I am an American who spent about a year in Finland. I would say, that yes, most Finns and Swedes know enough English to know what 'window' means. There is no cognate (false or otherwise ) in either language (Fenster (or something like that) in Swedish, ikkuna in Finnish).
So, if the courts are going strictly on the populace's native language(s) and usage, then yes, windows is a unique, trademarkable word (if their legal system is like ours). Certainly Finns and Swedes know that window is a common English word, but I don't think that would fit the court's standard for a common word in either country. It is, in fact, foreign.
But it seems that this weapon would work wonderfully against the US, Europe, and other highly developed countries with armies that rely heavily on electronics.
Where it wouldn't work is a place like Afganistan, where a local irregular knows how to use a camel and a kalashnikov. (Unless this device melts guns).
So, in summary, it seems like the perfect underdog weapon, where the underdog is not the US, but, say, Palestinians or Baathists. Terrorists could use it in the US, and we would be virtually defenseless, and it would render our expensive, high-tech army useless overseas.
You should check out the OSHAA regulations for employees who have to deal with 190 liquids. Here's a clue: It's hot enough to cause third-degree burns. If you don't remember your boy scount training, third degree burns are where a layer of skin burns off.
You want to hear what hell sounds like? Stop by the burn ward of your local hospital when the nurses are changing bandages. (They have to do that daily.)
What would happen to me if I distributed scalding liquids to people on the street, and someone lost the flesh on their hand because of it? Now, what would happen to me if I sold scalding liquid as a food product? I would be thrown in jail, I hope.
It's reasonable to expect that "hot food" is 110 - 130 degrees F. It's not reasonable to expect that "hot food" is 190 F, near boiling.
Imagine a MMORPG where they/encouraged/ you to hack the system. That would be awesome. Or like others have mentioned, you could create agents (like the Merv did the trainman) or get engulfed by agent Smith.
I don't think we're going to get anywhere by arguing further, but here are my final points:
Advertising does influence journalism. It's not bribery, just simply business. Journalists *get their stories dropped* or *get fired* when they are hurting advertisers. If you claim otherwise, you're bs'ing me or fooling yourself. Take a class in journalism history. Just one example: Bill Maher's show was cancelled from a major TV network because of comments he made after 9/11. That was from pressure from advertisers. Guess what? His blog's still up. If you don't like his blog, find another. But you won't be watching him on a major network any time soon, and that's the power of advertising money. Bottom line: The Internet is freer from the influence of advertisers.
The internet also allows people to publish non-anonymously. Reputation has everything to do with it. I won't read a page written by Joe Schmoe, but I will read a page written by Eric S. Raymond. I won't browse slashdot a -1, but I will browse at +3. Slashdotters only get mod points when they consistently use their screen names. Posters only get a karma bonuses when they consistently use their screen name. That's a reputation system.
Sure, I can post as 'anonymous coward', but nobody will read my stuff. That alone ensures that I only publish under 'lawpoop', when I think I'm saying something important. Most slashdotters are not here to waste their time. If they are reading, it's because they think it's worth their while. If they are posting, it's because they want someone to listen to them.
In sum, the internet is not anonymous. I can look up everything you've posted on Slashdot, and you can look up my stuff. It does allow anonymity, but it is not strictly anonymous. Systems like karma and mod points strongly discourage anonymous discussion.
. Traditional forms of media (print, television, radio) are subject to high costs of production and distribution. Thus they are inordinately influenced by advertisers, who finance the media. Witness the current crop of Fox News, et al. Remember that
Furthermore, it's not the journalists who are giving you information, but the editors, who are in the pockets of advertisers.
. The internet, with all of its crap, is the only media form that doesn't have the high costs of creation and distribution. For God sakes , *I'm* making internet content right now.
. Traditional media is not the only distribution channel for high-quality content.
. The internet has some high-quality content on it, written by smart people, who are not journalists, who are using their real names and reputations to create that content.
. Your original complaint was that there is too much crap on the internet to wade through is nullified by the fact that there are systems like karma and moderation that allows you to avoid all the crap.
. People participating in such internet content-filtering systems are rational consumers who do not want to waste their time. If something is highly moderated, it's because a lot of rational consumers, like you, think its worthy enough to be read by other similar consumers.
. Creators and participants of such internet conversations are not subject to the biases stemming from having to satisfy advertisers in order to create the content.
I trust the horde over the editors. Heck, these days TV and newspaper editors proclaim that they are selling advertising space! For them, journalism is just a means to an end: making money. True journalism died decades ago, before my time.
