My favorite example of this comes from the Simpsons I can't find the exact exchange, but essentially, Bart comes in to a lawyer with a flyer which says:
Free Consultation No Money Down
To which Lionel Hutz says, "Somebody got the punctuation wrong." After correcting it, it reads:
As an aside: gawd, I hate their use of "patriot" that way, does anybody know the etymology of the word "patriot" with respect to this legislation? Whose idea was it to use "patriot" and why? It seems like the worst/most transparent type of label possible for such a group of laws that seek to strip away personal freedoms and rights to privacy.
While I'm sure the marketeers in the Bush Administration were specifically trying to come up with some clever acronym, PATRIOT is actually an acronym:
Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism
While I agree that this is still pretty lame, and that they deliberately tried to tie the notion of patriotism to this unpatriotic act, the acronym gives them plausabile deniablity that they were just trying to use doublespeak, and downright misdirection to hide the shameful legislation that is the US P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act.
I though about moderating this as a troll and being done with it, but I guess maybe I should respond instead. I'd have to agree that Bush is a pretty lousy President, but anyone who compares him to Hitler, or Stalin, or Kim Jong Il is simply an ignorant fool, and is disrespecting the Millions of people each of these petty dictators have killed. When George Bush's second term is up, and he pulls a military coup to install himself as a dictator for life, and then sets up death camps, then I'll have to agree with you, but until then, shut the fuck up you ignorant prick.
And for the record, claiming that Henry Ford "practically invented the automobile" is still a false assertion. It would be no more true to assert Bill Gates invented computers and Al Gore invented the internet.
Your statement is utter nonsense. What you say might be true if he claimed that Ford invented the automobile. What he said, however is that Ford practically invented the automobile after he explicitly stated that Ford did not actually technically invent the automobile. Read literally, his statement could be interpreted as, "Ford invented the practical form of the automobile," which is precisely true, though a little less wieldy. In the same way you could say correctly that Bill Gates practically invented the personal computer (i.e. he invented the form in which most people experience personal computers). Saying that Al Gore practically invented the internet, however, is not a proper comparison, and is simply untrue. Saying Tim Burners-Lee practically invented the internet, however, would make a reasonable comparison even though Burners-Lee didn't actually invent it. To deny this is to imply that the phrase "practically invented" has no meaning in the same way as the phrase "practically got pregnant" has no meaning. If that is what you are arguing, then we'll just have to disagree, but otherwise, you're being overly pedantic about a statement which clearly and consisely expressed what he was trying to express, which is after all the purpose of language. Are you honestly telling me that you couldn't figure out what the great-grandparent post was trying to say. If so, you really must have flunked that reading comprehension test.
The automobile was invented by Mr. Daihmler in Germany.
Henry Ford invented the assembly-line which made mass-production of automobiles possibles.
That is, if you wanted one in black.
Apple did not invent the MP3 player.
Apple mass-marketed an MP3 player that looekd good, was easy to use, and had the features consumers were craving.
Are you really so dense that you didn't get his point, or did you just assume that everyone else here was so stupid that they wouldn't get it. If you re-read the grandparent, you'll notice that the point he made was exactly the point you made. It's just that he wrote it at the college level, and you translated it for 3rd graders.
Many of us in this country get the impression (though few are stupid enough to state it as explicitly as you have) from the Democratic Party that they want to see the country fail so they can be right. This is the definition of cutting off your nose to spite your face, and frankly it's pathetic. I didn't vote for Bush or Kerry, though of the two I think Bush is a marginally better choice (i.e. the lesser of two evils), and while I refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils, I don't want either democrats or republicans to "suffer financial & exonomical devistation". If Kerry had won, I would like to see financial and economic success for the country. I really do wish that people like you would get the hell out of this country which you so obvioiusly hate. Damn, wishing ruin on half the country just so you can feel some smug satisfaction. What an asshole. I haven't yet found anyone who inspired me enough to make my friends or foes list. Congradulations, you'll be my first entry. Guess which side you'll be on.
