You're serious??? You would give kids jail time for an administrative prank? For $40? That's sick. Just plain sick.
$40 is the fine imposed on someone caught jumping lights.
Jailtime is the penalty that should be imposed on someone jumping lights with premeditation, committing identity theft and fraud in order to be vindictive towards another person.
You're supposed to think it's a big deal. If you don't go "wtf, really, that'll happen if i [insert illegal activity]" then the punishment is not severe enough.
The guy that runs my local chippy speaks 5 languages.. I find that amazing really.
I'm happy for UK to throw its self in with the UN to declare Hindi the international language, provided it can be easily written on computer and there's a common script amongst all these people.
I don't speak Welsh. The language of the United Kingdom is "English Language" Welsh people have a problem with that because they think it's more Welsh not to speak English. I eschew minority languages, when I go to Northern France I don't learn Breton, but French. Cymraeg is an anachronism IMO that should have been allowed to die out. The Welsh Assembly spend millions from this poor principalities coffers on translation when all the population that can speak the language being translated into can also speak the one being translated from. That's nationalistic idiocy.
Moreover literacy levels in English are hindered. Which would you rather, be able to communicate with 20% of Welsh people (and a few Patagonians) or be able to communicate with nearly 100% of Welsh people and perhaps another billion people worldwide.
1) Say you won't prosecute. 2) Wait for filesharing to increase. 3) Sue the pants off everyone just in case you can convince a judge they did something to wrong you. 4) Profit!
I know four languages, and I found that every language has its own nuances of meanings [...] If you come to my country, learn my f[****]n' language! What would you think, if I came to the USA or UK, and *expected* you to speak German (or Luxemburgish, which happens to be my mother's tongue)?
Your arrogance disgusts me. It's always English, English, English!
English is [ironically] the/lingua franca/ of international business and the GP is right in that most everywhere you go you'll find someone with a smattering of English. Of course that's true for other languages too - it often depends on the visiting tourist population as well as past colonisations.
I only learnt French and Russian at school but do try to speak the language appropriate to any country I visit: Mandinki, Kswahili, Spanish, Tunisian, etc.,... I live in Newport, South Wales now so I should really be learning Urdu.
Chinese is a complex of many different dialects and writing styles - partially pictographic/ideographic, partially derived from phonetic symbols (for which the phonetics have mutated and drifted) it may be widely spoken (eg by 80%+ in the PRC) but doesn't seem to lend itself to modern technological input methods.
From what I understand Mandarin users enter characters as pinyin using latin characters, presumably different fonts then are used to switch between traditional and modern character sets? Why then bother with the transliteration, just use pinyin.
Personally I think English should be rationalised with simplified and logical spelling applied - but it would probably just be "corrupted" again in a short time.
Mandarin and Hindi are often listed as the most spoken languages but I think in both cases they encompass a lot of dialects. Perhaps Spanish would be a better international language?
But I'm guessing you'll just say I'm an arrogant European then?
I've always believed a true muslim to be a follower of Mohammed and one who strives to adhere to his creed. Just as a true christian follows Jesus and his creed.
Being born in a particular country or to a particular family doesn't define your personal beliefs though it undoubtedly will shape them.
The Koran and haddith are considered authoritative for a muslim and so failing to follow them without any attempt at rationalising your position to me demarks a person as non-muslim.
OT I always find it amusing when people resort to the ad hominem attack of calling someone a bigot. That person is showing themselves to be intolerant of another's beliefs and are thus themselves a bigot.
I don't think that it is fallacious to examine someone's actions over and above their declarations to determine their true nature.
In terms of the Scotsman, when one reads of a Scotsman having done unspeakable acts of depravity (even worse than deep-frying pizza!) one can ask whether he is Scottish by birthright or by self-proclamation. If it is only the later then the observer is right to declare "no true Scotsman would..." and can even tightly define what he means by a true Scotsman.
To abstract: "no prime can be factored", tautology by definition.
Ultimately determining if a [small] number is prime or someone is Scottish (at least within high bounds of certainty) is easier than determining someone's beliefs.
