I must have missed the part with the interesting philosophy. I saw Socrates repeated for the ten thousandth time. Socrates, Descartes, myself, and everyone else who has every though about what they know.
I like philosophy. I'm doubling in philosophy. But when someone says a film has a lot of good philosophy in it, I generally expect to see some ideas that haven't been mainstream for 2,000 years and haven't been rehashed in half the science fiction previously written.
The other two made decent action films. I actually prefered them. They weren't great, but at least they didn't waste all their time rehashing trite scifi storylined. Well, they didn't seem as trite.
My brother (not an action fan, but certainly a scifi fan) summed up The Matrix fairly well, I though: they discover that this is all a big illusion and nothing in the simulation is real. So they get a bunch of not-real guns and shoot all the not-real stuff. WTF?
(Probably is better on the big screen. Oh well. Too late now, I suppose.)
Sounds a lot like the Windows world that took over. But I've heard there's some weird thing that some people use instread. A penguin with open sores or something. Maybe the same thing will happen for television.
Unless you bought it with the implicit agreement that you wouldn't do X, Y, or Z with it. And you did agree to that, by buying content that has the flag bit.
That's a good idea. Better might be the Wikipedia. there's probably one in whatever language they speak (well, I guess that would be English in Uganda.) and is certainly one in English.
Of course, you'll end up with a lot of Star Trek and Middle-earth articles, as well as an article for every tiny town in the US, at least if you use the English database. You could sort out useful subsets using things like their new categories system.
Maybe I should ask a MediaWiki-knowledgeable person to post. I'm mostly just a user.
While I agree about the nerd stereotype, I think there's a slightly more relevant and serious problem. Such as, you know, our widespread acceptance of gaming companies using 'booth babes' as their primary way of advertising everything from Laura Croft to Tetris.
IF you want to get rid of their sterotype of nerds not getting and 'action', perhaps the solution is to stop driving away all the female nerds. Even if they don't care about the stereotype, stop bloody supporting this idiocy.
The thing is, we know darn well that nuclears weapons are possessed by wacky people. There's no evidence that Smallpox is available to such people, unless I'm mistaken. I was under the impression this whole Smallpox semi-panic was simply because Iraq was one of the last places from which Smallpox was eliminated and so if any untrustworthy people had it, it was them. I never heard any reason to think that any untrustworthy people did have it. (But please don't believe me: look it up and correct me if I'm wrong. I didn't do any research into this.)
Not that it worked out very well, but I still think the American's bombing method was much more interesting, and probably a little less well-known. (Though not at all arcane. The last time I mentioned it at least one fourteen-year-old already knew of it.)
Good point. Because ICQ saves by default, the other person could have reasonably known the conversation might be saved.
AOL chatrooms have no save feature, so it's different. But what if I managed to make my own client (or simply a patch) which did have a built-in (and on by default) logging feature? How wide-spread does the usage or knowledge of this program/add-on have to be in order for there to be reasonable expectation? And just how automatic do these features need to be? If there's a 'Save Conversation' button, is that okay? Or does it have to be completely automated? Does it have to be on by default?
Seems silly and arbitrary, but I realise the law tends to be made that way purposefully.
Because people had a tendency to install Gator on the school computers, I emailed Gator and asked them if there was any way to really remove the program fully. They sent me an uninstaller that seemed to work, but I didn't bother ensuring there was nothing still hidden. Just a school computer, after all.
Actually...maybe it was Yahoo! Instant Messenger. But I think it was Gator. Abut two years ago, probably.
Do you write no email that is personal enough that you'd object to Google looking through it in order to serve up ads?
I sure don't. I have no secrets from mindless machines so long as they don't spread this information to humans.
If you're willing to give up your privacy for mere convenience, what else are you prepared to give up?
I don't seek privacy from computers, but from people. A computer can know anything about me for all I care. I just need assurances that no person can access that information.
Granted, I don't think Google can provide strong enough assurance that I feel safe having my email stored permenently (because they can be subpoenaed, if for no other reason). But I encrypt all my stuff about bombing the White House and molesting little girls.