I think we agree on a lot more than our conversation shows.
Unless you go with highly respectable journals ( 'The Economist' comes to mind, and they are unabashedly pro-market), all news outlets are subject to advertising bias. Journalists routinely get their stories cancelled or edited to please some advertiser, or even national sentiment. Case in point, look at US media reporting of the war in Iraq, compared to coverage in other coutries (even ones geographically and culturally as close as Canada). Totally different stories.
Sad fact is, in order to eat, journalists rely on editors to publish their work , and editors rely on advertisers. The arguments you make seem to have a rather naive view of what goes on in journalism today. Ideally, it's supposed to be unbiased, raw information, but that just flat out doesn't happen.
I don't treat slashdot as a respectable news source, but I have gotten *a lot* of information out of it. There are other websites where I get other information from, and they use systems like karma to filter out crap.
If you think moderation and karma is just gimmickry, you need to look again. It works better than you give it credit for. For example, I can look at all your past posts, and see if you have your head on straight. Simply, you have a reputation here. Sure there are a lot of idiots at slashdot, but there are also folks like Hans Reiser. I read what he has to say about filesystems, and take his word for what it's worth. Where else can Hans Reiser get published so easily, but on the internet?
We agree when you say it's the words that count. But I don't think that worthwhile words come from professional journalists. I've met a lot of smart people in my life, who were nobodies in the big picture.
Again, you're missing out on the fact that the 'internet mob' is not anonymous or unknown. You and I both have a reputation on slashdot. I can look at your posts, you can look at mine. So we both can decide what level of credence to give to each other. You are no longer a complete stranger to me. You have an identity and a reputation with me now.
Here's the trick however -- I would trust news sources more often if it were reporters giving me the straight scoop.
However, it goes through editors and editorial boards, who must get advertising to sustain their enterprise. That's subject to a lot of bias. No matter how great the reporter, they are still going through the editor. That's the part I don't like.
Personally, I feel that no matter how much training, a person can never leave their biases behind. I just don't believe it. So I don't trust that reporters can give me unbiased information. So I trust someone who acknowledges their bias more than I do someone who claims to be nuetral.
On the internet, I read what people like Stallman, ESR, and others I trust have to say. There are no editors they have to go through. I also find that the +5 articles on slashdot are extremely informative.
The other trick is that the mob is not anonymous either. I have a reputation built up under 'lawpoop' (it's the karma system). I want to protect that reputation, so that people will listen when I post. I'm not here to waste my time. I generally read posts of people who have high karma, because other people have let me know that that person has said good things. I know those folks have put time into their slashdot ID, and they say informative things.
Reputations in the internet mob work just as well as journalistic reputations, and they don't have to go through those awful editors.
The proof is in the pudding. What level do you browse at? If it's not 2 or better, might I suggest that you try it?
Trust that most 'consumers of information' are rational, like you, and don't come to slashdot to waste time. They come here to get information. Sure, there are a few jokers who post annoying, irrelevant rants, but those quickly get modded down. And they are vastly outnumbered by folks like you.
And maybe the mob gets it wrong a few times, but you know what? Editors do too.
In any case, I trust the unknown mob more than I trust some unknown editor. That's too much power for such few people to have. It's hard to manipulate and control a mob. It's much easier to buyout or otherwise influence an editorial board.
How about something like, oh, I don't know... mod points? I always browse at 3+. Really filters out the garbage.
There's a lot of other really interesting methods for filtering out the crap that tends to collect here. For instance, have you seen google? It's brought a lot of information to me that just was not possible before the internet. As an example, I was looking for a cartoon that I remembered seeing a few times when I was young: "robo-something". So after some googling, I found this.
In fact, giving most everyone internet access increases the signal. Most people don't have time to put random crap on the internet. They put up stuff they think is worthwhile.
I think you're actually missing out on the great feature of the internet. It brings information creation to the masses. There need be no book-license grantors, patrons, editors, or moderators.
Without these guys, you don't have seemingly equal positions. Some people are more eloquent, some people have a better reputations, and some arguments just make more sense. It makes for a more critical populace.
No, but I've seen libraries of better documents produced by multiple knowledgeable people, compared to all the works by just a single, knowledgeable author.
The shuttles have had close calls too. More importantly, they have had 'failures'.
Bottom line, Soyuz has a better record for keeping spacefarers alive
I'd feel better going up in that than in a shuttle. I can think offhand of two major disasters that have happened in the past 25 years (Columbia and the recent one). Have there been others?
