My guess is "Grammar Taiyokuin." That was an attempt at "Grammar Member of the Imperial Rule Assistance Association," but my understanding of Japanese politics/history is not up to snuff.
Well, if you want to get technical about it, haikus are set as 5-7-5 mora, not syllables. They are different. In fact, I would argue that most English haiku fail because they should be even shorter than 5-7-5 syllables. One great thing about haiku is that Japanese words have a lot of syllables, relatively speaking, making haiku short, with very dense meaning. English has a great number of monosyllabic words, making writing pleasant English haiku easier than composing Japanese haiku. Furthermore, Japanese haiku typically are two phrases in length, either of the form PHRASE_ONE//PHRASE//TWO or PHRASE//ONE//PHRASE_TWO.
Beyond that, haiku must have a seasonal word in them; otherwise, it probably is a senryu instead.
There's also frequently a "turn" that takes the first couple lines and resolves it in a different way. Let us glance briefly at one of Basho's most famous haiku, translated:
will you turn toward me? I am lonely too, this autumn nightfall
Here, we have two phrases (one of a line, and one of two lines). We also have the "turn," in that it is two lines of loneliness, and then resolves, surprisingly, to a statement about the weather. "Surprising" is not the right word, I know. Finally, the entire haiku is sublime, and contains the season word (kigo).
One final thing: Basho was famous for saying, "Learn the rules; then forget them."
I'm not questioning his specific numbers; I'm questioning the logic of his argument. That is to say, his logic was:
A% likes X, hates Y. B% likes Z, hates Y. C% loves Y.
C > A,B A+B > C
Therefore C should lose.
It depends on your goal (maximize satisfaction or minimize dissatisfaction). If you want to maximize satisfaction, C should win. If you want to minimize dissatisfaction, A or B should win (and if A!=B in his example, we'd know who should win under that electoral goal).
I'm sick of violent games where the hero is a flipping gang member or a drug addict.
Yeah, and I'm sick of shitty RIAA music, but you don't see me suggesting that Congress should regulate the industry! How's it go, I disagree with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it?
But a vote is an attempt to exercise power. Voting for someone with no chance at all is simply losing that power.
And in the past couple elections, when the popular vote has been pretty close to 50-50, you don't think the two major parties would look at a candidate who got 3% of the vote and say, "Hmm, what policies did that guy have that we can appropriate to get that 3% in the next election?"
If Nader got 5% of the popular vote, despite his lack of chance of winning, both Ds and Rs would move a little more consumer-friendly and Earth-friendly for the next election cycle to try and get that 5%, for fear of the other party getting it and throwing the balance to a 47.5%-52.5% advantage for one party over the other.
A vote for a loser can still make an impact on future policies. That's why third-party candidates run in the first place (I remember Harry Browne saying something to this effect in a third-party candidate presidential debate in 2000, which was what got me looking at libertarian thought in the first place).
30% of the people wanted Ron Paul to win and hated Romney 30% of the people wanted Obama to win and hated Romney 40% of the people wanted Romney to win.
More people didnt want Romney to be president, yet under our system he would win.
Well, if you notice, in your hypothetical, while 40% wanted Romney, only 30% wanted Paul or Obama. Therefore, it is exactly correct that Romney should win. Because presumably, from your statements, 70% don't want Paul and 70% don't want Obama, while only 30-60% don't want Romney.
How are we video game players even considering supporting Hillary Clinton. Has anyone forgot her suggestion that Congress start censoring video games that are too sexual or violent? The government isn't even responsible for movie ratings, but there's Clinton, suggesting that the legislature keep inappropriate content out of children's hands.
Ummm, don't laws for the age for purchasing pornography already accomplish what we need? Anything beyond that makes the laws more restrictive for video games than for movies!
Can you imagine if the government stepped in and said that 15-year-olds couldn't watch Terminator 2 because it's rated R? Because that's what Hillary is suggesting, except for video games.
I'll ask again: why the FUCK are we even considering her?
It's a form of Black Hat search engine optimization, in which you destroy a competitor's website. The way it's done is to set up a link farm of your own, but with every page pointing at your competitor's site. Eventually Google and the other search engine operators discover the link farm, but assume that your competitor put it there, and remove it from the index.
Thus they tell me at webmasterworld.