In the picture you can see how the Ecofont is created by omitting parts of the letter. At the shown size, this obviously is not very nice, but at a regular font size it is actually very usable.
It must look pretty horrible at smaller sizes too otherwise I think they might have shown us a sample, no?
If they'd constructed it out of Sierpinski gasket they would have saved a lot more!
My personal experience is that Muslims who grew up in western culture are much LESS likely to attempt to impose their religious beliefs on others than fundamentalist Christians are.
That's because they aren't actually Muslims. Because Islam defines a complete culture, legal system and all, people are Muslims if they're born in a Muslim culture.. and the required punishment for apostasy being death helps to keep them from claiming to be anything else.
While it may seem like a key difference to someone who believes, it really isn't a difference at all in an objective sense.
Two guys walk up to you. One says "This other fellow and I both have imaginary friends. But there's a key difference. He claims to be the ultimate authority on what his imaginary friend says, and if you don't like it, tough. Whilst take my imaginary friend as the ultimate authority, and don't try to push my interpretation of His Word."
See what I mean?
I'm afraid I don't at all. Let's lay aside question of theism for a moment. Islam demands a specific political system and hence in order to approach that system Islamic leaders will rightly specify who best to vote for to achieve this end. Islam doesn't generally have a notion of personal relationship with God.
Christianity is a personal faith which makes no demands as to the political system under which it's adherents live.
The difference is clearly seen in the key figures in each movement. Mohammed came and battled physically against towns to enforce his regime. Jesus refused his disciples to physically battle even against the soldiers who came to take him to be tortured and killed.
[...] the Bible without any altering..." so they'd surely accept that the word "church" could be used as I've used it.
It wasn't a trick question, I was interested in how you were using it, not how it may be used. The passage you quote is from The Bible, the KJV is just a not very precise translation in anachronistic language. The Greek word is "hierosylos" (Acts 19:37) derived from Temple + Strip, ie it means temple robbers or in a widened sense those guilty of sacrilege. The term "church" had no meaning at the time of Acts - congregation is closer to the truth in that the Christians in a town would meet in one anothers houses to worship and share together.
Never fear - this patent has been badly drafted. You can easily circumvent it by not swinging from a tree, use a wooden frame. Or use ropes for your swing. Or use a different number of chains, one looped over the tree for example...
But Microsoft counselled against taking such action.
"I cannot recommend people switch due to this one flaw," said John Curran, head of Microsoft UK's Windows group.
Not trying to downplay the clear reasoning behind switching browsers, but the summary is just blatantly incorrect in this case.
If they really meant "don't switch" why the rider about "this one flaw". It's clear that Mr Curran thinks you shouldn't switch because of this one, but because this is one of many..
Being wet is not an attribute of water, [...] When a matter is covered by a liquid such as water, that matter becomes wet.
Surely it's simply a case of how one defines things. I define something able to make things wet as "wet" - hence water is wet.
Also your definition is lacking. Water molecules constitute matter and except in extreme circumstances of isolation are covered by water molecules - hence by your definition any significant volume of water, beyond mere molecules,/is/ wet.
Linux has always failed. First and worse stumbling block, to this day is the Time Zone selection. They get confused looking at a map of cities. Why not just show the F'ing time zones to start?
Troll much?
Anyway, which distro are you on about? I've installed Suse, Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Knoppix and XP (twice) recently. XP gave me most bother - I've only got a preinstall of Vista so can't say how good it is. No, I'm not a Grandma.
Also: they know what timezone they're in but not what city?
There is a key difference in Islam in the Imam's are the ultimate authority (or perhaps you could weasel it and say their interpretation of the Koran and Haddith is the ultimate?) whilst in a Christian church the ultimate authority is the word of God, especially as expressed in the Bible. Christianity is about personal faith, Islam is about a whole system for living.
Thus Islam is a political system too, whilst Christianity is not.
I think Judaism leans more towards the Islamic side with the rabbinic tradition.
