Resent all you want, but boot camp is basically nothing but exercise and brain washing.
The desired effect is to get you to a state where you are conditioned to (A) follow orders because they are orders, and (B) have a strong desire not to abandon your fellows.
Not to be a troll or anything, but why does slashdot deam every minor release of Firefox to be worthy of a story? Its no different from any other OSS.
You just answered your own question. Slashdot deems every minor release of every OSS thing to be incredible breaking news.
I can't count the number of times I've seen front page Slashdot posts that essentially boil down to:
ThingYouNeverHeardOf 0.6.3 Released
Slashdot user Doofus reports that ThingYouNeverHeardOf 0.6.3 has been released. Many cool new features in this version, such as the blarglefier tool no longer causing a crash when run under Ubuntu 4.6. Licensed under the GPL! Is this the end for Microsoft?
Half the time, they never even give you a hint as to what ThingYouNeverHeardOf is supposed to be used for. Is it an email client? Is it an IDE? Is it a MIDI playback library? Does it cook my eggs? Who knows.
i have a product called 'windows creator' am i infringing on microsofts trademark?
what was your answer?
My answer is not legally relevant.
However, if you were to sign over the legal rights to the name "Windows Creator" to Microsoft, and then claimed to be shocked, yea, shocked when Microsoft came out with a product having that name, then you would be an idiot.
We cannot build something that compares to the size and accuracy of the pyramids in Egypt, using only the materials and tools they had available at the time.
Of course we can. It would just be utterly immoral.
Do you honestly doubt that if a team of engineers, construction experts, and master masons had access to and complete command over tens of thousands of slaves and/or peons, and put aside all questions of morality, they would be incapable of building a pyramid using ancient methods?
Everybody involved with this seems to be making an unwarranted assumption:
That something described by witnesses thousands of years ago as a mirror-like device was a mirror.
Note that it is described as being made of "bronze or glass".
And that it was "thick", and that this was put forth as part of the reason for its effectiveness.
Giant magnifying glass, anyone?
Or potentially a mirror/magnifying glass combination, allowing various rotations so that the user is able to direct highly concentrated rays of light towards whatever he wants.
the key here is "either our equation is wrong" part. The scientific community cannot believe that their equation is wrong so they fudge it with a "dark matter" entry into the equation. It's similar to finding that 2+2 equals 5 according to their math, so they say that the equation is right
Which part of "either our equation is wrong or (...)" do you implicitly translate, in your mind, to "the equation is right"?
I've read a bunch of comments on this thread, and noticed that many of the highly rated ones share a common theme:
"Maybe it's just me, but when I first heard about dark matter, my immediate thought was the ether. I'm ever-so-smart."
Listen, morons:
History of the Ether: "Light travels. Anything that travels has got to travel through something. Let's call it ether."
History of Dark Matter: "Direct observation consistently reveals more gravitation than is explainable by plugging the currently detectable mass into the current equations. Either our current equations are wrong, or there's more mass than we can currently detect."
One of these is science. The other is a conclusion based on a false assumption which in turn was made with no backing evidence. Can you, being ever-so-smart, tell which is which?
Get over yourselves. You're not smarter than the physics community, no matter how many Slashdot nerds think that your post is "+5 informative".
The two are not mutually incompatible. We are both. Before you argue back at me, look in a freaking dictionary, moron. Excuse me, pedantic yet incorrect moron. If it's too fucking hard for your idiotic brain to do that, here's a link to the word in a prominent dictionary. I particularly suggest looking at definition 1A, and thinking about what the word "especially" implies about whether or not "only" applies, and definition 1B, and thinking about the words "or indirectly".
Sorry, but you have struck a pet peeve of mine, and I'm an asshole.
Yeah, so we analyze and save indefinitely every piece of information that flows through us, and yes, we're getting intimately involved in more and more everyday things. And yeah, now we're lobbying the government.
"Cuthbert's defence argued that any unauthorised access was entirely innocent. (...) The defence also pointed out that Cuthbert had not attempted to defraud the site."
Yeah! This conviction is a travesty of justice!
I mean, it's as if someone broke into your house and just kind of looked around, without raping your daughter, killing your wife, or stealing anything! Entirely innocent!