I've never seen it used that way until now. There really isn't an authoritative source on what it means, but I've always used it in the "miserable failure"=>Bush sense. Wikipedia, Search Engine Land, Urban Dictionary, and even Google Bomb Watch agree with me there.
Now to define what I mean: A Google Bomb is where an entity/group decides to have text X point to site Y, often for humor purposes (e.g., "french military victories" used to link to a fake-Google site saying "no 'french military victories' found, did you mean 'french military defeats'?" so when you hit "I feel lucky," "Google" would allegedly report that). They make a whole lot of pages contain(ing) the text <a href="Y">X</a>, and Google does the rest with its indexing.
I have a graduate degree in physics, but I wasn't aware that the universe was formed by evolution.
Not sure about major religions in Florida, but the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod refers to the creation of the planets, stars, &c. as "inorganic evolution" and Darwinian evolution as "organic evolution." Additionally, the Synod is creationist (much to my chagrin, as a member).
But I suppose that just as one may be a Democrat without agreeing with everything the National Democrats Party puts in their platform, I suppose one may be a Missouri Synod Lutheran without believing everything they officially put out (I disagree with their stance on homosexuality as well). I'm sure not going to found my own branch of Lutheranism that believes in evolution, and I can't exactly administer the sacraments to myself. Should I shop around for a "better" sect of Christianity?
Note: I'm not soliciting arguments that I should abandon my religion here. I'm interested in discussion about when one should abandon one sect of belief. Should it be when you disagree with 50% of major tenets? One major tenet?
I don't want my tax dollars going to fund some fundamentalists' brain-washing clinic / madrassa.
"Madrassa" is Arabic for "school." I suggest you stop listening to Republicans complaining about Obama's time at a madrassa (which was secular, from what I understand).
I've seen mentions that the "majestic plural" appeared in Canaanite princes' writings and Phoenecian writings thousands of years ago as well. Apparently, the majestic plural existed in ancient Hebrew as well. But beyond that, I've heard the theory advanced that when God used the plural, he was addressing the angels in Heaven. But I suppose you could still say that was a majestic plural, as when the Queen says "let us do such and such," I believe she is speaking for the entirety of the Empire/Commonwealth/islands/whatever and not so much as in, "sup fools, We're the Queens and we are jolly well smashed".
What's interesting is that Genesis 1:26 is not typically used to argue a polytheistic religion. Rather, typically 1:26 is used by Christians to argue in favor of the trinity of the godhead.
At least that's what I, a blind follower of fundamentalism, have seen.
The security administrator at my school would ride around the parking lot in a golf cart and check to see if student's cars were unlocked. If they were, he had no problem in allowing himself to search their car. I just could never understand how people stood for this.
Did you do something about it? It sounds like you didn't, which means you need look no further than your own nose to understand how people stood for it.
Or we could go with your theory that one man manipulated the government and public in order for cars to run on gasoline instead of alcohol.
John D. Rockefeller was not just "one man." He was hands down the richest man in the history of the United States. At one point, his net worth was one five-hundredth of the entire US GDP! No one else in history will probably ever come close to the level of wealth he possessed in his lifetime.
everyone in this country drinks illegally from about 14
As someone who's never gotten into this whole "getting drunk" phenomenon, I don't understand how 14 year olds getting drunk is a good thing for anyone, including the 14 year olds who can barely control themselves while sober with their raging hormones and rebellious attitudes. And their rap music and 8-track tapes.
we're talking about drinking alcohol while underage
I don't think so. From the reading I've done in your thread, I've seen the OP refer to "highly illegal" things. This could involve torturing animals, attacking other students, blowing up mailboxes, tagging houses, etc. Somehow, I don't think someone on Slashdot would refer to underage drinking as "highly illegal".
Here it is, ugly 2am hackiness and all. I took advantage of the fact that their URL search was a GET form instead of POST, so I didn't have to use Python's form-handling abilities. It takes an optional command for how long you want the random URL to be. The default is 8-characters.
import sys, random, urllib2
count=8 if len(sys.argv)>=2:
print sys.argv[1]
count = int(sys.argv[1])
charlist = ['0','1','2','3','4','5','6','7','8','9'] for x in range(97,123): #adds lowercase letters to the domain name character space
charlist.append(chr(x))
while True:
word = ''
for i in range(0,count):
word += charlist[int(random.random()*36)]
urllib2.urlopen('http://www.networksolutions.com/cgi-bin/promo/domain-search?code=P13C100S1N0B1642A1D209E0000V100®Option=%2Fpurchase-it%2Fview-your-order.jsp&string='+word+'&MN=.com&MN=.net&Submit.x=0&Submit.y=0')
print 'NSI just registered',word+'.com'
A few that I may or may not have created inadvertently while I was looking at available domain names through my "domain name generator" script since then: ibbtt1ql.com 9m3q43k3.com 1b1fbsct.com q84ni49t.com
I think they stopped registering ones I checked, though.
