Tsk, you shouldn't go teaching people grammar when you don't know what you're talking about either. A comma there is just entirely wrong. You want gay bee-fetishists for the second one, as it links the bee to fetishists so you have bee fetishists who are also gay.
Either way, the other post was perfectly fine. After all, as this is a board populated by nerds and geeks who are much more familiar with mathematical syntax than linguistic syntax and the entire point of language is to communicate, using the methods the targets are most familiar with is more effective.:P
Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 ("CCPA"), 47 U.S.C. 551(c)(2)(B), In re: Charter Commc'ns, Inc., Subpoena Enforcement Matter, 393 F.3d 771, 777 (8th Cir. 2005). Recording Indus. Ass'n of Am. v. Univ. of N. C. at Chapel Hill, 367 F. Supp. 2d 945, 948-49 (M.D. N.C. 2005).
You have to admit that, while possibly informative to an almost painful degree, they are exceedingly ugly and quite distracting/confusing if you don't know all the specific rules for referencing legal documents. Which I don't.
I think that may have been to rub in the point that the request was ineffably stupid. Namely, the only possible law that would ever possibly allow someone to do anything like what they wanted to do still wouldn't actually let them do it. Or something like that.
I'm not a lawyer either, I have read the article, but I honestly don't think anything you've said is wrong. Then again, the hideous legal document references were extremely distracting, so I don't think I fully understood the details like that myself. I just got the general impression that the Judge thought the RIAA's request was, in all possible interpretations, inappropriate.
He said you have to issue a take-down notice, not that you can't. His point was that the RIAA never sent any sort of a notice, so they can't subpoena the College, even when stretching the College to fit the definition of an ISP.
There's a what town?! Maybe I should go back to SecondLife for a bit to check this out. (Total steampunk fanatic here.)
Although the sad part of this, in relation to what you said, is that people now are so entrenched in needing to keep in 'normal' society that they'll settle for this virtual reality. The possibility of using this virtual world to meet and get to know other people who would want to live in a NeoVictorian/Steampunk town and plan creating a real one by working together is lost on people. It makes me kind of sad, settling for fake ideals and a real life you don't like just because you don't want to take the risk of breaking the mould.
Well, thank you for answering my question, although the implication that I was one of the "they're after the money" posts was a bit unnecessary. I really was wondering where the aforementioned money would go.:P
But then if it didn't manage all of it, people would point and say "Look, see? NASA sucks!" It's much better for them, in my opinion, to underestimate how much they'll be able to do with it. Then they're almost certain to get what they planned done, and this extra stuff is seen as a bonus.
Assuming that the Hebrews were led out of Egypt by Moses and did not appreciably disrupt Egyptian life, there are a couple other possibilities besides "Egypt didn't rely on slaves." One, the number of Hebrews that left was small enough to be inconsequential. And two, the number of slaves that the Egyptians had was so very much larger than the group Hebrews that it was again inconsequential. The existing slaves temporarily fill in for the ones who left (they're slaves, no one cares if they're horribly overworked for a while), and the Egyptians go out and catch some more to replace the escapees.
"Preliminary results show similarities between its DNA and that of Ahmose Nefertari, the wife of the founder of the 18th dynasty and a probable ancestor of Hatsephsut's."
Of course there were similarities. All Ancient Egyptian royalty was related; they usually married each others cousins and siblings. Since it was a bunch of royal mummies, they're all going to be similar.
Note to self: oversimplification of examples causes people to berate you.
So instead of looking for the sign saying "HISTORY", you look for the sign that has two numbers, between which the number for the book on your subject of choice is located. Then you scan the shelves, find the right number range, and voila. It's still just following signs, only it requires you to be able to count as well as read. Considering I can search for a book by subject and receive a number from that which leads me directly to the relevent section of the library, I still don't need to know anything about the Dewey Decimal system.
My point is, it's pretty darn easy to find things in a library if you just put a little bit of effort into looking.
I have to say, though, that I have no idea if the system for looking in periodicals is similar to normal books or not. I'm not much of a periodical person, especially since my research focuses tend to be on areas that just don't show up in any useful form in periodicals. If it's still separate like you say it was, I agree that it should be fused with the normal search engine. That's unfortunately not what the article is suggesting, though.
Just because you don't use technology for everything doesn't mean you shouldn't develop new technology at all. So maybe libraries don't take advantage of the pinnacle of technology. That'd be a really crappy reason to stop developing new computers when there are hundreds of other fields that constantly rely on them.
But I can still find the section in the library where the book WOULD have been shelved and I can go to that location to find what OTHER books are there.
That's what bugs me the most. They seem to assume that you have to know the cataloging system in order to find anything - Dewey Decimal system and whatnot - and that if you don't know the system, you're screwed. I have absolutely no clue how the Dewey Decimal system works, but I also have no problem finding things in libraries. It's not like the libraries don't actually label the sections. If you're looking for history books, it'll say "HISTORY" on the shelves. It just means you have to walk around for a bit. Not to mention they ignore the obvious solution of walking up to said librarian and asking "Excuse me, could you tell me where the history section is?" And then they tell you, and all is well.