"AIBO owners have sometimes asked us what AIBO is feeling like in certain situations as it was not clear. They will be pleased to have this speaking function,"
Yeah, that's just what I want. Guests over at my house, and all of a sudden out of nowhere comes a fucking robot dog asking me "Why don't you love me? Why don't you love me? Why don't you love me?"
Slashdot requires you to wait longer between hitting 'reply' and submitting a comment.
It's been 9 seconds since you hit 'reply'.
Chances are, Slashdot's posting rules idiotically assume some crap about you being behind a firewall or proxy and having hit the back button to reuse a form.
Her husband would say "I go to the store" [in english]. In german, it can mean either he is going now or in the future. In english, it means he is going now.
No, him saying "I am going" means he is going now. Saying "I go" means that going is something that, in a general sense at a nonspecific time, does.
Consider these phrases: "take away", "bring here", "take here", "bring away". The first two are common. The last two...I don't think so.
Yes, languages evolve, and the rules and meanings of words can change. But if in the process of evolution, we lessen our ability to express and understand our thoughts precisely, then that evolution is not progress.
Please. If "bring" and "take" suddenly become perfect synonyms, we do not "lessen our ability to express and understand our thoughts precisely". We just continue saying "take away" and "bring here", and perhaps start saying "bring away" and "take here".
Slashdot Mirror
The default "comma operator" ignores the first argument and returns the second.
I don't believe that that's true.
I believe that it executes the first, executes the second, and returns the result of having executed the second.
Resent all you want, but boot camp is basically nothing but exercise and brain washing.
The desired effect is to get you to a state where you are conditioned to (A) follow orders because they are orders, and (B) have a strong desire not to abandon your fellows.
Thank you for explaining to me that I need to work on both my English and my math skills.
In return, please allow me to do you the favor of explaining to you that you need to work on your humor skills.
Not to be a troll or anything, but why does slashdot deam every minor release of Firefox to be worthy of a story? Its no different from any other OSS.
You just answered your own question. Slashdot deems every minor release of every OSS thing to be incredible breaking news.
I can't count the number of times I've seen front page Slashdot posts that essentially boil down to:
ThingYouNeverHeardOf 0.6.3 Released
Slashdot user Doofus reports that ThingYouNeverHeardOf 0.6.3 has been released. Many cool new features in this version, such as the blarglefier tool no longer causing a crash when run under Ubuntu 4.6. Licensed under the GPL! Is this the end for Microsoft?
Half the time, they never even give you a hint as to what ThingYouNeverHeardOf is supposed to be used for. Is it an email client? Is it an IDE? Is it a MIDI playback library? Does it cook my eggs? Who knows.
i have a product called 'windows creator'
am i infringing on microsofts trademark?
what was your answer?
My answer is not legally relevant.
However, if you were to sign over the legal rights to the name "Windows Creator" to Microsoft, and then claimed to be shocked, yea, shocked when Microsoft came out with a product having that name, then you would be an idiot.
more to the point you'd have to protect/defend your land. It's yours? great. It's mine now. What're you going to do about it?
Kick you in the sack, that's what.
"Most absurd analogy ever."
Look at me, I made my computer look like R2D2, I'm a social activist!
We cannot build something that compares to the size and accuracy of the pyramids in Egypt, using only the materials and tools they had available at the time.
Of course we can. It would just be utterly immoral.
Do you honestly doubt that if a team of engineers, construction experts, and master masons had access to and complete command over tens of thousands of slaves and/or peons, and put aside all questions of morality, they would be incapable of building a pyramid using ancient methods?
Everybody involved with this seems to be making an unwarranted assumption:
That something described by witnesses thousands of years ago as a mirror-like device was a mirror.
Note that it is described as being made of "bronze or glass".
And that it was "thick", and that this was put forth as part of the reason for its effectiveness.
Giant magnifying glass, anyone?
Or potentially a mirror/magnifying glass combination, allowing various rotations so that the user is able to direct highly concentrated rays of light towards whatever he wants.
The United States does, however, allow you to patent a human gene.
the key here is "either our equation is wrong" part. The scientific community cannot believe that their equation is wrong so they fudge it with a "dark matter" entry into the equation. It's similar to finding that 2+2 equals 5 according to their math, so they say that the equation is right
Which part of "either our equation is wrong or (...)" do you implicitly translate, in your mind, to "the equation is right"?
