Words are harmless, meaning are. (I'll assume you left off the word "harmful")
I'm sorry, that's just not true.
Sorry, but it just is true. In many settings and environments, words that would usually be insulting are not.
For example, screaming that some girl is a 'goddamn fucking bitch' after she kills you in a game of CoD would not be insulting at many LAN parties. In that environment, it is said half in jest, and she is liable to reply in kind without any malice, because she understands the meaning which is separate from the words.
In fact, at some LAN parties, saying something like, "I hate it when you beat me like that," would be more insulting than my previous example because the meaning is that you are actually bothered, rather than the meaning being just that it was a random exclamation during the course of the game.
Meaning is very far separated from the exact words used in a situation, and it is good to recognize that. As another example, that is why most people mind if you call their dogs 'stupid bitches' rather than 'stupid dogs' or 'dumb animals'.
[Note 1] I think a case could be made that this is a sign of an unhealthy relationship.
Presuming that, merely because people use a different vernacular than you do, they have some sort of problem is extremely insulting. Certainly, walking up to you and saying "Here's your soda, mother-f****r" would be inappropriate. However, my friends can say that to me, because I know what they mean by the word.
"The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State."
Which basically means that the federal government has no obligation to let individuals sue it, but does not prevent the feds from allowing to be sued.
That amendment just says that citizens of other countries can't sue the government. US citizens are not "Citizens of another state" or "Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State", is it wouldn't apply to them.
Actually, they're very well compressed. Yes, they are JPGs, but they're at a very high quality, as you can see by looking at them closely. Yes, there are a very few visual artifacts, but when you actually look at them unzoomed (as they were intended to be viewed) you can easily see the differences in quality between one picture and the next.
The only images compressed at a noticeably low quality were the shots of the video control panel, which obviously doesn't warrant wasted bandwidth. Likewise, going with lossless PNGs or JPEGs would have been a waste of bandwidth which HardOCP likely cannot afford, particularly in light of a slashdotting.
Why is it that the American name is cheesy and inaccurate and the European name is cheesy and repetitive and both names are chock-full of sexual innuendo? Can nobody find good names these days?
I vote for renaming the project to "Looking In Rocks", just for the sake of simplicity.
It's a common misconception that seeing violence is all bad. Seeing realistic violence makes it seem very unappetizing for those who are not already sadistic. However, seeing sex makes it seem very desireable.
Thus, if you wish to have less sex among children, you don't show it to them, and if you wish to have less violence among children you just make sure it isn't fake-as-all-hell and incredibly glorified.
Of course, they already prevent anything realistic from being shown because they're far too uptight and possibly stupid, but that doesn't mean the basis of the restrictions is wrong.
That all assumes that they did not make a parody of the song itself.
Near the end, an old Indian says "This land WAS my land" and is then followed by lots of commercial crap and everyone yelling "This land is our land." That is parody of the original song in its most common usage.
I'm being quite reasonable about why I don't think it matters. I never, not even once, said that it wasn't worthy of respect, I just said it's not all that important. Particularly, not important enough to put the man into the list of most important *nauts. I respect many people that do unimportant things, and I don't put them into major lists of important people.
I never even implied that the application of a technology couldn't be worthy of respect. In fact, quite the opposite. I noted that, if he had done anything that hadn't been done before, it would have been respectable. But, what he did, was he went to a place where other people had been from places people had left from before using equipment which had already been used for the same purpose. It just isn't an important thing to do.
If you think that's bigoted, you need to consider what the word means. Being bigoted is obstinately and intolerantly not accepting another viewpoint than your own.
I wasn't being obstinate or intolerant, I was just stating a fairly reasonable position.
So, lets check that position again.
China modified a Russian rocket and rented a facility in another country to launch one of their own men. Meaning, they made no new equipment, prepared no new facilities, and went nowhere new. Guess what, that really isn't very important, no matter who-the-fuck does it.
And, in case you're wondering, "When the country with most of the worlds population starts to move its shit into LEO," I'll be saying, "Wow, that's damn impressive, but I still don't give a shit who the first Chinese man in space was, because that really didn't matter very much."
Actually, he should have been left off the list, because by the time China got to space, it just wasn't important. Now, plenty of Russians should have been included, but the Chinese haven't done anything spectacular.
The system needs to be changed from barcodes to OCRable characters. For a set of OCRable numbers, look at the bottom of a check. Those ones weren't designed to be readable, but that can be changed, some weighted ends and so-such can guarantee OCR accuracy.