On a side note I'm interested to know which "church" you are referring to that believes in multiple gods? Hindus for example use a temple. Church is a specifically Christian word as it's etymology is of greek words for a "congregation of the Lord".
You have a voter verified system with full anonymity.
Sorry I missed the bit where you verified your vote was counted and included in the total.. perhaps you can point it out to me? Or do you mean that each voter follows the box between polling station and counting centre and is able to count the papers for themselves?
If you're worried about fair outcomes, you should be far more worried about the election being stolen wholesale in the counting process than retail through voter intimidation.
--MarkusQ
You don't have to intimidate to get blocks of votes. The Imam at a large mosque can have a couple of thousand votes on request.
*Any* percentage can shift the outcome of an election, and each single vote counts.
Each single vote _may_ count, you don't know until after it has been cast though. If who I vote for wins by an easy landslide majority then you can hardly say my vote counted.
If the margin between outcomes is within n-times the expected counting error then recounts are usually made (in places that value their democracy). If the expected error is +/-200 and the outcome is a win by a 10 000 then it ain't worth counting it again.
The solution is to build a system where you don't have to trust anything (or as little as possible), because it's fault tolerant and has verifiers in place to catch things.
And the problem with that is that it's supposed to be a secret ballot. I'd like to be able to use an online form with some sort of hash so that I could check my ballot had been recorded correctly. Such a system leaves others open to being pressured into voting in a particular way however.
You can't have a voter verified system that is also secret (unless you require those who want to secrete their vote to be active in hiding it). So, like you said you have to have some trust involved.
Slashdot Mirror
You're serious??? You would give kids jail time for an administrative prank? For $40? That's sick. Just plain sick.
$40 is the fine imposed on someone caught jumping lights.
Jailtime is the penalty that should be imposed on someone jumping lights with premeditation, committing identity theft and fraud in order to be vindictive towards another person.
You're supposed to think it's a big deal. If you don't go "wtf, really, that'll happen if i [insert illegal activity]" then the punishment is not severe enough.
The guy that runs my local chippy speaks 5 languages .. I find that amazing really.
I'm happy for UK to throw its self in with the UN to declare Hindi the international language, provided it can be easily written on computer and there's a common script amongst all these people.
I don't speak Welsh. The language of the United Kingdom is "English Language" Welsh people have a problem with that because they think it's more Welsh not to speak English. I eschew minority languages, when I go to Northern France I don't learn Breton, but French. Cymraeg is an anachronism IMO that should have been allowed to die out. The Welsh Assembly spend millions from this poor principalities coffers on translation when all the population that can speak the language being translated into can also speak the one being translated from. That's nationalistic idiocy.
Moreover literacy levels in English are hindered. Which would you rather, be able to communicate with 20% of Welsh people (and a few Patagonians) or be able to communicate with nearly 100% of Welsh people and perhaps another billion people worldwide.
Nadolig Llawen.
Surely it's a trap.
1) Say you won't prosecute.
2) Wait for filesharing to increase.
3) Sue the pants off everyone just in case you can convince a judge they did something to wrong you.
4) Profit!
I know four languages, and I found that every language has its own nuances of meanings [...] If you come to my country, learn my f[****]n' language! What would you think, if I came to the USA or UK, and *expected* you to speak German (or Luxemburgish, which happens to be my mother's tongue)?
Your arrogance disgusts me. It's always English, English, English!
English is [ironically] the /lingua franca/ of international business and the GP is right in that most everywhere you go you'll find someone with a smattering of English. Of course that's true for other languages too - it often depends on the visiting tourist population as well as past colonisations.
I only learnt French and Russian at school but do try to speak the language appropriate to any country I visit: Mandinki, Kswahili, Spanish, Tunisian, etc., ... I live in Newport, South Wales now so I should really be learning Urdu.
Chinese is a complex of many different dialects and writing styles - partially pictographic/ideographic, partially derived from phonetic symbols (for which the phonetics have mutated and drifted) it may be widely spoken (eg by 80%+ in the PRC) but doesn't seem to lend itself to modern technological input methods.
