You mentioned Coraline. Did you think Dakota Fanning (Coraline) and John Hodgman (the father) were good voice actors? I thought Dakota sounded, well, like a child trying to voice act, and I thought John sounded like a literary critic/agent-turned-comedian who was not meant to be a voice actor. I know he's the darling of the Boing Boing geek crowd, and I think he's very hilarious, but I'm not a fan of his voice acting in Coraline.
On the other hand, it was a gorgeous film, directed well, and the other voices were very good.
On the back of that film, I finally got around to buying Fragile Things and Stardust, two Neil Gaiman books (I've already read American Gods).
I was proud of being a geek/nerd when it meant being a computery person who is passionate about science and technology and who therefore sometimes seems odd to people who are not into those things.
Well, nerd hasn't meant that in a very long time. I direct you to "Revenge of the Nerds," where there were copious "nerds" who didn't touch computers or technology: Booger, Toshiro, all the Mu Mu Mu girls, etc.
In fact, nerd has the etymology of a "stupid or crazy person." Geek is similar.
I think the current nerd is more of a person with a broad, deep knowledge, while a geek is someone with a specialized, deep knowledge.
For example, we have the verb "to geek out." You geek out over something when you are really interested in that thing. You don't geek out over everything. You geek out over tabletop games, MTG, Star Trek, anime, etc.
In my opinion, a "computer geek" is someone with a deep knowledge of computers, but not necessarily anything else. See the Geek Code, in which you specify certain areas you are proficient (although there is a GAT--geek of all trades--choice).
I also think nerd tends to imply a bit more social skill than geek. Then you have spaz, dork, etc., that don't necessarily have any skill, just social awkwardness.
A computer nerd would be someone who is a nerd and also likes computers. The distinction is that "computer" is a nonrestrictive adjective, while in "computer geek," "computer" is a restrictive adjective.
I don't know about Swedish law, but in the US, criminal discovery is a lot more limited than civil discovery. Of course, I've not taken Criminal Procedure, so I'm not 100% sure.
The "pedophile" analogy is ridiculous. It's called The Pirate Bay. If they called it The Molestor Bay, do you think it sounds a teensy bit more reasonable now?
I'm not on the side of the prosecution or plaintiffs right now, but that pedophile analogy is illogical.
Really? The issue has never been tested in court? It's gone to federal circuit courts. You probably really meant to say that there is no uniform rule on it handed down by the Supreme Court.
I'd like to take this time to point out that you are tremendously wrong, and it's another example of/.ers trying to play armchair lawyer. I suggest you read Federal Rules of Evidence Rules 803, 804. Particularly the list of twenty-eight exceptions to the hearsay rule. Pay particular attention to R. 804(b)(3), the "Statement Against Interest" exception.
That would be because statements against your own interest are admissible in court. It makes sense: There are indicia of truth because there's no reason you would say something that hurts your interest unless it were true.
Like it or love it, there are exceptions to the hearsay rule simply because of the rationale that "why would you say it unless it's true."
An interesting exception to the hearsay rule is the "dying declaration." Namely, if someone believes they are on their deathbed and they finger whodunnit in their assault or murder or whatever, their accusation is evidence (not conclusive by any means) that can be used at trial against the accused.
The theory is "why would someone lie about their murderer on their deathbed?" Now, in most of the commonwealth countries (especially those with Christian history--is that all of them but India?), this seems reasonable. But when the rule was introduced to India (which also uses the common law I believe), the reaction among many Indians was "why would someone tell the truth on their deathbed?"
Now, I don't presume to make statements about Indian belief systems, but I read a law review article on this rule and this was the claim made. Their argument was that, as the moral beliefs of the populace change, we should question hearsay exceptions.
Now, I've painted a pretty bleak picture of hearsay exceptions, but they serve their purpose as building blocks of evidence. A lawyer worth his salt should be able to rebut excepted hearsay if it's misleading or incorrect in its implications.
The Constitution specifically states that the job of the Federal government is to provide a military.
Where? I see "militia," "navy," "land and naval forces," and "arm[y]."
No air force. So when you say you "don't consider the AF to be outside this Constitutional power," you're playing the same "living Constitution" game that you decry.
And if you deny that the AF is permitted by the current Constitution, then we have a problem: you and I have fundamentally different axioms of constitutional construction. Not that we have different conclusions. Our axioms of construction are different. Feel free to persuade me that my axioms are wrong, but it's likely wasted time. If three years of law school haven't convinced me otherwise, I doubt you will.
One more thing: What do you think about "speech" in the First Amendment? Does it protect sign language and things you write in your diary? Can you be arrested for things you write in your diary? Because the dictionary definition of "speech" requires vocalization.