The printers should probably be dot-matrix not laser-jet. They're just more reliable, and they can still be produced cheaply. Many places use them exclusively. Also, it might be good to include a braile-printer. I'm told they are reliable, but do not have any experience with them.
Further, what is with the background on the ballot? It is a ballot, not an advertisement.
OCR is 100% accurate for letters designed to be read by it. You've seen them on checks before, they have blob-like endings to guarantee differentiation.
Some work would be required to make them both human and computer readable, but there are many very talented font creators out there who would be glad to do the job at a reasonable salary.
"No one is forcing you, or your kids, to watch it."
Just a question: What if they put it on a billboard? Would it be a problem then?
Broadcasts are fully public, in every way the same as a billboard, there is no way to be certain when and where they are without significant personal effort. I have often run into shows I would rather not listen to while skimming radio stations, and was once even force to sit through almost a minute of country music because of a button being jammed.
I think Howard Stern should bring charges of sexual discrimination. First off, it'd be a funny publicity stunt. Second off, it's half true. Men are often considered less decent than women, and she is being treated significantly differently. It'd be a hilarious trial if he really pushed it.
"The US ISP was probubally scared that if they did something wrong they would get sued sued sued"
I think you're wrong. Lawsuits are common in the US, but they weren't at risk there, and they knew it. They were careful because they decided to be careful.
The lawsuit would be more likely to come from the person sending the request, which is maybe why the UK ISP rolled over.
The US ISP did what it was supposed to do. Don't go assuming bad things about them just because they do what it right. If you start doing that, you have not only admitted society is failing, you are doing your darndest to ensure that it stays on course for complete failure and destruction. The mindset that nobody does the right thing except out of fear is a deploreable mindset which people should be ashamed of.
Re:Maybe we shouldn't be so quick to judge the ISP
on
Testing ISP Censorship
·
· Score: 1
Yeah, but it's still censorship. Just because it's not unconstitutional doesn't mean it's not bad.
Slashdot Mirror
A Mac "gamer" asked about the port to OS X
Yes, that's right. It's not a Mac gamer, it's a Mac "gamer".
Thanks for the laugh, AMDZone.
Doesn't let WindowsME boot? Sounds like it's working fine.
"Wavelets [exotic waveforms used to map changes]"
Wavelets are exotic? Where are they from?
Sorry, but it just is true. In many settings and environments, words that would usually be insulting are not.
For example, screaming that some girl is a 'goddamn fucking bitch' after she kills you in a game of CoD would not be insulting at many LAN parties. In that environment, it is said half in jest, and she is liable to reply in kind without any malice, because she understands the meaning which is separate from the words.
In fact, at some LAN parties, saying something like, "I hate it when you beat me like that," would be more insulting than my previous example because the meaning is that you are actually bothered, rather than the meaning being just that it was a random exclamation during the course of the game.
Meaning is very far separated from the exact words used in a situation, and it is good to recognize that. As another example, that is why most people mind if you call their dogs 'stupid bitches' rather than 'stupid dogs' or 'dumb animals'.
Presuming that, merely because people use a different vernacular than you do, they have some sort of problem is extremely insulting. Certainly, walking up to you and saying "Here's your soda, mother-f****r" would be inappropriate. However, my friends can say that to me, because I know what they mean by the word.
"The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State."
Which basically means that the federal government has no obligation to let individuals sue it, but does not prevent the feds from allowing to be sued.
That amendment just says that citizens of other countries can't sue the government. US citizens are not "Citizens of another state" or "Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State", is it wouldn't apply to them.
Actually, they're very well compressed. Yes, they are JPGs, but they're at a very high quality, as you can see by looking at them closely. Yes, there are a very few visual artifacts, but when you actually look at them unzoomed (as they were intended to be viewed) you can easily see the differences in quality between one picture and the next.
The only images compressed at a noticeably low quality were the shots of the video control panel, which obviously doesn't warrant wasted bandwidth. Likewise, going with lossless PNGs or JPEGs would have been a waste of bandwidth which HardOCP likely cannot afford, particularly in light of a slashdotting.
Why is it that the American name is cheesy and inaccurate and the European name is cheesy and repetitive and both names are chock-full of sexual innuendo? Can nobody find good names these days?
I vote for renaming the project to "Looking In Rocks", just for the sake of simplicity.
It's a common misconception that seeing violence is all bad. Seeing realistic violence makes it seem very unappetizing for those who are not already sadistic. However, seeing sex makes it seem very desireable.
Thus, if you wish to have less sex among children, you don't show it to them, and if you wish to have less violence among children you just make sure it isn't fake-as-all-hell and incredibly glorified.
