Amen to nukes, brother. Can you imagine a situation in which Apophis was just a little bit closer to hitting us and we had never had a cold war with Russia? We'd be royally screwed, we would.
Re:Combining Blogs? E-mail accounts? Ridiculous.
on
'Til Tech Do Us Part
·
· Score: 1
[one] e-mail account for mass e-mails inside the extended family
I think having one account for a group of people who don't share the same living quarters is asking for trouble.
Soon they will not need men to reproduce, and will begin eliminating us.
It's already been done in comic book form, sort of, as Y: The Last Man. It's a great comic, and some feminists (they call themselves "Amazons") suggest this very idea in order to continue the race. IIRC.
I'm not a big fan of the notion that free markets can solve all kinds of problems, but one problem they can definitely solve is shitty service. Vendors who annoy their customers have a tendency to go out of business and be replaced by vendors who don't.
To be fair, the term Life Hacker in the URL means, from my experience, "One who does things to make their life better." Typically, the site has information about improving your productivity, how to make yourself more efficient, and how to cope with life problems. Thus, you are a life hacker.
But your concern about "hacker" being in the title is understandable.
I think it's because most Slashdotters hate the MPAA and RIAA and BSA and such, and the Piratbayen folks are very visible and vocal opponents of the media industries.
Could someone please tell me why there is a "[sic]" immediately after "enjoyed" in the quote? There is nothing wrong with the word "enjoyed" as far as I know. Does the editor think that it is "enjoied" or "enjoyd" instead*interrobang*.
Transformative technology doesn't unfold smoothly. The dominant paradigm is shattered, twisted, shocked by the changes inflicted upon it. To the person born to and comfortable with the dominant paradigm, it would look like the death of everything they know and love.
Are you sure you don't just need to leverage your synergistic paradigms into a new horizon of business communications? What about monetizing ubiquitous communities in order to architect real-time functionalities?
Where else can I purchase a copy of last night's Daily Show? That is, as far as I know, the only (technically) legal method of permanently archiving the show. Technically speaking, recording a show onto VHS or hard drive for time-shifting purposes gives you the legal right to watch it once, AFAIK. I have to resort to the-net-you-use-that-shall-not-be-named (and technically illegal methods) because my computer doesn't have the processing power to play those shitty video files with iTunes/QuickTime and I can't burn them or play them in VLC.
As the German saying goes: "Dumm fickt gut", which roughly translates as "A stupid person is a great lay." It appears that you cannot beat experience here...
I prefer my translation better: Dummy fucks good.;)
Yeah, but let's get this straight: as much as we rip on politicians, they are typically smart. If you scroll down the list of Senators in the US, nearly every single one has a doctorate in something or other (most are JDs, but that's no small feat either). Going down the list, alphabetized by state, we have four JDs, an ex-military, three JDs, a really rich lady (I can't seem to figure out, from perusing her Wikipedia entry, exactly how Feinstein got to be so rich), and a former stockbroker.
Coincidentally, the Stop'n'Drop-brand suicide booth becomes America's favorite next year according to Space Pilot 3000. Paradoxically, the return of Futurama may prevent it from becoming America's favorite.
Oh, and just because I see a lack of Calculon here: I suppose the show got brought back because of the voice actors' tremendous ACting TAlent(s)!!!
Many (if not most) of these changes fall well within the realm of being unconscionable.
If there's one thing I learned from my contracts professor, it is that "unconscionable" is just a word, and waving it around doesn't prove anything. It doesn't have any intrinsic meaning until you answer this question: Why is it unconscionable? Note that I'm not disagreeing, just requesting an explanation.
Similarly, saying something is unconstitional is not a persuasive argument unless you explain why.
Consumers aren't lawyers. They can not be expected to read and understand all terms. Furthermore, the odds of a customer spotting a minor change (yet one that significantly alters the relationship) are slim to none. With no awareness (and full knowledge of that lack of awareness) there is no meaningful offer and therefore no meaningful acceptance. In other words there is no meeting of the minds.
