Maybe I should have been clearer, but I'm not an American- I'm Scottish- and I'm not a "supporter" of Hillary Clinton (or the US Democrats) beyond the fact I thought she was the lesser of two evils.
At the end of the day, I'm not an American, and I understand that their way of thinking is fundamentally different to mine in many respects. (#) So I don't expect them to vote the same way or hold the same values that I do. That doesn't change the legitimacy of what I thought about Trump as a person (and why I said what I said above, particularly since we already had that piece of bullying, hypocritical garbage display a taste of that same behaviour with respect to the construction of- and issues surrounding- his own golf courses in Scotland).
I don't have time to read your link now, but yes, the Democrats sold out in the past 25 or so years. When Obama was elected and everyone expected him to be the second coming, I didn't- I knew he was a part of the same establishment that was by then already more connected with the banks and corporate interests than its grass roots.
By the time of the election, it was clear that it was going to be close- anyone paying attention should have known that. I had hoped Trump wouldn't win, but I wasn't remotely surprised when I turned on my TV first thing that morning and "Trump wins US election" was plastered over the screen. (Then again, we already had the Brexit vote which went the same way, so it was like deja-vu all over again).
(#) Too many people in the UK make the mistake of thinking that because they consume and enjoy American-produced entertainment (and speak the same language) that they "know" America. They don't. Those shows- aside from their being entertainment and not reality!- are disproportionately reflective of the urban, coastal mentality versus the culture in (what you guys call) "flyover country". America is not just New York and Los Angeles. America is not just the "cool" parts, and outside those areas it's more alien than most people recognise.
"Lol wut"? I honestly can't even figure out what words you're trying to put in my mouth here.
Are you attacking me for (supposedly) thinking like a lot of Americans that the idea of some teenage kid in prison for smoking a joint getting raped by another prisoner is funny? I don't.
Or are you attacking me for not thinking someone's eighteen-year-old son getting sodomised is funny, when mocking Trump's "small hands" is?
We might never know. Nor care.
OK, so "tiny hands" is approved sexism?
The "tiny hands" thing isn't even funny in itself, and no-one really gives a toss- nor takes seriously- the implied connection between Trump's (alleged) small hand size and his dick. (Spoiler; yep, that's what it was about!)
I think what pretty much everyone involved in that joke (which apparently goes back to the 80s) finds funny is that the puffed-up, egotistical Trump is also so thin-skinned and insecure as to be unable to resist having to respond to it, even though it's obviously a wind-up.
Pay attention. Though I agreed that Trump was a dick, that was a means to an end. (#)
If I'd been a Trump supporter and said that the article was clickbaitified shite, you might accuse me of being partisan. If it's clear that I despise the guy (too) and I still think the article is Trump-exploiting clickbaitified shite, then it's more likely it's because it actually *is* Trump-exploiting clickbaitified shite.
You honestly think I'm saying this purely for the sake of not losing friends on Facebook (which I don't use) and I'm a secret Trump supporter...(?!) Or should I be saying something controversial for the sake of saying something controversial?
Whatever.
(#) Although to be fair, he *is* a dick, and I don't apologise for expressing my opinion- it's just beside the point here.:-)
I love the way you employ psychiatric terms for personality disorders as a form of insult.
Anything intended as an actual insult was the "all-round, outright piece of shit" comment- and that's an honest reflection of my opinion of the guy based on what went before (and pretty much everything else he's done).
But if there's such a thing as narcissism that goes way beyond the puffed up egotism that's par for the course with high-ranking politicians on every side and into delusional psychological disorder territory, I'm pretty sure Trump is there.
I've absolutely no doubt that if he had lost the election he genuinely would have believed- and convinced his supporters- that it *had* been rigged. *He* couldn't possibly have lost.
BTW, was it intentional that the tone of your comment came across as very Trump-like? (Albeit that Trump himself would almost certainly have been more likely to throw some direct insults among the snide sarcasm).
Why this is news is because in the past, presidents were sane.
The reason this is a non-story is because if the president-elect really *is* a dangerously thin-skinned sociopathic narcissist unsuited for the job of leading a country armed to the teeth with nukes and the purported free world- which he certainly is- then a few shitty unwanted SMS messages at two in the morning are the least you (or anyone else) has to worry about.
