No. Rotational acceleration is different to linear (in fact quasi-linear for gravity).
So, I guess you are drawing the distinction between \vec{a}// \vec{v} and \vec{a} \perpto \vec{v}?
Fundamentally, how does that make one type different from the other? (In fact, gravity can be categorized to neither. In the case when you have no angular momentum, gravity will be acting entirely as "linear acceleration" if you choose to draw distinction, while if you are in a stable orbit, gravity is providing the "rotational acceleration" you need to stay in orbit.)
Either way, a simple accelerometer (er, a weight hanging from a string) will measure them just fine (the only difference might be, from an inertial reference frame, rotational acceleration is constantly changing (in direction) whereas linear acceleration can be constant), and there doesn't seem to be any difference (other than the qualitative difference, as in difference between sweet taste and bitter taste---and since different parts of the tongue is sensitive to different kinds of taste, why not categorize those as separate senses, too, then?)
No! One is torque, the other is force. Different things. Different units too: force=N, torque=Nm.
rotational motion != rotational acceleration.
However, the fact that something is rotating does mean that there is force (and thus acceleration) on the object. Force-torque distinction is quite irrelevant here, I think.
PS. Oh, and the fact that units are different is even more irrelevant---consider this: Torque = N*m and Energy = m*N ==> Torque == energy? This is absurd. On the other hand, Temperature = Kelvin, Energy = Joules ==> (Internal) energy has nothing to do with temperature? Now that's even more absurd. Most conventional units are quite arbitrary and not worth being cited for justification (by itself).
The lack of a late fee does not imply the lack of a due date. The due date is still there, and you are still obligated to return it by then.
That reminds me of my school library check-out policy. At UCB, there's no late fee for any checked out materials---but, if you keep it out for too long without renewing it, eventually you do have to pay for the book, or reshelving fee, if you return it (I haven't had to pay that yet, but I heard it was pretty high...).
Now, AFAICS the difference is, when I keep the book for too long, I get an e-mail notice about the item after a grace period (about a week past due date), and after that I, again, have a grace period for either returning the book or renewing it---it is impossible for me to just forget that I checked out a book and go on for a month (past due date). Blockbuster should have done the same thing (if they were operating with good faith) since now they allow a week extra past due date---what prevents them from sending out a notice about the overdue material and informing the customer about what will happen if they don't return it quickly?
6 Gravity (calcium crystals on hairs in ears)
7 Rotational motion (liquid flow in ear tubey bits that I forget the name of)
Since gravitational force is indistinguishable to the force due to acceleration (of the reference frame), then aren't #6 and #7 both sensing "acceleration" of your body? Aren't they the same thing? That would be like saying "#3: sense of sweet taste; #4: sense of bitter taste..."
"OK, I've narrowed the range down to between zero and infinity. The rest is up to you..."
Hey, that's set of positive real numbers (far smaller than the largest set of numbers defined so far)---you don't know how many times I wished I could assume that.
Oh, and yes, I do include 0 in my set of positive real numbers. I just don't like such circumlocutions like "nonnegative" number---and even worse, "nondecreasing" sequence, instead of "increasing" sequence.
IMNSHO, but that was the worst proof of infinite number of primes. Why introduce unique factorizability when you don't need to? Why introduce something foreign that you are not going to prove when there is absolutely no need for it?
The most elegant proof I've seen so far (but I don't know any website showing it, so I can't link to it) is this: For any given N, an integer, consider N!+1, which is greater than N (where N! is defined by N! = 1 * 2 * 3 *... * N). If this number is divisible by no other number than 1 and N!+1, then we are done (i.e. we have proven that given any arbitrary integer, there is a prime greater than tat integer). If this number is divisible by a prime, than that prime can't be less than or equal to N, since any integer (not equal to 1) less than or equal to N divides N! (see the definition of N!) but does not divide 1. Therefore, the prime that divides N! is greater than N. QED.
This proof involves no assumption (additional to assumptions (i.e. axioms) of the set of integers) other than this (which also happens to be much easier to prove than factorizability into primes): if n divides a + b and n divides a, then n divides b as well.
