I think some people are going to make a big deal out of "targeted advertising" on both sides of the argument; talking about how it invades privacy unnecessarily, and talking about how it's more effective if ads are targeted.
In my opinion, effective ads aren't necessarily targeted. Effective ads are entertaining. Internet ads are ignored by most people mostly because they're on the Internet to a) be informed or b) be entertained. And we expect to be informed for free in the Information Age, not have to buy the $59.99 hardcover book AdSense or DoubleClick throws at us when we look up the evolutionary history of plasmodesmata.
The other alternative is to go with the tried-and-true method: ads that entertain. If ad execs think that some cheap 2 hours worth of graphic design is going to hook us, they should re-examine past practices. People like to be entertained by ads. Heck, some people watch the superbowl just for the ads. Would it be that hard to put in, say, 6 hours, and come up with a funny comic strip-type ad? Something you might expect to see in Dilbert or Foxtrot or another geek-oriented comic? I'm willing to bet it'd have a much more positive response.
Or was it Eric S. Raymond who illegally stole the credit card information?
The press may co-opt our sub-cultural language for their own gross-oversimplification purposes. That doesn't mean Slashdot has to follow suit.
Definition from the Jargon File: hacker n. [originally, someone who makes furniture with an axe]
A person who enjoys exploring the details of programmable systems and how to stretch their capabilities, as opposed to most users, who prefer to learn only the minimum necessary.
One who programs enthusiastically (even obsessively) or who enjoys programming rather than just theorizing about programming.
A person capable of appreciating hack value.
A person who is good at programming quickly.
An expert at a particular program, or one who frequently does work using it or on it; as in "a Unix hacker". (Definitions 1 through 5 are correlated, and people who fit them congregate.)
An expert or enthusiast of any kind. One might be an astronomy hacker, for example.
One who enjoys the intellectual challenge of creatively overcoming or circumventing limitations.
[deprecated] A malicious meddler who tries to discover sensitive information by poking around. Hence "password hacker", "network hacker". The correct term for this sense is cracker.
It uses the same method as LED displays have for years and it's revolutionary?
I can just see it now. People chanting in the streets. This technology is so great it'll overthrow the United Nations. Maybe it was this technology that resulted in the NON!(!!) vote in France!
Let's try and keep the fanatical hyperbole to a minimum, shall we?
Due to my extensive experience involving the unusual circumstances of using a real hardware French keyboard set to US keyboard mode in a locked-down computer at XS Arena Les Halles in the Fourth Arrondissement of Paris, I can assure you that, if you already touch-type, being forced to touch-type only slows down your use of symbols that are in different places on different keyboards. The ` ~ key and the \ key on US keyboards come to mind (although the ` ~ key is usually in the same place except on some laptops like my Toshiba).
I don't find it appropriate that a moderator (apparently) would respond in this manner, complete with profanity and signs of a Messiah complex. I appreciate the complexity and balance of the Slashdot moderation mechanism, but I believe that too much potential exists for Mods with an axe to grind to use their moderation AS flamebait (okay so not technically, since its not in posting form) to lower others' karma. I think certain slashdotters really get a kick out of goading others on. If this were not the case, I suspect there would be fewer cases where people had good or excellent karma but periodic strings of -1 Flamebait (or Troll or Offtopic) ratings.
I wonder if the system would be better if it timed the duration the moderator spent on the Moderator guidelines page (which they'd be required to read before moderating, of course doing this server-side could be costly, and JavaScript is easily disabled, though it *could* be required to Moderate), or if MetaModerating were given more weight.
Apparently it's only offered to the U.S. public. I've tried both http://www.google.fr/ and http://www.google.com/ (which detects my country as France anyway), and I am not getting any offers. Perhaps it chooses IPs randomly? Not that it matters, as I already have a GMail account. Or perhaps Google just do not like the French.
Okay, you mofos who modded me down, you're probably all Americans who have never even been to the EU and just assumed that my joke was karma whoring. Well I just thought I'd inform you that the situation in Europe is actually quite grave; the Conseil des Ministres is going to gain even more power with the constitution that will probably be passed soon, paving the way for many more un-democratic travesties of government. Before you mod something down for being "overrated" be sure it is in fact overrated and not wistful and ironic humor that is over your heads.
I believe in the opt out system, because in the opt in system, everyone with any creative work had to register to get any sort of protection whatsoever. This means that big well-financed companies and rich people got to protect their work, and the poor starving artist on the New York sidewalk did not. That's not copyright, and that's not democracy; that's money propagating money and it's very reminiscent of Soviet-style oligarchy.