I wouldn't be caught dead going up in a shuttle, because I probably would be caught dead blowing up in a shuttle! Har, har!
Slashdot Mirror
Except Swedish and Finnish dictionaries!
So, if the courts are going strictly on the populace's native language(s) and usage, then yes, windows is a unique, trademarkable word (if their legal system is like ours). Certainly Finns and Swedes know that window is a common English word, but I don't think that would fit the court's standard for a common word in either country. It is, in fact, foreign.
That's the point. If something happens to the president's heart, the pacemaker kicks in. I can't resist: why did you mod your own post?
Face it, the internet is about computers. Computers change so fast there isn't much worth hanging on to.
If I were in charge, I would pre-emptively put a pace-maker inside any president upon election, healthy or not.
Where it wouldn't work is a place like Afganistan, where a local irregular knows how to use a camel and a kalashnikov. (Unless this device melts guns).
So, in summary, it seems like the perfect underdog weapon, where the underdog is not the US, but, say, Palestinians or Baathists. Terrorists could use it in the US, and we would be virtually defenseless, and it would render our expensive, high-tech army useless overseas.
You want to hear what hell sounds like? Stop by the burn ward of your local hospital when the nurses are changing bandages. (They have to do that daily.)
What would happen to me if I distributed scalding liquids to people on the street, and someone lost the flesh on their hand because of it? Now, what would happen to me if I sold scalding liquid as a food product? I would be thrown in jail, I hope.
It's reasonable to expect that "hot food" is 110 - 130 degrees F. It's not reasonable to expect that "hot food" is 190 F, near boiling.
Imagine a MMORPG where they /encouraged/ you to hack the system. That would be awesome. Or like others have mentioned, you could create agents (like the Merv did the trainman) or get engulfed by agent Smith.
Advertising does influence journalism. It's not bribery, just simply business. Journalists *get their stories dropped* or *get fired* when they are hurting advertisers. If you claim otherwise, you're bs'ing me or fooling yourself. Take a class in journalism history. Just one example: Bill Maher's show was cancelled from a major TV network because of comments he made after 9/11. That was from pressure from advertisers. Guess what? His blog's still up. If you don't like his blog, find another. But you won't be watching him on a major network any time soon, and that's the power of advertising money. Bottom line: The Internet is freer from the influence of advertisers.
The internet also allows people to publish non-anonymously. Reputation has everything to do with it. I won't read a page written by Joe Schmoe, but I will read a page written by Eric S. Raymond. I won't browse slashdot a -1, but I will browse at +3. Slashdotters only get mod points when they consistently use their screen names. Posters only get a karma bonuses when they consistently use their screen name. That's a reputation system.
Sure, I can post as 'anonymous coward', but nobody will read my stuff. That alone ensures that I only publish under 'lawpoop', when I think I'm saying something important. Most slashdotters are not here to waste their time. If they are reading, it's because they think it's worth their while. If they are posting, it's because they want someone to listen to them.
In sum, the internet is not anonymous. I can look up everything you've posted on Slashdot, and you can look up my stuff. It does allow anonymity, but it is not strictly anonymous. Systems like karma and mod points strongly discourage anonymous discussion.
. Traditional forms of media (print, television, radio) are subject to high costs of production and distribution. Thus they are inordinately influenced by advertisers, who finance the media. Witness the current crop of Fox News, et al. Remember that Furthermore, it's not the journalists who are giving you information, but the editors, who are in the pockets of advertisers.
. The internet, with all of its crap, is the only media form that doesn't have the high costs of creation and distribution. For God sakes , *I'm* making internet content right now.
. Traditional media is not the only distribution channel for high-quality content.
. The internet has some high-quality content on it, written by smart people, who are not journalists, who are using their real names and reputations to create that content.
. Your original complaint was that there is too much crap on the internet to wade through is nullified by the fact that there are systems like karma and moderation that allows you to avoid all the crap. . People participating in such internet content-filtering systems are rational consumers who do not want to waste their time. If something is highly moderated, it's because a lot of rational consumers, like you, think its worthy enough to be read by other similar consumers.
. Creators and participants of such internet conversations are not subject to the biases stemming from having to satisfy advertisers in order to create the content.
I trust the horde over the editors. Heck, these days TV and newspaper editors proclaim that they are selling advertising space! For them, journalism is just a means to an end: making money. True journalism died decades ago, before my time.
Yes, it allows yahoos to say whatever, and you know what? That gimicky karma/moderation system makes sure I never see it.
It also allows people who want to build and maintain a reputation to do so.
