You need a single point to bring people into consideration. Otherwise what are they gonna do, have all 100 senators sit at a table and talk until they can find someone they all like? riiight, like that's gonna find someone quickly:P.
If I'm not mistaken, that's how they elect a Pope, and we all saw how slowly that went last time...
I can currently open iTunes and pick any store in any country. However, I cannot actually BUY anything from music stores in other countries. The next logical step is to allow people to buy music from other countries, making the iTMS actually international, unlike the way it is now, "choose country" button notwithstanding.
While on the topic of grammar... This is a pet peve of mine. The correct phrase is, "take the bad with the good." And yes, it matters. The former implies that taking the "good" is a burden, while the latter implies, correctly, that taking the "bad" is the burden.:)
Very interesting point you make, never thought of it that way. If you google "take the good with the bad" and "take the bad with the good", you will find that usage of the former outnumbers the latter by more than 3:1. Can it not be argued that you are incorrectly constructing the phrase, and that your pet peve [sic]:) needs to be laid to rest?
Second, your example of the replacement phrase for "google widgets" is poorly constructed. (I hope you've slanted the writing to make your point and don't actually write that way.) We have a perfectly good verb already for using Google or Alta Vista or Ask Jeeves. That verb is "search." One can very simply write or say "search for widgets," and most people would automatically turn to Google for their search needs. The verb "google," then, is unnecessary.
The verb is unnecessary only if you assume google = search, which is not true. The verb "google" means "go to the google website and search for". Saying "google Yahoo! for widgets" would not only be incorrect, but more importantly the word "search", as you correctly point out, already exists.
What a strange logic: it's like saying "most people round 100/3 to 33, it's common usage, so when the math police die out of old age, the common usage will win out".
That's stupid because 100/3 != 33, it's completely incorrect
The main flaw in your argument is that math is constant, while language evolves. This is completely natural and more importantly, desirous. Rigid adherence to outdated grammatical constructs can only hinder communication. A perfect example would be the adoption of "google" as a verb; would you prefer to say "navigate to google's site and use it to search for widgets" or "google widgets"
That being said, I do agree with you, "should of" is horrible, but you have to take the good with the bad.
OK, so PG wrote some code in the past, and is generally a smart guy, and to be honest, I actually like his writing. I like it enough that I'll even read his stuff despite the fact that he uses an excessively narrow column width for his text which makes it very annoying to read. However, there are many blogs out there written by smart programmers, some with far, far, far more geek cred than PG.
It's the same reason a surgeon can't go to work drunk. Sure, he COULD perform admirably. That doesn't mean you should let him give it a whirl.
You misunderstand what I was trying to say. I'm not saying that we should let drunk drivers on the road. What I'm trying to get at is that I disagree with the demonization alcohol. In your original post you said that you would be in favour of system set up such that a driver that caused an accident would lose their licence for 2-5 years if it turned out that he or she had been drinking.
Here is my question to you. If said accident had been caused by talking on the cellphone, falling asleep, trying to eat a BigMac, reading a newspaper, or simply not paying attention, would you still be in favour of a multi-year driving license suspension ?
If your answer is no, why ? Bear in mind that I'm not by any means pro-drunk driving, I just think that a crappy driver is a crappy driver, regardless of reason, and should be punished accordingly.
In my opinion, if you get a DUI, that's it. Your license is gone, for at least a year, maybe 2-5. If you do it again after that, you go to jail for a long time. Again, in my opinion, drinking and driving is a lot like going to a mall and spinning in circles, shooting randomly with a pistol. You may not hit anyone, but then again, you may kill a few people. There's really no excuse for such actions.
I will agree conceptually with what you are saying, but what I object to is the hysteria associated with alcohol which has caused the punishment schedule to be ludicrously skewed.
If you drive in a manner such that you endanger yourself and the people around you, it should make no difference whether your driving is impaired because you are drunk, stoned, using a cellphone, putting on your makeup, getting road-head, messing with the radio, making funny faces at the baby in back seat, or just plain shouldn't be driving because of poor training or a lack of physical ability.