Now for the limit of copyright. Any copyright that extends past the lifetime of the author is null and void. Period. The constitution very specifically says that copyright is to give someone exclusive rights for a limited time. If the rights are extended past the creator's life, his rights were not limited, just those of his progeny. I don't care what any court or politician says about this, they're wrong if they think that post mortem protection is legal.
The whole point is to encourage individual progress that aids society. If there is too much protectionism, society gets the shaft. Remember that ideas cannot and do not develop in a vacuum. There's a reason the French (who are predominantly Roman Catholic and who have better familial and social support structures than Americans) are almost incapable of writing a good anguished-emotion rock song (with the exception perhaps of Noir Desir) and totally unable to comprehend the abandonment leitmotiv of Emo. All of our cultural baggage contributes to our artistic creations, and as such, they all eventually should belong to the culture. Waiting a century, by which time the culture will probably have undergone several major changes, at least in the States, before the works go into the public domain is not giving back to the culture from which the works came.
I am somewhat new to FreeBSD (I've only been using it for about a year) so I dont know what the early STABLEs are usually like, but 5.x really doesnt seem to have stabilized and I'm running out of patience. I really like BSD, because the system is just overall a lot cleaner than other Freenixen that I've used, but I really think it needs to boot on my laptop without setting:
set hw.pci.enable_io_modes="0"
Setting this really bothers me mostly because I don't know what it means.
Of course, after that, inserting the kernel module for my sound card (snd_ich.ko) crashes the system...
"My point is that life can take care of itself. If we are gone tomorrow, the Earth will not miss us.... Let's be clear. The planet is not in jeopardy. We are in jeopardy. We haven't got the power to destroy the planet--or to save it. Be we might have the power to save ourselves." -- Dr. Ian Malcolm
This is not bad grammar. There is nothing wrong with the syntax, other than the use of an adverb ("then") where "than" (a preposition or conjunction depending on how you look at it) should have been. This, of course, is just a spelling mistake.
Semantically, it doesn't make sense, because the GPL as a license itself does not use other licenses. However, by logical elimination, you *do* understand that the alternative (introduced by "rather than") applies to the noun phrase "users" and not "the new GPL". There is no other noun to which the verb phrase (in the present progressive) "using other licenses such as..." could apply.
"He ain't there" is not grammatically incorrect. The syntax of this sentence breaks down using the following phrase structure rules, all of which are valid in English: S -> [NP] + [VP] NP -> [Pronoun] VP -> [V] + [AdvP] AdvP -> [Adv]
Perhaps you have an issue with the non-standard lexicon, which allows "ain't" as special case in the general contraction rules, but the lexicon is not the grammar. New words are formed far more often than new phrase structures are. They even occupy different areas of the brain (Wernicke(lexicon) and Broca(grammar)). Please note that this phonological phenomenon of removing the final consonant and changing the vowel preceding it ("ain't" started as a contraction for "am not") is not unique -- it happens in "will not" -> "won't" as well. In fact, using a 'standard' contraction rule would give you "amn't" which is against English phonological grammar.
You understood perfectly what the person was saying. You're just being an elitist snob. Next time know what "language" means, instead of being a sociolinguistic politicking arsewipe.
Hmm. Well your right, my reasoning is flawed there. I guess I was working on the unspoken assumption that dangerous substances (to ingest) aren't put in cosmetics on the danger of there being children who might ingest them. And direct insertion into the blood stream could have other complications. Still though, I don't think that they would have injected it unless they knew what was going on (better than we do anyway). It sounds like a great discovery, and if it's handled safely and responsibly, it could be really cool.
First of all -- tangentially -- 'salt' is not chlorine and sodium. There are many different types of salt, including CaCl2 (used often on sidewalks and roads because it dissolves to three ions as opposed to the two of NaCl which lowers the freezing point even more, thus being more effective in de-icing).
Secondly, NaCl (standard table salt in the United States) is not composed of two 'chemicals'. Its molecular composition is that of two elements. I realize the distinction is minor but you are either misled or purposely trying to mislead by this single word 'chemical' which just *happens* to be how PEG is described. Na+ and Cl- are not chemicals. They are ions. Na+ would need to lose its positive charge to become a molecule, and Cl- would need to pair with another Cl atom before it could become Chlorine (yay for shared electrons). Cl- is not Chlorine, it is Chloride.