From what I understand Mandarin users enter characters as pinyin using latin characters, presumably different fonts then are used to switch between traditional and modern character sets? Why then bother with the transliteration, just use pinyin.
Personally I think English should be rationalised with simplified and logical spelling applied - but it would probably just be "corrupted" again in a short time.
Mandarin and Hindi are often listed as the most spoken languages but I think in both cases they encompass a lot of dialects. Perhaps Spanish would be a better international language?
But I'm guessing you'll just say I'm an arrogant European then?
I've always believed a true muslim to be a follower of Mohammed and one who strives to adhere to his creed. Just as a true christian follows Jesus and his creed.
Being born in a particular country or to a particular family doesn't define your personal beliefs though it undoubtedly will shape them.
The Koran and haddith are considered authoritative for a muslim and so failing to follow them without any attempt at rationalising your position to me demarks a person as non-muslim.
OT I always find it amusing when people resort to the ad hominem attack of calling someone a bigot. That person is showing themselves to be intolerant of another's beliefs and are thus themselves a bigot.
I don't think that it is fallacious to examine someone's actions over and above their declarations to determine their true nature.
In terms of the Scotsman, when one reads of a Scotsman having done unspeakable acts of depravity (even worse than deep-frying pizza!) one can ask whether he is Scottish by birthright or by self-proclamation. If it is only the later then the observer is right to declare "no true Scotsman would ..." and can even tightly define what he means by a true Scotsman.
To abstract: "no prime can be factored", tautology by definition.
Ultimately determining if a [small] number is prime or someone is Scottish (at least within high bounds of certainty) is easier than determining someone's beliefs.
[...] I thought that the rule of thumb was that serif fonts should be used for print.
Yup, that's my understanding too.
The linked pages mention that they think businesses mainly print in sans fonts and that's why they adapted such.
The biggest fail in all this .. not calling them rupees.*
* no, not really
From the website:
View the Ecofont
In the picture you can see how the Ecofont is created by omitting parts of the letter. At the shown size, this obviously is not very nice, but at a regular font size it is actually very usable.
It must look pretty horrible at smaller sizes too otherwise I think they might have shown us a sample, no?
If they'd constructed it out of Sierpinski gasket they would have saved a lot more!
Nice bit of viral marketing for Spranq methinks.
Shouldn't they have done this with a serif font if it is meant to save ink/toner?
Surely all the serifs would cancel out the saving from the holes?
Atheism - There is no CPU ...
Agnosticism - You cannot prove there is a CPU by programming ...
Feminism: Men are shit.
Chauvinism: We may be shit, but you can't live without us...
Chauvinism would be something like "We may be shit, but Women are the shit of the bugs that live off our shit". FWIW, which isn't much.
My personal experience is that Muslims who grew up in western culture are much LESS likely to attempt to impose their religious beliefs on others than fundamentalist Christians are.
That's because they aren't actually Muslims. Because Islam defines a complete culture, legal system and all, people are Muslims if they're born in a Muslim culture .. and the required punishment for apostasy being death helps to keep them from claiming to be anything else.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article2426314.ece
While it may seem like a key difference to someone who believes, it really isn't a difference at all in an objective sense.
Two guys walk up to you. One says "This other fellow and I both have imaginary friends. But there's a key difference. He claims to be the ultimate authority on what his imaginary friend says, and if you don't like it, tough. Whilst take my imaginary friend as the ultimate authority, and don't try to push my interpretation of His Word."
See what I mean?
I'm afraid I don't at all. Let's lay aside question of theism for a moment. Islam demands a specific political system and hence in order to approach that system Islamic leaders will rightly specify who best to vote for to achieve this end. Islam doesn't generally have a notion of personal relationship with God.
Christianity is a personal faith which makes no demands as to the political system under which it's adherents live.
The difference is clearly seen in the key figures in each movement. Mohammed came and battled physically against towns to enforce his regime. Jesus refused his disciples to physically battle even against the soldiers who came to take him to be tortured and killed.
[...] the Bible without any altering..." so they'd surely accept that the word "church" could be used as I've used it.
