Thanks for the reply, very helpful. I don't get the lego thing; I think it is because the sets never meant much to me. Like other people have posted, I never created whatever the set was supposed to be. I would have made a giant yellow dinosaur or whatever. A lego is a lego. That said, I can see why people will drop 50 bucks on some GI Joe tank or whatever. Different toys, same idea...
"Suppose the fellow goes home at night and has a few too many glasses of scotch. Suppose he has threesomes with sluts. Suppose he does any number of things you don't personally like. Are you gonna take away his funding for that, too?"
What I want to know is why am I funding his threesomes with sluts and his scotch? I can barely afford one slut!
Maus I and II Validate the Format;
on
Reading Comics
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Others not so much. I am not trolling here, so let me explain what I mean before I burn. Maus was a story that needed that graphic format and changed the way I considered history to be presented. Holocaust narratives have been shown in a variety of ways (literary, film etc), but the juxtaposition of present and past was a key aspect of the way that history is passed down both for better and for worse from one generation to another in Maus. This part of Maus was dependent upon the very nature of sequential art (aka comic panels). This story needed the format in a way that something like Watchmen doesn't. Watchmen is great, and I look forward to the movie. But, the story is what drove its greatness, not that it was a graphic novel. (and considering it was released as separate issues originally, I take exception to the term graphic novel even being applied). I am sure that there other examples similar to Maus, but I would not include Watchmen in that category. Watchmen is great for entierly different reasons.
The whole point of Wikipedia is that it has something about everything. If I want to know about a random 1980's toy, I go to wikipedia. The lack of respect for wikipedia isn't because of the inclusion of other things. It is the distrust for the entry writers. If you get rid of pop culture entries, that problem still exists. I am an editor for my school's law review. Law academia differs from most departments because everything is student edited rather than peer reviewed. Even in this case, students are unwilling to allow wikipedia sources. Either Wikipedia will change who can make entries or people will finally accept the wikipedia paradigm before it will be a valid source. This is a shame, because often academics are slow in figuring out what the hell they are talking about. This is most obvious when sources are needed for technical/scientific information. The geeks who write the updates know what they are talking about much quicker than Dr. English Phd who can't even use Word...
the book doesn't tell you how to make it work when it doesn't. It is a comprehensive guide to all of the features that may be missed by users who aren't paying attention. I gave the tiger edition to my mother in law. While she could use the machine out of the box, she wouldn't figure out the more complex aspects of the finder on her own. In addition, the book contains a basic guide to the ilife programs as well as iChat. While she could likely figure this out on her own, having a resource has been great for her. It gives basic users a more advanced knowledge than they would otherwise have.
Blame the parents is the mantra around here, and I agree in many cases. BUT, I don't think it is appropriate in cases where a child kills herself.
That said, I think the issue here is about the cyber bullying. We can argue all day over whether the bullying caused her death, but this is not really the point. The question is whether we should allow this sort of behavior? I mean, a grown woman disguising herself as a 16 year old boy and then bullying her? Regardless of the outcome that is screwed up.
No, I know. I totally agree with you regarding the difference between theory/data structures versus languages and API. This was something that we learned early on and I took to heart. BUT, that said, even though the theory helped me know how to understand and learn languages, it never helped me understand the concepts of the visual programming. To say it more plainly- I think that a course teaching the theory of visual programming (not v basic) would be helpful so that students could teach themselves xcode/visual studio etc. There is a big difference conceptually from coding and design.
I think that theory is the most important, BUT, I don't think that this has to eliminate the need for a pragmatic course along the way as well.
As the kids say, "true dat". I ended up switching from CS a few classes short of the major. I have a decent amount of programming experience. I can't, however, program a hello world program in either visual studio or xcode. We never did any gui work at all, but I can draw automata out... Theory is great, but there should be at least a few "practical" courses...
I know that back in my CS days, I frequently thought about buying their suite to mess around with. The reason I didn't was simply a matter of economics. It is like crack, get the kids using their products when they are young. Then they become too lazy to learn something new.
If I remember correctly, the reason for the duel protection comes rom the nature of software. The written code is protected by copyright, the executable program is protected by patent. You can see this difference in the Microsoft/AT&T case that came down last year.
No, if you look at the patent the device allows you to watch one program while taping another. VCRs taped what they were tuned to; if you wanted to watch something else you had to typically tune one channel with the VCR and one on the TV. There is obviously more to the patent than just that, but this was the immediate difference that I noticed.
The funny thing is that a big part of Catholicism is finding God in suffering. I think this is somewhat unique as far as Christians go, as there are so many health and wealth varations where if you are good enough you will get what you want. If you have a bad thing, then you did something wrong/didn't believe enough. Catholics have suffering as a very real part of what their faith is all about. Bearing your cross and all that.