This is very important, because when a *chemical* is safe or unsafe, it does not usually stop being safe or unsafe unless its molecular composition is changed. Your example was talking about a molecular change. I doubt this is what happens in make-up. I find it inconceivable that making cosmetics requires a series of chemical reactions complex enough to render a harmful drug safe; you would have to have near 100% dissociation of the deadly compound, and near 100% reassociation with different atoms. A chemical is dangerous because it reacts in our body; if you have enough undissociated molecules, they will still dissolve and react, and if you have enough dissociated ions, they will still react. To make something like this safe would be very very difficult. So I would have to guess that it's just as safe as an injection as it is in make-up.
Most of my fellow responders to this post are nothing but a bunch of shit-for-brains morons. Mod me down for this, but this is a level of mass stupidity not seen since... well... okay, not since Nov 2 of 2004.
A subsidy is paid directly to the producer of a good. Think farming subsidies (to help keep American produce cheaper and competitive in the market).
Government-run insurance pays costs on the consumer side of things.
The effective difference is that subsidies affect everyone who purchases from the company, because it takes place at the root of the market. Even Canadians get cheaper gasoline in the States than they do in Canada, because the U.S. government subsidizes oil. Public insurance on the other hand would only apply to those citizens who have it, and it has nothing to do with the market price of the drug.
It would behoove you to notice the phrase "directly subsidised" and think carefully about what that means.
Wouldn't this make the Excel trademark invalid, because of prior art? I know prior art is usually a patent issue, but it seems like it would apply to trademarks too -- if a smaller company's business also depends on a brand that would have been a trademark violation, then by enforcing the trademark you are in effect actively doing what trademarks are supposed to passively stop. If it is invalid, someone should hurry up and go make a 'Word' and 'Office' -- though 'Office' for an office suite and 'Word' for a word processor seem too generic to be granted trademark for them in the first place, and even if trademarks were granted for those names I doubt that any judge would uphold them.
Someone who spells it "seperate" and missing a subject noun phrase in a subordinate clause ('at least if can trust the article') has no business talking about whether or not a "writeup" is good or bad.
Slashdot Mirror
I think some people are going to make a big deal out of "targeted advertising" on both sides of the argument; talking about how it invades privacy unnecessarily, and talking about how it's more effective if ads are targeted.
In my opinion, effective ads aren't necessarily targeted. Effective ads are entertaining. Internet ads are ignored by most people mostly because they're on the Internet to a) be informed or b) be entertained. And we expect to be informed for free in the Information Age, not have to buy the $59.99 hardcover book AdSense or DoubleClick throws at us when we look up the evolutionary history of plasmodesmata.
The other alternative is to go with the tried-and-true method: ads that entertain. If ad execs think that some cheap 2 hours worth of graphic design is going to hook us, they should re-examine past practices. People like to be entertained by ads. Heck, some people watch the superbowl just for the ads. Would it be that hard to put in, say, 6 hours, and come up with a funny comic strip-type ad? Something you might expect to see in Dilbert or Foxtrot or another geek-oriented comic? I'm willing to bet it'd have a much more positive response.
Problem: you base your argument on the assumption that 'English' takes precedent over 'Nerdish' on a nerd site.
Or was it Eric S. Raymond who illegally stole the credit card information?
The press may co-opt our sub-cultural language for their own gross-oversimplification purposes. That doesn't mean Slashdot has to follow suit.
Definition from the Jargon File:
hacker n. [originally, someone who makes furniture with an axe]
"Revolutionary" ?
It uses the same method as LED displays have for years and it's revolutionary?
I can just see it now. People chanting in the streets. This technology is so great it'll overthrow the United Nations. Maybe it was this technology that resulted in the NON!(!!) vote in France!
Let's try and keep the fanatical hyperbole to a minimum, shall we?
I don't think so.
For those of you who have forgotten, Slashdot is a blog. So is MetaFilter. So is boingboing.
FreeBSD uses scroll lock to, well, lock you into scroll mode. Then you can scroll up and down your console. Yay!
And Print Screen is useful in Windows for taking screenshots.
Due to my extensive experience involving the unusual circumstances of using a real hardware French keyboard set to US keyboard mode in a locked-down computer at XS Arena Les Halles in the Fourth Arrondissement of Paris, I can assure you that, if you already touch-type, being forced to touch-type only slows down your use of symbols that are in different places on different keyboards. The ` ~ key and the \ key on US keyboards come to mind (although the ` ~ key is usually in the same place except on some laptops like my Toshiba).