Of course, they already prevent anything realistic from being shown because they're far too uptight and possibly stupid, but that doesn't mean the basis of the restrictions is wrong.
That all assumes that they did not make a parody of the song itself.
Near the end, an old Indian says "This land WAS my land" and is then followed by lots of commercial crap and everyone yelling "This land is our land." That is parody of the original song in its most common usage.
A line near the end is an old Indian saying "This land was my land." This is then followed by lots of commercial crap popping up.
Is that not parody of the original song?
I think the subject line is kinda all I had to say.
All states have State-ID cards, as well as drivers licenses. They function identically, except that one doesn't give you the right to drive.
I'm being quite reasonable about why I don't think it matters. I never, not even once, said that it wasn't worthy of respect, I just said it's not all that important. Particularly, not important enough to put the man into the list of most important *nauts. I respect many people that do unimportant things, and I don't put them into major lists of important people.
I never even implied that the application of a technology couldn't be worthy of respect. In fact, quite the opposite. I noted that, if he had done anything that hadn't been done before, it would have been respectable. But, what he did, was he went to a place where other people had been from places people had left from before using equipment which had already been used for the same purpose. It just isn't an important thing to do.
Again: Idiot.
If you think that's bigoted, you need to consider what the word means. Being bigoted is obstinately and intolerantly not accepting another viewpoint than your own.
I wasn't being obstinate or intolerant, I was just stating a fairly reasonable position.
So, lets check that position again.
China modified a Russian rocket and rented a facility in another country to launch one of their own men. Meaning, they made no new equipment, prepared no new facilities, and went nowhere new. Guess what, that really isn't very important, no matter who-the-fuck does it.
And, in case you're wondering, "When the country with most of the worlds population starts to move its shit into LEO," I'll be saying, "Wow, that's damn impressive, but I still don't give a shit who the first Chinese man in space was, because that really didn't matter very much."
Idiot.
Actually, he should have been left off the list, because by the time China got to space, it just wasn't important. Now, plenty of Russians should have been included, but the Chinese haven't done anything spectacular.
Just think about that one for a bit. It's my favorite information to give.
Great explanation. However:
The system needs to be changed from barcodes to OCRable characters. For a set of OCRable numbers, look at the bottom of a check. Those ones weren't designed to be readable, but that can be changed, some weighted ends and so-such can guarantee OCR accuracy.
The printers should probably be dot-matrix not laser-jet. They're just more reliable, and they can still be produced cheaply. Many places use them exclusively. Also, it might be good to include a braile-printer. I'm told they are reliable, but do not have any experience with them.
Further, what is with the background on the ballot? It is a ballot, not an advertisement.
OCR is 100% accurate for letters designed to be read by it. You've seen them on checks before, they have blob-like endings to guarantee differentiation.
Some work would be required to make them both human and computer readable, but there are many very talented font creators out there who would be glad to do the job at a reasonable salary.
"No one is forcing you, or your kids, to watch it."
Just a question: What if they put it on a billboard? Would it be a problem then?
Broadcasts are fully public, in every way the same as a billboard, there is no way to be certain when and where they are without significant personal effort. I have often run into shows I would rather not listen to while skimming radio stations, and was once even force to sit through almost a minute of country music because of a button being jammed.
"Sorry but it isn't up to government bodies to decide what's best for us. We're quite capable of doing that ourselves."
No, I'm fairly certain people have shown that they're just as incapable of doing that as the government is.
I think Howard Stern should bring charges of sexual discrimination. First off, it'd be a funny publicity stunt. Second off, it's half true. Men are often considered less decent than women, and she is being treated significantly differently. It'd be a hilarious trial if he really pushed it.
"The US ISP was probubally scared that if they did something wrong they would get sued sued sued"
I think you're wrong. Lawsuits are common in the US, but they weren't at risk there, and they knew it. They were careful because they decided to be careful.
The lawsuit would be more likely to come from the person sending the request, which is maybe why the UK ISP rolled over.
The US ISP did what it was supposed to do. Don't go assuming bad things about them just because they do what it right. If you start doing that, you have not only admitted society is failing, you are doing your darndest to ensure that it stays on course for complete failure and destruction. The mindset that nobody does the right thing except out of fear is a deploreable mindset which people should be ashamed of.
Yeah, but it's still censorship. Just because it's not unconstitutional doesn't mean it's not bad.
censor: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable
Did they supress or delete something, anything at all? Yes, it is censorship.
"So technically it isn't censorship"
Technically, it's not government censorship. Technically, it is censorship.
Censor: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable.