See you need to define what you mean by "trolling". What exactly is wrong with me too, if your general readership probably isn't familiar with the issues? And credibility DOES matter.
Familiarity with Slate would tell you they do that kind of stuff all the time, and in fact, that may be all that they do--they gather a bunch of experts that write in a clear way for a general audience... sure YOU probably think you know what you're talking about... ok... does the average Slate reader?
If you read the fucking article, you'd also know that he wasn't as predictable as you make him out to be. He points out the problem is one of the ability for drawing clear property lines, which is difficult with software, but much easier for drugs.
By idiot, you mean Columbia Law professor, and my trolling, GP means, he's never actually read Slate and doesn't know that it's probably one of the highest quality edited online websites you could find, content wise, and a widely read one at that (33 million per a day or something). There's gems here and there on Slashdot, but it's made useful through quantity (comments) and some sifting (moderation).
Enjoy.
Tiananmen Square in English, on the American site:
http://images.google.com/images?q=tiananmen+square
Tiananmen Square in Chinese, on the Chinese site:
http://images.google.cn/images?q=%E5%A4%A9%E5%AE%8 9%E9%97%A8%E5%B9%BF%E5%9C%BA&btnG=%E6%90%9C%E7%B4% A2
At many universities in China, they only have access to domestic internet ( *.cn ) and to access ANYTHING foreign you need to find an unreliable proxy. I wonder how hard it might be to do some really long distance Wi-Fi from an uncensored internet source outside the country into the country (HK; Taiwan, which also has a few small islands right off the Chinese coast; Vietnam, S. Korea).
but Tibet doesn't actually exercise de facto indepedence, i.e. where is there elected or legitimate government and their army/police? it's not that the PRC can roll into Tibet any time--it's that they're already there and the ones really in charge. as to the PRC's legitimacy--that's a separate question entirely.
Taiwan is both a democratic country and it maintains de facto rule--it has its own military that prevents China from walking over, and it maintains order within the island as well. As to its constitutional legitimacy... that is a separate question (if you're talking about from a historical perspective... but of course from a self-determination perspective they are legitimately independent).
That's true. They moved to Taiwan and proceeded to establish an authoritarian state committing atrocious acts of murders and jailings of Taiwanese that we normally associate with Stalin or Mao. In fact, the irony is that the Nationalists from China were originally trained by the same Soviet advisors schooled in Leninist political thought (aka, one-party system, cracking down on dissent, creating patriotic fervor, rewriting textbooks, controlling media, state control of large industry, etc, etc)! So Communist China and Nationalist China moved to Taiwan actually had quite a bit of similarity.
The miracle for Taiwan is that Jiang Jinguo, son of Jiang Jieshi (also known as Chiang Kai-shek), ended up being this benevolent dictator around the time of the 70s, liberalizing the economy and democratizing the government. Mainlanders, people from China that were soldiers, government officials, or rich people that fled China to Taiwan and their descendants, lost their grip on power.
So I guess you can say the ROC/Taiwan never declared independence. You can also say that most of the world doesn't recognize it. So maybe from some kind historical and international relations point of view, Taiwan's status as a country is on controversial grounds. But if you take the realist perspective, Taiwan has a democratically elected government with its own president, premier, legislature, etc. If you told Taiwanese people they didn't have to worry about China, they'd say, yeah, we'd like to continue our little democracy (along with all the regular and some not so regular ills of democracies) and continue with our self-determination. Probably 1000 times more important than the 26 countries that recognize it and the more than 100 that don't is the US supplies advanced arms to Taiwan and pretty much makes China think that if they go and invade, the US and these days, Japan, will go to war. So you take your pick... is it recognition by the UN that matters? consitutional history? or actual functional democratic institutions?