I don't find it appropriate that a moderator (apparently) would respond in this manner, complete with profanity and signs of a Messiah complex. I appreciate the complexity and balance of the Slashdot moderation mechanism, but I believe that too much potential exists for Mods with an axe to grind to use their moderation AS flamebait (okay so not technically, since its not in posting form) to lower others' karma. I think certain slashdotters really get a kick out of goading others on. If this were not the case, I suspect there would be fewer cases where people had good or excellent karma but periodic strings of -1 Flamebait (or Troll or Offtopic) ratings.
I wonder if the system would be better if it timed the duration the moderator spent on the Moderator guidelines page (which they'd be required to read before moderating, of course doing this server-side could be costly, and JavaScript is easily disabled, though it *could* be required to Moderate), or if MetaModerating were given more weight.
Apparently it's only offered to the U.S. public. I've tried both http://www.google.fr/ and http://www.google.com/ (which detects my country as France anyway), and I am not getting any offers. Perhaps it chooses IPs randomly? Not that it matters, as I already have a GMail account. Or perhaps Google just do not like the French.
Ah the petty politics of Slashdot. My karma is still excellent, whores. Just because I don't play up to your tastes.
Okay, you mofos who modded me down, you're probably all Americans who have never even been to the EU and just assumed that my joke was karma whoring. Well I just thought I'd inform you that the situation in Europe is actually quite grave; the Conseil des Ministres is going to gain even more power with the constitution that will probably be passed soon, paving the way for many more un-democratic travesties of government. Before you mod something down for being "overrated" be sure it is in fact overrated and not wistful and ironic humor that is over your heads.
Sincerely,
from Besançon, France
...laws write YOU!
...to share Ann Coulter's views and stupidity with regard to Canada...
l terCBC.html
http://homepage.mac.com/onegoodmove/movies/anncou
Like August Strindberg
Ugh. Try 32 for American music (or even popular European music, but that's not usually the RIAA).
(Goes back to listening to Zazie)
I believe in the opt out system, because in the opt in system, everyone with any creative work had to register to get any sort of protection whatsoever. This means that big well-financed companies and rich people got to protect their work, and the poor starving artist on the New York sidewalk did not. That's not copyright, and that's not democracy; that's money propagating money and it's very reminiscent of Soviet-style oligarchy.
Now for the limit of copyright. Any copyright that extends past the lifetime of the author is null and void. Period. The constitution very specifically says that copyright is to give someone exclusive rights for a limited time. If the rights are extended past the creator's life, his rights were not limited, just those of his progeny. I don't care what any court or politician says about this, they're wrong if they think that post mortem protection is legal.
The whole point is to encourage individual progress that aids society. If there is too much protectionism, society gets the shaft. Remember that ideas cannot and do not develop in a vacuum. There's a reason the French (who are predominantly Roman Catholic and who have better familial and social support structures than Americans) are almost incapable of writing a good anguished-emotion rock song (with the exception perhaps of Noir Desir) and totally unable to comprehend the abandonment leitmotiv of Emo. All of our cultural baggage contributes to our artistic creations, and as such, they all eventually should belong to the culture. Waiting a century, by which time the culture will probably have undergone several major changes, at least in the States, before the works go into the public domain is not giving back to the culture from which the works came.
I am somewhat new to FreeBSD (I've only been using it for about a year) so I dont know what the early STABLEs are usually like, but 5.x really doesnt seem to have stabilized and I'm running out of patience. I really like BSD, because the system is just overall a lot cleaner than other Freenixen that I've used, but I really think it needs to boot on my laptop without setting:
set hw.pci.enable_io_modes="0"
Setting this really bothers me mostly because I don't know what it means.
Of course, after that, inserting the kernel module for my sound card (snd_ich.ko) crashes the system...
So for now I'm (malheureusement) stuck with 4.10.
I get no response from -questions...
"My point is that life can take care of itself. If we are gone tomorrow, the Earth will not miss us....
Let's be clear. The planet is not in jeopardy.
We are in jeopardy. We haven't got the power to
destroy the planet--or to save it. Be we might
have the power to save ourselves."
-- Dr. Ian Malcolm
Chrichton, Michael. Jurassic Park. Page 369.
Erm. You did say hardlinked, right?
If they're hardlinked, rm'ing them will only decrement the reference count to the inode. There will be no deletion.
This is not bad grammar. There is nothing wrong with the syntax, other than the use of an adverb ("then") where "than" (a preposition or conjunction depending on how you look at it) should have been. This, of course, is just a spelling mistake.