This actually is much closer to the truth, sadly. My wife and I had issues regarding conception, and it is an incredibly difficult situation. When we finally did get pregnant with twins, we lost our children at 21 and 22 weeks. (Note to trolls- don't even begin to tell me that my children weren't human beings) After losing our children, you cannot begin to imagine how frustrated you can get at people who can conceive but choose not to. It isn't frustration that others choose not to, is that they don't see what a gift they have. Worse than that are those who are those who do get a kid and then treat them like shit (beat them, sexually abuse them, etc).
I wasn't questioning the authority of wikipedia, rather your summary of it. Which is to say, you were dead flat wrong in your interpretation. Regardless of how self important you seem to feel, that doesn't change the fact that you were simply wrong.
That is a gross over simplification. The Pope cannot claim infallible over anything he wants. In other words, he cannot declare infallibly that the sky is red; he can only declare spiritual truths infallible. An example would be the trinity which is a fundamental doctrine of the church. It isn't that he can just claim whatever he wants and say that it is infallible as the "word of god". Check out http://www.catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp for those interested.
You are trying to quantify the unquantifiable. The "best" console is limited for those very reasons that you stated and regardless of the cold hard facts, a person is going to love the system that spoke to them. Best system is like best song, it is going to come down to the person and their experience. You have said as much, to bother with the cold hard naive matrix would be a waste of time as it really doesn't mean anything to the world.
That is because you linked to the original paper. We here at Slashdot prefer that all stories be removed by a few degrees so that we can argue without RTFA, and even if we do RTFA, it is still just one persons impression of what the original source said. Welcome to the (dis)information super highway.
It may sound like I am trolling with an ant-Slashdot sentiment. Actually, I'm trolling against the internet in general. Blogs, forums, etc are a great thing in many ways, but they are terrible for finding news. It is like a world wide version of the telephone game with none of the stories actually representing what is said. For example, take this story about the McDonalds CEO blaming video games for obesity. http://games.slashdot.org/games/08/01/11/1543201.shtml. The actual quote (at http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=205920319) lays things out quite differently than what the linked article "quotes" Easterbrooke as saying. The problem is that people won't bother to find the original source because we trust that the summary is correct. The problem is that it often isn't.
I never said it was a good argument, I am just saying that it is the argument that they are going to make. If you look at the caselaw development, the courts have allowed the regulation of damn near everything under the commerce clause. Unfortunately, it has spelt the doom of federalism and states rights.
Interesting points. Just so you know, yeah I know the stupidity of the gateway argument- I was just pointing out that it would likely be raised by proponents of drug regulation. I have said a few time in this thread, but I don't feel strongly one way or another. I was just responding to the OP that there is only one "sane" position and that no intelligent person could find reasons to regulate marijuana.
As far as my view, I think that kids who are likely to do harder drugs later in life (whether because of bad homelife, shitty parents, whatever) are more likely to do softer things such as smoking pot and drink. It isn't that the pot was the gateway, instead pot is another example of the behavior of drug use that this particular kid is more likely to indulge in.
Hmm, I don't think I ever said that there should be an absolute prohibition of drug use. I was just stating some of the harms that people will cite in hopes of prohibiting drugs.
When it comes to federal law, all the feds will do is make it a federal issue via a commerce clause argument. The arguments which allow the government (federal) to limit drug use are pretty piss poor and it should be a states rights issue. The problem is once the Feds start doing something it is near impossible to get them to stop. That isn't how it should be, but that is how it works. Once a state loses exclusive rights, the cat is pretty much out of the bag. The government was started based on a very limited federal government and powerful state rights, but this has pretty much been destroyed. Mostly because, I would argue, states do stupid crap. (Look at the situation with race in the south- the states screwed up and the Feds came in). Oh well.
And, can I just say to no one in particular that I am a bit cranky about my -1 karma on my original post. Disagree if you will with what I said, I wasn't trolling and I did have a valid point.
OK, you honestly believe that there is not a single pot related death in the entire country? You don't think a single high kid hasn't done something stupid resulting in their death? Huh.
Frankly, pot isn't my issue one way or another. But, everything has a downside, even pot. Whether that be the gateway drug effect, the stoner/motivation issues, etc. Not that those are a big deal nor do they affect all smokers, it is something that in the aggregate can add up to some social issues that raise enough concern to let people at least discuss the issue.