If it falls under fair use, then it IS copyright infringment by definition.
That's utter rubbish
No, you just don't understand the law. "Fair Use" is an affirmative defense, which means you admit to being culpable for the crime, but then point out that, oh yeah, you still can't beat me. Contrast this with a plain old defense.
A plain old defense negates an issue the plaintiff had to prove. On the other hand, an affirmative defense acknowledges the existance of the elements the plaintiff had to prove and says that there is still an excuse.
One way of thinking about it is: a defense is a denial. An affirmative defense is an excuse. See self-defense (which says you still committed murder--that is, intentionally took a human life--but were justified in doing so). You still murdered; you're just not guilty of murder.
You still keep using "free" as if there were only one definition, but I've offered a definition of freedom in prior posts that still holds as "life free or die" but disagrees with your thesis that the government shouldn't help support anyone
The American Revolution was never about absolute freedom. It was about taxation without representation, a hatred of the crown and inherited aristocracy in England, unpopular trade regulations, restrictions on specific civil liberties (Third Amendment, Fifth Amendment, Sixth Amendment), and Locke's theory of a social contract (which includes, among other things, the idea that men are bound to do certain acts in society because they benefit from the existence of that society).
I would argue that, without our current very mild socialistic model of tax-and-redistribute, we would effectively have an inherited aristocracy. Hell, we practically have one now in that the super-rich who make important financial decisions often belong to select families. Beyond that, I doubt our society would self-consistently like your original intent argument much. With it, the only thing the First Amendment protects is the right to speak initially. After that, the original intent of the First Amendment would permit the government to punish you afterwards. This is known as the prohibition of prior restraint. That's all the First Amendment protected in 1789 at the time of ratification. There would also be no right to privacy, either. Nor judicial review.
Every dollar you earn is a dollar you are taking from everyone else (because you are depriving anyone else from earning that dollar).
What is a dollar? The U.S. government does not back the dollar up with gold or silver any longer. The government could simply print more dollars and then there would be enough for all.
Fine. If you want to be pedantic, replace the word "dollar" with "wealth" in my original post in every instance.
And your Robin Hood argument is persuasive enough for me on Slashdot. I'll back off on that line of argument.
Slashdot Mirror
My guess is "Grammar Taiyokuin." That was an attempt at "Grammar Member of the Imperial Rule Assistance Association," but my understanding of Japanese politics/history is not up to snuff.
Beyond that, haiku must have a seasonal word in them; otherwise, it probably is a senryu instead.
There's also frequently a "turn" that takes the first couple lines and resolves it in a different way. Let us glance briefly at one of Basho's most famous haiku, translated:Here, we have two phrases (one of a line, and one of two lines). We also have the "turn," in that it is two lines of loneliness, and then resolves, surprisingly, to a statement about the weather. "Surprising" is not the right word, I know. Finally, the entire haiku is sublime, and contains the season word (kigo).
One final thing: Basho was famous for saying, "Learn the rules; then forget them."
You sure it wasn't just an eye dee ten tee error? (ID10T error)
Did you just assert that Ron Paul and Barack Obama overlap on the issues?
If Nader got 5% of the popular vote, despite his lack of chance of winning, both Ds and Rs would move a little more consumer-friendly and Earth-friendly for the next election cycle to try and get that 5%, for fear of the other party getting it and throwing the balance to a 47.5%-52.5% advantage for one party over the other.
A vote for a loser can still make an impact on future policies. That's why third-party candidates run in the first place (I remember Harry Browne saying something to this effect in a third-party candidate presidential debate in 2000, which was what got me looking at libertarian thought in the first place).
Sorry, but I linked the wrong thing. This is the correct link.
How are we video game players even considering supporting Hillary Clinton. Has anyone forgot her suggestion that Congress start censoring video games that are too sexual or violent? The government isn't even responsible for movie ratings, but there's Clinton, suggesting that the legislature keep inappropriate content out of children's hands.