(Disclamer: I don't molest little girls and I do not intend to bomb the Hhite House, nor do I intend to assist anyone else in these activities.)
This (supposed) privacy issue won't affect people who encrypt all their mail (and insist that their friends do as well). The stuff you get when registering for an account somewhere and that sort of trash won't be encrypted, but that stuff shouldn't be a serious issue, usually.
Maybe bringing these concerns to the public eye--even if the privacy groups lose--will help make public key encryption more popular. Right now, it's considered something used only by people in tin-foil hats. (Of course, we'll have to make the systems more user-friendly, but that isn't the biggest obstacle right now.)
Actually, quantity demanded is lower at higher prices. The demand itself is unchanged. Demand is the line along the quantity-price chart. Quantity Demanded is a point on the demand, determined by the price. Demand(price) = Quantity Demanded.
Okay, you're right. I still disagree with your 'appeal to emotion' assessment, but calling him out on his use of the word murder is correct. Sorry for my stupidity.
> Appeal to Emotion. Fallacy. You lose the argument after one sentence.
No. Analogy to which you have emotional attachments. It's a perfectly valid way of argument. Consider:
Company X's actions are in the same vein as SCO's tactics. If you disapprove of SCO's actions, you should disaprove of company X's tactics.
Perfectly valid. You can argue against the analogy, or accept SCO's tactics, but you can't simply say, 'No, I have a strong emotional bias against SCO so you're not allowed to mention it in an argument'. It doesn't work that way.
I have myself correct some significant errors (the date of Father's day was a week off. Nearly gave me a heart attack), but Britannica isn't perfect either. I usually double-check things from either source if it's something particularly important.
Slashdot Mirror
I must have missed the part with the interesting philosophy. I saw Socrates repeated for the ten thousandth time. Socrates, Descartes, myself, and everyone else who has every though about what they know.
I like philosophy. I'm doubling in philosophy. But when someone says a film has a lot of good philosophy in it, I generally expect to see some ideas that haven't been mainstream for 2,000 years and haven't been rehashed in half the science fiction previously written.
The other two made decent action films. I actually prefered them. They weren't great, but at least they didn't waste all their time rehashing trite scifi storylined. Well, they didn't seem as trite.
My brother (not an action fan, but certainly a scifi fan) summed up The Matrix fairly well, I though: they discover that this is all a big illusion and nothing in the simulation is real. So they get a bunch of not-real guns and shoot all the not-real stuff. WTF?
(Probably is better on the big screen. Oh well. Too late now, I suppose.)
It's the distributors' movie, And they don't want it downloaded.
Sounds a lot like the Windows world that took over. But I've heard there's some weird thing that some people use instread. A penguin with open sores or something. Maybe the same thing will happen for television.
Or maybe not. :-(
Unless you bought it with the implicit agreement that you wouldn't do X, Y, or Z with it. And you did agree to that, by buying content that has the flag bit.
Psi (Jabber client) allows use of OpenPGP keys. Now I just need to get all my contacts to use GPG.
That's a good idea. Better might be the Wikipedia. there's probably one in whatever language they speak (well, I guess that would be English in Uganda.) and is certainly one in English.
You can download the Wikipedia database, export out static pages, and shove those on the computer. I'm pretty sure there's software to do this.
Of course, you'll end up with a lot of Star Trek and Middle-earth articles, as well as an article for every tiny town in the US, at least if you use the English database. You could sort out useful subsets using things like their new categories system.
Maybe I should ask a MediaWiki-knowledgeable person to post. I'm mostly just a user.
While I agree about the nerd stereotype, I think there's a slightly more relevant and serious problem. Such as, you know, our widespread acceptance of gaming companies using 'booth babes' as their primary way of advertising everything from Laura Croft to Tetris.
IF you want to get rid of their sterotype of nerds not getting and 'action', perhaps the solution is to stop driving away all the female nerds. Even if they don't care about the stereotype, stop bloody supporting this idiocy.