You say tomato. I say tomato. When I say there are five people in my house, that means I mentioned five people. I don't have to name them to mention them. A few definitions of mention
make reference to; "His name was mentioned in connection with the invention" a remark that calls attention to something or someone; "she made frequent mention of her promotion"; "there was no mention of it"; "the speaker made several references to his wife" note: make mention of; "She observed that his presentation took up too much time"; "They noted that it was a fine day to go sailing" citation: a short note recognizing a source of information or of a quoted passage; "the student's essay failed to list several important citations"; "the acknowledgments are usually printed at the front of a book"; "the article includes mention of similar clinical cases" commend; "he was cited for his outstanding achievements" an official recognition of merit; "although he didn't win the prize he did get special mention"
I always love uninformed asshattery. Sounds like someone has only read some chapters of Lord of the Rings or only saw the movies and heard his geek friends mention "Radagast" at some point, bringing said knowledge to "three" istari.
Hell, all five wizards are mentioned in Lord of the Rings. Saruman accuses Gandalf of wanting all five wizards' staves for himself.
Riddle me this: is the Air Force unconstitutional since only land and naval forces (not air forces) are mentioned? Do we need a constitutional amendment in order to use airplanes in the military? Recall that Congress gets the power
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years; To provide and maintain a navy;
Once you've answered that question, let's go from there.
Note that the "armies" line directly precedes the "navy" line, implying that "armies" refers only to the army and not to all armed forces. Not to mention the other subsections specifically mentioning "land and naval" (but no air).
No, it's grants any additional powers necessary to carry out the enumerated powers. Otherwise, the N&P Clause would be a redundancy (why say they have all powers necessary and proper to carry out the enumerated powers if those powers are already enumerated?).
Its almost impossible to find unbiased political news
Well, technically, it's categorically impossible given finite time spans. And if you consider the number of reportable events to be uncountably infinite, then it's categorically impossible even given an infinite time span!
Just selecting what to report reveals a bias. The fact that CNN didn't talk about the multiple-attacker assault that happened in downtown Austin a couple weeks ago reveals their bias against comprehensive local news in favor of stories about Paris Hilton. Because NPR didn't talk about Darfur yesterday (maybe they did, I don't know, I don't have a radio except in my car and I don't drive every day), it shows their bias against continuous reportage of a terrible tragedy.
Some biases may be justified. But it's impossible not to have one.
All corporate-owned news have a pro-corporate bias. Period. Suggesting their biases are anything (left, right, etc.) other than pro-corporate is hopelessly ignorant.
Slashdot Mirror
You mentioned Coraline. Did you think Dakota Fanning (Coraline) and John Hodgman (the father) were good voice actors? I thought Dakota sounded, well, like a child trying to voice act, and I thought John sounded like a literary critic/agent-turned-comedian who was not meant to be a voice actor. I know he's the darling of the Boing Boing geek crowd, and I think he's very hilarious, but I'm not a fan of his voice acting in Coraline.
On the other hand, it was a gorgeous film, directed well, and the other voices were very good.
On the back of that film, I finally got around to buying Fragile Things and Stardust, two Neil Gaiman books (I've already read American Gods).
Well, nerd hasn't meant that in a very long time. I direct you to "Revenge of the Nerds," where there were copious "nerds" who didn't touch computers or technology: Booger, Toshiro, all the Mu Mu Mu girls, etc.
In fact, nerd has the etymology of a "stupid or crazy person." Geek is similar.
I think the current nerd is more of a person with a broad, deep knowledge, while a geek is someone with a specialized, deep knowledge.
For example, we have the verb "to geek out." You geek out over something when you are really interested in that thing. You don't geek out over everything. You geek out over tabletop games, MTG, Star Trek, anime, etc.
In my opinion, a "computer geek" is someone with a deep knowledge of computers, but not necessarily anything else. See the Geek Code, in which you specify certain areas you are proficient (although there is a GAT--geek of all trades--choice).
I also think nerd tends to imply a bit more social skill than geek. Then you have spaz, dork, etc., that don't necessarily have any skill, just social awkwardness.
A computer nerd would be someone who is a nerd and also likes computers. The distinction is that "computer" is a nonrestrictive adjective, while in "computer geek," "computer" is a restrictive adjective.
Of course, that's just my opinion.
Congratulations. You've just asked the very foundational question of jurisprudence, a body of philosophy that is still arguing that very thing.
Perhaps not, but PÃrry MÃsÃn stunts are perfectly legal!
Curse Slashdot's blocking of extended Latin characters! This post would have been a lot funnier!
I think Apple has stores in all 50 states, and they have sales tax on all iTunes sales no matter where you live in the US.
[citation needed]
I don't know about Swedish law, but in the US, criminal discovery is a lot more limited than civil discovery. Of course, I've not taken Criminal Procedure, so I'm not 100% sure.
The "pedophile" analogy is ridiculous. It's called The Pirate Bay. If they called it The Molestor Bay, do you think it sounds a teensy bit more reasonable now?
I'm not on the side of the prosecution or plaintiffs right now, but that pedophile analogy is illogical.
