In all seriousness, I concede to your point and do agree that the meaning is nicely transferred when stating "square wheel." Still I did major in English and did study linguistics, etymologies and advanced grammar and am now hell-bent on words and meanings. I do apologize for the vortex I created. As a linguist I write all that I just did.
As a grammatician, this is bullshit. A wheel is not square! One should find a grammatically correct way of stating what one means or meaning is nullified. Perhaps one could, instead, have said -- instead of "square wheel" -- "A bicycle using squares instead of wheels!!!"
As a linguist I do apologize for the previous rant. Meaning is transferred no matter how grammatically correct. Language did birth grammar and not vice versa. Parts of speech defeat parts of speech. If we choose to break an infinitive when 'boldly' stating 'to boldly go' then so be it. And Mick Jagger can use double-negatives all day long....
In any event, Ebonics is our future. Let's embrace....
1. A solid disk or a rigid circular ring connected by spokes to a hub, designed to turn around an axle passed through the center.
And, without pasting it too, a disk must be circular....
So, whatever those things are on that bicycle frame, they are not wheels
Related Star Wars Article
on
Weapons in Space
·
· Score: 5, Informative
What about the famous "Star Wars" project under Reagan? Sagan led the charge against it even making fun of the concept at one point. The point still standing that, when all is said and done, it's simply impractical to implement military deployment, of any kind, in space especially when considering the cost:
WHY STAR WARS IS DANGEROUS AND WON'T WORK
By Carl Sagan, Hans A. Bethe, Henry W. Kendall, Kurt Gottfried, Richard L. Garwin, Victor F. Weisskopf
The following statement by six prominent scientists on the dangers of Star Wars appeared as part of a letter to The Wall Street Journal on January 2, 1985
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/5561
A nearly impermeable strategic defense system would indeed have the capability to "save lives" rather than to "avenge them," to replace strategic deterrence by defense. But such a system is not in the cards, as even the program's director, General James Abrahamson, readily admits. Anything short of an impermeable system tends to undermine, not improve, US national security. Here are some of the reasons that we consider the Star Wars scheme unworkable and a grave danger to the United States:
-- Underflying: Star Wars does not defend against, or even address, low-altitude delivery systems--bombers and cruise missiles, and "suitcase" nuclear weapons. By themselves, they are able to destroy both nations; Star Wars would accelerate their development.
-- Overwhelming: The number of strategic warheads in the Soviet arsenal (as in our own) is about 10,000. If even a few percent of these warheads exploded on US territory it would represent an unparalleled human disaster and effective collapse of the United States as a functioning political entity. The Soviets could keep ahead of any American Star Wars system because it is cheaper to build new warheads than to shoot down old ones (and easier to shoot down orbiting defensive systems than incoming missiles).
-- Outfoxing: It is cheaper to build countermeasures than to build Star Wars. Some decades in the future when a (still highly permeable) US Star Wars system might be deployed, the Soviets would have added tens or hundreds of thousands of decoys and other penetration aids to their arsenal. Their objective would be to fatally confuse the American Star Wars system, which can never be adequately tested except in a real nuclear war.
-- Cost: Former Secretaries of Defense Harold Brown and James Schlesinger, and senior Pentagon spokesmen of this Administration, have all estimated the full Star Wars cost as hundreds of billions to one trillion dollars.
-- Soviet preemption: Despite US reassurances, the Soviets perceive Star Wars as part of a US first strike strategy, allowing us to launch a preemptive attack and then to destroy the remnant of any surviving Soviet retaliatory forces. In a time of severe crisis, this may tempt the Soviet Union to make a preemptive first strike against the United States.
-- Institutional momentum: When a trillion dollars is waved at the US aerospace industry, the project in question will rapidly acquire a life of its own--independent of the validity of its public justifications. With jobs, corporate profits, and civilian and military promotions at stake, a project of this magnitude, once started, becomes a juggernaut, the more difficult to stop the longer it rolls on.
We do not oppose defense in principle. We are in favor of carefully bounded research in this area, as in many others; we are also concerned that the line between research and early deployment of key Star Wars components not be blurred. Several of us have devoted considerable effort to research on missile defense. Some of us have advocated missile defense for individual missile silos. But we agree with Department of Defense experts who make it clear that cities cannot be so protected. Mr. Schlesinger has said "in our lifetime and that of our children, cities will be protected by forebearance of those on the other side, or through effective deterrence."
I recently received a letter indicating that the email address I had listed in the whois for my domain was invalid and that if I didn't update it I could lose my domain. I promptly did so. I both did not want to lose my domain, and was glad to see they are keeping that information accurate.
For intents and purposes, we're dealing with addressing, and just like each physical address the post office deals with needs to be as accurate as possible for mail to be delivered effeciently, so do the cyber addresses that exist need to be in order for things to work correctly and effeciently.