The degree to which Trump gets obsessively defensive about the "tiny hands" taunts would actually be funny (#) if such a thin-skinned and easily (if not reliably) manipulated guy hadn't just been elected the "leader of the free world".
Before he got elected, Trump projected his own narcissistic paranoia onto America when he claimed that "the world is laughing at us".
The irony is that now he's been elected Putin *will* be laughing up his sleeves at America, at the fact the guy he wanted to win- the one who's easily manipulated into selling out his country's interests by a few flattering words playing on his ego- won the American election.
(#) And believe me, given how shamelessly the guy has used- and continues to use- his power to bully anyone who doesn't agree with him, there's no-one I'd feel less guilty about taunting.
What the fuck is this? I don't like Trump because I have a brain cell, but this is bullshit garbage. msmash/manish needs to go.
I don't like Trump either- mainly because he's an openly self-serving sociopath, a narcissist to almost certainly pathological degree, a shameless bully with no target too cheap or low if it dares to threaten his dangerously thin skin, and an all-round, outright piece of shit.
And I agree with you- this story (or rather, the Trump slant on it) is clickbait garbage of the type that's going to dilute and cheapen any legitimate criticism of him because people switch off after getting overwhelmed by opportunistic Trump-slanting of crap like this at the slightest excuse.
Though I'm familiar with Kenny Everett (I used to watch his TV show when I was a kid!), I'm not familiar with whatever character he had that used "drinkypoo" as a catchphrase.
I can only assume that you're not familiar with established use of the term as a somewhat (intentionally) infantile and facetious reference to an alcoholic drink and nothing more?
Perhaps Getty argued they had creative input. Perhaps they not only digitized it, but color corrected or cleaned it up. Again, as I've also stated several times, we don't know enough information to pass judgment.
It was *you* who originally raised this as (a purely hypothetical basis for) a claim on Getty's part! I merely responded explaining why I didn't believe it would be valid.
Similarly, in response to your speculative example that they might have applied colour correction and cleaning up, these would probably fail for similar reasons, i.e. non-creative input below the threshold of originality under US law.
But as you've stated several times, we don't have enough information, so this *is* all just speculation- on your part.
Regarding the *possibility* that Getty might have scanned her images and she might have used those copies- that's irrelevant for reasons I already posted in response to one of the other three posts where you made this point.
Her use of Getty's database services may be a separate issue, but unless they're they've actually alleged in court as part of their case that she did that (and agreed to their terms), it's irrelevant speculation.
if someone takes a picture of it they absolutely have a right to license the use of that picture of it. You're free to go take your own picture of the painting, or pay for someone else's picture of it... or even possibly get it for free from somewhere else.
You've already made this point several times elsewhere (specifically, four times in this thread AFAICT) and as far as I'm aware, you're mistaken.
Under US jurisdiction (but not necessarily elsewhere), if your photograph- or a digital scan- is a purely mechanical reproduction with no creative input, you can't claim copyright on it and I'm quite entitled to use it without paying you.
(I guess if you can con someone into agreeing to pay your "license" fee, there's not necessarily anything illegal about that, but you shouldn't be able to claim that they're legally required to do that).
I read the article - she passed the images into public domain in 1988; I highly doubt they were digital at that time, so someone took the time to digitize and catalog them. [etc etc]
The pictures dated to 1988, so I think we can assume they weren't digital from the get-go, and that Getty perhaps did some work to digitize them.
Tough shit, then. As far as I'm aware, US law doesn't allow someone to claim (additional) copyright through mechanical and non-creative "sweat of the brow" (#) reproduction of artistic works.
This isn't the case in many other countries, but as far as I can tell, all parties and jurisdiction related to this case are US-based.
(#) This isn't necessarily the case for other things like compiled databases of public domain facts, but that's not what I was talking about here.
At any rate, as far as canada goes, right now I'm only staying because of familiy, which is mainly my mother, but I could easily see myself there someday, hopefully in the distant future. I am an engineer, so presumably I could eventually get admission.
I'm assuming you're an American, and I'm not a Canadian. Bearing that in mind...