Ummm, don't laws for the age for purchasing pornography already accomplish what we need? Anything beyond that makes the laws more restrictive for video games than for movies!
Can you imagine if the government stepped in and said that 15-year-olds couldn't watch Terminator 2 because it's rated R? Because that's what Hillary is suggesting, except for video games.
I'll ask again: why the FUCK are we even considering her?
You're kidding, right? I would have thought the connection is obvious:
1. Have health insurance under current employer
2. Cannot afford own health insurance
3. Therefore if starting own business, lose health insurance
Now to define what I mean: A Google Bomb is where an entity/group decides to have text X point to site Y, often for humor purposes (e.g., "french military victories" used to link to a fake-Google site saying "no 'french military victories' found, did you mean 'french military defeats'?" so when you hit "I feel lucky," "Google" would allegedly report that). They make a whole lot of pages contain(ing) the text <a href="Y">X</a>, and Google does the rest with its indexing.
But I suppose that just as one may be a Democrat without agreeing with everything the National Democrats Party puts in their platform, I suppose one may be a Missouri Synod Lutheran without believing everything they officially put out (I disagree with their stance on homosexuality as well). I'm sure not going to found my own branch of Lutheranism that believes in evolution, and I can't exactly administer the sacraments to myself. Should I shop around for a "better" sect of Christianity?
Note: I'm not soliciting arguments that I should abandon my religion here. I'm interested in discussion about when one should abandon one sect of belief. Should it be when you disagree with 50% of major tenets? One major tenet?
I've seen mentions that the "majestic plural" appeared in Canaanite princes' writings and Phoenecian writings thousands of years ago as well. Apparently, the majestic plural existed in ancient Hebrew as well. But beyond that, I've heard the theory advanced that when God used the plural, he was addressing the angels in Heaven. But I suppose you could still say that was a majestic plural, as when the Queen says "let us do such and such," I believe she is speaking for the entirety of the Empire/Commonwealth/islands/whatever and not so much as in, "sup fools, We're the Queens and we are jolly well smashed".
What's interesting is that Genesis 1:26 is not typically used to argue a polytheistic religion. Rather, typically 1:26 is used by Christians to argue in favor of the trinity of the godhead.
At least that's what I, a blind follower of fundamentalism, have seen.
A few that I may or may not have created inadvertently while I was looking at available domain names through my "domain name generator" script since then:
ibbtt1ql.com
9m3q43k3.com
1b1fbsct.com
q84ni49t.com
I think they stopped registering ones I checked, though.
I don't think I've ever seen a more informative comment in all my years on /. Much appreciated!
A plain old defense negates an issue the plaintiff had to prove. On the other hand, an affirmative defense acknowledges the existance of the elements the plaintiff had to prove and says that there is still an excuse.
One way of thinking about it is: a defense is a denial. An affirmative defense is an excuse. See self-defense (which says you still committed murder--that is, intentionally took a human life--but were justified in doing so). You still murdered; you're just not guilty of murder.
Affirmative defense
Defense
That's all fine and dandy, except
- You still keep using "free" as if there were only one definition, but I've offered a definition of freedom in prior posts that still holds as "life free or die" but disagrees with your thesis that the government shouldn't help support anyone
- The American Revolution was never about absolute freedom. It was about taxation without representation, a hatred of the crown and inherited aristocracy in England, unpopular trade regulations, restrictions on specific civil liberties (Third Amendment, Fifth Amendment, Sixth Amendment), and Locke's theory of a social contract (which includes, among other things, the idea that men are bound to do certain acts in society because they benefit from the existence of that society).
Fine. If you want to be pedantic, replace the word "dollar" with "wealth" in my original post in every instance.I would argue that, without our current very mild socialistic model of tax-and-redistribute, we would effectively have an inherited aristocracy. Hell, we practically have one now in that the super-rich who make important financial decisions often belong to select families. Beyond that, I doubt our society would self-consistently like your original intent argument much. With it, the only thing the First Amendment protects is the right to speak initially. After that, the original intent of the First Amendment would permit the government to punish you afterwards. This is known as the prohibition of prior restraint. That's all the First Amendment protected in 1789 at the time of ratification. There would also be no right to privacy, either. Nor judicial review.
And your Robin Hood argument is persuasive enough for me on Slashdot. I'll back off on that line of argument.