"Let's say I'm a student named Mary Kay Rudolph and I have a Yahoo account," said Mary Kay Rudolph, vice president of academic affairs. "But, instead of asking to be mkrudolph@yahoo.com I am mksrjc@yahoo.com. Or, I am santarosajuniorcollege2@yahoo.com. Those are both illegal."
I'm very anxious to hear Mary Kay's legal theory that makes a four letter string in an email address "illegal".
"I could see how misuse of the SRJC name might be used... to misrepresent the college or worse yet solicit funds, fees, or money," he said in an e-mail Thursday.
Yes, that's called fraud. It's a crime. (Also, what on Earth could be the distinction between "funds, fees, or money"?)
But you can't dictate other people's behavior simply because you can imagine a scenario where they might commit fraud.
Before this spreads unnecessarily, this would be an ideal time to limit air flight in and out of the Americas.
How would you feel about re-phrasing this in the active voice? Who should limit air flight?
We as a species are putting everyone at risk by allowing unlimited, unrestricted, near-instantaneous travel from point to point on the globe.
Allowing? I was born a free man. I require, and ask for, no one's sufferance to travel as I please.
A nation may refuse me admittance, but I need no further permission to go where I'd like. As a citizen of Colorado I have the right to travel freely in all of the United States with no permission, whatever.
I can't see a reason not to store a glycol/glycerin mix and add the water on demand. And I don't see a reason not to use sea water (though I'm not 100% certain that the salt won't diminish the slipperiness).
I have to say that I love the idea of "water" balloons full of lube as an improvised defensive weapon! Very "Home Alone: 20 years later".
I'm sure you're right. The article says that it's non-toxic, water activated, and water dispersed. If they're using anything other than propylene glycol, glycerin, and water, they're thinking too hard.
Forms support is decent, but not perfect. I reported a couple of bugs I ran into filling out my tax forms this year. Specifically, I couldn't save a PDF in Adobe Reader that had form data already saved in it with Preview. And the digits didn't align correctly in the bank routing and account number fields.
I use it frequently. My only other gripe is that the search is brain-dead. (It "ors" all the search terms. which is never what I want. Putting an "AND" between them doesn't help:-/)
It might sound like I don't like it, but these are actually my only complaints. Very solid app.
It's also worth noting that PDF export is built right into the print subsystem. No goofy third party print drivers. No need for individual apps to understand PDF.
What's impressive about your post is that you replied to my post, which was about refraining from talking about how awesome hams are, by talking about how awesome hams are.
My hat is off to you, sir!
-Peter
PS: I'm seriously toying with the idea of getting an amateur operators license because of this story. But don't let that dick idontgno know!
It's really weird that you interpreted what I said as daddy issues. Was the association of, "A was a B. Bs are awesome." lost on you?
What I was trying to convey, in fact, is that I respect amateur operators. I just find the obligatory self-congratulations every time there's an article that has anything to do with ham radio annoying.
I also find it fascinating that you dismiss me as a "slashbot", since I regularly go against the grain here. Come to think of it, you accuse me of being a slashbot when I complain about the prevailing view of hams on slashdot. I think we're tied in the irony department.
However many times you considered and reconsidered using the world "meatsword" in your summary, double it next time. Unless it was fewer than three, in which case, double that.
This guideline clearly doesn't apply if you're writing slash fiction. (Which, I might add, might be a fine way for you to channel this sort of thing in the future.)
Other than that, I think you should follow this guideline.
The caption under the image reads, "CSAIL's precision agriculture robots give us a peek into the future where organic life may be tended by artificial life."
Selecting the correct pronoun case is a question of a rule of grammar. Refraining from ending a sentence with a preposition is merely a guideline of style.
Well, there you go. This is an interesting definition, in that it varies from the simple statistical definition, but doesn't go as far as causality. I would propose that it isn't as useful as the more common definition I have been working under. I don't understand the value in getting away from the pure observational nature of the more general definition.
If you want to get into a discussion of responsibility in Science journalism you'll get much less argument out of me;-)
I'm a casual curser. Though I admit that I am stymied by your persistence in being wrong.
Since you seem to have not clicked the link, allow me to paste the Merriam-Webster definition of correlation.