I think that you get into dangerous territory when you start believing that only one side has a sane argument. But cheers to you if your world is so absolute.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks for the reply, very helpful. I don't get the lego thing; I think it is because the sets never meant much to me. Like other people have posted, I never created whatever the set was supposed to be. I would have made a giant yellow dinosaur or whatever. A lego is a lego. That said, I can see why people will drop 50 bucks on some GI Joe tank or whatever. Different toys, same idea...
I imagine it must be rare, but does someone want to put some context on it? How rare is it? How valuable is it?
Well considering that he considers Vista an improvement to XP, I am certainly happy that GPL prevents people from "improving" the software...
"Suppose the fellow goes home at night and has a few too many glasses of scotch. Suppose he has threesomes with sluts. Suppose he does any number of things you don't personally like. Are you gonna take away his funding for that, too?" What I want to know is why am I funding his threesomes with sluts and his scotch? I can barely afford one slut!
Others not so much. I am not trolling here, so let me explain what I mean before I burn. Maus was a story that needed that graphic format and changed the way I considered history to be presented. Holocaust narratives have been shown in a variety of ways (literary, film etc), but the juxtaposition of present and past was a key aspect of the way that history is passed down both for better and for worse from one generation to another in Maus. This part of Maus was dependent upon the very nature of sequential art (aka comic panels). This story needed the format in a way that something like Watchmen doesn't. Watchmen is great, and I look forward to the movie. But, the story is what drove its greatness, not that it was a graphic novel. (and considering it was released as separate issues originally, I take exception to the term graphic novel even being applied). I am sure that there other examples similar to Maus, but I would not include Watchmen in that category. Watchmen is great for entierly different reasons.
The whole point of Wikipedia is that it has something about everything. If I want to know about a random 1980's toy, I go to wikipedia. The lack of respect for wikipedia isn't because of the inclusion of other things. It is the distrust for the entry writers. If you get rid of pop culture entries, that problem still exists. I am an editor for my school's law review. Law academia differs from most departments because everything is student edited rather than peer reviewed. Even in this case, students are unwilling to allow wikipedia sources. Either Wikipedia will change who can make entries or people will finally accept the wikipedia paradigm before it will be a valid source. This is a shame, because often academics are slow in figuring out what the hell they are talking about. This is most obvious when sources are needed for technical/scientific information. The geeks who write the updates know what they are talking about much quicker than Dr. English Phd who can't even use Word...
the book doesn't tell you how to make it work when it doesn't. It is a comprehensive guide to all of the features that may be missed by users who aren't paying attention. I gave the tiger edition to my mother in law. While she could use the machine out of the box, she wouldn't figure out the more complex aspects of the finder on her own. In addition, the book contains a basic guide to the ilife programs as well as iChat. While she could likely figure this out on her own, having a resource has been great for her. It gives basic users a more advanced knowledge than they would otherwise have.
Blame the parents is the mantra around here, and I agree in many cases. BUT, I don't think it is appropriate in cases where a child kills herself. That said, I think the issue here is about the cyber bullying. We can argue all day over whether the bullying caused her death, but this is not really the point. The question is whether we should allow this sort of behavior? I mean, a grown woman disguising herself as a 16 year old boy and then bullying her? Regardless of the outcome that is screwed up.
No, I know. I totally agree with you regarding the difference between theory/data structures versus languages and API. This was something that we learned early on and I took to heart. BUT, that said, even though the theory helped me know how to understand and learn languages, it never helped me understand the concepts of the visual programming. To say it more plainly- I think that a course teaching the theory of visual programming (not v basic) would be helpful so that students could teach themselves xcode/visual studio etc. There is a big difference conceptually from coding and design. I think that theory is the most important, BUT, I don't think that this has to eliminate the need for a pragmatic course along the way as well.
As the kids say, "true dat". I ended up switching from CS a few classes short of the major. I have a decent amount of programming experience. I can't, however, program a hello world program in either visual studio or xcode. We never did any gui work at all, but I can draw automata out... Theory is great, but there should be at least a few "practical" courses...
I know that back in my CS days, I frequently thought about buying their suite to mess around with. The reason I didn't was simply a matter of economics. It is like crack, get the kids using their products when they are young. Then they become too lazy to learn something new.
If I remember correctly, the reason for the duel protection comes rom the nature of software. The written code is protected by copyright, the executable program is protected by patent. You can see this difference in the Microsoft/AT&T case that came down last year.
No, if you look at the patent the device allows you to watch one program while taping another. VCRs taped what they were tuned to; if you wanted to watch something else you had to typically tune one channel with the VCR and one on the TV. There is obviously more to the patent than just that, but this was the immediate difference that I noticed.