The thing is, we know darn well that nuclears weapons are possessed by wacky people. There's no evidence that Smallpox is available to such people, unless I'm mistaken. I was under the impression this whole Smallpox semi-panic was simply because Iraq was one of the last places from which Smallpox was eliminated and so if any untrustworthy people had it, it was them. I never heard any reason to think that any untrustworthy people did have it. (But please don't believe me: look it up and correct me if I'm wrong. I didn't do any research into this.)
wikipedia's 'Public domain' article says that it applies to patents as well ('knowledge': scientific inventions, Edison, &c.)
I think the problem stems largely from restricting ourselves to 'left' and 'right'. Look at diamond. Libertarians aren't left or right: they're top.
According to the International Electrotechnical Commission, Ki is for Kibi (1024), K (k?) is for Kilo (1000).
Not that it worked out very well, but I still think the American's bombing method was much more interesting, and probably a little less well-known. (Though not at all arcane. The last time I mentioned it at least one fourteen-year-old already knew of it.)
Good point. Because ICQ saves by default, the other person could have reasonably known the conversation might be saved.
AOL chatrooms have no save feature, so it's different. But what if I managed to make my own client (or simply a patch) which did have a built-in (and on by default) logging feature? How wide-spread does the usage or knowledge of this program/add-on have to be in order for there to be reasonable expectation? And just how automatic do these features need to be? If there's a 'Save Conversation' button, is that okay? Or does it have to be completely automated? Does it have to be on by default?
Seems silly and arbitrary, but I realise the law tends to be made that way purposefully.
Because people had a tendency to install Gator on the school computers, I emailed Gator and asked them if there was any way to really remove the program fully. They sent me an uninstaller that seemed to work, but I didn't bother ensuring there was nothing still hidden. Just a school computer, after all.
Actually...maybe it was Yahoo! Instant Messenger. But I think it was Gator. Abut two years ago, probably.
The RIAA is not a company. It's an association, representing over 50% of an entire industry.
I sure don't. I have no secrets from mindless machines so long as they don't spread this information to humans.
I don't seek privacy from computers, but from people. A computer can know anything about me for all I care. I just need assurances that no person can access that information.
Granted, I don't think Google can provide strong enough assurance that I feel safe having my email stored permenently (because they can be subpoenaed, if for no other reason). But I encrypt all my stuff about bombing the White House and molesting little girls.
(Disclamer: I don't molest little girls and I do not intend to bomb the Hhite House, nor do I intend to assist anyone else in these activities.)
This (supposed) privacy issue won't affect people who encrypt all their mail (and insist that their friends do as well). The stuff you get when registering for an account somewhere and that sort of trash won't be encrypted, but that stuff shouldn't be a serious issue, usually.
Maybe bringing these concerns to the public eye--even if the privacy groups lose--will help make public key encryption more popular. Right now, it's considered something used only by people in tin-foil hats. (Of course, we'll have to make the systems more user-friendly, but that isn't the biggest obstacle right now.)
(Are companies 'people' in France?)
Then why do you have cable television in the first place?
Actually, quantity demanded is lower at higher prices. The demand itself is unchanged. Demand is the line along the quantity-price chart. Quantity Demanded is a point on the demand, determined by the price. Demand(price) = Quantity Demanded.
Silly little temrinology nitpick. Sorry
Okay, you're right. I still disagree with your 'appeal to emotion' assessment, but calling him out on his use of the word murder is correct. Sorry for my stupidity.
No. Analogy to which you have emotional attachments. It's a perfectly valid way of argument. Consider: Company X's actions are in the same vein as SCO's tactics. If you disapprove of SCO's actions, you should disaprove of company X's tactics.
Perfectly valid. You can argue against the analogy, or accept SCO's tactics, but you can't simply say, 'No, I have a strong emotional bias against SCO so you're not allowed to mention it in an argument'. It doesn't work that way.
I have myself correct some significant errors (the date of Father's day was a week off. Nearly gave me a heart attack), but Britannica isn't perfect either. I usually double-check things from either source if it's something particularly important.