If you drive poorly, or fail to maintain control of your vehicle, you should get dinged for it. I fail to see any logical reason why a contributing factor should be a factor to punishment guidelines.
Supposedly, one of the reasons the iPod is so expensive is because Apple's iTMS allows for ease of use; you're paying for convenience.
Actually, no. For starters, the iPod is not expensive. Second, it costs what it does becuase you are paying for capacity and form factor. Trust me, I have looked and looked, and I cannot find a player that is the equal of either the iPod or the the iPod Mini in these aspects for a lower price.
I am constantly amazed that NOONE can produce a better cheaper music player than Apple.
You get ads anyways with CATV or satelite. Nobody is offering ad-free TV in any form, so it's either ads or no programming whatsoever.
Not true. The premium movie services (HBO, Showtime, Cinemax, etc.) do not show any commercials whatsoever. Their programming is not strictly limited to movies - HBO and Cinemax in particular have some wonderful Original Series in their broadcast lineup, and they pretty much always sweep the Emmys.
The analysis at symantec is a little skimpy on the details of how an infection starts, but from what I gather, the recipient of the instant message still has to click on the executable (unless I'm mistaken). Seems like this is destined to propagate only among the stupid. (insert obligatory comment about MSN Messenger users here).
Other than that, not much info there, except it points out the obvious, that osX users are not affected, since this appears to be a Visual Basic bug.
If nothing else, the listing of some 940-odd asian porn sites on the Symantec page will be useful to someone...
The rule of thumb that I was brought up in the Navy with is that "boats can't cross oceans, ships can, and don't ever try to argue this point with a submariner.".....
I'm not sure that's entirely accurate, or perhaps times have changed.
I'm surrounded by Navy guys all day @ work (we make test equipment for aircraft carriers), and to a man, they all call the carriers "boats".
Slashdot Mirror
Why is this modded funny - he is still chairman of the board!
No, that would be Frank Sinatra.
You could just, oh, I don't know, change the channel? Or better yet, turn off the TV?
If I'm not mistaken, that's how they elect a Pope, and we all saw how slowly that went last time...
I can't either of these movies to play on my 2k machine, and I have tried quicktime, itunes, and windows media player. What software should I use ?
I can currently open iTunes and pick any store in any country. However, I cannot actually BUY anything from music stores in other countries. The next logical step is to allow people to buy music from other countries, making the iTMS actually international, unlike the way it is now, "choose country" button notwithstanding.
Very interesting point you make, never thought of it that way. If you google "take the good with the bad" and "take the bad with the good", you will find that usage of the former outnumbers the latter by more than 3:1. Can it not be argued that you are incorrectly constructing the phrase, and that your pet peve [sic] :) needs to be laid to rest?
Second, your example of the replacement phrase for "google widgets" is poorly constructed. (I hope you've slanted the writing to make your point and don't actually write that way.) We have a perfectly good verb already for using Google or Alta Vista or Ask Jeeves. That verb is "search." One can very simply write or say "search for widgets," and most people would automatically turn to Google for their search needs. The verb "google," then, is unnecessary.
The verb is unnecessary only if you assume google = search, which is not true. The verb "google" means "go to the google website and search for".
Saying "google Yahoo! for widgets" would not only be incorrect, but more importantly the word "search", as you correctly point out, already exists.
What a strange logic: it's like saying "most people round 100/3 to 33, it's common usage, so when the math police die out of old age, the common usage will win out".
That's stupid because 100/3 != 33, it's completely incorrect
The main flaw in your argument is that math is constant, while language evolves. This is completely natural and more importantly, desirous. Rigid adherence to outdated grammatical constructs can only hinder communication. A perfect example would be the adoption of "google" as a verb; would you prefer to say "navigate to google's site and use it to search for widgets" or "google widgets"
That being said, I do agree with you, "should of" is horrible, but you have to take the good with the bad.
