The panakeia / panacea error is not, technically speaking, a typo. It is a language error: panakeia is the Greek spelling of the Greek word, panacea the Latin transliteration.
It may not be a typo, but having two spellings of the same word definitely isn't oikonomical.
I love the smell of pedantry in the morning.
on
Aimee Deep Interview
·
· Score: 1
Qui custodiet ipsos custodes?
Should be "quis," unless you actually mean to be saying, "What watches over the watchmen themselves?" which, now that I think of it, is a rather interesting question.
Re:What's that other Internet Explorer thing again
on
Mozilla 1.4 RC1
·
· Score: 2, Funny
I thought mozilla was a database.
You were wrong. It's an application platform... apparently.
Bardcode which will stream the entire works of Shakespeare to you as barcodes.
This is fantastic! I'm glad others are working in this field. I myself have developed a system for turning the classic works of Greek and Roman lyric poetry into dust, digitizing pictures of this dust, and sending them over TCP/IP to your cellphone, which you can then place in your ass.
History has always demarked a division between civilians and military, both in the traditions of service, and deeper, in the psyche. Plato demarked the guardian's education as beginning with fiction [337a]. And it was a key to this education that it twisted the basic nature of those who would be guardians, demarking them mentally from the populace.
I think there's more irony in this than M. Suzanne seems prepared to acknowledge.
What makes Plato's suggestion in the Republic of a separate life for the soldier class so interesting is that it happens against the backdrop of an Athenian military that was arranged very differently. One of the things (and only one) that made Athens such a force to be reckoned with in the 5th century B.C. was that they let all citizens into the navy; their naval might was arguably what saved the Greeks as a whole from the domination of the Persian invaders. When Socrates says the soldiers should live separate from the rest of society, he is undercutting a crucial piece of Athenians' understanding of their own worth. After all, the marriage of citizenship with military service was a significant point of pride.
If you're in favor of choices, why not recognize that monolithic "Soviet" development and absolutely anarchic proliferation are not the only options? There are many intermediate degrees, a fact that is denied by those on either side who prefer victory to truth.
All this article seems to me to say is that perhaps a little more unity and commonness of purpose might be desirable if Linux is to achieve certain ends.
The notion that any kind of channeling of efforts is tantamount to telling people "you can't do what you want" is just childish (and is not what you were saying). Why can't "what someone wants to do" also include talking with other developers about what would be a good direction to move in?
Indeed, it can and does, as the story about Linux audio development proves. There's nothing monolithic about the plethora of audio applications that are being developed, but on the other hand, there is a kind of uniformity, whereby developers are agreeing to develop in accordance with certain standards (ALSA, LADSPA). Standards appear to limit freedom only if they are considered in a very short-sighted way; in fact, they increase freedom by allowing people not to have to re-invent the wheel and not to have to negotiate with others about how to communicate.
Agreeing to standards is a way of being intelligent about both history and innovation; it acknowledges actual achievements (rather than ignoring them and reinventing them) and clears the way for the future (by providing an extensible set of guidelines that responds to the actual demands made by the sphere of development under consideration).
I'd love to see an ad campaign for a new version of a piece of software that included the line: "we've eliminated over 20 confusing 'features' of the old version."
You measure it in dreams. This is a dream of humanity - to travel to the stars. It's as old as humanity, but its strength waxes and wanes with the tides of fortune. For thousands of years, humanity dreamed. Then, in the 20th century, they actually did it.
How like the current debate between open source and closed source this all
sounds. Just substitute operating system for Bible, money for God, the stock
market for the Holy Roman Empire and Bill Gates as the Pope and it all lines up.
Everything in the universe seems to revolve around a binary concept, rather than a decimal one... matter/antimatter, existence/non-existence, quantum spin states, etc.
Please explain in what sense non-existence is something "in the universe."
DETROIT, MI (Jan. 16) -- Embedded Open Source applications achieve a new pinnacle of success. My steak knife is running Linux! Soon this technology will be ported to my electric nose-hair clipper! Unbelievable!!!
OP's hard drives won't be read, he claims] not if i've cracked them open and cum/shit/bled on the platters after perforating them with an awl
Well, in that case, first they'll read your DNA, have uncontestable proof you (or your identical twin) had had possesion of them, and then they'll read your data.
