Been there, done that. One of my former employers essentially bet the company on a federal RFP that was seeking POSIX compliance on diskless workstations. We worked our butts off to develop a solution using SCO Unix (back in the days before SCO decided to go into litigation as a business model), but even though it met all the requirements, the contract was awarded to the incumbent, who bid Windows NT -- with some kind of POSIX plug-in. We protested (the loser always protests), but we lost. Maybe it'll turn out better for a deep-pocketed company like Google.
I keep using Firefox precisely because there are things I can't do as easily with other browsers as I can with Firefox. I yet have to see another browser which will do better than a combination of Adblock, NoScript, Firebug, Greasemonkey, Ghostery, Flagfox and PasswordHasher.
Not to mention site-specific policies on the duration of cookies (or their deletion), a JavaScript error console that tells me about errors, and a page info window that tells me whether the HTML I'm writing is being interpreted in standards mode or quirks mode.
At 50cc, it's not much of a motorcycle. I'd say it's a moped.
FWIW, I think the original terms prohibiting social networking were right on. My experience is that few things get a teen's attention these days like blocking his access to Facebook.
I can guarantee you that there is not even one thousand pages written in the bible on the workings of the Divine or of the Afterlife. Which is far fewer than thousands.
Good point. I should have said "religious works" or something.
The fact that there are different "versions" of the Bible amuse me to no end. If it was truly god's word, wouldn't there be just one version?
I'm not referring to words or phrases lost in translation...I'm talking about things like King James versions, etc.
I believe you're talking about translations. Most of the translations (King James, NIV, etc.) are based on a single canonical text. And, of course, there are discrepancies between some of the Latin/Hebrew (or is it just Latin) manuscripts used by Western Christianity, but I believe they're all translating the same basic words. Each translation is an attempt to bring the Latin (which is sort of like Klingon or Esperanto in that very few people actually conduct their daily affairs with it) into a language that is commonly spoken at the time of the translation. But languages change over time. The King James translation is 400 years old, and English has changed significantly since its publication. Add in the variations in emphasis (e.g., when to be literal and when to try to capture the spirit of the text), and it's no wonder there are differences between the translations -- but they're all telling the same basic story.
What really gets interesting is that there are entire books that didn't make the cut to be included in the canon, or that there were significant variations in the manuscripts that were consolidated to create the canon. Even if one is fluent in Latin and Hebrew, he can't be guaranteed that he's got the original words written down 2000 or more years ago.
"New technologies and the progress they bring can make it impossible to distinguish truth from illusion and can lead to confusion between reality and virtual reality. The image can also become independent from reality, it can give birth to a virtual world, with various consequences -- above all the risk of indifference towards real life."
That's funny. It's arguable that the same could be said about the Bible. How many thousands of pages have been written about the workings of the Divine, or of the afterlife, when no one has truly seen either?
As far as I'm concerned, if you attach something to my car without my permission, it's mine.
Interesting theory. So if A has something B doesn't want him to have, then B just has to attach it to your car without your permission, and then it's yours and therefore no longer A's...
It looks to me like this is governed by state law. I guess the best thing to do is just to attach it to the nearest garbage or mail truck.
And if putting an FBI sticker made you liable for not destroying it, wouldn't everyone start putting FBI stickers on them?
That's a good point. I've seen that thing already with a lot of junk mail. The marketers who send it go to great pains to make it look like it came from a government agency; however, they always stop short of the line where they would actually claim to be a government agency. I expect that there is some kind of law against it. Whether it would be applicable to a label on a device that isn't trying to sell anything is an interesting question.
It would be really interesting to see what would have happened had he disposed of it in a lake before the FBI showed up. There's nothing in the photo to indicate that it belongs to the government; it could have been placed by a private detective. As far as I'm concerned, if you attach something to my car without my permission, it's mine.
Commercials were in broadcast radio in the U.S. from the very start, and it's why we don't have receiver licenses like they have/had in the U.K. The point I was trying to challenge, though, was that advertisements in movie theaters is not a new idea.
It's odd that only a few years ago, the movie/theatre business made a nice profit without having these commercials, yet now they cannot live without them.
I remember commercials in the movie theaters at least 40 years ago. I would be very surprised if they didn't have them in the 1920s.
I hope in time commercial-less media is the norm.
Don't hold your breath. As long as there is commerce, there will be someone trying to make money through advertising.
It may be that only my Palm phone does this, and that others do not, but every time I use the Internet from my phone, it asks me if I really want to do that. If there is a crime, however, it's some form of monopoly: Verizon now requires that anyone buying a "smart" phone such as a Palm Centro, Blackberry, or Droid commit to several years of their $30/mo. data services. This is on top of requiring a voice plan that costs $40/mo., so the minimum entry price is $70/mo. All the carriers seem to do the same thing.
I don't believe the argument that the high price is necessary to subsidize the cost of the phone because 1) Verizon was willing to sell the Centro with the pay-as-you-go data plan until 2009 and 2) before Palm quit making standalone PDAs, they could be had for less than $150.