Unless you go with highly respectable journals ( 'The Economist' comes to mind, and they are unabashedly pro-market), all news outlets are subject to advertising bias. Journalists routinely get their stories cancelled or edited to please some advertiser, or even national sentiment. Case in point, look at US media reporting of the war in Iraq, compared to coverage in other coutries (even ones geographically and culturally as close as Canada). Totally different stories.
Sad fact is, in order to eat, journalists rely on editors to publish their work , and editors rely on advertisers. The arguments you make seem to have a rather naive view of what goes on in journalism today. Ideally, it's supposed to be unbiased, raw information, but that just flat out doesn't happen.
I don't treat slashdot as a respectable news source, but I have gotten *a lot* of information out of it. There are other websites where I get other information from, and they use systems like karma to filter out crap.
If you think moderation and karma is just gimmickry, you need to look again. It works better than you give it credit for. For example, I can look at all your past posts, and see if you have your head on straight. Simply, you have a reputation here. Sure there are a lot of idiots at slashdot, but there are also folks like Hans Reiser. I read what he has to say about filesystems, and take his word for what it's worth. Where else can Hans Reiser get published so easily, but on the internet?
We agree when you say it's the words that count. But I don't think that worthwhile words come from professional journalists. I've met a lot of smart people in my life, who were nobodies in the big picture.
Again, you're missing out on the fact that the 'internet mob' is not anonymous or unknown. You and I both have a reputation on slashdot. I can look at your posts, you can look at mine. So we both can decide what level of credence to give to each other. You are no longer a complete stranger to me. You have an identity and a reputation with me now.
However, it goes through editors and editorial boards, who must get advertising to sustain their enterprise. That's subject to a lot of bias. No matter how great the reporter, they are still going through the editor. That's the part I don't like.
Personally, I feel that no matter how much training, a person can never leave their biases behind. I just don't believe it. So I don't trust that reporters can give me unbiased information. So I trust someone who acknowledges their bias more than I do someone who claims to be nuetral.
On the internet, I read what people like Stallman, ESR, and others I trust have to say. There are no editors they have to go through. I also find that the +5 articles on slashdot are extremely informative.
The other trick is that the mob is not anonymous either. I have a reputation built up under 'lawpoop' (it's the karma system). I want to protect that reputation, so that people will listen when I post. I'm not here to waste my time. I generally read posts of people who have high karma, because other people have let me know that that person has said good things. I know those folks have put time into their slashdot ID, and they say informative things.
Reputations in the internet mob work just as well as journalistic reputations, and they don't have to go through those awful editors.
Trust that most 'consumers of information' are rational, like you, and don't come to slashdot to waste time. They come here to get information. Sure, there are a few jokers who post annoying, irrelevant rants, but those quickly get modded down. And they are vastly outnumbered by folks like you.
And maybe the mob gets it wrong a few times, but you know what? Editors do too.
In any case, I trust the unknown mob more than I trust some unknown editor. That's too much power for such few people to have. It's hard to manipulate and control a mob. It's much easier to buyout or otherwise influence an editorial board.
There's a lot of other really interesting methods for filtering out the crap that tends to collect here. For instance, have you seen google? It's brought a lot of information to me that just was not possible before the internet.
As an example, I was looking for a cartoon that I remembered seeing a few times when I was young: "robo-something". So after some googling, I found this.
In fact, giving most everyone internet access increases the signal. Most people don't have time to put random crap on the internet. They put up stuff they think is worthwhile.
I think you're actually missing out on the great feature of the internet. It brings information creation to the masses. There need be no book-license grantors, patrons, editors, or moderators.
Without these guys, you don't have seemingly equal positions. Some people are more eloquent, some people have a better reputations, and some arguments just make more sense. It makes for a more critical populace.
Seriously, what's the point of being based in SF?
Apples with THC. Talk about forbidden fruit!
With all the flame wars and one-upmanship on the internet, do you honestly think that this is a danger?
Then don't trust them. Look at the ratings others have given the FAW entries.
No, but I've seen libraries of better documents produced by multiple knowledgeable people, compared to all the works by just a single, knowledgeable author.
What's the job? Who is the target audience of this resume? It's not a resume.
The shuttles have had close calls too. More importantly, they have had 'failures'. Bottom line, Soyuz has a better record for keeping spacefarers alive
I wouldn't be caught dead going up in a shuttle, because I probably would be caught dead blowing up in a shuttle! Har, har!
Russian Cosmonauts in Soyuze capsules have had no fatalities in 20 years.