Is how it makes sense to post this story today, as anyone who remotely cares, is likely playing the game right now, and will continue doing so for the next 24-96 hours.
If everyone above the median makes $75000, and one person below the median dies, the median remains $75000. If everyone above the median makes 7.5 million, and one person below the median dies, the median is now 7.5 million. Statistically, the person you are responding to is correct, it's just that what he is saying is a tautology.
The real question I have regarding this is that if we can drag space (our frame) along with us, doesn't that mean that Michaelson-Morley is invalid (i.e. isn't this another explaination of why we don't see any fringe pattern?) Does this in fact mean that light may in fact travel at different speeds in different reference frames?
I mean, the idea of Hollywood liberals teaming up with North Korea isn't biased? I like South Park a lot, but let's face it, this is a right-wing movie these guys made.
I don't know if your comment is a troll, or if you just don't understand satire. If anything, the idea of Hollywood liberals teaming up with North Korea is a left-wing bias. The idea of satire is to push the position of one side to such an extreme as to expose it for the farce it is. In this case, the position is the right wing position that liberals are unamerican. Pushing this idea to the extreme, it is logical to assume that North Korea would try to recruit unamerican Americans. A similar satire of the left wing would be the south park episode where Christopher Reeve is cracking open fetuses and sucking out the insides for a cure. They are not suggesting that embryonic stem-cell research is murder (a right wing position), but rather they are exposing how laughable the right wing position is. I agree that Stone and Parker have a bias, but I don't think it's either right or left wings. Their bias is that both sides (Liberal and Conservative) are composed primarily of idiots. Their more important bias is that both sides can be quite amusing. I think they are out to entertain first. Education on political philosophies is a distant distant 23rd.
That theory is usually true, but more often than not it doesn't hold water
Am I missing something, or doesn't the above phrase effectively read, "That theory is usually true, but that theory is usually false" ? Which is it, usually true, or usually false?
Of course a Neutron Bomb would be a much cheaper and easier way to destroy a population and leave the infrastructure intact. This type of capability has been around for decades, and hasn't destroyed the world yet. While nano-tech may be dangerous, it is not for the reason you state.
But not the part you were looking at. True 1.5 m^3 weighs about 1.5 tons, but the part where he was off was when he said only a bathtub or two full. 1.5 m^3 is about 400 gallons. A 5 foot tub 30 inches wide holds about 50 Gallons, so 1.5 tons of water fills about 8 bathtubs. Have you ever carried a 5 gallon bucket of water. It's heavy. Does it really surprise you that 8 bathtubs full would weigh 1.5 tons. Just for another reference, 400 gallons is a little more water than you would find in a 7-8 person hot tub. That's quite a bit of water.
If the DW6000 is assigning ip addresses on the 192.168 range, simply set your router to assign addresses on the 10.2 range. Plug the lan port of DW6000 to the wan port of your router, and you still have a full router between you and the DW6000. If your DW6000 has a dynamic ip address anyway, the only down side is the increased lag due to the extra level of NAT (which is tiny compared to the inherent lag of DirectWay). I already use this technique to keep a firewall between my wireless router and my wired router. I put all untrusted machines (i.e. web servers, wirelessly connected computers, kids computers) in this DMZ, and keep my important trusted computers behind both firewalls. Send questions to owen_richter hotmail address if you want some tips on how to do this.
Finally and original joke on slashdot which is not a pun. It doesn't even include a Beowulf Cluster of Hot Soviet Russian Grits which eat you while Natalie Portman watchs. It's good to know the meaning of life is still 42
The search engine is a tool for me to find related goods. If I do a search for BMW, and Lexus and Infinity have bought adwords for BMW, I might like to also find information about Lexus and Infinity. There is extremely little risk that if I bring back those links, that I will confuse them with BMW and think I am being directed to a BMW web site. It would be different if Excite diliberately excluded BMW from this search, but adwords are simply a way for people to get eyeballs for searches which are related thier product. You'd have a hard time convincing me that a Infinity is in no way related to a BMW.