I've noticed that a lot of Americans on the left seem to bring up Canada most often when they're dissatisfied with their own country. As if Canada only exists as a "liberal" utopia for your convenience, an escape route ready to welcome you when your own country gets too much, happy to be forgotten about when your flight of fancy about escaping there slips down the priority list once more.
It's almost as if you're not *actually* wanting to move there because you're interested in Canada and Canadian culture itself- as if all this says more about your implicit sense of entitlement that you'll fit into someone else's country you had no interest in except as a proxy for your own problems with America.
Say what you like about Cracked, but I found that this article from an actual Canadian somewhat crystallised this opinion and a whole lot more:-
Now, if you're [in a position of genuine threat] you'll find that Canada is a welcoming country. [..]
But for everyone else -- and I really apologize for how harsh this is going to be -- Canada is not your fucking safety school. If you drive across the border, there will not be a career magically waiting for you in the middle of an economic downturn. If you're a middle-class white guy and your first instinct is to abandon your country when you experience a setback, I'm not sure how you expect to ace a job interview here. "I was sad about my country so I decided to fall back on yours" is not a good answer to "What attracted you to this position?"
I spent a lot of time on social media during election night, because it was a great excuse to not work, and two things stuck out to me. I saw lots of Americans asking themselves how they could have gotten so out of touch with the world, and then several of my American friends with a history of making exhaustingly cliched maple syrup and igloo jokes asked me how my government worked. Because up until then, they had no clue and no interest. That's not an approach to life that helps you settle down in a new country -- it's the approach that got you into trouble in the country you're in now.
Yeah, but not all at the same time, since TOS didn't support multitasking except via some limited hacks analogous to the PC's "Terminate and Stay Resident" utilities.
Unlike, say, the Amiga with its full pre-emptive multitasking OS. Did I just reopen the ST vs. Amiga holy war? I think I did!;-)
Joking aside, while I know that the ST did later get "proper" multitasking via Mint/MultiTOS, it's interesting to note that while the Amiga hardware was more advanced in many respects, the OS itself- including the much-vaunted multitasking- doesn't appear to have relied upon any of that. What I'm saying is that since both were 68000-based machines, AFAICT there's no *technical* reason the Amiga OS couldn't have been run- in very similar forrm- on the ST hardware in very similar form from the beginning- multitasking et al.
I also remember when the OS ran on top of a Basic interpreter. I never experienced it, but I understand there were OSs written in Basic.
To clarify what others have said, the OS wasn't written in- nor ran under- BASIC. (#) Both the OS and the BASIC interpreter were themselves written in machine code.
What *was* the case (AFAIK) is that on many 8-bit machines there wasn't such a clear-cut distinction between the functionality of the BASIC interpreter and that of the OS itself; or, at least, much of the OS functionality was accessed through the BASIC command line by default.
For example, on the Sinclair ZX Spectrum or Commodore 64 (or most other machines of that era) one loaded a cassette-based game by typing the "LOAD" command at the BASIC prompt- even if it was a 100% machine code game.
This isn't true of all 8-bit machines; e.g. on the Atari 800, BASIC was a separate (and optional) cartridge compared to the integrated OS ROM. Games were loaded via the OS boot functionality (many didn't even work with BASIC present or enabled). However, on machines such as the Sinclair ZX81, they appear to be closely entwined, to the extent that one can't completely separate the two.
(#) Possible esoteric and obscure cases excepted; I'm sure *someone* has written some ersatz OS in BASIC somewhere..!
Instead, the different metals only stick to certain types of molecules, so you're differentiating structures based on the types of molecules in them and the metals that stick in those locations.
Ah, thanks. Assuming that's correct, it's odd that you seemed able to explain that in a straightforward manner, yet the alleged article couldn't.:-/
I read it wondering how- and if- this process was supposed to produce literal colour images. While I figured out that it probably wasn't, I'm still left wondering how this process is supposed to help is see things better, and what the (pseudo) colours produced by it are supposed to represent- because the article certainly doesn't explain.
Noah Haders felt able to criticise the article despite it being obvious he'd never actually read it- only someone relying on the misleadingly-edited summary would have taken it to refer to the film, rather than the book.