1: the state or relation of being correlated ; specifically : a relation existing between phenomena or things or between mathematical or statistical variables which tend to vary, be associated, or occur together in a way not expected on the basis of chance alone 2: the act of correlating
Note in particular that it doesn't say that there's a reason other than chance alone, simply that it's not expected on the basis of chance alone.
For someone who is bent out of shape over people not supplying adequate evidence to satisfy you, you have offered surprisingly little in support of your position. And you seem reluctant to address evidence placed before you. I've looked it up in four more dictionaries and have found nothing to support your position or to undermine mine.
Again, you are using statistics speak when there is no basis for it. You say "probably" but you have no basis for that other than that is your opinion.
You say that I have no basis, but that's just, like, your opinion, man. Where's your research?!
This is a fucking Internet message board, not a scholarly journal. It is perfectly appropriate for me to propose the possibility of a correlation between these various factors. Further, any reasonable person would come to the correct conclusion that by "probably" I mean that I don't, in fact, have research to back up my statement, but that I would expect such research to do so.
I'd be fascinated as to why this use of language in this context is so surprising, and apparently upsetting, to you.
A correlation only exists if one thing has an effect on the other.
You just couldn't be more wrong. Please consult a dictionary. A correlation exists if two things are statistically related. Often they both proceed from a common cause. But even if no causal mechanism can be identified, a correlation is nothing more or less than a statistical relationship.
Here's a fine example. The Redskins predict election results. No one sensible would suggest there is any causal relationship here. But there is a highly improbable statistical relationship. Which is to say a clear correlation. (And it is not only likely, but necessary that if you start arbitrarily comparing big lists of measurements there will be uncanny correlations, which are absolutely meaningless.)
Before you criticize others you should really check your facts, and consider twice if the other person's position is reasonable.
There very probably is a correlation. More socially active students are probably more likely to be on facebook, and probably get measurably worse grades.
But I don't imagine that academic rigor is the top priority at a school where the average student makes a 3.5-4.0.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm very anxious to hear Mary Kay's legal theory that makes a four letter string in an email address "illegal".
Yes, that's called fraud. It's a crime. (Also, what on Earth could be the distinction between "funds, fees, or money"?)
But you can't dictate other people's behavior simply because you can imagine a scenario where they might commit fraud.
-Peter
Uh, you know you posted that in the clear, right?
-Peter
Huh. The first thing I thought of was Crown Skin Less Skin condoms. Which are already very popular in the porn industry.
-Peter
It's what your data needs!
-Peter
They're spending money on Looking Glass? I just went to the web site and they're still featuring the five-year-old demo video.
-Peter
At times like these I wish I'd gone to a Catholic high school.
I hope the OP ignores the "passive voice" bit and answers the question that follows.
-Peter
I find your post quite chilling.
How would you feel about re-phrasing this in the active voice? Who should limit air flight?
Allowing? I was born a free man. I require, and ask for, no one's sufferance to travel as I please.
A nation may refuse me admittance, but I need no further permission to go where I'd like. As a citizen of Colorado I have the right to travel freely in all of the United States with no permission, whatever.
Quite chilling.
-Peter
You may have a point about profitability.
I can't see a reason not to store a glycol/glycerin mix and add the water on demand. And I don't see a reason not to use sea water (though I'm not 100% certain that the salt won't diminish the slipperiness).
I have to say that I love the idea of "water" balloons full of lube as an improvised defensive weapon! Very "Home Alone: 20 years later".
-Peter
I'm sure you're right. The article says that it's non-toxic, water activated, and water dispersed. If they're using anything other than propylene glycol, glycerin, and water, they're thinking too hard.
-Peter
A2m. Classic.
-Peter
Forms support is decent, but not perfect. I reported a couple of bugs I ran into filling out my tax forms this year. Specifically, I couldn't save a PDF in Adobe Reader that had form data already saved in it with Preview. And the digits didn't align correctly in the bank routing and account number fields.
I use it frequently. My only other gripe is that the search is brain-dead. (It "ors" all the search terms. which is never what I want. Putting an "AND" between them doesn't help :-/)
It might sound like I don't like it, but these are actually my only complaints. Very solid app.
It's also worth noting that PDF export is built right into the print subsystem. No goofy third party print drivers. No need for individual apps to understand PDF.
-Peter
I've long said that corn is the dominant life-form on the planet. But you've opened my eyes to the truth: it's been the yeast all along.
-Peter
Fucked if I know.