I can think of already one problem with the UN controlling the DNS system--not everyone is a part of the UN or wants to be. What does a country like Taiwan do if China starts imposing itself on this hypothetical organization? Taiwan is blocked from ever entering the UN as long as China, a permanent security council member wielding veto power, does not want it to. China even blocks Taiwan from things like the World Health Organization, which is ridiculous given the whole SARS/avian bird flu/every flu comes from Asia situation. I'm not sure that the US accurately represents the world, but I'm not sure a one country-one vote organization that excludes a few countries here and there and tilts all the power towards the 5 original members is all that representative either.
actually now that i think about it, the first problem i mentioned is a problem from english->chinese so it's not really a problem. the second one, the homophone problem, is a legitimate problem. basically, there would have to be a way for deciding who gets which latin pair for a given chinese character address. there would be quite a few conflicts, in which case, one site would get the transliteration and the other site(s) would have to choose something else. but maybe it doesn't matter, just let people register whatever latin name they want with whatever character name they want--but of course that could be pretty misleading too. i'm just saying it's a complex issue and there's no unique natural latin pair for a given chinese string--a good reason for why they want to use characters for domain names in the first place.
uh... do you have a one to one mapping of chinese characters to latin alphabet? because if you do, you should tell the chinese about it.
you have to consider syllable complexity--there are many fewer kinds of syllables in chinese--as well as the homophone problem--there are a ton of characters, which carry different meanings, sitting on all the same characters.
for these reasons, everytime someone non-Chinese makes the news for the first time, they need to invent a name for him/her. there's no one way to do it, and you end up with meaning and sound variations.
You racist bastard. German life expectancy at birth: 78.54. Taiwanese life expectancy at birth: 77.06. (cia.gov's world factbook). In 1940 Germany was blowing up and getting blown up like crazy. The instability and arbitrary nature of life during World War II led to Post-Modernism and meaninglessness. What part about that do you think is a causal factor in wanting to work hard and plan for the next 100 years? By the way, Taiwanese in 1940 probably lived in cement houses (earthquakes), and if by "sheds and bamboo houses" you mean one of the greatest economic miracles of the last 50 years, then I would ask you even more why you think they are any less "hardcore" than Germans.
Let's talk about the article. First of all, she cites all Asians, but then says mostly Taiwanese manufacturers. Then she says mostly Taiwanese manufacturers and then only cites a single manufacturer for doing it in low quantities with a rumor that they might increase production. She cites not a single source, anonymous or otherwise, and reports from New York, and she even seems to confuse China with Taiwan at one point in the article (Taiwanese are Chinese only in the sense that Australians are Anglo but with immigration that's not really accurate anyways). What kind of news reporting is this? If anything, I would say that she's just starting a random rumor that's a malicious attack on lower-cost, lower-priced Taiwanese DRAM manufacturers.
All this is not to say that it is not a characteristic of many manufacturers in Taiwan of being the low-cost provider. Much of that is moving to China these days, but that's been their specialty for a long time. Looking at a big market, figuring out how to produce at really low cost, and out producing everyone. Basically the Dell mentality. These days, Taiwan has up the food chain somewhat to design and precision manufacturing etc, but anyways, the point is, this article is crap and there's good reason to be suspect of it.
And if you still know how to read, you can take a look at Crichton's alarmist, nativist original book version of Rising Sun (but please don't buy that crap). Take a look at the epilogue. It says almost all the wrong things both in terms of predictions and what the US should do. It warns that the US better start making more "stuff" rather than promoting "services" (i.e. soft tech) or the Japanese manufacturers are going to take over the US. It warns that we were becoming an economy that was not churning out anything "real" because we were producing fewer and fewer tangible industrial goods. In fact, movement towards services and away from manufacturing is exactly the sign of a maturing economy. Crichton writes about neither good medicine (his training) nor good technology--he just throws around a bunch of technical terms and you're supposed to eat it up.
C'mon is obviously a WRITTEN colloquialism (that reflects oral usage but it's not one to one), given that it does not have the 'e'. You yourself recognize that it is normal colloquial usage, being that no one writes "C'meon".