Meanwhile, his comment was edited up to "5: Insightful" by people who- equally obviously- hadn't read the article either.
Starship Troopers has been decried as promoting fascism and being racist
unbelievable. The entire movie is biting satire of the perils of a society always at war and a society with a universally hated enemy.
Know how I can tell you didn't read the article? (#) Because it's quite clear that in its original context- rather than the misleadingly-edited summary- that it refers to the original book, not to the film:-
Despite being not only one of Heinlein's best-selling titles and winning the prestigious Hugo Award for Best Novel in 1960, Starship Troopers has been decried as promoting fascism and being racist [..]
Verhoeven's [1997 film of] Starship Troopers was anything but faithful to the novel, discarding massive elements of the book's mythology — sorry, those who wanted to see the power armor — and ramping up some of its more outré parts to create something that's as much political and social satire as it is a science fiction action movie.
At any rate Hugh Pickens' original unedited submission is also quite clear that the writer was referring to the original book. The responsibility therefore lies with "EditorDave" who we can assume was the one who cut it down. Admittedly it needed trimming, but it's also an editor's job to make sure that the meaning hasn't been misleadingly altered in the process. (##)
(#) Yeah, I know. I've been on Slashdot approaching fifteen years, and it was a cliche back then.
(##) Yeah, I know. The jokes about editors not doing their job have been a staple of Slashdot as far back as I can remember too. Doesn't excuse it, though.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe I should have been clearer, but I'm not an American- I'm Scottish- and I'm not a "supporter" of Hillary Clinton (or the US Democrats) beyond the fact I thought she was the lesser of two evils.
At the end of the day, I'm not an American, and I understand that their way of thinking is fundamentally different to mine in many respects. (#) So I don't expect them to vote the same way or hold the same values that I do. That doesn't change the legitimacy of what I thought about Trump as a person (and why I said what I said above, particularly since we already had that piece of bullying, hypocritical garbage display a taste of that same behaviour with respect to the construction of- and issues surrounding- his own golf courses in Scotland).
I don't have time to read your link now, but yes, the Democrats sold out in the past 25 or so years. When Obama was elected and everyone expected him to be the second coming, I didn't- I knew he was a part of the same establishment that was by then already more connected with the banks and corporate interests than its grass roots.
By the time of the election, it was clear that it was going to be close- anyone paying attention should have known that. I had hoped Trump wouldn't win, but I wasn't remotely surprised when I turned on my TV first thing that morning and "Trump wins US election" was plastered over the screen. (Then again, we already had the Brexit vote which went the same way, so it was like deja-vu all over again).
(#) Too many people in the UK make the mistake of thinking that because they consume and enjoy American-produced entertainment (and speak the same language) that they "know" America. They don't. Those shows- aside from their being entertainment and not reality!- are disproportionately reflective of the urban, coastal mentality versus the culture in (what you guys call) "flyover country". America is not just New York and Los Angeles. America is not just the "cool" parts, and outside those areas it's more alien than most people recognise.
Like prison rape is funny? [etc] Hypocrite.
"Lol wut"? I honestly can't even figure out what words you're trying to put in my mouth here.
Are you attacking me for (supposedly) thinking like a lot of Americans that the idea of some teenage kid in prison for smoking a joint getting raped by another prisoner is funny? I don't.
Or are you attacking me for not thinking someone's eighteen-year-old son getting sodomised is funny, when mocking Trump's "small hands" is?
We might never know. Nor care.
OK, so "tiny hands" is approved sexism?
The "tiny hands" thing isn't even funny in itself, and no-one really gives a toss- nor takes seriously- the implied connection between Trump's (alleged) small hand size and his dick. (Spoiler; yep, that's what it was about!)
I think what pretty much everyone involved in that joke (which apparently goes back to the 80s) finds funny is that the puffed-up, egotistical Trump is also so thin-skinned and insecure as to be unable to resist having to respond to it, even though it's obviously a wind-up.
ME TOO! I don't like Trump!
