You should rephrase the first one as, "EVERYONE knows that people in the past thought the Earth was flat," since it really wasn't a very widely-held belief at all.
It is a rhetorical device used to imply that sufficient evidence has already been presented to prove a point, but that further evidence exists, thus strengthening an argument.
If there is a proof simple enough to be checked by humans, it is difficult enough to find that no one was able to find it before computers found the current proof, and that no one has been able to find it with computer assistance and knowledge of a working proof. Given that it has already been proved, and that there are not really any far-reaching implications of the proof other than the curiosity of trusting computers, why would people continue to exert sufficient effort to find a simpler proof which may or may not exist?
The phrase "higher evolutionary step" itself is contradictory, assigning a value judgement to a non-human process. Evolution does not go "forward" or "backward": it just goes.
Re:Al Queda, witches, devil worshippers, and gangs
on
Gangs on the Internet
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Both words mean something else in popular parlance, and that's all there is to it.
"Witches" in common parlance refers to mythological people who sign a compact with the Christian Satan. Seeing as these people do not exist, it seems pretty ridiculous to talk about them. Furthermore, the Christian notion that there are a significant number of devil-worshippers who are in league with him to oppose the works of Christ is equally ludicrous. To talk of these groups as threats is to reveal one's ignorance. He might as well speak about the dangers of roaming Lilu.
This sort of "implied libel" is far too subjective to meet a preponderance of the evidence. There are more obvious and plausible reasons for eBay's actions.
If language were written phonetically, i.e., using symbols to represent the sounds people produce when saying a word, accents would be reflected in spelling. For example, a person with a non-rhotic accent, like a Bostonian, would spell "chowder" (if it were something like "chauder" in Standard American English reformed spelling) as "chauda." What we want is a unified system of spelling, like a phonemic system, where the underlying abstraction of sounds are represented regardless of what sound a speaker actually produces. Non-rhotic speakers aren't using a different vocabulary where words don't in "r," but instead they pronounce final "r" like "a."
English has a number of redundant and often arbitrary morphology conventions that easily obscure the spelling of morphemes to the point where I don't think that spelling reform is going to make a large difference. Besides, roots with the same semantic meanings are borrowed from different languages: spelling reform has nothing to do with realizing that hydrology is an aquatic study. However, literacy in any language would be a nightmare to learn phonetically, which is why any spelling reform should be phonemic.
And let's be honest, if you recognize the shared root between docent, docile, doctor, and indoctrination, you probably already know what all those words mean in the first place. Also, consider that the predominant use of the word "doctor" today has nothing to do with teaching.
What has spelling got to do with thinking? Some great writers are poor spellers, and some poor spellers are great writers. If any American stereotype is being fulfilled here, it is that they are loud and opinionated despite being ill-informed (assuming that you are American).
Hint: "ally of convenience" and "support" are two entirely different things.
Even with Pol Pot? Supporting one genocidal dictator against another is one thing, I'll grant you that. But supporting the return of a genocidal dictator to power is inexcusable
You kind of messed up there and named two dictators whom the U.S. has supported: Stalin and Pol Pot. You also forgot Suharto and Hussein. Who are the "you guys" to whom you derisively refer, anyway? Opponents of state-sponsored terror? Is opposing state-sponsored terror somehow outdated in 2006? Please clue me in.
Once you decide that you're going to create a device to kill a man, then the morality of HOW you do it is very negligible.
Bombs and bullets don't kill randomly kill innocent people in a country during peacetime. Well, unexploded bombs do, but that's why we have an obligation to make sure that they explode, or to remove them after the war is over.
To clarify: are you claiming that this isn't a violation of civil liberties, or are you claiming that civil liberties are unimportant? It's hard to tell from your post.
Although I'm sure realism is what they're aiming for, there's no reasons games should always strive to look realistic. Metropolis was hardly "starkly real," but it wouldn't have been nearly as good of a film otherwise.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey man, deposing the elected leader of Iran and replacing him with a dictator is one thing, but messing with his blog is unacceptable!
If one wants to be nitpicky about "stealing ideas," then both Windows Search and Spotlight are stolen from BeOS.
Perhaps the disappointment is just that it turned out to be a godawful small affair.
You should rephrase the first one as, "EVERYONE knows that people in the past thought the Earth was flat," since it really wasn't a very widely-held belief at all.
It is a rhetorical device used to imply that sufficient evidence has already been presented to prove a point, but that further evidence exists, thus strengthening an argument.
If there is a proof simple enough to be checked by humans, it is difficult enough to find that no one was able to find it before computers found the current proof, and that no one has been able to find it with computer assistance and knowledge of a working proof. Given that it has already been proved, and that there are not really any far-reaching implications of the proof other than the curiosity of trusting computers, why would people continue to exert sufficient effort to find a simpler proof which may or may not exist?
People can prove the four color theorem, too, but we never will.
First the U.S. doesn't respect the rights of brown people, and now we don't respect the dignity of little green men!
The phrase "higher evolutionary step" itself is contradictory, assigning a value judgement to a non-human process. Evolution does not go "forward" or "backward": it just goes.
This doesn't work well even with regular DVDs. Ever think of Macrovision?
This sort of "implied libel" is far too subjective to meet a preponderance of the evidence. There are more obvious and plausible reasons for eBay's actions.
IANAL, by the way, but only with people I really like.
If language were written phonetically, i.e., using symbols to represent the sounds people produce when saying a word, accents would be reflected in spelling. For example, a person with a non-rhotic accent, like a Bostonian, would spell "chowder" (if it were something like "chauder" in Standard American English reformed spelling) as "chauda." What we want is a unified system of spelling, like a phonemic system, where the underlying abstraction of sounds are represented regardless of what sound a speaker actually produces. Non-rhotic speakers aren't using a different vocabulary where words don't in "r," but instead they pronounce final "r" like "a."
My point was that "hydro" and "aqua" don't like any more similar to each other than "haidro" and "akwa" do.
And let's be honest, if you recognize the shared root between docent, docile, doctor, and indoctrination, you probably already know what all those words mean in the first place. Also, consider that the predominant use of the word "doctor" today has nothing to do with teaching.
What has spelling got to do with thinking? Some great writers are poor spellers, and some poor spellers are great writers. If any American stereotype is being fulfilled here, it is that they are loud and opinionated despite being ill-informed (assuming that you are American).
You kind of messed up there and named two dictators whom the U.S. has supported: Stalin and Pol Pot. You also forgot Suharto and Hussein. Who are the "you guys" to whom you derisively refer, anyway? Opponents of state-sponsored terror? Is opposing state-sponsored terror somehow outdated in 2006? Please clue me in.
To clarify: are you claiming that this isn't a violation of civil liberties, or are you claiming that civil liberties are unimportant? It's hard to tell from your post.
It's a good thing that every government in the world is legitimate, then!
I think it was a pretty decent movie that just got beaten mercilessly into the ground by some rather retarded fans.
Although I'm sure realism is what they're aiming for, there's no reasons games should always strive to look realistic. Metropolis was hardly "starkly real," but it wouldn't have been nearly as good of a film otherwise.