Parent isn't being funny, parent is being insightful. The whole deal with John Cage was an attempt at performance silence that led to a recognition (how novel this recognition might be can be challenged) of the ambient noise of the room. I mean yeah it's sorta funny if he doesn't have music and he turns a page, but the noise thing is serious.
You're mistaken =). Some gene therapies use viruses as vectors, but of course that's rare as hell. Vaccines use weakened or disabled ("dead" if you consider the virus to have ever been alive in the first place) forms of a virus to get your immune system to produce antibodies that will also work next time around when you are exposed to the real thing. This works because your body can sit around and make antibodies without having the virus reproducing rapidly and generally causing havok. When you're exposed to the virus for real, your body already has figured out how to recognize the virus and has a stock of antibodies it can immediately use on it.
Using a virus as a vector refers to inserting a payload into the viral sequence (the desired DNA or RNA), which then gets inserted into the cell's genetic sequence as the virus inserts itself.
So basically I think there's quite a confusion here. I mean, it sounds like we're using one enemy to fight another, but if we can figure out how to get HIV to fight cancer, this new HIV won't go out there and suddenly turn regular HIV into good HIV that kills cancer. In fact, I don't know if it's such a good idea to use one enemy to fight another besides the fact that it sounds ironic. I would've thought that HIV would be one of the worst candidates with its fast mutational rate and ability to attack T-cells making it extremely dangerous. Obviously though, there must be some properties of HIV that make it a good vector in this case.
Re:What a stupid question....
on
No Pictures, Thanks
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
It's a good question whenever police powers are increased, but that sure as hell not the relevant question here.
When people talk about strong encryption, they always talk about how the government has no right to interfere, how VOIP is hard to tap and that's good. Why the hell is this increase in privacy related to police powers? I mean, it's a plausible situation, but no one ever asks if strong encryption can be used by government agents for illegitimate reasons. Seriously, this is such a biased posting. What about drug dealers using the device to prevent photo surveillance of deals? What about any illegal activity that is prevented from being photographed? If it increases privacy, it increases it for everyone. The question is wrong because it's one-sided.
Um... MAYBE you're right. But if you actually read the article, Gross is saying Ivy Leaguers are either too rich to be doing these jobs or they are focusing on a career which IS largely Ivy League dominated--investment banking, finance, and consulting. So maybe, but he's pretty agnostic in his article. In any case, students at the university I'm familiar with--Columbia--work hard as hell, most are smart as hell to begin with, and many are extremely ambitious. But that might have something to do with its high minority percentage and low private prep percentage (as compared to Harvard and Yale).
Sort of. It also peels, cracks, powders and gets washed back into the soil. Neal may have made a poor implication that only water-based paints would leak particulate into the soil, but exterior paint will still go into the soil. Which also probably means that adding metals to make your own paint mix is either illegal or environmentally dangerous enough that it should be illegal.
But um, don't you think that if this is an open-source project that has plenty of proprietary competition, that a sign of being easy to us and all those other metrics you mentioned would be popularity? I mean, easy-to-use is pretty subjective. Easy-to-use such that lots of people would bother downloading and adopting Chandler is real and measurable.
Let's take a step off that pedestal. Sure, sophisticated minorities may choose better products some of the time, and monopolies can severely limit the choices that most people can make. But all the more, if they slay Outlook/Exchange the way that Firefox has started to really gain more than marginal acceptance against Internet Explorer, isn't that evidence that most people really do find Chandler to be better?
Mitch Kapor is basically running a charity with the fortune he's made. He wants to help as many people, create a useful product for as many people, as he can. Do you think the American Redcross sits around and says, oh boy, we sure do have really good accounting procedures, our transparency is good, and we have top notch volunteers and says to hell with how many people we're actually helping?
Right on the money. Alot of quality posts pointing out how CRTs are technically superior. But that is a huge leap to saying it's an emotional decision to decide against technology. Maybe I'm choosing based on aesthetics or maybe I need the space beacuse I live in a Manhattan apartment with three other guys.