Very valid point---and I think we agree on software patents, at least. (And, yeah, I was half-joking about WWII reference... and it probably wasn't in such a good taste, either:(...). I just wanted to add one thing:
Yes, but the idea on its own is no good without the time and materials to create the equipment. A description of a new experimental technique is not really analogous to a completed application, it's closer to a description of a new algotrithm.
To stay on topic (i.e. software patents, which RMS is speaking against in TFA), that is exactly what is wrong with software patent---it patents ideas not implementations (IANAL, but that's what I've been hearing). So, the patent protects what is no good by itself (and, yes, the whole getting-the-inventors-to-reveal-their-secret argument and promoting-innovation argument don't work for this reason) and, yet, it takes away from developers the very first thing they need in developing a software.
When you create software, it has about as much to do with science as it does with singing blues.
Precisely the reason I used the term "computer science" instead of "software development". That should get me a point in rhetorics department or something (although revealing my reason for the word choice wouldn't).
Second, your understanding of patents appears to be broken.
Nope. It's not. I do know people can use it by agreement (i.e. royalty), and yes, U.S. could have acquired it's first WMD by paying royalty, and by Jove, it would have, given its fondness for it. And as for "promoting innovation" I have yet to hear an argument that software patents promote innovation.
Thirdly, you introduce a bunch of irrelevant straw men.
Xenophon cites a military example in all (at least the ones I read so far) of his work. What do you expect a physicist to do, other than site a physics example?
So while selling software is not necessarily a given, you have failed to provide anything resembling a cogent argument.
And you are providing a compelling argument that mine wasn't? I would like to think my point on "computer science" being an aberration in academics was cogent enough for a/. comment (against another comment that RMS wasn't being a proper academic---if the denial that GP wasn't attacking the whole of academics by attacking RMS isn't accusation that RMS isn't a good academic, well, I'm not sure why I'm in college).
How did you get into Berkeley? Affirmative action? Feeder school?
For the same reason you were born---illegitimate reasons that cannot be revealed in public forum.
Big shocker that this garbage is coming out of Berkeley. First of all, you equate the value of software to the cost of duplicating it. Pretty convenient that you can ignore the cost of creating it in the first place. And as for software being a public or private good, that's why we have licenses. If you create the software, you get to decide which license to use. What an amazing system!
So, what "fundamental economics principles" are you citing? Your developmental cost ("opportunity cost", cost of living, etc.) is part of "sunk cost." (And I believe one of the fundamental econmic principle was this: "Sunk costs are sunk", and another one "Sunk costs are really sunk".) I was referring to "marginal cost", which has to do producing an additional unit---i.e. copies---and it may be considered a "fundamental principle" (I'm not sure if it is, IANAE), but it is clear that "price of a good should exceed its marginal cost." Softwares (and intellectual property in general) are unique in that the marginal cost is phenomenally low---whether that justifies a phenomenally low price is arguable, but it is arguably the strongest blow against $200 softwares (which is one of the consequences of proprietary softwares).
Now, with this understanding, does my point about RMS (and probably OSS) not breaking any "fundamental economic principles" get across to you? Don't let my domain (*.berkeley.edu) cloud your eyes---otherwise, my predecessors would have fought for free speech in vain.
PS. BTW, you are forgetting that the corporations' support of software patents (which RMS is opposing) are nullifying the very force of licenses that you are so fond of. Would you like an "artistic patent" so that no artist/writer may "steal" an idea from another?
No, but it is one, and I'll be damned to hear some sanctimonious self-appointed philosopher king tell me I should stop because he doesn't approve of it. I supply the service, they're okay with the conditions I place on it.
Most people seem to just pass over this passage in Republic,
"Come, then, just as if we were telling stories or fables and had ample leisure, let us educate these men in our discourse."
right before the passage about poetry and banishment of Homer and Co---Socrates (*coughplatocough*) never establishes his philsopher-king kingdom.
I like open source. I write open source. But I won't have it shoved down my throat.
What academics do are, well, academic---they don't matter. Only when people take it seriously (as you have, apparently) and act on it, then it takes a life of its own.
It is also my understanding that when an academic outsteps his boundary (i.e. force his view (which may still be controversial) upon others, such as in public policy), he stops becoming academic---and becomes (or at least should be) a pariah in his own community.
I don't need advice on how to make a living from some has-been who already hit his motherlode with a macarthur grant and now tells everyone they can just work at wal-mart if they're not willing to serve the community over themselves.
Thus the often-cited (thrice by me, now) accusation that academics dwell in their ivory tower---a too-oft well-deserved accusation, I should say.
The ironic thing is that if all software were free, there would be no software market and therefore no monopoly, so I don't understand why OSS advocates piss and moan about monopolies when the system they are advocating has no economic market.
There is no market for "new, exciting physical theory." Nor was there a market for "a new way to split an atom." Yet, somehow, these physicists manage to make a living.
Why? Because, while there is no market for the products of their labor (as was precisely your point, OSS will eliminate the market for software), there is a big enough market for their skill and talent to draw the brightest of the generation to the field. What is preventing computer science from becoming the same? What prevents a software developer from getting paid to develop an application, as opposed to collecting royalties? (Now, now... I'm not criticizing book-writing (since writers _do_ collect royalties), as there is no way to make a book "closed-format".)
Propriety softwares are not much better than software pattents, as far as innovations and new developments go. Consider how long the "trade secrets" of artisans of old hindered progress and forced so many to reinvent the wheel (not to mention the loss of techniques that some countries (*coughkoreacough*) consider to be their national treasure).
PS. Now, of course, the fact that physicists (or any academician) can earn enough to support themselves have little to do with economics or capitalism---hence the criticism that academics live in ivory tower. But, that goes back to my original complaint: every time you criticize an academician for not caring about "fundamental economic principles" (*coughcapitalistpigscough*) you criticize all academics for living in ivory tower---by all means, you have every right to do that, but why would you want to deny that you are actualy doing what you are doing (of course, unless Bill of M$ became too big of a role model for you). As for specific case of RMS and his possible effect on software development, I invite you to look up the dictionary for the definition "academic" (as in, "it is an academic issue, but..."). What an academic does does not matter---it's how the people living in the real world take it and make it.
RMS is the driving idiological force behind GNU. People don't live forever. One day, someone else is going to take over and how do we know that the same ideals will be followed.
So, which alien possessed Bill? He's not criticizing M$'s position (at least not directly). He's criticizing the Chief Monopolist himself.
Now that Microsoft has a bunch of capital in the form of patents amassed to defend itself, it's only reasonable to protect it's position.
On the other hand, one could argue that now that Microsoft has a bunch of capital in the form of money and influence amassed to defend itself, it's only reasonable to protect itself by lobbying to abolish software patents in U.S.
That couldn't hurt M$ in any way, other than from innovations (and god forbid M$ hates innovations!), right?
M$ is still culpable---if not for creating, continuing the world they were thrust into.
Ah, forgot to add---selling software isn't the only way for software developers to make a living (in the same way selling albums isn't the only way for a singer to make a living). Many companies will be happy to hire a good programmer to customize an application for them or simply to manage there systems.
That might reduce the number of software developers in the field, but that's called "supply and demand".
I am criticizing an academic who criticizes the fundamental economic principals that puts food in the mouths of software developers.
What are these "fundamental economic principals" (yes, you spelled it wrong, but I'm not asking the question as a spelling nazi) that you speak of?
There is nothing "fundamental" about selling softwares---bunches of codes that can be copied at a fraction of a cent. There might be question whether a completed software becomes public good or private property, but that's far from being settled, and in fact, in this point, I think computer science (or software industry, but computer science draws a better parallel) is an aberration in fields of science. When one discovers something in science (say, the technique of optical pumping, or nuclear magnetic resonance) it gets published in peer review journal and everyone gets to test (read: "use") it in their own laboratory. Imagine what would happen to physics if every physicist patented every experimental technique, theoretical derivation they discovered. Physics would always be 15 years (or however long those damn things last), and, yes, we would have had to wait until 1960 until the end of WWII!