I think this criticism would invalidate every contract anyone ever signed without having a lawyer look over it first. Am I wrong?
Tell me about it. I can't go to a single article on Digg without reading, "I did it for the lulz," and, "Pool's closed due to AIDS." Heck, about a year ago I saw someone post a comment here, non-AC, that was of value in the scientific discussion, but they had slipped a couple 4chan quotes in, such as, "It's over 9000!"
And agreed, 4chan hasn't had a truly great meme like Raptor Jesus in a long time./is Anonymous, but not AC
I'm honestly curious here: It seems that you are advocating that there should be no such thing as patents. If so, who will develop pharmaceuticals? Please provide me with an answer, as I would love to hear a valid alternative to patents+bigPharma.
OK, I understand that the Encyclopedia Britannica is meant to be an authoritative source, but is it possible that some inconsistencies or errors were introduced in a similar manner?
No, and I'll explain why I think so.
The important difference between Trivial Pursuit and an encyclopedia here is that Trivial Pursuit's answers are just a short phrase or small set of words. You cannot copyright the answer (because facts are not copyrightable), but you can copy the set of questions and answers because aggregating the questions into meaningful sets is a "creative act."
Encyclopedias on the other hand, have long articles, which involve creative acts, so they article itself is copyrightable. Sentences are copyrightable.
This is important because, if you plagiarize a subset of the Trivial Pursuit questions, you could claim that you independently came up with the questions, and it would be hard to prove otherwise. However, if one of your questions has a wrong answer that matches up with a wrong answer in Trivial Pursuit, it's easier to prove that you plagiarized their question set, at least in part. With an encyclopedia, as with any book, it is easy to prove copyright infringement because the elements of articles are sets.
However, incorrect facts introduced into Brittanica cannot serve the purpose of detecting copyright infringement, because, when compiling your own work, you could use Brittanica as a source and get the same wrong fact. This is not copyright infringement. However, the copyright infringement Brittanica would be concerned with is you ripping off passages of text (since the underlying facts are not copyrightable). Spotting plagiarized passages is (relatively) easy to spot.
That's a real good point. I think the answer to, "Who did magic late in life?" is not "Aberforth," but rather "the barman of the Hog's Head." It just, surprisingly, turned out to be Aberforth.
You intentionally pick a small font size so that you get short line lengths, and then complain that the line lengths are too short for the page? Isn't that exactly what you intended to happen?
Nope. I was probably not explicit in what I meant. In print, you have limited paper, so you want a smaller font size that still remains legible. So you pick a smaller font size. However, now you need narrower columns to maintain optimum readability (about 70 characters wide is how long an optimally readable column is). The shorter line length is a side effect of the goal--smaller font size in order to fit more on the page. Thus, you make up for the narrower line by having multiple columns.
It's basic page layout. I'm not just making this stuff up. It's the reason newspapers print in multiple columns.
Agreed. Ever since Philosopher's Stone, I've been saying that Petunia hated witches so much because her sister got to be one and she didn't. I know I would be really pissed if my brother got to go around flying on brooms and shooting fire out of his wand, while I had to drive a car the old fashioned way.
No, the "surprise magic" was supposed to happen in DH. I thought that Ms Figg would end up doing magic to save Harry at the beginning of the book or something like that (knowing Harry would be attacked near his birthday in Little Whinging), but that theory turned out to be wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
There are many "screw verbs" in the English language: screw, unscrew, tighten, loosen, etc.
Amen to nukes, brother. Can you imagine a situation in which Apophis was just a little bit closer to hitting us and we had never had a cold war with Russia? We'd be royally screwed, we would.
To be fair, the term Life Hacker in the URL means, from my experience, "One who does things to make their life better." Typically, the site has information about improving your productivity, how to make yourself more efficient, and how to cope with life problems. Thus, you are a life hacker.
But your concern about "hacker" being in the title is understandable.