Poster making really bad assumptions. Would you buy a couch that was ass-ugly but was really comfortable? Most people wouldn't. The fact that people are either ignorant or don't care about the lesser quality says something about exactly how much better HDTV really is than regular TV and about marketing driving the adoption of _HDTV_ rather than any serious improvement in experience. That's where I see the hype and emotion.
That's a good point about the difference between Keynote being a very personal sort of application while Word and Excel documents being much more collaborative.
I think though the Adobe bit needs a modification. In the case that people are collaborating on a document, people still won't like PDF if they don't have the hypothetical Adobe PDF Wordpad because they can read it BUT they CAN'T EDIT IT. Otherwise all Apple needs to do, which they almost certainly have if they're going to bother writing a word processor these days, is add a PDF exporter so that anyone can read the document, and then there's no issue. BTW, Mac MS Word has exactly that, the ability to export as PDF. Not sure about the latest Windows version.
I understand the point from the perspective of what the operating system has to do in deleting the file, but conceptually, if I can delete a file by writing an empty file, shouldn't I be able to delete the file outright? Or vice-versa?
Slashdot Mirror
See you need to define what you mean by "trolling". What exactly is wrong with me too, if your general readership probably isn't familiar with the issues? And credibility DOES matter.
Familiarity with Slate would tell you they do that kind of stuff all the time, and in fact, that may be all that they do--they gather a bunch of experts that write in a clear way for a general audience... sure YOU probably think you know what you're talking about... ok... does the average Slate reader?
If you read the fucking article, you'd also know that he wasn't as predictable as you make him out to be. He points out the problem is one of the ability for drawing clear property lines, which is difficult with software, but much easier for drugs.
By idiot, you mean Columbia Law professor, and my trolling, GP means, he's never actually read Slate and doesn't know that it's probably one of the highest quality edited online websites you could find, content wise, and a widely read one at that (33 million per a day or something). There's gems here and there on Slashdot, but it's made useful through quantity (comments) and some sifting (moderation).
Enjoy. Tiananmen Square in English, on the American site: http://images.google.com/images?q=tiananmen+square
Tiananmen Square in Chinese, on the Chinese site:
http://images.google.cn/images?q=%E5%A4%A9%E5%AE%8 9%E9%97%A8%E5%B9%BF%E5%9C%BA&btnG=%E6%90%9C%E7%B4% A2
At many universities in China, they only have access to domestic internet ( *.cn ) and to access ANYTHING foreign you need to find an unreliable proxy. I wonder how hard it might be to do some really long distance Wi-Fi from an uncensored internet source outside the country into the country (HK; Taiwan, which also has a few small islands right off the Chinese coast; Vietnam, S. Korea).
but is there any technological barrier? is there any reason that cdma cell phones couldn't be paired with SIM cards?
Taiwan is both a democratic country and it maintains de facto rule--it has its own military that prevents China from walking over, and it maintains order within the island as well. As to its constitutional legitimacy... that is a separate question (if you're talking about from a historical perspective... but of course from a self-determination perspective they are legitimately independent).
The miracle for Taiwan is that Jiang Jinguo, son of Jiang Jieshi (also known as Chiang Kai-shek), ended up being this benevolent dictator around the time of the 70s, liberalizing the economy and democratizing the government. Mainlanders, people from China that were soldiers, government officials, or rich people that fled China to Taiwan and their descendants, lost their grip on power.
