, but still that's not really a browser feature, it's a program that runs in a browser. It currently works in IE or Mozilla or any browser you have on your PC. So I still ask, why would Firefox, a browser, implement a local file search tool?
Or a third party tool like google desktop search, but it shouldn't be a part of your browser. Now if it's a new mozilla product, that's cool, but it should be added to firefox.
Because a browser is where most people now go to perform full-text searches on large sets of documents (via Google).
The way I see it, I go to google to do searches, not a browser. Should the browser implement e-commerce just because people go to amazon.com to shop?
Why in the world would a browser perform desktop searches?
Give him a break, he's new here.
Out of about 110 million votes cast, if there are a total of 250,000 that are in question that is a very good outcome. A .020% spoilage rate would very agreeable
.020% spoilage rate is still way too high.
That's nice if you're a statistics professor, but when elections can be won by 500 votes (florida in 2000), a
Coming from someone writing for the big dogs I can honestly say I'm not surprised. What the hell else was he going to say? "Oh, the mainstream media is fucking dead. The Internet will take over as the true purveyor of news? Yeah, that would have been printed...
Right... I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the network news to put out a story that network news has become sensationalistic garbage.
The only fact checking I've seen was in the presidential debate after the VP one. Some reporter came on afterwards and debunked a few claims made by bush and kerry, ala factcheck.org. Still, they presented just a small handful of claims, and they presented them evenly - two for bush, two for kerry.
But to any news broadcaster reading this: Sometimes things ARE UNEVEN! And you must report it! Unbiased does not mean you massage every story until it sounds like both sides have equally balanced and valid points.
Often you'll hear "A 10 year study from [insert respected non-partisan group here] revealed today that [insert political statistic here]. [Political party] dismissed the claims."
So network news broadcasters are content to let a spokeman "dismiss the claims" as a valid rebuttal? Why, at a press conference or in a phone call, don't they insist on a real answer? An explanation? Are reporters really so trusting of their politicians, that if they "dismiss the claims" then the 10 year study is ignored?
God, it's frightneing how lazy major media outlets are these days...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_September
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Eternal September (also September that never ended or endless September) are Usenet slang expressions for the period of time beginning September 1993. The use of these expressions implies the belief that standards of discourse and behavior on Usenet have declined since 1993 due to an unending influx of new users.
Usenet originated among universities. Every year, in September, a large number of new university students got access to Usenet, and took some time to acclimate themselves to the network's standards of conduct and netiquette. September, thus, represented the network's largest regular influx of newbies. After a month or so, the new users would (it is supposed) learn to comport themselves as normal Usenet users.
In 1993, the online service America Online began offering Usenet access to its tens of thousands (now millions) of users. To many old-timers, these "AOLers" were far less prepared to learn netiquette than university freshmen, and their sheer numbers dwarfed the ability of the network's culture to assimilate new users.
Since that time, the dramatic rise in the popularity of the Internet has led to a constant stream of new users -- in some people's view, drowning out the old Usenet community. Thus, from the point of view of the pre-1993 Usenet user, the regular "September" newbie influx never ended.
Software programs exist which display the date in accordance with this reckoning -- for instance, September 3840, 1993 for the date March 6, 2004.
The gag is at times extended -- for instance, the notional future date at which Usenet discourse will become sensible, mature, and educated has been called "October 1, 1993".
This probably isn't the best place for newbie feedback, but hey, anything goes :-)
:-) I gave up after a few minutes of roaming around, not knowing how to find something to fight so I could use my acid hands on it.
:-)
I tried playing for a few minutes, and after SWG I must admit the low-end graphics did bug me a bit. I realize graphics aren't the main course but an upgrade sure would help catch a new user's eye.
I was disappointed by the character creation... in the sense that I had no idea whether I was going to create a useless character, a limited character, an uber character... It just didn't feel personal. It was almost a little too open-ended, too customizable, so I was afraid of making too much of a mixed character. Then I was also afraid of creating too specific a character. Maybe I should have just tried a few different ones to get started; but I do think some pre-configured templates would be very useful to a new player.
The initial gameplay feel was a cross between Spear Of Destiny and Aethra's Chronicles. Aethra, btw, had character classes you could choose from, but you could also mix and match a bit, and choose which skills to develop
The one thing that did catch me was that nearly as soon as I logged on, an admin offered his assistance (he could tell I was new... maybe the way I kept strafing left and right or bumping into doors game me away?). I didn't meet many people, but the people I did meet were very friendly and helpful.
So I won't make a final jugement; I really didn't give it enough play time tonite.
I'll probably try again before the month is up
"Stop hurting America. - John Stewart"
It should read:
"Stop hhhhhurting America. - Jon Stewart"
now if amazon patented no-click shopping (we send you stuff because your profile says you like the over-stock stuff we have), then they might have a case.
Hasn't BMG music club already patented that?
Sorry, but when you vote for a candidate you put him in charge of your vote. He can concede before the polls close, after they close, or resign on inauguration day if he wins. Your only recourse is what you'll do at the ballot box next time.
If the person elected as president steps down at any time after voting has begun, his vice-president takes his place, not his losing-side challenger.
Maybe secret's the wrong term, but it's illegal for you to disclose that you've been served by such a warrant. See http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html , section 215, revision to 501 (d):
"`(d) No person shall disclose to any other person (other than those persons necessary to produce the tangible things under this section) that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has sought or obtained tangible things under this section."
So a warrant exists, and no one is allowed to mention it. They must keep it a "secret". Thus you could call it a secret warrant, though a "classified" warrant might be more accurate.
So that is the section of the patriot act which gives the government the authority to obtain a "secret" warrant.
I can't believe what a bunch of nerds we are. We're looking up "money laundering" in the dictionary.
real nerds would have googled it.
How about:
Unless it's on your always-allow list, any cookie set to expire in longer than X months (12 default), is automatically set as a session-only cookie.
Ooh, good point! I never understood why MS puts so much effort into DirectX, but I guess it's because it helps keep games on their platform!
Do you think they would even want to bring DirectX to the mac?
I'd rather have a Kerry, endorsed by an american billionaire, than Bush, endorsed by Saudi billionaires.