With regard to firearms, I've been encouraged many times to never let on to the fact that I own any, or where I keep them. They are a high value target for thieves. As a result, unless I'm very familiar with the person, I don't bring up my ownership of firearms. (Not worried about Slashdot, the people I'm worried about wouldn't know this username)
ALL YOUR FIREARMS ARE US
But seriously, the advice you've been getting makes me wonder about the efficacy of the argument for having guns as a deterrent to criminals. If one keeps one's gun ownership secret, how are the criminals going to know to avoid the gun owner's house when it looks just like the other houses in the neighborhood?
Unfortunately, the NRA fuels a lot of the argument over guns by arguing against any sort of controls or restrictions whatever, such as restrictions on ownership of assault weapons, limitations on the number of firearms that can be purchased in a given time period (such as Virginia's limitation of one gun a month), or mandatory background checks on second-hand gun sales. I can and will argue for the right to keep a handgun for personal protection or a long gun that holds no more than three shells for hunting (If one can't hit the duck/deer in three shots, then he's got no business out there in the woods with a gun.), but NRA's positions give too much ammunition to the rabid anti-gun crowd. I suspect this is partly due to the fact that claiming persecution enables NRA to raise more money and increase membership.
OH NO, what shall he do now.
Attacking climate change was his stepping stone to national prominence...
His life is ruined, ruined I tell you.
Nah, his career won't be ruined until someone drives a stake through his heart. Everything I have read about him convinces me that he is a quintessential zealot, and, unfortunately, he is peddling what a lot of Virginians want.
I understand that bike seats are uncomfortable, but I had no idea it was on purpose.
It depends on whether you want to make your butt fit the saddle, or the saddle fit the butt. That's why I ride on a Brooks saddle: I'd prefer that the saddle be the one doing the adjusting.
Anyway, so now I'm part of another international conspiracy....
Slashdot Mirror
Been there, done that. One of my former employers essentially bet the company on a federal RFP that was seeking POSIX compliance on diskless workstations. We worked our butts off to develop a solution using SCO Unix (back in the days before SCO decided to go into litigation as a business model), but even though it met all the requirements, the contract was awarded to the incumbent, who bid Windows NT -- with some kind of POSIX plug-in. We protested (the loser always protests), but we lost. Maybe it'll turn out better for a deep-pocketed company like Google.
If it's not a recessive gene, then my conservative parents may have a difficult conversation ahead of them.
I keep using Firefox precisely because there are things I can't do as easily with other browsers as I can with Firefox. I yet have to see another browser which will do better than a combination of Adblock, NoScript, Firebug, Greasemonkey, Ghostery, Flagfox and PasswordHasher.
Not to mention site-specific policies on the duration of cookies (or their deletion), a JavaScript error console that tells me about errors, and a page info window that tells me whether the HTML I'm writing is being interpreted in standards mode or quirks mode.
It's a moped. In my version of the Chain of Being, people who drive mopeds are somewhere down there between lawyers and bicycle thieves. ;-)
At 50cc, it's not much of a motorcycle. I'd say it's a moped.
FWIW, I think the original terms prohibiting social networking were right on. My experience is that few things get a teen's attention these days like blocking his access to Facebook.
I can guarantee you that there is not even one thousand pages written in the bible on the workings of the Divine or of the Afterlife. Which is far fewer than thousands.
Good point. I should have said "religious works" or something.
Not to mention how many pages have been changed.
The fact that there are different "versions" of the Bible amuse me to no end. If it was truly god's word, wouldn't there be just one version?
I'm not referring to words or phrases lost in translation...I'm talking about things like King James versions, etc.
I believe you're talking about translations. Most of the translations (King James, NIV, etc.) are based on a single canonical text. And, of course, there are discrepancies between some of the Latin/Hebrew (or is it just Latin) manuscripts used by Western Christianity, but I believe they're all translating the same basic words. Each translation is an attempt to bring the Latin (which is sort of like Klingon or Esperanto in that very few people actually conduct their daily affairs with it) into a language that is commonly spoken at the time of the translation. But languages change over time. The King James translation is 400 years old, and English has changed significantly since its publication. Add in the variations in emphasis (e.g., when to be literal and when to try to capture the spirit of the text), and it's no wonder there are differences between the translations -- but they're all telling the same basic story.
What really gets interesting is that there are entire books that didn't make the cut to be included in the canon, or that there were significant variations in the manuscripts that were consolidated to create the canon. Even if one is fluent in Latin and Hebrew, he can't be guaranteed that he's got the original words written down 2000 or more years ago.
I'd call it slash-fic, except there isn't enough sex in it.
You missed all the begatting.
"New technologies and the progress they bring can make it impossible to distinguish truth from illusion and can lead to confusion between reality and virtual reality. The image can also become independent from reality, it can give birth to a virtual world, with various consequences -- above all the risk of indifference towards real life."