..." could apply.
Semantically, it doesn't make sense, because the GPL as a license itself does not use other licenses. However, by logical elimination, you *do* understand that the alternative (introduced by "rather than") applies to the noun phrase "users" and not "the new GPL". There is no other noun to which the verb phrase (in the present progressive) "using other licenses such as
"He ain't there" is not grammatically incorrect. The syntax of this sentence breaks down using the following phrase structure rules, all of which are valid in English:
S -> [NP] + [VP]
NP -> [Pronoun]
VP -> [V] + [AdvP]
AdvP -> [Adv]
Perhaps you have an issue with the non-standard lexicon, which allows "ain't" as special case in the general contraction rules, but the lexicon is not the grammar. New words are formed far more often than new phrase structures are. They even occupy different areas of the brain (Wernicke(lexicon) and Broca(grammar)). Please note that this phonological phenomenon of removing the final consonant and changing the vowel preceding it ("ain't" started as a contraction for "am not") is not unique -- it happens in "will not" -> "won't" as well. In fact, using a 'standard' contraction rule would give you "amn't" which is against English phonological grammar.
You understood perfectly what the person was saying. You're just being an elitist snob. Next time know what "language" means, instead of being a sociolinguistic politicking arsewipe.
Hmm. Well your right, my reasoning is flawed there. I guess I was working on the unspoken assumption that dangerous substances (to ingest) aren't put in cosmetics on the danger of there being children who might ingest them. And direct insertion into the blood stream could have other complications. Still though, I don't think that they would have injected it unless they knew what was going on (better than we do anyway). It sounds like a great discovery, and if it's handled safely and responsibly, it could be really cool.
That is false.
First of all -- tangentially -- 'salt' is not chlorine and sodium. There are many different types of salt, including CaCl2 (used often on sidewalks and roads because it dissolves to three ions as opposed to the two of NaCl which lowers the freezing point even more, thus being more effective in de-icing).
Secondly, NaCl (standard table salt in the United States) is not composed of two 'chemicals'. Its molecular composition is that of two elements. I realize the distinction is minor but you are either misled or purposely trying to mislead by this single word 'chemical' which just *happens* to be how PEG is described. Na+ and Cl- are not chemicals. They are ions. Na+ would need to lose its positive charge to become a molecule, and Cl- would need to pair with another Cl atom before it could become Chlorine (yay for shared electrons). Cl- is not Chlorine, it is Chloride.
This is very important, because when a *chemical* is safe or unsafe, it does not usually stop being safe or unsafe unless its molecular composition is changed. Your example was talking about a molecular change. I doubt this is what happens in make-up. I find it inconceivable that making cosmetics requires a series of chemical reactions complex enough to render a harmful drug safe; you would have to have near 100% dissociation of the deadly compound, and near 100% reassociation with different atoms. A chemical is dangerous because it reacts in our body; if you have enough undissociated molecules, they will still dissolve and react, and if you have enough dissociated ions, they will still react. To make something like this safe would be very very difficult. So I would have to guess that it's just as safe as an injection as it is in make-up.
Most of my fellow responders to this post are nothing but a bunch of shit-for-brains morons. Mod me down for this, but this is a level of mass stupidity not seen since... well... okay, not since Nov 2 of 2004.
A subsidy is paid directly to the producer of a good. Think farming subsidies (to help keep American produce cheaper and competitive in the market).
Government-run insurance pays costs on the consumer side of things.
The effective difference is that subsidies affect everyone who purchases from the company, because it takes place at the root of the market. Even Canadians get cheaper gasoline in the States than they do in Canada, because the U.S. government subsidizes oil. Public insurance on the other hand would only apply to those citizens who have it, and it has nothing to do with the market price of the drug.
It would behoove you to notice the phrase "directly subsidised" and think carefully about what that means.
Wouldn't this make the Excel trademark invalid, because of prior art? I know prior art is usually a patent issue, but it seems like it would apply to trademarks too -- if a smaller company's business also depends on a brand that would have been a trademark violation, then by enforcing the trademark you are in effect actively doing what trademarks are supposed to passively stop. If it is invalid, someone should hurry up and go make a 'Word' and 'Office' -- though 'Office' for an office suite and 'Word' for a word processor seem too generic to be granted trademark for them in the first place, and even if trademarks were granted for those names I doubt that any judge would uphold them.
Someone who spells it "seperate" and missing a subject noun phrase in a subordinate clause ('at least if can trust the article') has no business talking about whether or not a "writeup" is good or bad.