The funny thing is that a big part of Catholicism is finding God in suffering. I think this is somewhat unique as far as Christians go, as there are so many health and wealth varations where if you are good enough you will get what you want. If you have a bad thing, then you did something wrong/didn't believe enough. Catholics have suffering as a very real part of what their faith is all about. Bearing your cross and all that.
This actually is much closer to the truth, sadly. My wife and I had issues regarding conception, and it is an incredibly difficult situation. When we finally did get pregnant with twins, we lost our children at 21 and 22 weeks. (Note to trolls- don't even begin to tell me that my children weren't human beings) After losing our children, you cannot begin to imagine how frustrated you can get at people who can conceive but choose not to. It isn't frustration that others choose not to, is that they don't see what a gift they have. Worse than that are those who are those who do get a kid and then treat them like shit (beat them, sexually abuse them, etc).
I wasn't questioning the authority of wikipedia, rather your summary of it. Which is to say, you were dead flat wrong in your interpretation. Regardless of how self important you seem to feel, that doesn't change the fact that you were simply wrong.
That is a gross over simplification. The Pope cannot claim infallible over anything he wants. In other words, he cannot declare infallibly that the sky is red; he can only declare spiritual truths infallible. An example would be the trinity which is a fundamental doctrine of the church. It isn't that he can just claim whatever he wants and say that it is infallible as the "word of god". Check out http://www.catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp for those interested.
You are trying to quantify the unquantifiable. The "best" console is limited for those very reasons that you stated and regardless of the cold hard facts, a person is going to love the system that spoke to them. Best system is like best song, it is going to come down to the person and their experience. You have said as much, to bother with the cold hard naive matrix would be a waste of time as it really doesn't mean anything to the world.
That is because you linked to the original paper. We here at Slashdot prefer that all stories be removed by a few degrees so that we can argue without RTFA, and even if we do RTFA, it is still just one persons impression of what the original source said. Welcome to the (dis)information super highway. It may sound like I am trolling with an ant-Slashdot sentiment. Actually, I'm trolling against the internet in general. Blogs, forums, etc are a great thing in many ways, but they are terrible for finding news. It is like a world wide version of the telephone game with none of the stories actually representing what is said. For example, take this story about the McDonalds CEO blaming video games for obesity. http://games.slashdot.org/games/08/01/11/1543201.shtml. The actual quote (at http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=205920319) lays things out quite differently than what the linked article "quotes" Easterbrooke as saying. The problem is that people won't bother to find the original source because we trust that the summary is correct. The problem is that it often isn't.
I never said it was a good argument, I am just saying that it is the argument that they are going to make. If you look at the caselaw development, the courts have allowed the regulation of damn near everything under the commerce clause. Unfortunately, it has spelt the doom of federalism and states rights.
Interesting points. Just so you know, yeah I know the stupidity of the gateway argument- I was just pointing out that it would likely be raised by proponents of drug regulation. I have said a few time in this thread, but I don't feel strongly one way or another. I was just responding to the OP that there is only one "sane" position and that no intelligent person could find reasons to regulate marijuana. As far as my view, I think that kids who are likely to do harder drugs later in life (whether because of bad homelife, shitty parents, whatever) are more likely to do softer things such as smoking pot and drink. It isn't that the pot was the gateway, instead pot is another example of the behavior of drug use that this particular kid is more likely to indulge in.
Hmm, I don't think I ever said that there should be an absolute prohibition of drug use. I was just stating some of the harms that people will cite in hopes of prohibiting drugs.
When it comes to federal law, all the feds will do is make it a federal issue via a commerce clause argument. The arguments which allow the government (federal) to limit drug use are pretty piss poor and it should be a states rights issue. The problem is once the Feds start doing something it is near impossible to get them to stop. That isn't how it should be, but that is how it works. Once a state loses exclusive rights, the cat is pretty much out of the bag. The government was started based on a very limited federal government and powerful state rights, but this has pretty much been destroyed. Mostly because, I would argue, states do stupid crap. (Look at the situation with race in the south- the states screwed up and the Feds came in). Oh well. And, can I just say to no one in particular that I am a bit cranky about my -1 karma on my original post. Disagree if you will with what I said, I wasn't trolling and I did have a valid point.
OK, you honestly believe that there is not a single pot related death in the entire country? You don't think a single high kid hasn't done something stupid resulting in their death? Huh. Frankly, pot isn't my issue one way or another. But, everything has a downside, even pot. Whether that be the gateway drug effect, the stoner/motivation issues, etc. Not that those are a big deal nor do they affect all smokers, it is something that in the aggregate can add up to some social issues that raise enough concern to let people at least discuss the issue.
I think that you get into dangerous territory when you start believing that only one side has a sane argument. But cheers to you if your world is so absolute.