To be fair, this trial isn't happening in the US, either.
Really? The issue has never been tested in court? It's gone to federal circuit courts. You probably really meant to say that there is no uniform rule on it handed down by the Supreme Court.
I actually should have said that you should read Rule 801(d)(2) ("Admission by Party Opponent"), not 804(b)(3).
I'd like to take this time to point out that you are tremendously wrong, and it's another example of /.ers trying to play armchair lawyer. I suggest you read Federal Rules of Evidence Rules 803, 804. Particularly the list of twenty-eight exceptions to the hearsay rule. Pay particular attention to R. 804(b)(3), the "Statement Against Interest" exception.
That would be because statements against your own interest are admissible in court. It makes sense: There are indicia of truth because there's no reason you would say something that hurts your interest unless it were true.
Like it or love it, there are exceptions to the hearsay rule simply because of the rationale that "why would you say it unless it's true."
An interesting exception to the hearsay rule is the "dying declaration." Namely, if someone believes they are on their deathbed and they finger whodunnit in their assault or murder or whatever, their accusation is evidence (not conclusive by any means) that can be used at trial against the accused.
The theory is "why would someone lie about their murderer on their deathbed?" Now, in most of the commonwealth countries (especially those with Christian history--is that all of them but India?), this seems reasonable. But when the rule was introduced to India (which also uses the common law I believe), the reaction among many Indians was "why would someone tell the truth on their deathbed?"
Now, I don't presume to make statements about Indian belief systems, but I read a law review article on this rule and this was the claim made. Their argument was that, as the moral beliefs of the populace change, we should question hearsay exceptions.
Now, I've painted a pretty bleak picture of hearsay exceptions, but they serve their purpose as building blocks of evidence. A lawyer worth his salt should be able to rebut excepted hearsay if it's misleading or incorrect in its implications.
Where? I see "militia," "navy," "land and naval forces," and "arm[y]."
No air force. So when you say you "don't consider the AF to be outside this Constitutional power," you're playing the same "living Constitution" game that you decry.
And if you deny that the AF is permitted by the current Constitution, then we have a problem: you and I have fundamentally different axioms of constitutional construction. Not that we have different conclusions. Our axioms of construction are different. Feel free to persuade me that my axioms are wrong, but it's likely wasted time. If three years of law school haven't convinced me otherwise, I doubt you will.
One more thing: What do you think about "speech" in the First Amendment? Does it protect sign language and things you write in your diary? Can you be arrested for things you write in your diary? Because the dictionary definition of "speech" requires vocalization.
You say tomato. I say tomato. When I say there are five people in my house, that means I mentioned five people. I don't have to name them to mention them. A few definitions of mention
Stop MACH-ing him.
I always love uninformed asshattery. Sounds like someone has only read some chapters of Lord of the Rings or only saw the movies and heard his geek friends mention "Radagast" at some point, bringing said knowledge to "three" istari.
Hell, all five wizards are mentioned in Lord of the Rings. Saruman accuses Gandalf of wanting all five wizards' staves for himself.
Yeah, and ask the average adult working in the real world what Linux is, and they'll tell you it's some hacker tools and a virus OS.
BFD. Since when did ignorant people's knowledge of an OS have anything to do with the OS's merits?
Riddle me this: is the Air Force unconstitutional since only land and naval forces (not air forces) are mentioned? Do we need a constitutional amendment in order to use airplanes in the military? Recall that Congress gets the power
Once you've answered that question, let's go from there.
Note that the "armies" line directly precedes the "navy" line, implying that "armies" refers only to the army and not to all armed forces. Not to mention the other subsections specifically mentioning "land and naval" (but no air).
No, it's grants any additional powers necessary to carry out the enumerated powers. Otherwise, the N&P Clause would be a redundancy (why say they have all powers necessary and proper to carry out the enumerated powers if those powers are already enumerated?).
One would think "IE" has a higher vowel/consonant ratio than "Boxee" ;)
Fools are those who respond to sigs about fools; the wise are those who ignore the sigs.
You guys gotta learn to be wise like m--oh no.
Really? The "bastards" still tell you you'll get your cable ad-free?
Well, technically, it's categorically impossible given finite time spans. And if you consider the number of reportable events to be uncountably infinite, then it's categorically impossible even given an infinite time span!
Just selecting what to report reveals a bias. The fact that CNN didn't talk about the multiple-attacker assault that happened in downtown Austin a couple weeks ago reveals their bias against comprehensive local news in favor of stories about Paris Hilton. Because NPR didn't talk about Darfur yesterday (maybe they did, I don't know, I don't have a radio except in my car and I don't drive every day), it shows their bias against continuous reportage of a terrible tragedy.
Some biases may be justified. But it's impossible not to have one.
All corporate-owned news have a pro-corporate bias. Period. Suggesting their biases are anything (left, right, etc.) other than pro-corporate is hopelessly ignorant.