...would be to ask what if Linus sued RedHat, Suse, and IBM for purchasing adwords related to Linux. The purpose of adwords is still to direct people to sites related to what they are searching for. If I search for Linux, the chance that I'm looking for Microsoft is slim. If I search for Playboy, I might actually want to find adult material. As I said in another post, I think a fair remedy might be to require Excite/Netscape to post Playboy(TM) as one of the top few links for free, and still be able to sell other adwords under the theory that thier products are related.
The purpose of trademarks is not to protect individuals or companies, but to allow consumers to properly identify the people with whom they do business. It is to facilitate an informed consumer base so that we can make choices about who we do business with. If I have found that Playboy produces a good product, it is reasonable to assume that thier next product will be of similar quality, and if they produce a bad product, I can refuse to do business with them in the future. Trademark is not designed to keep me from viewing similar products, it's simply to keep me from mistaking one for the other. If I were doing a search for playboy on excite, I might like to get links to Playboy(TM) as well as other related products. I think playboy would have a strong case if other products were allowed in this list, and Playboy were excluded. I think a sufficient remedy would be to require excite to make sure that if Playboy asked to be in the list, they were included free of charge. This would prevent me from thinking that Playboy has no web presence other than the top 3 brand X sites.
I've always found the Military way the most obvious form for human consumption. They use DD/Three or Four Letters/YYYY (i.e. 24 May 2003, or 13 Sept 2004) It may be more difficult to parse for computers, but for humans, it is obvious to both Americans, and Europeans (and probably most of the rest of the world.)
Also, remember, there are three ways to do everything: 1) The right way. 2) The wrong way. 3) The Military way.
A physicist, a chemist, and an engineer are asked: Q: "What is the best way to determine the volume of a little red ball." A: Physicist: Measure the diameter, devide by two for radius and use the formula 4/3 * PI * radius ^ 3
A: Chemist: Take a beaker, fill it with water. Dunk the ball in it, and measure the amount of water displaced.
A: Engineer: It's easy, just pull out the "Little Red Ball" book and look it up.
I really didn't expect a response on that point, but I'm not sure if you are engaging in discourse, or trying to sling mud at someone who disagrees with your political leanings. I'll assume the former. Actually, I think in my 12 years of political life, I've only voted for one Repubilcan or Libertarian when I had another choice (the exception being Bob Dole in 1996). In the 2000 election, I think most people decided to vote for the lesser of two evils (and for the record I believe we got the lesser of two evils with Bush), but I think people who vote for the lesser of two evils are part of the problem (partially caused by our voting system, and partially caused by people who believe that voting for the lesser of two evils can be considered civic duty.) In 2000 I voted for Nader. Not because I believed firmly in his causes (I generally oppose his causes), but because I generally believe that he is doing what's right for the people he represents, rather than what is politically expedient. If Jerry Brown or Jessie Ventura ran for President, I would probably vote for them as well. I think the point I was trying to get across is that many people believe that if you vote third party, you are wasting your vote. I believe, instead, that if you vote for the lesser of two evils, that vote is truly wasted.
I have often said to my wife (only half jokingly) that the difference between the Republicans and the Democrats is that the Republicans are for the rich, and tell you they are for the rich, while the Democrats are for the rich, and tell you they are for the poor.
This is closely related to another of my favorite quotes (which could also be applied to Democrats vs Republicans) : In Communism, Man takes advantage of his fellow man, in Capitalism, it's the other way around.
Imply what you will about my political affiliations.
It may be that Linux is currently being used to develop nuclear weapons, but this article has nothing to do with that. As the name implies, Blue Gene will be used for genetics research. Specifically, the protien folding problem, which in turn could help Geneticists to develop new wonder drugs without the current random trial and error methods they use. Imagine if we could simply plug in the code for HIV, run it through the computer, and custom design a drug to fight it. I'd think the developers of Linux would feel pretty good about that.