Pay attention. Though I agreed that Trump was a dick, that was a means to an end. (#)
:-)
If I'd been a Trump supporter and said that the article was clickbaitified shite, you might accuse me of being partisan. If it's clear that I despise the guy (too) and I still think the article is Trump-exploiting clickbaitified shite, then it's more likely it's because it actually *is* Trump-exploiting clickbaitified shite.
You honestly think I'm saying this purely for the sake of not losing friends on Facebook (which I don't use) and I'm a secret Trump supporter...(?!) Or should I be saying something controversial for the sake of saying something controversial?
Whatever.
(#) Although to be fair, he *is* a dick, and I don't apologise for expressing my opinion- it's just beside the point here.
I love the way you employ psychiatric terms for personality disorders as a form of insult.
Anything intended as an actual insult was the "all-round, outright piece of shit" comment- and that's an honest reflection of my opinion of the guy based on what went before (and pretty much everything else he's done).
But if there's such a thing as narcissism that goes way beyond the puffed up egotism that's par for the course with high-ranking politicians on every side and into delusional psychological disorder territory, I'm pretty sure Trump is there.
I've absolutely no doubt that if he had lost the election he genuinely would have believed- and convinced his supporters- that it *had* been rigged. *He* couldn't possibly have lost.
BTW, was it intentional that the tone of your comment came across as very Trump-like? (Albeit that Trump himself would almost certainly have been more likely to throw some direct insults among the snide sarcasm).
Why this is news is because in the past, presidents were sane.
The reason this is a non-story is because if the president-elect really *is* a dangerously thin-skinned sociopathic narcissist unsuited for the job of leading a country armed to the teeth with nukes and the purported free world- which he certainly is- then a few shitty unwanted SMS messages at two in the morning are the least you (or anyone else) has to worry about.
The degree to which Trump gets obsessively defensive about the "tiny hands" taunts would actually be funny (#) if such a thin-skinned and easily (if not reliably) manipulated guy hadn't just been elected the "leader of the free world".
Before he got elected, Trump projected his own narcissistic paranoia onto America when he claimed that "the world is laughing at us".
The irony is that now he's been elected Putin *will* be laughing up his sleeves at America, at the fact the guy he wanted to win- the one who's easily manipulated into selling out his country's interests by a few flattering words playing on his ego- won the American election.
(#) And believe me, given how shamelessly the guy has used- and continues to use- his power to bully anyone who doesn't agree with him, there's no-one I'd feel less guilty about taunting.
What the fuck is this? I don't like Trump because I have a brain cell, but this is bullshit garbage. msmash/manish needs to go.
I don't like Trump either- mainly because he's an openly self-serving sociopath, a narcissist to almost certainly pathological degree, a shameless bully with no target too cheap or low if it dares to threaten his dangerously thin skin, and an all-round, outright piece of shit.
And I agree with you- this story (or rather, the Trump slant on it) is clickbait garbage of the type that's going to dilute and cheapen any legitimate criticism of him because people switch off after getting overwhelmed by opportunistic Trump-slanting of crap like this at the slightest excuse.
Though I'm familiar with Kenny Everett (I used to watch his TV show when I was a kid!), I'm not familiar with whatever character he had that used "drinkypoo" as a catchphrase.
I'd assume it didn't originate there, though.
It's not your comments, it's your handle.
Er, what ?
I can only assume that you're not familiar with established use of the term as a somewhat (intentionally) infantile and facetious reference to an alcoholic drink and nothing more?
See Wiktionary, Oxford Reference, etc.
(Perhaps you were imagining something less pleasant? Or maybe people *do* get it, but they're just opposed to alcohol consumption in general...?!)
Perhaps Getty argued they had creative input. Perhaps they not only digitized it, but color corrected or cleaned it up. Again, as I've also stated several times, we don't know enough information to pass judgment.
It was *you* who originally raised this as (a purely hypothetical basis for) a claim on Getty's part! I merely responded explaining why I didn't believe it would be valid.
Similarly, in response to your speculative example that they might have applied colour correction and cleaning up, these would probably fail for similar reasons, i.e. non-creative input below the threshold of originality under US law.
But as you've stated several times, we don't have enough information, so this *is* all just speculation- on your part.