I work at a corporation where a former engineer setup several hundred remote domains with all servers having the exact same host name. This meant for years we could only utilize the network on an IP level (e.g., all scripts and so forth not being able to use hosts names, but instead using the differing IP addresses of each server). Now, I know there are ways around this, but logistically, we had to wait to "fix it right" and have now done so, but the point is, fore-thought into proper addressing, accurate information, etc., when dealing with networking -- or the postal system -- is essential. Keeping things up-to-date is also essential.
We bitch about mail being slow, but how many of us haved moved and then taken the time to inform each addressy of that move especially when the postal system lets us know to do so by still delivering the mail to us with the little yellow "inform sender of address change" sticker?
I'm glad to see the enforcement of accurate information take place....
Perhaps they could put items or whatever in social areas, like clubs or bars. This way not only will us geeks get our exercise roaming around the city, we may be forced to mingle with real people. Maybe they could pay hot chicks to be waiting in a club, and the only way you can get experience points is to talk her into giving you a secret code! Just think, for a small montly fee you could get interaction with a hot chi...
That game already exists. It was called "Leisure Suit Larry...."
Slashdot Mirror
"You have increased your skill in Piercing (X)"
The Moon should be off limits. We all know that The Watcher lives there....
At the risk of appearing sensitive, needy and girlish....
Why did I get modded down? Is it the glut of office space references? Mayhaps, a "red stapler" appearance in a post gets an auto "troll"?
I never knew my father!...
I did not know the moderator's name was "Rasheed"....
Fine! But Rasheed is not getting my red stapler!...
Speaker guy: Is there a problem officer?
Policeman: The neighbors are throwing up. Can you please turn down your gigantic, crater-filling sub-woofer?
Speaker guy: Huh?
Also, there's no such thing as wild horses (according to dictionary.reference.com, horses are domestic).
Actually, that's not true, according to the base definition of a horse at dictionary.com, wild horses are accounted for:
Any of various equine mammals, such as the wild Asian species E. przewalskii or certain extinct forms related ancestrally to the modern horse.
In all seriousness, I concede to your point and do agree that the meaning is nicely transferred when stating "square wheel." Still I did major in English and did study linguistics, etymologies and advanced grammar and am now hell-bent on words and meanings. I do apologize for the vortex I created. As a linguist I write all that I just did.
As a grammatician, this is bullshit. A wheel is not square! One should find a grammatically correct way of stating what one means or meaning is nullified. Perhaps one could, instead, have said -- instead of "square wheel" -- "A bicycle using squares instead of wheels!!!"
As a linguist I do apologize for the previous rant. Meaning is transferred no matter how grammatically correct. Language did birth grammar and not vice versa. Parts of speech defeat parts of speech. If we choose to break an infinitive when 'boldly' stating 'to boldly go' then so be it. And Mick Jagger can use double-negatives all day long....
In any event, Ebonics is our future. Let's embrace....
BTW, what was your question?
Exactly! See?!?
I dunno. I feel beat up on. That's the last time I take linguistics as a crip course....
Hey! That's what was missing! HUMORLESS, CRUSHING PEDANTRY! Thanks, Himring! :-)
Made ya say, "humorless, crashing pedantry"....
...Unless, you add the word "square" in front of the word "wheel", thus obviously implying a square shape instead of a circular one.
Sorta like putting republican in front of democrat eh?
Or, how 'bout, harmless in front of nuke.
Or maybe, cat in front of dog.
Or, microsoft in front of open source....
Don't worry pal, logic sets always confused the hell outta me too....
Ok, I'm risk asking this, but by definition, a "wheel" cannot be "square...."
wheel
n.
1. A solid disk or a rigid circular ring connected by spokes to a hub, designed to turn around an axle passed through the center.
And, without pasting it too, a disk must be circular....
So, whatever those things are on that bicycle frame, they are not wheels
What about the famous "Star Wars" project under Reagan? Sagan led the charge against it even making fun of the concept at one point. The point still standing that, when all is said and done, it's simply impractical to implement military deployment, of any kind, in space especially when considering the cost:
WHY STAR WARS IS DANGEROUS AND WON'T WORK By Carl Sagan, Hans A. Bethe, Henry W. Kendall, Kurt Gottfried, Richard L. Garwin, Victor F. Weisskopf
The following statement by six prominent scientists on the dangers of Star Wars appeared as part of a letter to The Wall Street Journal on January 2, 1985
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/5561
A nearly impermeable strategic defense system would indeed have the capability to "save lives" rather than to "avenge them," to replace strategic deterrence by defense. But such a system is not in the cards, as even the program's director, General James Abrahamson, readily admits. Anything short of an impermeable system tends to undermine, not improve, US national security. Here are some of the reasons that we consider the Star Wars scheme unworkable and a grave danger to the United States:
-- Underflying: Star Wars does not defend against, or even address, low-altitude delivery systems--bombers and cruise missiles, and "suitcase" nuclear weapons. By themselves, they are able to destroy both nations; Star Wars would accelerate their development.