So I guess you can say the ROC/Taiwan never declared independence. You can also say that most of the world doesn't recognize it. So maybe from some kind historical and international relations point of view, Taiwan's status as a country is on controversial grounds. But if you take the realist perspective, Taiwan has a democratically elected government with its own president, premier, legislature, etc. If you told Taiwanese people they didn't have to worry about China, they'd say, yeah, we'd like to continue our little democracy (along with all the regular and some not so regular ills of democracies) and continue with our self-determination. Probably 1000 times more important than the 26 countries that recognize it and the more than 100 that don't is the US supplies advanced arms to Taiwan and pretty much makes China think that if they go and invade, the US and these days, Japan, will go to war. So you take your pick... is it recognition by the UN that matters? consitutional history? or actual functional democratic institutions?
I can think of already one problem with the UN controlling the DNS system--not everyone is a part of the UN or wants to be. What does a country like Taiwan do if China starts imposing itself on this hypothetical organization? Taiwan is blocked from ever entering the UN as long as China, a permanent security council member wielding veto power, does not want it to. China even blocks Taiwan from things like the World Health Organization, which is ridiculous given the whole SARS/avian bird flu/every flu comes from Asia situation. I'm not sure that the US accurately represents the world, but I'm not sure a one country-one vote organization that excludes a few countries here and there and tilts all the power towards the 5 original members is all that representative either.
actually now that i think about it, the first problem i mentioned is a problem from english->chinese so it's not really a problem. the second one, the homophone problem, is a legitimate problem. basically, there would have to be a way for deciding who gets which latin pair for a given chinese character address. there would be quite a few conflicts, in which case, one site would get the transliteration and the other site(s) would have to choose something else. but maybe it doesn't matter, just let people register whatever latin name they want with whatever character name they want--but of course that could be pretty misleading too. i'm just saying it's a complex issue and there's no unique natural latin pair for a given chinese string--a good reason for why they want to use characters for domain names in the first place.
you have to consider syllable complexity--there are many fewer kinds of syllables in chinese--as well as the homophone problem--there are a ton of characters, which carry different meanings, sitting on all the same characters.
for these reasons, everytime someone non-Chinese makes the news for the first time, they need to invent a name for him/her. there's no one way to do it, and you end up with meaning and sound variations.
Let's talk about the article. First of all, she cites all Asians, but then says mostly Taiwanese manufacturers. Then she says mostly Taiwanese manufacturers and then only cites a single manufacturer for doing it in low quantities with a rumor that they might increase production. She cites not a single source, anonymous or otherwise, and reports from New York, and she even seems to confuse China with Taiwan at one point in the article (Taiwanese are Chinese only in the sense that Australians are Anglo but with immigration that's not really accurate anyways). What kind of news reporting is this? If anything, I would say that she's just starting a random rumor that's a malicious attack on lower-cost, lower-priced Taiwanese DRAM manufacturers.
All this is not to say that it is not a characteristic of many manufacturers in Taiwan of being the low-cost provider. Much of that is moving to China these days, but that's been their specialty for a long time. Looking at a big market, figuring out how to produce at really low cost, and out producing everyone. Basically the Dell mentality. These days, Taiwan has up the food chain somewhat to design and precision manufacturing etc, but anyways, the point is, this article is crap and there's good reason to be suspect of it.
And if you still know how to read, you can take a look at Crichton's alarmist, nativist original book version of Rising Sun (but please don't buy that crap). Take a look at the epilogue. It says almost all the wrong things both in terms of predictions and what the US should do. It warns that the US better start making more "stuff" rather than promoting "services" (i.e. soft tech) or the Japanese manufacturers are going to take over the US. It warns that we were becoming an economy that was not churning out anything "real" because we were producing fewer and fewer tangible industrial goods. In fact, movement towards services and away from manufacturing is exactly the sign of a maturing economy. Crichton writes about neither good medicine (his training) nor good technology--he just throws around a bunch of technical terms and you're supposed to eat it up.
C'mon is obviously a WRITTEN colloquialism (that reflects oral usage but it's not one to one), given that it does not have the 'e'. You yourself recognize that it is normal colloquial usage, being that no one writes "C'meon".