I think it's because most Slashdotters hate the MPAA and RIAA and BSA and such, and the Piratbayen folks are very visible and vocal opponents of the media industries.
Could someone please tell me why there is a "[sic]" immediately after "enjoyed" in the quote? There is nothing wrong with the word "enjoyed" as far as I know. Does the editor think that it is "enjoied" or "enjoyd" instead*interrobang*.
Where else can I purchase a copy of last night's Daily Show? That is, as far as I know, the only (technically) legal method of permanently archiving the show. Technically speaking, recording a show onto VHS or hard drive for time-shifting purposes gives you the legal right to watch it once, AFAIK. I have to resort to the-net-you-use-that-shall-not-be-named (and technically illegal methods) because my computer doesn't have the processing power to play those shitty video files with iTunes/QuickTime and I can't burn them or play them in VLC.
Spaceballs? Oh, shit, there goes the planet!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_Unit
Coincidentally, the Stop'n'Drop-brand suicide booth becomes America's favorite next year according to Space Pilot 3000. Paradoxically, the return of Futurama may prevent it from becoming America's favorite.
Oh, and just because I see a lack of Calculon here: I suppose the show got brought back because of the voice actors' tremendous ACting TAlent(s)!!!
ReasonableAgreement.org might be relevant to your interests.
Similarly, saying something is unconstitional is not a persuasive argument unless you explain why.I think this criticism would invalidate every contract anyone ever signed without having a lawyer look over it first. Am I wrong?
Tell me about it. I can't go to a single article on Digg without reading, "I did it for the lulz," and, "Pool's closed due to AIDS." Heck, about a year ago I saw someone post a comment here, non-AC, that was of value in the scientific discussion, but they had slipped a couple 4chan quotes in, such as, "It's over 9000!"
/is Anonymous, but not AC
And agreed, 4chan hasn't had a truly great meme like Raptor Jesus in a long time.
I'm honestly curious here: It seems that you are advocating that there should be no such thing as patents. If so, who will develop pharmaceuticals? Please provide me with an answer, as I would love to hear a valid alternative to patents+bigPharma.
The important difference between Trivial Pursuit and an encyclopedia here is that Trivial Pursuit's answers are just a short phrase or small set of words. You cannot copyright the answer (because facts are not copyrightable), but you can copy the set of questions and answers because aggregating the questions into meaningful sets is a "creative act."
Encyclopedias on the other hand, have long articles, which involve creative acts, so they article itself is copyrightable. Sentences are copyrightable.
This is important because, if you plagiarize a subset of the Trivial Pursuit questions, you could claim that you independently came up with the questions, and it would be hard to prove otherwise. However, if one of your questions has a wrong answer that matches up with a wrong answer in Trivial Pursuit, it's easier to prove that you plagiarized their question set, at least in part. With an encyclopedia, as with any book, it is easy to prove copyright infringement because the elements of articles are sets.
However, incorrect facts introduced into Brittanica cannot serve the purpose of detecting copyright infringement, because, when compiling your own work, you could use Brittanica as a source and get the same wrong fact. This is not copyright infringement. However, the copyright infringement Brittanica would be concerned with is you ripping off passages of text (since the underlying facts are not copyrightable). Spotting plagiarized passages is (relatively) easy to spot.
That's a real good point. I think the answer to, "Who did magic late in life?" is not "Aberforth," but rather "the barman of the Hog's Head." It just, surprisingly, turned out to be Aberforth.
It's basic page layout. I'm not just making this stuff up. It's the reason newspapers print in multiple columns.
Agreed. Ever since Philosopher's Stone, I've been saying that Petunia hated witches so much because her sister got to be one and she didn't. I know I would be really pissed if my brother got to go around flying on brooms and shooting fire out of his wand, while I had to drive a car the old fashioned way.
No, the "surprise magic" was supposed to happen in DH. I thought that Ms Figg would end up doing magic to save Harry at the beginning of the book or something like that (knowing Harry would be attacked near his birthday in Little Whinging), but that theory turned out to be wrong.