Slashdot Mirror
My favorite example of this comes from the Simpsons I can't find the exact exchange, but essentially, Bart comes in to a lawyer with a flyer which says:
Free Consultation
No Money Down
To which Lionel Hutz says, "Somebody got the punctuation wrong." After correcting it, it reads:
Free Consultation?
No, Money Down!
As an aside: gawd, I hate their use of "patriot" that way, does anybody know the etymology of the word "patriot" with respect to this legislation? Whose idea was it to use "patriot" and why? It seems like the worst/most transparent type of label possible for such a group of laws that seek to strip away personal freedoms and rights to privacy.
While I'm sure the marketeers in the Bush Administration were specifically trying to come up with some clever acronym, PATRIOT is actually an acronym:
Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism
While I agree that this is still pretty lame, and that they deliberately tried to tie the notion of patriotism to this unpatriotic act, the acronym gives them plausabile deniablity that they were just trying to use doublespeak, and downright misdirection to hide the shameful legislation that is the US P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act.
I though about moderating this as a troll and being done with it, but I guess maybe I should respond instead. I'd have to agree that Bush is a pretty lousy President, but anyone who compares him to Hitler, or Stalin, or Kim Jong Il is simply an ignorant fool, and is disrespecting the Millions of people each of these petty dictators have killed. When George Bush's second term is up, and he pulls a military coup to install himself as a dictator for life, and then sets up death camps, then I'll have to agree with you, but until then, shut the fuck up you ignorant prick.
And for the record, claiming that Henry Ford "practically invented the automobile" is still a false assertion. It would be no more true to assert Bill Gates invented computers and Al Gore invented the internet.
Your statement is utter nonsense. What you say might be true if he claimed that Ford invented the automobile. What he said, however is that Ford practically invented the automobile after he explicitly stated that Ford did not actually technically invent the automobile. Read literally, his statement could be interpreted as, "Ford invented the practical form of the automobile," which is precisely true, though a little less wieldy. In the same way you could say correctly that Bill Gates practically invented the personal computer (i.e. he invented the form in which most people experience personal computers). Saying that Al Gore practically invented the internet, however, is not a proper comparison, and is simply untrue. Saying Tim Burners-Lee practically invented the internet, however, would make a reasonable comparison even though Burners-Lee didn't actually invent it. To deny this is to imply that the phrase "practically invented" has no meaning in the same way as the phrase "practically got pregnant" has no meaning. If that is what you are arguing, then we'll just have to disagree, but otherwise, you're being overly pedantic about a statement which clearly and consisely expressed what he was trying to express, which is after all the purpose of language. Are you honestly telling me that you couldn't figure out what the great-grandparent post was trying to say. If so, you really must have flunked that reading comprehension test.
The automobile was invented by Mr. Daihmler in Germany.
Henry Ford invented the assembly-line which made mass-production of automobiles possibles.
That is, if you wanted one in black.
Apple did not invent the MP3 player.
Apple mass-marketed an MP3 player that looekd good, was easy to use, and had the features consumers were craving.
Are you really so dense that you didn't get his point, or did you just assume that everyone else here was so stupid that they wouldn't get it. If you re-read the grandparent, you'll notice that the point he made was exactly the point you made. It's just that he wrote it at the college level, and you translated it for 3rd graders.
Many of us in this country get the impression (though few are stupid enough to state it as explicitly as you have) from the Democratic Party that they want to see the country fail so they can be right. This is the definition of cutting off your nose to spite your face, and frankly it's pathetic. I didn't vote for Bush or Kerry, though of the two I think Bush is a marginally better choice (i.e. the lesser of two evils), and while I refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils, I don't want either democrats or republicans to "suffer financial & exonomical devistation". If Kerry had won, I would like to see financial and economic success for the country. I really do wish that people like you would get the hell out of this country which you so obvioiusly hate. Damn, wishing ruin on half the country just so you can feel some smug satisfaction. What an asshole. I haven't yet found anyone who inspired me enough to make my friends or foes list. Congradulations, you'll be my first entry. Guess which side you'll be on.