That's funny. It's arguable that the same could be said about the Bible. How many thousands of pages have been written about the workings of the Divine, or of the afterlife, when no one has truly seen either?
Interesting theory. So if A has something B doesn't want him to have, then B just has to attach it to your car without your permission, and then it's yours and therefore no longer A's ...
It looks to me like this is governed by state law. I guess the best thing to do is just to attach it to the nearest garbage or mail truck.
And if putting an FBI sticker made you liable for not destroying it, wouldn't everyone start putting FBI stickers on them?
That's a good point. I've seen that thing already with a lot of junk mail. The marketers who send it go to great pains to make it look like it came from a government agency; however, they always stop short of the line where they would actually claim to be a government agency. I expect that there is some kind of law against it. Whether it would be applicable to a label on a device that isn't trying to sell anything is an interesting question.
I've watched too much television, I guess, but being told I am boring would not put me off my guard.
It would be really interesting to see what would have happened had he disposed of it in a lake before the FBI showed up. There's nothing in the photo to indicate that it belongs to the government; it could have been placed by a private detective. As far as I'm concerned, if you attach something to my car without my permission, it's mine.
> I remember commercials in the movie theaters at least 40 years ago. I would be very surprised if they didn't have them in the 1920s.
The had TRAILERS in the 80s. They had no "television ads" like they do now.
There certainly weren't "commercials" in any of the cinemas I patronized 40 years ago.
The ads I remember 40 years ago couldn't be called trailers. They advertised, among other things, a local boat dealer and a restaurant.
Commercials were in broadcast radio in the U.S. from the very start, and it's why we don't have receiver licenses like they have/had in the U.K. The point I was trying to challenge, though, was that advertisements in movie theaters is not a new idea.
It's odd that only a few years ago, the movie/theatre business made a nice profit without having these commercials, yet now they cannot live without them.
I remember commercials in the movie theaters at least 40 years ago. I would be very surprised if they didn't have them in the 1920s.
I hope in time commercial-less media is the norm.
Don't hold your breath. As long as there is commerce, there will be someone trying to make money through advertising.
It may be that only my Palm phone does this, and that others do not, but every time I use the Internet from my phone, it asks me if I really want to do that. If there is a crime, however, it's some form of monopoly: Verizon now requires that anyone buying a "smart" phone such as a Palm Centro, Blackberry, or Droid commit to several years of their $30/mo. data services. This is on top of requiring a voice plan that costs $40/mo., so the minimum entry price is $70/mo. All the carriers seem to do the same thing.
I don't believe the argument that the high price is necessary to subsidize the cost of the phone because 1) Verizon was willing to sell the Centro with the pay-as-you-go data plan until 2009 and 2) before Palm quit making standalone PDAs, they could be had for less than $150.
I'll stay out of the NSA's internet if they'll stay out of mine.
I'm hoping his site is slashdotted soon.
Why would fiber optic lines need insulators?
With regard to firearms, I've been encouraged many times to never let on to the fact that I own any, or where I keep them. They are a high value target for thieves. As a result, unless I'm very familiar with the person, I don't bring up my ownership of firearms. (Not worried about Slashdot, the people I'm worried about wouldn't know this username)
ALL YOUR FIREARMS ARE US
But seriously, the advice you've been getting makes me wonder about the efficacy of the argument for having guns as a deterrent to criminals. If one keeps one's gun ownership secret, how are the criminals going to know to avoid the gun owner's house when it looks just like the other houses in the neighborhood?
Unfortunately, the NRA fuels a lot of the argument over guns by arguing against any sort of controls or restrictions whatever, such as restrictions on ownership of assault weapons, limitations on the number of firearms that can be purchased in a given time period (such as Virginia's limitation of one gun a month), or mandatory background checks on second-hand gun sales. I can and will argue for the right to keep a handgun for personal protection or a long gun that holds no more than three shells for hunting (If one can't hit the duck/deer in three shots, then he's got no business out there in the woods with a gun.), but NRA's positions give too much ammunition to the rabid anti-gun crowd. I suspect this is partly due to the fact that claiming persecution enables NRA to raise more money and increase membership.
After all, apes seem to be more human than we've given them credit for, and certainly more self-aware than a human infant.
She could at least have gone for the name Jehovah.
OH NO, what shall he do now. Attacking climate change was his stepping stone to national prominence... His life is ruined, ruined I tell you.
Nah, his career won't be ruined until someone drives a stake through his heart. Everything I have read about him convinces me that he is a quintessential zealot, and, unfortunately, he is peddling what a lot of Virginians want.
I understand that bike seats are uncomfortable, but I had no idea it was on purpose.
It depends on whether you want to make your butt fit the saddle, or the saddle fit the butt. That's why I ride on a Brooks saddle: I'd prefer that the saddle be the one doing the adjusting.
Anyway, so now I'm part of another international conspiracy....