-Peter
I thought they did away with that test.
I'm delighted that you see through my bullshit, though. You might have a word with that idontgno dude. He's taking it a little hard.
-Peter
What's impressive about your post is that you replied to my post, which was about refraining from talking about how awesome hams are, by talking about how awesome hams are.
My hat is off to you, sir!
-Peter
PS: I'm seriously toying with the idea of getting an amateur operators license because of this story. But don't let that dick idontgno know!
It's really weird that you interpreted what I said as daddy issues. Was the association of, "A was a B. Bs are awesome." lost on you?
What I was trying to convey, in fact, is that I respect amateur operators. I just find the obligatory self-congratulations every time there's an article that has anything to do with ham radio annoying.
I also find it fascinating that you dismiss me as a "slashbot", since I regularly go against the grain here. Come to think of it, you accuse me of being a slashbot when I complain about the prevailing view of hams on slashdot. I think we're tied in the irony department.
-Peter
Jesus. Here come four thousand posts about how awesome hams are, and how Internet over power cables sucks, etc.
My Dad was a ham. Yes, hams are awesome. In their nutty little useful-once-in-a-lifetime, semi-Luddite way.
We love you, hams. We're glad you're out there. But please, seriously, shut the fuck up. On the Internet. Feel free to blather on your radios.
-Peter
It sounds like it was the defendant who didn't show.
It also sounds like it was a civil trial, which doesn't go to a question of guilt, but of responsibility for damages.
But I only read the summary, so who knows?
-Peter
Dear Ed,
However many times you considered and reconsidered using the world "meatsword" in your summary, double it next time. Unless it was fewer than three, in which case, double that.
This guideline clearly doesn't apply if you're writing slash fiction. (Which, I might add, might be a fine way for you to channel this sort of thing in the future.)
Other than that, I think you should follow this guideline.
Thanks,
Peter
The caption under the image reads, "CSAIL's precision agriculture robots give us a peek into the future where organic life may be tended by artificial life."
I wonder if they meant the plants . . . or us.
-Peter
Selecting the correct pronoun case is a question of a rule of grammar. Refraining from ending a sentence with a preposition is merely a guideline of style.
-Peter
Fuckin' A.
Well, there you go. This is an interesting definition, in that it varies from the simple statistical definition, but doesn't go as far as causality. I would propose that it isn't as useful as the more common definition I have been working under. I don't understand the value in getting away from the pure observational nature of the more general definition.
If you want to get into a discussion of responsibility in Science journalism you'll get much less argument out of me ;-)
-Peter
I'm a casual curser. Though I admit that I am stymied by your persistence in being wrong.
Since you seem to have not clicked the link, allow me to paste the Merriam-Webster definition of correlation.
Note in particular that it doesn't say that there's a reason other than chance alone, simply that it's not expected on the basis of chance alone.
For someone who is bent out of shape over people not supplying adequate evidence to satisfy you, you have offered surprisingly little in support of your position. And you seem reluctant to address evidence placed before you. I've looked it up in four more dictionaries and have found nothing to support your position or to undermine mine.
-Peter
You say that I have no basis, but that's just, like, your opinion, man. Where's your research?!
This is a fucking Internet message board, not a scholarly journal. It is perfectly appropriate for me to propose the possibility of a correlation between these various factors. Further, any reasonable person would come to the correct conclusion that by "probably" I mean that I don't, in fact, have research to back up my statement, but that I would expect such research to do so.
I'd be fascinated as to why this use of language in this context is so surprising, and apparently upsetting, to you.
You just couldn't be more wrong. Please consult a dictionary. A correlation exists if two things are statistically related. Often they both proceed from a common cause. But even if no causal mechanism can be identified, a correlation is nothing more or less than a statistical relationship.
Here's a fine example. The Redskins predict election results. No one sensible would suggest there is any causal relationship here. But there is a highly improbable statistical relationship. Which is to say a clear correlation. (And it is not only likely, but necessary that if you start arbitrarily comparing big lists of measurements there will be uncanny correlations, which are absolutely meaningless.)
Before you criticize others you should really check your facts, and consider twice if the other person's position is reasonable.
-Peter
There very probably is a correlation. More socially active students are probably more likely to be on facebook, and probably get measurably worse grades.
But I don't imagine that academic rigor is the top priority at a school where the average student makes a 3.5-4.0.
-Peter