Regarding the *possibility* that Getty might have scanned her images and she might have used those copies- that's irrelevant for reasons I already posted in response to one of the other three posts where you made this point.
Her use of Getty's database services may be a separate issue, but unless they're they've actually alleged in court as part of their case that she did that (and agreed to their terms), it's irrelevant speculation.
if someone takes a picture of it they absolutely have a right to license the use of that picture of it. You're free to go take your own picture of the painting, or pay for someone else's picture of it... or even possibly get it for free from somewhere else.
You've already made this point several times elsewhere (specifically, four times in this thread AFAICT) and as far as I'm aware, you're mistaken.
Under US jurisdiction (but not necessarily elsewhere), if your photograph- or a digital scan- is a purely mechanical reproduction with no creative input, you can't claim copyright on it and I'm quite entitled to use it without paying you.
(I guess if you can con someone into agreeing to pay your "license" fee, there's not necessarily anything illegal about that, but you shouldn't be able to claim that they're legally required to do that).
I read the article - she passed the images into public domain in 1988; I highly doubt they were digital at that time, so someone took the time to digitize and catalog them. [etc etc]
Irrelevant as per my reply to your other post above.
The pictures dated to 1988, so I think we can assume they weren't digital from the get-go, and that Getty perhaps did some work to digitize them.
Tough shit, then. As far as I'm aware, US law doesn't allow someone to claim (additional) copyright through mechanical and non-creative "sweat of the brow" (#) reproduction of artistic works.
This isn't the case in many other countries, but as far as I can tell, all parties and jurisdiction related to this case are US-based.
(#) This isn't necessarily the case for other things like compiled databases of public domain facts, but that's not what I was talking about here.
It worked great, but the $200 'tincture' was basically just alcohol with some herbs and shit in it.
Don't know about the herbs, but I'm pretty sure tincture isn't supposed to have shit in it. I don't want to know how *that's* supposed to work...
At any rate, as far as canada goes, right now I'm only staying because of familiy, which is mainly my mother, but I could easily see myself there someday, hopefully in the distant future. I am an engineer, so presumably I could eventually get admission.
I'm assuming you're an American, and I'm not a Canadian. Bearing that in mind...
I've noticed that a lot of Americans on the left seem to bring up Canada most often when they're dissatisfied with their own country. As if Canada only exists as a "liberal" utopia for your convenience, an escape route ready to welcome you when your own country gets too much, happy to be forgotten about when your flight of fancy about escaping there slips down the priority list once more.
It's almost as if you're not *actually* wanting to move there because you're interested in Canada and Canadian culture itself- as if all this says more about your implicit sense of entitlement that you'll fit into someone else's country you had no interest in except as a proxy for your own problems with America.
Say what you like about Cracked, but I found that this article from an actual Canadian somewhat crystallised this opinion and a whole lot more:-
Now, if you're [in a position of genuine threat] you'll find that Canada is a welcoming country. [..]
But for everyone else -- and I really apologize for how harsh this is going to be -- Canada is not your fucking safety school. If you drive across the border, there will not be a career magically waiting for you in the middle of an economic downturn. If you're a middle-class white guy and your first instinct is to abandon your country when you experience a setback, I'm not sure how you expect to ace a job interview here. "I was sad about my country so I decided to fall back on yours" is not a good answer to "What attracted you to this position?"
I spent a lot of time on social media during election night, because it was a great excuse to not work, and two things stuck out to me. I saw lots of Americans asking themselves how they could have gotten so out of touch with the world, and then several of my American friends with a history of making exhaustingly cliched maple syrup and igloo jokes asked me how my government worked. Because up until then, they had no clue and no interest. That's not an approach to life that helps you settle down in a new country -- it's the approach that got you into trouble in the country you're in now.
Yeah, but not all at the same time, since TOS didn't support multitasking except via some limited hacks analogous to the PC's "Terminate and Stay Resident" utilities.
;-)
Unlike, say, the Amiga with its full pre-emptive multitasking OS. Did I just reopen the ST vs. Amiga holy war? I think I did!