You want programmers writing about software, or programmers writing about random stuff ?
I thought it was funny. (despite my sig)
I'll forgive you if you autograph my copy of Hackers & Painters. :)
OK, so PG wrote some code in the past, and is generally a smart guy, and to be honest, I actually like his writing. I like it enough that I'll even read his stuff despite the fact that he uses an excessively narrow column width for his text which makes it very annoying to read. However, there are many blogs out there written by smart programmers, some with far, far, far more geek cred than PG.
Why exactly is this a Slashdot story ?
It's the same reason a surgeon can't go to work drunk. Sure, he COULD perform admirably. That doesn't mean you should let him give it a whirl.
You misunderstand what I was trying to say. I'm not saying that we should let drunk drivers on the road. What I'm trying to get at is that I disagree with the demonization alcohol. In your original post you said that you would be in favour of system set up such that a driver that caused an accident would lose their licence for 2-5 years if it turned out that he or she had been drinking.
Here is my question to you. If said accident had been caused by talking on the cellphone, falling asleep, trying to eat a BigMac, reading a newspaper, or simply not paying attention, would you still be in favour of a multi-year driving license suspension ?
If your answer is no, why ? Bear in mind that I'm not by any means pro-drunk driving, I just think that a crappy driver is a crappy driver, regardless of reason, and should be punished accordingly.
In my opinion, if you get a DUI, that's it. Your license is gone, for at least a year, maybe 2-5. If you do it again after that, you go to jail for a long time. Again, in my opinion, drinking and driving is a lot like going to a mall and spinning in circles, shooting randomly with a pistol. You may not hit anyone, but then again, you may kill a few people. There's really no excuse for such actions.
I will agree conceptually with what you are saying, but what I object to is the hysteria associated with alcohol which has caused the punishment schedule to be ludicrously skewed.
If you drive in a manner such that you endanger yourself and the people around you, it should make no difference whether your driving is impaired because you are drunk, stoned, using a cellphone, putting on your makeup, getting road-head, messing with the radio, making funny faces at the baby in back seat, or just plain shouldn't be driving because of poor training or a lack of physical ability.
If you drive poorly, or fail to maintain control of your vehicle, you should get dinged for it. I fail to see any logical reason why a contributing factor should be a factor to punishment guidelines.
Didn't you say something about jokes being lost ?
Wow- jokes are lost on you people...
Thats becuase nerd humour sucks. Oh, and you must be new here.
I like my women like I like my coffee - ethically purchased from farming cooperatives in latin america
I like my women like I like my coffee - in a big cup.
Actually two by fours are not two by four, as I learned the hard way the first time I tried building a custom cage for my pet snake.
You're coming from a chinese IP arent you?
Nope, in the usa.
Is it just me, or does TFA instantly crash firefox when I try to read it ?
Actually, no. For starters, the iPod is not expensive. Second, it costs what it does becuase you are paying for capacity and form factor. Trust me, I have looked and looked, and I cannot find a player that is the equal of either the iPod or the the iPod Mini in these aspects for a lower price.
I am constantly amazed that NOONE can produce a better cheaper music player than Apple.
Not true. The premium movie services (HBO, Showtime, Cinemax, etc.) do not show any commercials whatsoever. Their programming is not strictly limited to movies - HBO and Cinemax in particular have some wonderful Original Series in their broadcast lineup, and they pretty much always sweep the Emmys.
GREAT sig. How often do people get it ?
Other than that, not much info there, except it points out the obvious, that osX users are not affected, since this appears to be a Visual Basic bug.
If nothing else, the listing of some 940-odd asian porn sites on the Symantec page will be useful to someone...
The rule of thumb that I was brought up in the Navy with is that "boats can't cross oceans, ships can, and don't ever try to argue this point with a submariner.".....
I'm not sure that's entirely accurate, or perhaps times have changed.
I'm surrounded by Navy guys all day @ work (we make test equipment for aircraft carriers), and to a man, they all call the carriers "boats".