What is going on with softwares is an aberration---an error that should be fixed, despite corporations and corrupt politicians, and RMS, in spearheading this effort, is in no way violating any unwritten codes of academics. I know that academics are often criticized of living in the ivory tower, but is it too much to ask of a critic to say that they are criticizing when they are?
PS. BTW, know the distinction between "capitalist" and "monopoly": ask any economist---capitalism, good, monopoly, bad (by default---there are, of course, special cases where monopoly is desirable).
From TFA: The Enterprisefans.com Web site said that it had changed its original plan to buy a USA Today ad when contacted by a fan who works for the Times, who offered to arrange a special deal for one of the ads, which normally costs $35,000.
The original plan was a much smaller ad (1/12 page ad, I think) on a much less-well-known paper. Without the special deal, that's the goal they would have accomplished.
If kepler modified his measurements to fit into the then current view of things, astronomy would have been set back 100 years.
Let's not forget that it was Tycho Brahe who made careful enough measurements to show the elliptical pattern---and that it was also Tycho Brahe who made measurements and let Kepler use the data (posthumously, but still), even though the result might end up contradicting his own beliefs (Tycho Brahe believed in geocentric view---but by all means, he was a true scientist).
I'm not one to deny Kepler's carefulness in realizing the elliptical pattern in the Mars data and finding the three empirical laws (which served as an early test of Newton's law of gravity), but it was most certainly not "his" measurements---that goes to someone (unfortunately) less well-known.
The funny thing is that one rarely has to use the word "whom" except after a preposition -- in other objective cases, "who" is appropriate informally. Our style guide at work advises staff that we won't correct it otherwise.
Yeah---this is a typical case of modern languages losing their once-glorious case system. Our ancestors once spoke their language with precision, clearly marking direct object (accusative (though this term "accusative" is a, well, bad translation---by Romans, of a Greek word) case) separte from indirect object (dative case). But, now, we've debased ourselves to the point of not being able to tell the subject of a sentence from the object, unless we have a context or a pronoun (which fortunately kept the nominative-accusative difference so far). Pretty soon (er, a millenium or so), we will be losing what we have left of the case system, too!
PS. The day I learned that all Romance languages lost their case system---gosh, less than two millenia ago, they had 6 separate cases (well, 5, if you don't really consider "vocative" a case)!---was the day when the sky came crumbling down on me. Well, at least while I'm studying German, I will have this comfort that at least one widely-spoken modern Indo-European language kept its dative, if in a horribly crippled form.
Slashdot Mirror
Egh. I meant "rotational motion != angular acceleration", since Torque = (a constant)*angular acceleration.
That's what happens when I read a confused post---I get confused with my own terminology, too!
So, I guess you are drawing the distinction between \vec{a} // \vec{v} and \vec{a} \perpto \vec{v}?
Fundamentally, how does that make one type different from the other? (In fact, gravity can be categorized to neither. In the case when you have no angular momentum, gravity will be acting entirely as "linear acceleration" if you choose to draw distinction, while if you are in a stable orbit, gravity is providing the "rotational acceleration" you need to stay in orbit.)
Either way, a simple accelerometer (er, a weight hanging from a string) will measure them just fine (the only difference might be, from an inertial reference frame, rotational acceleration is constantly changing (in direction) whereas linear acceleration can be constant), and there doesn't seem to be any difference (other than the qualitative difference, as in difference between sweet taste and bitter taste---and since different parts of the tongue is sensitive to different kinds of taste, why not categorize those as separate senses, too, then?)
rotational motion != rotational acceleration.
However, the fact that something is rotating does mean that there is force (and thus acceleration) on the object. Force-torque distinction is quite irrelevant here, I think.