I've read a bunch of comments on this thread, and noticed that many of the highly rated ones share a common theme:
"Maybe it's just me, but when I first heard about dark matter, my immediate thought was the ether. I'm ever-so-smart."
Listen, morons:
History of the Ether: "Light travels. Anything that travels has got to travel through something. Let's call it ether."
History of Dark Matter: "Direct observation consistently reveals more gravitation than is explainable by plugging the currently detectable mass into the current equations. Either our current equations are wrong, or there's more mass than we can currently detect."
One of these is science. The other is a conclusion based on a false assumption which in turn was made with no backing evidence. Can you, being ever-so-smart, tell which is which?
Get over yourselves. You're not smarter than the physics community, no matter how many Slashdot nerds think that your post is "+5 informative".
the simplest solution turns out to be the best.
By which you mean that general relativity is a "simpler solution" than assuming that Newtonian physics is a good enough approximation?
Uh, okay.
For that matter, the "simplest solution" is "God did it, end of story, now get back to genuflecting". I beg to differ that that is "the best".
It leads to the misconception that mass depends on velocity, which it does NOT. There is only the rest mass
Are you not, then, more gravitationally attracted to a moving object than you would be were it stationary (all relative to you, of course)?
The two are not mutually incompatible. We are both. Before you argue back at me, look in a freaking dictionary, moron. Excuse me, pedantic yet incorrect moron. If it's too fucking hard for your idiotic brain to do that, here's a link to the word in a prominent dictionary. I particularly suggest looking at definition 1A, and thinking about what the word "especially" implies about whether or not "only" applies, and definition 1B, and thinking about the words "or indirectly".
Sorry, but you have struck a pet peeve of mine, and I'm an asshole.
Google is not a person.
Yeah, so we analyze and save indefinitely every piece of information that flows through us, and yes, we're getting intimately involved in more and more everyday things. And yeah, now we're lobbying the government.
But trust us! We're not evil!
We even say we're not evil!
Since when is it illegal to lie to cops?
Since time immemorial.
Does the phrase "obstruction of justice" ring a bell?
The courts take this very seriously.
"Cuthbert's defence argued that any unauthorised access was entirely innocent. (...) The defence also pointed out that Cuthbert had not attempted to defraud the site."
Yeah! This conviction is a travesty of justice!
I mean, it's as if someone broke into your house and just kind of looked around, without raping your daughter, killing your wife, or stealing anything! Entirely innocent!
"AIBO owners have sometimes asked us what AIBO is feeling like in certain situations as it was not clear. They will be pleased to have this speaking function,"
Yeah, that's just what I want. Guests over at my house, and all of a sudden out of nowhere comes a fucking robot dog asking me "Why don't you love me? Why don't you love me? Why don't you love me?"
Impress who?
A walking stick? Pffft. I can use a walking stick.
Just come up with a jibberish word like shuntalize and pick a symbol like $ and then all your passwords can be like:
shuntalize$ebay
That's only trivially better than making all of your passwords "shuntalize".
Let's say someone cracks your ebay account, and sees that its password is "shuntalize$ebay".
Exactly how long do you think it's going to take him to figure out that your Citibank account's password is "shuntalize$citibank"?
Americans say those too.
Slow Down Cowboy!
Slashdot requires you to wait longer between hitting 'reply' and submitting a comment.
It's been 9 seconds since you hit 'reply'.
Chances are, Slashdot's posting rules idiotically assume some crap about you being behind a firewall or proxy and having hit the back button to reuse a form.
Her husband would say "I go to the store" [in english]. In german, it can mean either he is going now or in the future. In english, it means he is going now.
No, him saying "I am going" means he is going now. Saying "I go" means that going is something that, in a general sense at a nonspecific time, does.
Consider these phrases: "take away", "bring here", "take here", "bring away". The first two are common. The last two...I don't think so.
Yes, languages evolve, and the rules and meanings of words can change. But if in the process of evolution, we lessen our ability to express and understand our thoughts precisely, then that evolution is not progress.
Please. If "bring" and "take" suddenly become perfect synonyms, we do not "lessen our ability to express and understand our thoughts precisely". We just continue saying "take away" and "bring here", and perhaps start saying "bring away" and "take here".