-- Overwhelming: The number of strategic warheads in the Soviet arsenal (as in our own) is about 10,000. If even a few percent of these warheads exploded on US territory it would represent an unparalleled human disaster and effective collapse of the United States as a functioning political entity. The Soviets could keep ahead of any American Star Wars system because it is cheaper to build new warheads than to shoot down old ones (and easier to shoot down orbiting defensive systems than incoming missiles).
-- Outfoxing: It is cheaper to build countermeasures than to build Star Wars. Some decades in the future when a (still highly permeable) US Star Wars system might be deployed, the Soviets would have added tens or hundreds of thousands of decoys and other penetration aids to their arsenal. Their objective would be to fatally confuse the American Star Wars system, which can never be adequately tested except in a real nuclear war.
-- Cost: Former Secretaries of Defense Harold Brown and James Schlesinger, and senior Pentagon spokesmen of this Administration, have all estimated the full Star Wars cost as hundreds of billions to one trillion dollars.
-- Soviet preemption: Despite US reassurances, the Soviets perceive Star Wars as part of a US first strike strategy, allowing us to launch a preemptive attack and then to destroy the remnant of any surviving Soviet retaliatory forces. In a time of severe crisis, this may tempt the Soviet Union to make a preemptive first strike against the United States.
-- Institutional momentum: When a trillion dollars is waved at the US aerospace industry, the project in question will rapidly acquire a life of its own--independent of the validity of its public justifications. With jobs, corporate profits, and civilian and military promotions at stake, a project of this magnitude, once started, becomes a juggernaut, the more difficult to stop the longer it rolls on.
We do not oppose defense in principle. We are in favor of carefully bounded research in this area, as in many others; we are also concerned that the line between research and early deployment of key Star Wars components not be blurred. Several of us have devoted considerable effort to research on missile defense. Some of us have advocated missile defense for individual missile silos. But we agree with Department of Defense experts who make it clear that cities cannot be so protected. Mr. Schlesinger has said "in our lifetime and that of our children, cities will be protected by forebearance of those on the other side, or through effective deterrence."
Hans A. Bethe
Richard L. Garwin
Kurt Gottfried
Henry W. Kendall
Carl Sagan
Victor Weisskopf
Cornell University
Ithaca, New York
Kid: Mr. Owl how many licks does it take to get to the tootsie roll center of the earth?...
Mr. Owl: Let's find out (purchases 580-tonne Tunnel Boring Machine)....
there is something like 4500 years of prior art on this one - bedouin tribes have been using this for ever.
"So what was this used for?"
"Were not really sure, but we think they kept their weed in it...."
He's got nothing on this guy.
Before my time, and you did note that part where I said, "former engineer...."
I recently received a letter indicating that the email address I had listed in the whois for my domain was invalid and that if I didn't update it I could lose my domain. I promptly did so. I both did not want to lose my domain, and was glad to see they are keeping that information accurate.
For intents and purposes, we're dealing with addressing, and just like each physical address the post office deals with needs to be as accurate as possible for mail to be delivered effeciently, so do the cyber addresses that exist need to be in order for things to work correctly and effeciently.
I work at a corporation where a former engineer setup several hundred remote domains with all servers having the exact same host name. This meant for years we could only utilize the network on an IP level (e.g., all scripts and so forth not being able to use hosts names, but instead using the differing IP addresses of each server). Now, I know there are ways around this, but logistically, we had to wait to "fix it right" and have now done so, but the point is, fore-thought into proper addressing, accurate information, etc., when dealing with networking -- or the postal system -- is essential. Keeping things up-to-date is also essential.
We bitch about mail being slow, but how many of us haved moved and then taken the time to inform each addressy of that move especially when the postal system lets us know to do so by still delivering the mail to us with the little yellow "inform sender of address change" sticker?
I'm glad to see the enforcement of accurate information take place....
as far as I know there is no guarantee in The Constitution stating that the government CAN'T implant RFID tags
Ya, let's just gloss right over that whole "secure the Blessings of Liberty" part....
Hell, there's nothing in the constitution that says Mutual of Omaha's Marlin Perkins can't dart 'em with a gun in order to put the chip in 'em....
Perhaps they could put items or whatever in social areas, like clubs or bars. This way not only will us geeks get our exercise roaming around the city, we may be forced to mingle with real people. Maybe they could pay hot chicks to be waiting in a club, and the only way you can get experience points is to talk her into giving you a secret code! Just think, for a small montly fee you could get interaction with a hot chi...
That game already exists. It was called "Leisure Suit Larry...."
Just another April fools jo.... (connection reset by peer)
-You do not spend all day reading slashdot. -You are cool. ...stop touching yourself, now!
"Are you suggesting nuclear bombs migrate?"
"Not at all. They could be carried...."
I've done this. I'm not dead. ...I don't think. Omg!...
Wait a minute, this April fools joke contains some SCO code I just know it!...