PS. Oh, and the fact that units are different is even more irrelevant---consider this: Torque = N*m and Energy = m*N ==> Torque == energy? This is absurd. On the other hand, Temperature = Kelvin, Energy = Joules ==> (Internal) energy has nothing to do with temperature? Now that's even more absurd. Most conventional units are quite arbitrary and not worth being cited for justification (by itself).
That reminds me of my school library check-out policy. At UCB, there's no late fee for any checked out materials---but, if you keep it out for too long without renewing it, eventually you do have to pay for the book, or reshelving fee, if you return it (I haven't had to pay that yet, but I heard it was pretty high...).
Now, AFAICS the difference is, when I keep the book for too long, I get an e-mail notice about the item after a grace period (about a week past due date), and after that I, again, have a grace period for either returning the book or renewing it---it is impossible for me to just forget that I checked out a book and go on for a month (past due date). Blockbuster should have done the same thing (if they were operating with good faith) since now they allow a week extra past due date---what prevents them from sending out a notice about the overdue material and informing the customer about what will happen if they don't return it quickly?
Only if the item has a Library of Congress (or Dewey Decimal) classification...
7 Rotational motion (liquid flow in ear tubey bits that I forget the name of)
Since gravitational force is indistinguishable to the force due to acceleration (of the reference frame), then aren't #6 and #7 both sensing "acceleration" of your body? Aren't they the same thing? That would be like saying "#3: sense of sweet taste; #4: sense of bitter taste..."
Hey, that's set of positive real numbers (far smaller than the largest set of numbers defined so far)---you don't know how many times I wished I could assume that.
Oh, and yes, I do include 0 in my set of positive real numbers. I just don't like such circumlocutions like "nonnegative" number---and even worse, "nondecreasing" sequence, instead of "increasing" sequence.
IMNSHO, but that was the worst proof of infinite number of primes. Why introduce unique factorizability when you don't need to? Why introduce something foreign that you are not going to prove when there is absolutely no need for it?
The most elegant proof I've seen so far (but I don't know any website showing it, so I can't link to it) is this: For any given N, an integer, consider N!+1, which is greater than N (where N! is defined by N! = 1 * 2 * 3 * ... * N). If this number is divisible by no other number than 1 and N!+1, then we are done (i.e. we have proven that given any arbitrary integer, there is a prime greater than tat integer). If this number is divisible by a prime, than that prime can't be less than or equal to N, since any integer (not equal to 1) less than or equal to N divides N! (see the definition of N!) but does not divide 1. Therefore, the prime that divides N! is greater than N. QED.
This proof involves no assumption (additional to assumptions (i.e. axioms) of the set of integers) other than this (which also happens to be much easier to prove than factorizability into primes): if n divides a + b and n divides a, then n divides b as well.
Yes, but the idea on its own is no good without the time and materials to create the equipment. A description of a new experimental technique is not really analogous to a completed application, it's closer to a description of a new algotrithm.
To stay on topic (i.e. software patents, which RMS is speaking against in TFA), that is exactly what is wrong with software patent---it patents ideas not implementations (IANAL, but that's what I've been hearing). So, the patent protects what is no good by itself (and, yes, the whole getting-the-inventors-to-reveal-their-secret argument and promoting-innovation argument don't work for this reason) and, yet, it takes away from developers the very first thing they need in developing a software.
Precisely the reason I used the term "computer science" instead of "software development". That should get me a point in rhetorics department or something (although revealing my reason for the word choice wouldn't).
Second, your understanding of patents appears to be broken.
Nope. It's not. I do know people can use it by agreement (i.e. royalty), and yes, U.S. could have acquired it's first WMD by paying royalty, and by Jove, it would have, given its fondness for it. And as for "promoting innovation" I have yet to hear an argument that software patents promote innovation.
Thirdly, you introduce a bunch of irrelevant straw men.
Xenophon cites a military example in all (at least the ones I read so far) of his work. What do you expect a physicist to do, other than site a physics example?
So while selling software is not necessarily a given, you have failed to provide anything resembling a cogent argument.
And you are providing a compelling argument that mine wasn't? I would like to think my point on "computer science" being an aberration in academics was cogent enough for a /. comment (against another comment that RMS wasn't being a proper academic---if the denial that GP wasn't attacking the whole of academics by attacking RMS isn't accusation that RMS isn't a good academic, well, I'm not sure why I'm in college).
How did you get into Berkeley? Affirmative action? Feeder school?
For the same reason you were born---illegitimate reasons that cannot be revealed in public forum.
Egh... it's "free as in speech," although it is very often "free as in beer".
So, what "fundamental economics principles" are you citing? Your developmental cost ("opportunity cost", cost of living, etc.) is part of "sunk cost." (And I believe one of the fundamental econmic principle was this: "Sunk costs are sunk", and another one "Sunk costs are really sunk".) I was referring to "marginal cost", which has to do producing an additional unit---i.e. copies---and it may be considered a "fundamental principle" (I'm not sure if it is, IANAE), but it is clear that "price of a good should exceed its marginal cost." Softwares (and intellectual property in general) are unique in that the marginal cost is phenomenally low---whether that justifies a phenomenally low price is arguable, but it is arguably the strongest blow against $200 softwares (which is one of the consequences of proprietary softwares).
Now, with this understanding, does my point about RMS (and probably OSS) not breaking any "fundamental economic principles" get across to you? Don't let my domain (*.berkeley.edu) cloud your eyes---otherwise, my predecessors would have fought for free speech in vain.
PS. BTW, you are forgetting that the corporations' support of software patents (which RMS is opposing) are nullifying the very force of licenses that you are so fond of. Would you like an "artistic patent" so that no artist/writer may "steal" an idea from another?
Most people seem to just pass over this passage in Republic,
"Come, then, just as if we were telling stories or fables and had ample leisure, let us educate these men in our discourse."
right before the passage about poetry and banishment of Homer and Co---Socrates (*coughplatocough*) never establishes his philsopher-king kingdom.
I like open source. I write open source. But I won't have it shoved down my throat.
What academics do are, well, academic---they don't matter. Only when people take it seriously (as you have, apparently) and act on it, then it takes a life of its own.
It is also my understanding that when an academic outsteps his boundary (i.e. force his view (which may still be controversial) upon others, such as in public policy), he stops becoming academic---and becomes (or at least should be) a pariah in his own community.
I don't need advice on how to make a living from some has-been who already hit his motherlode with a macarthur grant and now tells everyone they can just work at wal-mart if they're not willing to serve the community over themselves.
Thus the often-cited (thrice by me, now) accusation that academics dwell in their ivory tower---a too-oft well-deserved accusation, I should say.
There is no market for "new, exciting physical theory." Nor was there a market for "a new way to split an atom." Yet, somehow, these physicists manage to make a living.
Why? Because, while there is no market for the products of their labor (as was precisely your point, OSS will eliminate the market for software), there is a big enough market for their skill and talent to draw the brightest of the generation to the field. What is preventing computer science from becoming the same? What prevents a software developer from getting paid to develop an application, as opposed to collecting royalties? (Now, now... I'm not criticizing book-writing (since writers _do_ collect royalties), as there is no way to make a book "closed-format".)
Propriety softwares are not much better than software pattents, as far as innovations and new developments go. Consider how long the "trade secrets" of artisans of old hindered progress and forced so many to reinvent the wheel (not to mention the loss of techniques that some countries (*coughkoreacough*) consider to be their national treasure).
PS. Now, of course, the fact that physicists (or any academician) can earn enough to support themselves have little to do with economics or capitalism---hence the criticism that academics live in ivory tower. But, that goes back to my original complaint: every time you criticize an academician for not caring about "fundamental economic principles" (*coughcapitalistpigscough*) you criticize all academics for living in ivory tower---by all means, you have every right to do that, but why would you want to deny that you are actualy doing what you are doing (of course, unless Bill of M$ became too big of a role model for you). As for specific case of RMS and his possible effect on software development, I invite you to look up the dictionary for the definition "academic" (as in, "it is an academic issue, but..."). What an academic does does not matter---it's how the people living in the real world take it and make it.