Is how it makes sense to post this story today, as anyone who remotely cares, is likely playing the game right now, and will continue doing so for the next 24-96 hours.
If everyone above the median makes $75000, and one person below the median dies, the median remains $75000. If everyone above the median makes 7.5 million, and one person below the median dies, the median is now 7.5 million. Statistically, the person you are responding to is correct, it's just that what he is saying is a tautology.
The real question I have regarding this is that if we can drag space (our frame) along with us, doesn't that mean that Michaelson-Morley is invalid (i.e. isn't this another explaination of why we don't see any fringe pattern?) Does this in fact mean that light may in fact travel at different speeds in different reference frames?
I don't know if your comment is a troll, or if you just don't understand satire. If anything, the idea of Hollywood liberals teaming up with North Korea is a left-wing bias. The idea of satire is to push the position of one side to such an extreme as to expose it for the farce it is. In this case, the position is the right wing position that liberals are unamerican. Pushing this idea to the extreme, it is logical to assume that North Korea would try to recruit unamerican Americans. A similar satire of the left wing would be the south park episode where Christopher Reeve is cracking open fetuses and sucking out the insides for a cure. They are not suggesting that embryonic stem-cell research is murder (a right wing position), but rather they are exposing how laughable the right wing position is. I agree that Stone and Parker have a bias, but I don't think it's either right or left wings. Their bias is that both sides (Liberal and Conservative) are composed primarily of idiots. Their more important bias is that both sides can be quite amusing. I think they are out to entertain first. Education on political philosophies is a distant distant 23rd.
That theory is usually true, but more often than not it doesn't hold water
Am I missing something, or doesn't the above phrase effectively read, "That theory is usually true, but that theory is usually false" ? Which is it, usually true, or usually false?
...He rested.
Of course a Neutron Bomb would be a much cheaper and easier way to destroy a population and leave the infrastructure intact. This type of capability has been around for decades, and hasn't destroyed the world yet. While nano-tech may be dangerous, it is not for the reason you state.
But not the part you were looking at. True 1.5 m^3 weighs about 1.5 tons, but the part where he was off was when he said only a bathtub or two full. 1.5 m^3 is about 400 gallons. A 5 foot tub 30 inches wide holds about 50 Gallons, so 1.5 tons of water fills about 8 bathtubs. Have you ever carried a 5 gallon bucket of water. It's heavy. Does it really surprise you that 8 bathtubs full would weigh 1.5 tons. Just for another reference, 400 gallons is a little more water than you would find in a 7-8 person hot tub. That's quite a bit of water.
If the DW6000 is assigning ip addresses on the 192.168 range, simply set your router to assign addresses on the 10.2 range. Plug the lan port of DW6000 to the wan port of your router, and you still have a full router between you and the DW6000. If your DW6000 has a dynamic ip address anyway, the only down side is the increased lag due to the extra level of NAT (which is tiny compared to the inherent lag of DirectWay). I already use this technique to keep a firewall between my wireless router and my wired router. I put all untrusted machines (i.e. web servers, wirelessly connected computers, kids computers) in this DMZ, and keep my important trusted computers behind both firewalls. Send questions to owen_richter hotmail address if you want some tips on how to do this.
Finally and original joke on slashdot which is not a pun. It doesn't even include a Beowulf Cluster of Hot Soviet Russian Grits which eat you while Natalie Portman watchs. It's good to know the meaning of life is still 42
The search engine is a tool for me to find related goods. If I do a search for BMW, and Lexus and Infinity have bought adwords for BMW, I might like to also find information about Lexus and Infinity. There is extremely little risk that if I bring back those links, that I will confuse them with BMW and think I am being directed to a BMW web site. It would be different if Excite diliberately excluded BMW from this search, but adwords are simply a way for people to get eyeballs for searches which are related thier product. You'd have a hard time convincing me that a Infinity is in no way related to a BMW.