It wasn't a trick question, I was interested in how you were using it, not how it may be used. The passage you quote is from The Bible, the KJV is just a not very precise translation in anachronistic language. The Greek word is "hierosylos" (Acts 19:37) derived from Temple + Strip, ie it means temple robbers or in a widened sense those guilty of sacrilege. The term "church" had no meaning at the time of Acts - congregation is closer to the truth in that the Christians in a town would meet in one anothers houses to worship and share together.
WARNING! Your toddlers might violate a Patent!
Never fear - this patent has been badly drafted. You can easily circumvent it by not swinging from a tree, use a wooden frame. Or use ropes for your swing. Or use a different number of chains, one looped over the tree for example ...
But Microsoft counselled against taking such action.
"I cannot recommend people switch due to this one flaw," said John Curran, head of Microsoft UK's Windows group.
Not trying to downplay the clear reasoning behind switching browsers, but the summary is just blatantly incorrect in this case.
If they really meant "don't switch" why the rider about "this one flaw". It's clear that Mr Curran thinks you shouldn't switch because of this one, but because this is one of many ..
Being wet is not an attribute of water, [...] When a matter is covered by a liquid such as water, that matter becomes wet.
Surely it's simply a case of how one defines things. I define something able to make things wet as "wet" - hence water is wet.
Also your definition is lacking. Water molecules constitute matter and except in extreme circumstances of isolation are covered by water molecules - hence by your definition any significant volume of water, beyond mere molecules, /is/ wet.
Makes a change, most people around here are joke blind.
I don't get it.
He means people here can't tell when you're joking.
Linux has always failed. First and worse stumbling block, to this day is the Time Zone selection. They get confused looking at a map of cities. Why not just show the F'ing time zones to start?
Troll much?
Anyway, which distro are you on about? I've installed Suse, Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Knoppix and XP (twice) recently. XP gave me most bother - I've only got a preinstall of Vista so can't say how good it is. No, I'm not a Grandma.
Also: they know what timezone they're in but not what city?
There is a key difference in Islam in the Imam's are the ultimate authority (or perhaps you could weasel it and say their interpretation of the Koran and Haddith is the ultimate?) whilst in a Christian church the ultimate authority is the word of God, especially as expressed in the Bible. Christianity is about personal faith, Islam is about a whole system for living.
Thus Islam is a political system too, whilst Christianity is not.
I think Judaism leans more towards the Islamic side with the rabbinic tradition.
On a side note I'm interested to know which "church" you are referring to that believes in multiple gods? Hindus for example use a temple. Church is a specifically Christian word as it's etymology is of greek words for a "congregation of the Lord".
You have a voter verified system with full anonymity.
Sorry I missed the bit where you verified your vote was counted and included in the total .. perhaps you can point it out to me? Or do you mean that each voter follows the box between polling station and counting centre and is able to count the papers for themselves?
If you're worried about fair outcomes, you should be far more worried about the election being stolen wholesale in the counting process than retail through voter intimidation.
--MarkusQ
You don't have to intimidate to get blocks of votes. The Imam at a large mosque can have a couple of thousand votes on request.
*Any* percentage can shift the outcome of an election, and each single vote counts.
Each single vote _may_ count, you don't know until after it has been cast though. If who I vote for wins by an easy landslide majority then you can hardly say my vote counted.
If the margin between outcomes is within n-times the expected counting error then recounts are usually made (in places that value their democracy). If the expected error is +/-200 and the outcome is a win by a 10 000 then it ain't worth counting it again.
The solution is to build a system where you don't have to trust anything (or as little as possible), because it's fault tolerant and has verifiers in place to catch things.
And the problem with that is that it's supposed to be a secret ballot. I'd like to be able to use an online form with some sort of hash so that I could check my ballot had been recorded correctly. Such a system leaves others open to being pressured into voting in a particular way however.
You can't have a voter verified system that is also secret (unless you require those who want to secrete their vote to be active in hiding it). So, like you said you have to have some trust involved.