Parent isn't being funny, parent is being insightful. The whole deal with John Cage was an attempt at performance silence that led to a recognition (how novel this recognition might be can be challenged) of the ambient noise of the room. I mean yeah it's sorta funny if he doesn't have music and he turns a page, but the noise thing is serious.
Using a virus as a vector refers to inserting a payload into the viral sequence (the desired DNA or RNA), which then gets inserted into the cell's genetic sequence as the virus inserts itself.
So basically I think there's quite a confusion here. I mean, it sounds like we're using one enemy to fight another, but if we can figure out how to get HIV to fight cancer, this new HIV won't go out there and suddenly turn regular HIV into good HIV that kills cancer. In fact, I don't know if it's such a good idea to use one enemy to fight another besides the fact that it sounds ironic. I would've thought that HIV would be one of the worst candidates with its fast mutational rate and ability to attack T-cells making it extremely dangerous. Obviously though, there must be some properties of HIV that make it a good vector in this case.
When people talk about strong encryption, they always talk about how the government has no right to interfere, how VOIP is hard to tap and that's good. Why the hell is this increase in privacy related to police powers? I mean, it's a plausible situation, but no one ever asks if strong encryption can be used by government agents for illegitimate reasons. Seriously, this is such a biased posting. What about drug dealers using the device to prevent photo surveillance of deals? What about any illegal activity that is prevented from being photographed? If it increases privacy, it increases it for everyone. The question is wrong because it's one-sided.
Um... MAYBE you're right. But if you actually read the article, Gross is saying Ivy Leaguers are either too rich to be doing these jobs or they are focusing on a career which IS largely Ivy League dominated--investment banking, finance, and consulting. So maybe, but he's pretty agnostic in his article. In any case, students at the university I'm familiar with--Columbia--work hard as hell, most are smart as hell to begin with, and many are extremely ambitious. But that might have something to do with its high minority percentage and low private prep percentage (as compared to Harvard and Yale).
Sort of. It also peels, cracks, powders and gets washed back into the soil. Neal may have made a poor implication that only water-based paints would leak particulate into the soil, but exterior paint will still go into the soil. Which also probably means that adding metals to make your own paint mix is either illegal or environmentally dangerous enough that it should be illegal.
Let's take a step off that pedestal. Sure, sophisticated minorities may choose better products some of the time, and monopolies can severely limit the choices that most people can make. But all the more, if they slay Outlook/Exchange the way that Firefox has started to really gain more than marginal acceptance against Internet Explorer, isn't that evidence that most people really do find Chandler to be better?
Mitch Kapor is basically running a charity with the fortune he's made. He wants to help as many people, create a useful product for as many people, as he can. Do you think the American Redcross sits around and says, oh boy, we sure do have really good accounting procedures, our transparency is good, and we have top notch volunteers and says to hell with how many people we're actually helping?
For the newbies on the minis, that's Command-Shift-A (all together now).
None of which are good for YOU!
Poster making really bad assumptions. Would you buy a couch that was ass-ugly but was really comfortable? Most people wouldn't. The fact that people are either ignorant or don't care about the lesser quality says something about exactly how much better HDTV really is than regular TV and about marketing driving the adoption of _HDTV_ rather than any serious improvement in experience. That's where I see the hype and emotion.
What's all this about hams? Christmas was soooo last year...
I think though the Adobe bit needs a modification. In the case that people are collaborating on a document, people still won't like PDF if they don't have the hypothetical Adobe PDF Wordpad because they can read it BUT they CAN'T EDIT IT. Otherwise all Apple needs to do, which they almost certainly have if they're going to bother writing a word processor these days, is add a PDF exporter so that anyone can read the document, and then there's no issue. BTW, Mac MS Word has exactly that, the ability to export as PDF. Not sure about the latest Windows version.
Dangerous link as sibling post has already warned.
I understand the point from the perspective of what the operating system has to do in deleting the file, but conceptually, if I can delete a file by writing an empty file, shouldn't I be able to delete the file outright? Or vice-versa?