Then they'll clone your ass and threaten to rat you out to the 6th day fundamentalists, who would assassinate you if they knew you weren't "as God made you."
I as a member from the general public would "profit" greatly from, say, not having to worry about category 5 hurricanes bearing down on my ass and flooding me out of my home (if not outright killing me). The same goes for tornadoes, lightning storms, hailstorms, blizzards...
No reasonable person would think that the outcome, as you describe it, is not desirable. The problem is that you could well be leaving out the part where other people might have to pay for your marginal increase in safety. And that's not something either of us really know much about, now is it?
Slashdot Mirror
It may not be a typo, but having two spellings of the same word definitely isn't oikonomical.
Actually, it's more 0x2DF.
Should be "quis," unless you actually mean to be saying, "What watches over the watchmen themselves?" which, now that I think of it, is a rather interesting question.
You were wrong. It's an application platform ... apparently.
Sexist pig!
:)
This is fantastic! I'm glad others are working in this field. I myself have developed a system for turning the classic works of Greek and Roman lyric poetry into dust, digitizing pictures of this dust, and sending them over TCP/IP to your cellphone, which you can then place in your ass.
<deadpan>It's really innovative<\deadpan>
Does that apply to white-majority racism? If so, why? If not, why not?
I guess it's because I just saw the first Animatrix episode.
I think there's more irony in this than M. Suzanne seems prepared to acknowledge.
What makes Plato's suggestion in the Republic of a separate life for the soldier class so interesting is that it happens against the backdrop of an Athenian military that was arranged very differently. One of the things (and only one) that made Athens such a force to be reckoned with in the 5th century B.C. was that they let all citizens into the navy; their naval might was arguably what saved the Greeks as a whole from the domination of the Persian invaders. When Socrates says the soldiers should live separate from the rest of society, he is undercutting a crucial piece of Athenians' understanding of their own worth. After all, the marriage of citizenship with military service was a significant point of pride.
All this article seems to me to say is that perhaps a little more unity and commonness of purpose might be desirable if Linux is to achieve certain ends.
The notion that any kind of channeling of efforts is tantamount to telling people "you can't do what you want" is just childish (and is not what you were saying). Why can't "what someone wants to do" also include talking with other developers about what would be a good direction to move in?
Indeed, it can and does, as the story about Linux audio development proves. There's nothing monolithic about the plethora of audio applications that are being developed, but on the other hand, there is a kind of uniformity, whereby developers are agreeing to develop in accordance with certain standards (ALSA, LADSPA). Standards appear to limit freedom only if they are considered in a very short-sighted way; in fact, they increase freedom by allowing people not to have to re-invent the wheel and not to have to negotiate with others about how to communicate.
Agreeing to standards is a way of being intelligent about both history and innovation; it acknowledges actual achievements (rather than ignoring them and reinventing them) and clears the way for the future (by providing an extensible set of guidelines that responds to the actual demands made by the sphere of development under consideration).
I'd love to see an ad campaign for a new version of a piece of software that included the line: "we've eliminated over 20 confusing 'features' of the old version."
Totally.
Not to mention that it's every bit as easy to pronounce as Postgre SQL. ;-)
Dude. You need to lay off the Discovery Channel.
You're missing out, fella. You're really missing out.
VADER: The Source is strong with this one....
I just bought a 36-piece silverware set, which included 8 butter knives, 8 forks, and 8 spoons. What was the problem, again?
Just like the Burrito Brothers did for the Great Divide between Rock and Country all those years ago ....
*sniff* It kinda brings a tear to one's eye, no?
And Palladium would be the Inquisition?
Please explain in what sense non-existence is something "in the universe."
DETROIT, MI (Jan. 16) -- Embedded Open Source applications achieve a new pinnacle of success. My steak knife is running Linux! Soon this technology will be ported to my electric nose-hair clipper! Unbelievable!!!
Well, in that case, first they'll read your DNA, have uncontestable proof you (or your identical twin) had had possesion of them, and then they'll read your data.
Then they'll clone your ass and threaten to rat you out to the 6th day fundamentalists, who would assassinate you if they knew you weren't "as God made you."
God bless Dover. They also publish positively oodles of other great stuff for next to nothing.
No reasonable person would think that the outcome, as you describe it, is not desirable. The problem is that you could well be leaving out the part where other people might have to pay for your marginal increase in safety. And that's not something either of us really know much about, now is it?