Well, although dictionaries are descriptive, there's always the question of how much they are supposed to describe. Are dictionaries supposed to describe ever niggly bit of the language, (which could be time consuming, because slang can evolve rather quickly) or should they only describe the parts of the language which are considered acceptable in formal writing?
Grammatical gender is one definition, but gender-for-people is a well accepted definition, and is useful not only times when you're too squeemish to say sex, but also for transsexuals, where biological sex and sexual identity don't overlap.
Adam Smith's invisible hand assumes that customers will act, at least on average, in their own interest. I doubt that. Market stupidity is a non-neglible quanity, and successful businesses know how to exploit that.
Sounds like it might be a bit of a niche though. What they should do to spice things up is air the show out of sequence. That'll add an air of mystery to the series which people will just eat up.
Actually, I think I've seen some shows recieve funding from the "Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation," although that's of course completely different from what you're talking about.
Personally, I like the beige box. With the beige box form, you have the triumph of function over form. A complete antipathy towards any actual aesthetic importance. As I see it, it's a visual affirmation that the digital world is far more important than the physical.
The Mac says, "Oh, I'm a nice little box, I'll look pretty for when you don't need me and I'll get it over with quick for when you do."
The PC says, "I'm a computer. Just keep on looking at the monitor and everything will be peachy."
Off hand, I imagine it makes it easier to prounounce cdadr when the "c" in both car and cdr are prounounced the same, and to my ear it just sounds better.
I imagine he would, but (besides the fact that prior experience with Microsoft may lead us to distrust the license they will use) there's a difference. With GPL/BSD/etc, you are licensing the source code, and the license works under the domain of copyright. To contrast, a file format would probably fall under the domain of patent law, which is a different kettle of fish.
No, his job is to pick vaguely interesting topics out of the submitted stories. People take the word editor too literally. They're really just called that because it sounds newsier than "guy who clicks on interesting stories in the story queue and adds snarky comments."
But as I sort of alluded to, it's not worth fighting over. Wearing a suit is stupid, but in the current situation it's a net win, so in day-to-day life, people should shut up and wear the fucking suit.
But your ideals and actions do not neccesarily need to be aligned. Just because wearing a suit is a logical thing to do doesn't mean the whole thing in general isn't stupid. And in discussions, you should express your opinions on what the ideal should be, and not just whatever compromises you've made with reality.
Employees wear suits because bosses likes suits. Why do bosses like suits? Because other bosses like suits. For any individual, it makes sense to go with the system, but when you look at it from the point of society you see it's just a random feedback loop. There's no intrinsic benefit to suits, it's just a bunch of cloth you throw over your body. It seems more logical to go with a more efficient form of clothing than to just go with whatever happened to be considered hip a century or so ago.
So there's a Catch-22. The system is less the ideal (and thus should be changed), but no individual would benefit from trying to deviate from the system. It's a local maximum, and getting out of local maximums is tricky.
Right. You're just a cog in a machine. And do factory owners cover their cogs with glitter? No, because that would be stupid. Likewise, forcing your employees to wear suits is stupid.
Yes, it makes sense for workers to wear suits when bosses like them, but it doesn't make sense for bosses to like them.
Slashdot Mirror
Information wants to be free.
Sure, so do Tibetans, but information called dibs.
1) He didn't ever formally own Artoo.
2) "What I said was true... from a certain point of view."
What's a Nobian?
Perhaps not, but it's "for nerds," and that's what Slashdot is all about.
Eh, depends on the market. Burger King and Pepsi seem to be doing fine.
Well, although dictionaries are descriptive, there's always the question of how much they are supposed to describe. Are dictionaries supposed to describe ever niggly bit of the language, (which could be time consuming, because slang can evolve rather quickly) or should they only describe the parts of the language which are considered acceptable in formal writing?
It's a perfectly cromulent word.
Lucas is a good director, he just... doesn't know how to direct people or human emotions. Everything else he's pretty good at though.
That, or Lucas doesn't care.
"It's my movie, why should I waste time explaining what I already know?"
Not really.
Grammatical gender is one definition, but gender-for-people is a well accepted definition, and is useful not only times when you're too squeemish to say sex, but also for transsexuals, where biological sex and sexual identity don't overlap.
Perhaps, but "Windows XP Shit Edition" sounds a hell of a lot easier to develop than Longhorn.
Adam Smith's invisible hand assumes that customers will act, at least on average, in their own interest. I doubt that. Market stupidity is a non-neglible quanity, and successful businesses know how to exploit that.
Depends on which book you read. Sorcerer's Stone is way more childish than Goblet of Fire is. The books tend to mature along with the characters.
Sounds like it might be a bit of a niche though. What they should do to spice things up is air the show out of sequence. That'll add an air of mystery to the series which people will just eat up.
Actually, I think I've seen some shows recieve funding from the "Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation," although that's of course completely different from what you're talking about.
Personally, I like the beige box. With the beige box form, you have the triumph of function over form. A complete antipathy towards any actual aesthetic importance. As I see it, it's a visual affirmation that the digital world is far more important than the physical.
The Mac says, "Oh, I'm a nice little box, I'll look pretty for when you don't need me and I'll get it over with quick for when you do."
The PC says, "I'm a computer. Just keep on looking at the monitor and everything will be peachy."
Of course, I'm completely apeshit insane. ^_^
So what he said was true, from a certain point of view.
Because he had a story to tell. He's an artist, and if the story demands that he make two shitty movies, so be it.
Technichally no, but many of the pages on Snopes.com are written by the guy's wife.
All the cool kids use data as a mass noun. Don't you want to be cool?
Off hand, I imagine it makes it easier to prounounce cdadr when the "c" in both car and cdr are prounounced the same, and to my ear it just sounds better.
I imagine he would, but (besides the fact that prior experience with Microsoft may lead us to distrust the license they will use) there's a difference. With GPL/BSD/etc, you are licensing the source code, and the license works under the domain of copyright. To contrast, a file format would probably fall under the domain of patent law, which is a different kettle of fish.
No, his job is to pick vaguely interesting topics out of the submitted stories. People take the word editor too literally. They're really just called that because it sounds newsier than "guy who clicks on interesting stories in the story queue and adds snarky comments."
But as I sort of alluded to, it's not worth fighting over. Wearing a suit is stupid, but in the current situation it's a net win, so in day-to-day life, people should shut up and wear the fucking suit.
But your ideals and actions do not neccesarily need to be aligned. Just because wearing a suit is a logical thing to do doesn't mean the whole thing in general isn't stupid. And in discussions, you should express your opinions on what the ideal should be, and not just whatever compromises you've made with reality.
Employees wear suits because bosses likes suits. Why do bosses like suits? Because other bosses like suits. For any individual, it makes sense to go with the system, but when you look at it from the point of society you see it's just a random feedback loop. There's no intrinsic benefit to suits, it's just a bunch of cloth you throw over your body. It seems more logical to go with a more efficient form of clothing than to just go with whatever happened to be considered hip a century or so ago.
So there's a Catch-22. The system is less the ideal (and thus should be changed), but no individual would benefit from trying to deviate from the system. It's a local maximum, and getting out of local maximums is tricky.
Right. You're just a cog in a machine. And do factory owners cover their cogs with glitter? No, because that would be stupid. Likewise, forcing your employees to wear suits is stupid.
Yes, it makes sense for workers to wear suits when bosses like them, but it doesn't make sense for bosses to like them.