...would be to ask what if Linus sued RedHat, Suse, and IBM for purchasing adwords related to Linux. The purpose of adwords is still to direct people to sites related to what they are searching for. If I search for Linux, the chance that I'm looking for Microsoft is slim. If I search for Playboy, I might actually want to find adult material. As I said in another post, I think a fair remedy might be to require Excite/Netscape to post Playboy(TM) as one of the top few links for free, and still be able to sell other adwords under the theory that thier products are related.
The purpose of trademarks is not to protect individuals or companies, but to allow consumers to properly identify the people with whom they do business. It is to facilitate an informed consumer base so that we can make choices about who we do business with. If I have found that Playboy produces a good product, it is reasonable to assume that thier next product will be of similar quality, and if they produce a bad product, I can refuse to do business with them in the future. Trademark is not designed to keep me from viewing similar products, it's simply to keep me from mistaking one for the other. If I were doing a search for playboy on excite, I might like to get links to Playboy(TM) as well as other related products. I think playboy would have a strong case if other products were allowed in this list, and Playboy were excluded. I think a sufficient remedy would be to require excite to make sure that if Playboy asked to be in the list, they were included free of charge. This would prevent me from thinking that Playboy has no web presence other than the top 3 brand X sites.
I've always found the Military way the most obvious form for human consumption. They use DD/Three or Four Letters/YYYY (i.e. 24 May 2003, or 13 Sept 2004) It may be more difficult to parse for computers, but for humans, it is obvious to both Americans, and Europeans (and probably most of the rest of the world.)
Also, remember, there are three ways to do everything:
1) The right way.
2) The wrong way.
3) The Military way.
I couldn't get through to see if thier servers are down. Could someone else please check and let us know:)
A physicist, a chemist, and an engineer are asked:
Q: "What is the best way to determine the volume of a little red ball."
A: Physicist: Measure the diameter, devide by two for radius and use the formula 4/3 * PI * radius ^ 3
A: Chemist: Take a beaker, fill it with water. Dunk the ball in it, and measure the amount of water displaced.
A: Engineer: It's easy, just pull out the "Little Red Ball" book and look it up.
I really didn't expect a response on that point, but I'm not sure if you are engaging in discourse, or trying to sling mud at someone who disagrees with your political leanings. I'll assume the former. Actually, I think in my 12 years of political life, I've only voted for one Repubilcan or Libertarian when I had another choice (the exception being Bob Dole in 1996). In the 2000 election, I think most people decided to vote for the lesser of two evils (and for the record I believe we got the lesser of two evils with Bush), but I think people who vote for the lesser of two evils are part of the problem (partially caused by our voting system, and partially caused by people who believe that voting for the lesser of two evils can be considered civic duty.) In 2000 I voted for Nader. Not because I believed firmly in his causes (I generally oppose his causes), but because I generally believe that he is doing what's right for the people he represents, rather than what is politically expedient. If Jerry Brown or Jessie Ventura ran for President, I would probably vote for them as well. I think the point I was trying to get across is that many people believe that if you vote third party, you are wasting your vote. I believe, instead, that if you vote for the lesser of two evils, that vote is truly wasted.
I have often said to my wife (only half jokingly) that the difference between the Republicans and the Democrats is that the Republicans are for the rich, and tell you they are for the rich, while the Democrats are for the rich, and tell you they are for the poor.
This is closely related to another of my favorite quotes (which could also be applied to Democrats vs Republicans) : In Communism, Man takes advantage of his fellow man, in Capitalism, it's the other way around.
Imply what you will about my political affiliations.
It may be that Linux is currently being used to develop nuclear weapons, but this article has nothing to do with that. As the name implies, Blue Gene will be used for genetics research. Specifically, the protien folding problem, which in turn could help Geneticists to develop new wonder drugs without the current random trial and error methods they use. Imagine if we could simply plug in the code for HIV, run it through the computer, and custom design a drug to fight it. I'd think the developers of Linux would feel pretty good about that.