So, which alien possessed Bill? He's not criticizing M$'s position (at least not directly). He's criticizing the Chief Monopolist himself.
On the other hand, one could argue that now that Microsoft has a bunch of capital in the form of money and influence amassed to defend itself, it's only reasonable to protect itself by lobbying to abolish software patents in U.S.
That couldn't hurt M$ in any way, other than from innovations (and god forbid M$ hates innovations!), right?
M$ is still culpable---if not for creating, continuing the world they were thrust into.
DOS != command line.
I like bash. I can stand tcsh. I'd rather hang myself than work regularly with DOS.
That might reduce the number of software developers in the field, but that's called "supply and demand".
What are these "fundamental economic principals" (yes, you spelled it wrong, but I'm not asking the question as a spelling nazi) that you speak of?
There is nothing "fundamental" about selling softwares---bunches of codes that can be copied at a fraction of a cent. There might be question whether a completed software becomes public good or private property, but that's far from being settled, and in fact, in this point, I think computer science (or software industry, but computer science draws a better parallel) is an aberration in fields of science. When one discovers something in science (say, the technique of optical pumping, or nuclear magnetic resonance) it gets published in peer review journal and everyone gets to test (read: "use") it in their own laboratory. Imagine what would happen to physics if every physicist patented every experimental technique, theoretical derivation they discovered. Physics would always be 15 years (or however long those damn things last), and, yes, we would have had to wait until 1960 until the end of WWII!
What is going on with softwares is an aberration---an error that should be fixed, despite corporations and corrupt politicians, and RMS, in spearheading this effort, is in no way violating any unwritten codes of academics. I know that academics are often criticized of living in the ivory tower, but is it too much to ask of a critic to say that they are criticizing when they are?
PS. BTW, know the distinction between "capitalist" and "monopoly": ask any economist---capitalism, good, monopoly, bad (by default---there are, of course, special cases where monopoly is desirable).
And you would know because....?
What, you want confirmation from Netcraft that Usenet is dead? What else do you want? Do you want it to confirm that Elvis is dead, too?
The Enterprisefans.com Web site said that it had changed its original plan to buy a USA Today ad when contacted by a fan who works for the Times, who offered to arrange a special deal for one of the ads, which normally costs $35,000.
The original plan was a much smaller ad (1/12 page ad, I think) on a much less-well-known paper. Without the special deal, that's the goal they would have accomplished.
Or spell "do" and "is" correctly.
Let's not forget that it was Tycho Brahe who made careful enough measurements to show the elliptical pattern---and that it was also Tycho Brahe who made measurements and let Kepler use the data (posthumously, but still), even though the result might end up contradicting his own beliefs (Tycho Brahe believed in geocentric view---but by all means, he was a true scientist).
I'm not one to deny Kepler's carefulness in realizing the elliptical pattern in the Mars data and finding the three empirical laws (which served as an early test of Newton's law of gravity), but it was most certainly not "his" measurements---that goes to someone (unfortunately) less well-known.
Yeah---this is a typical case of modern languages losing their once-glorious case system. Our ancestors once spoke their language with precision, clearly marking direct object (accusative (though this term "accusative" is a, well, bad translation---by Romans, of a Greek word) case) separte from indirect object (dative case). But, now, we've debased ourselves to the point of not being able to tell the subject of a sentence from the object, unless we have a context or a pronoun (which fortunately kept the nominative-accusative difference so far). Pretty soon (er, a millenium or so), we will be losing what we have left of the case system, too!
PS. The day I learned that all Romance languages lost their case system---gosh, less than two millenia ago, they had 6 separate cases (well, 5, if you don't really consider "vocative" a case)!---was the day when the sky came crumbling down on me. Well, at least while I'm studying German, I will have this comfort that at least one widely-spoken modern Indo-European language kept its dative, if in a horribly crippled form.