Joking aside, while I know that the ST did later get "proper" multitasking via Mint/MultiTOS, it's interesting to note that while the Amiga hardware was more advanced in many respects, the OS itself- including the much-vaunted multitasking- doesn't appear to have relied upon any of that. What I'm saying is that since both were 68000-based machines, AFAICT there's no *technical* reason the Amiga OS couldn't have been run- in very similar forrm- on the ST hardware in very similar form from the beginning- multitasking et al.
I also remember when the OS ran on top of a Basic interpreter. I never experienced it, but I understand there were OSs written in Basic.
To clarify what others have said, the OS wasn't written in- nor ran under- BASIC. (#) Both the OS and the BASIC interpreter were themselves written in machine code.
What *was* the case (AFAIK) is that on many 8-bit machines there wasn't such a clear-cut distinction between the functionality of the BASIC interpreter and that of the OS itself; or, at least, much of the OS functionality was accessed through the BASIC command line by default.
For example, on the Sinclair ZX Spectrum or Commodore 64 (or most other machines of that era) one loaded a cassette-based game by typing the "LOAD" command at the BASIC prompt- even if it was a 100% machine code game.
This isn't true of all 8-bit machines; e.g. on the Atari 800, BASIC was a separate (and optional) cartridge compared to the integrated OS ROM. Games were loaded via the OS boot functionality (many didn't even work with BASIC present or enabled). However, on machines such as the Sinclair ZX81, they appear to be closely entwined, to the extent that one can't completely separate the two.
(#) Possible esoteric and obscure cases excepted; I'm sure *someone* has written some ersatz OS in BASIC somewhere..!
Instead, the different metals only stick to certain types of molecules, so you're differentiating structures based on the types of molecules in them and the metals that stick in those locations.
Ah, thanks. Assuming that's correct, it's odd that you seemed able to explain that in a straightforward manner, yet the alleged article couldn't. :-/
The article itself is full of fail
Indeed it is.
I read it wondering how- and if- this process was supposed to produce literal colour images. While I figured out that it probably wasn't, I'm still left wondering how this process is supposed to help is see things better, and what the (pseudo) colours produced by it are supposed to represent- because the article certainly doesn't explain.
Sure , MongoDB is fast.
The problem with Mongo is that it's ruled by Ming the Merciless.
On the other hand, MySQL is ruled by Larry Ellison, so..... euh, Mongo it is then.
That wasn't the point being made.
Noah Haders felt able to criticise the article despite it being obvious he'd never actually read it- only someone relying on the misleadingly-edited summary would have taken it to refer to the film, rather than the book.
Meanwhile, his comment was edited up to "5: Insightful" by people who- equally obviously- hadn't read the article either.
"versus", not "verses". Verses are in poetry. PROTIP: Use "vs" from now on.
I guess if you want to say "verses", you should expect it to be followed by a...
...chorus of disapproval.
(puts on sunglasses)
YEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!
The actual article makes clear that the quote refers to the novel, not the film. So does Hugh Pickens' original submission. The edited version of the summary doesn't.
Starship Troopers has been decried as promoting fascism and being racist
unbelievable. The entire movie is biting satire of the perils of a society always at war and a society with a universally hated enemy.
Know how I can tell you didn't read the article? (#) Because it's quite clear that in its original context- rather than the misleadingly-edited summary- that it refers to the original book, not to the film:-
Despite being not only one of Heinlein's best-selling titles and winning the prestigious Hugo Award for Best Novel in 1960, Starship Troopers has been decried as promoting fascism and being racist [..]
Verhoeven's [1997 film of] Starship Troopers was anything but faithful to the novel, discarding massive elements of the book's mythology — sorry, those who wanted to see the power armor — and ramping up some of its more outré parts to create something that's as much political and social satire as it is a science fiction action movie.
At any rate Hugh Pickens' original unedited submission is also quite clear that the writer was referring to the original book. The responsibility therefore lies with "EditorDave" who we can assume was the one who cut it down. Admittedly it needed trimming, but it's also an editor's job to make sure that the meaning hasn't been misleadingly altered in the process. (##)
(#) Yeah, I know. I've been on Slashdot approaching fifteen years, and it was a cliche back then.
(##) Yeah, I know. The jokes about editors not doing their job have been a staple of Slashdot as far back as I can remember too. Doesn't excuse it, though.