I don't want my library to be digitalized for the masses! I like to go to the library as a place to go find real books. Yeah, doing research in a library is totally different from doing it online. Isn't that the point? And you definitely don't need to do lots of reading about how to use a library. You want to get information on a subject, you ask a librarian where you can find information about it, they tell you, you go there and you read the books. It's that simple.
And what was with that religion analogy? Someone seems a little biased, on multiple levels.
The biggest obstacles in the way of librarians teaching students are the librarians who don't want to teach, and the students who don't want to learn.
I would guess you don't actually have any experience with Facebook. I do, and maybe a few people use Facebook the way your saying, but no one I know does. No one that the people I know happen to know does either. It's a lot harder to find random people to add to your "friends" on Facebook (if that's what you want to do) than on MySpace. Not to mention that you can't even see people's profiles unless you're already on their friend list, in which case you obviously aren't going to be adding people because you like their profile. It's not exactly like MySpace, despite your obvious desire to believe so.
As for your friend, people can spread stories and lies just as successfully by sending out emails and telling their friends by phone or in person as by using Facebook. That was a problem with him, not with the site. It's not like these social networking sites have some sort of magical honesty button.
The solar panels go ON the roof. You don't make a roof out of them; that would be ridiculous.
You know all of those shiny office buildings in big cities? That's all, wonder of wonders, glass. If you can have an entire 20, 30, whatever-story building with glass exterior walls, you can put some glass on your roof.
No, I'm not a kid pissed at my parents. As a matter of fact, my parents actually did it right. I never felt the need to really hide anything from my parents, and certaintly not anything I did online.
There's nothing wrong with monitoring and supervision. As I said elsewhere in response to someone else, the defining aspect of "spying" is that the parents do it without their children's knowledge, and actively try to prevent their children from finding out. Parental supervision is not only acceptable, but important. The issue is that you shouldn't lie to your children about it and hide the fact that you're doing it.
To put it as succinctly as possible, I consider it "spying" if the parents do it specifically without their child's knowledge. It's basically the difference between sitting on a bench while keeping an eye on your kid playing in the park, and hiding behind some bushes doing the same.
Slashdot Mirror
Some books have pictures, too. But hey, they had to do something different from Gutenberg, you know?
Tsk, you shouldn't go teaching people grammar when you don't know what you're talking about either. A comma there is just entirely wrong. You want gay bee-fetishists for the second one, as it links the bee to fetishists so you have bee fetishists who are also gay.
:P
Either way, the other post was perfectly fine. After all, as this is a board populated by nerds and geeks who are much more familiar with mathematical syntax than linguistic syntax and the entire point of language is to communicate, using the methods the targets are most familiar with is more effective.
Well, since you asked... references like so:
Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 ("CCPA"), 47 U.S.C. 551(c)(2)(B),
In re: Charter Commc'ns, Inc., Subpoena Enforcement Matter, 393 F.3d 771, 777 (8th Cir. 2005).
Recording Indus. Ass'n of Am. v. Univ. of N. C. at Chapel Hill, 367 F. Supp. 2d 945, 948-49 (M.D. N.C. 2005).
You have to admit that, while possibly informative to an almost painful degree, they are exceedingly ugly and quite distracting/confusing if you don't know all the specific rules for referencing legal documents. Which I don't.
I think that may have been to rub in the point that the request was ineffably stupid. Namely, the only possible law that would ever possibly allow someone to do anything like what they wanted to do still wouldn't actually let them do it. Or something like that.
I'm not a lawyer either, I have read the article, but I honestly don't think anything you've said is wrong. Then again, the hideous legal document references were extremely distracting, so I don't think I fully understood the details like that myself. I just got the general impression that the Judge thought the RIAA's request was, in all possible interpretations, inappropriate.
He said you have to issue a take-down notice, not that you can't. His point was that the RIAA never sent any sort of a notice, so they can't subpoena the College, even when stretching the College to fit the definition of an ISP.
There's a what town?! Maybe I should go back to SecondLife for a bit to check this out. (Total steampunk fanatic here.)
Although the sad part of this, in relation to what you said, is that people now are so entrenched in needing to keep in 'normal' society that they'll settle for this virtual reality. The possibility of using this virtual world to meet and get to know other people who would want to live in a NeoVictorian/Steampunk town and plan creating a real one by working together is lost on people. It makes me kind of sad, settling for fake ideals and a real life you don't like just because you don't want to take the risk of breaking the mould.
Well, thank you for answering my question, although the implication that I was one of the "they're after the money" posts was a bit unnecessary. I really was wondering where the aforementioned money would go. :P
If they don't keep the money, then who are you saying does? It's not like it'll magically disappear.
But then if it didn't manage all of it, people would point and say "Look, see? NASA sucks!" It's much better for them, in my opinion, to underestimate how much they'll be able to do with it. Then they're almost certain to get what they planned done, and this extra stuff is seen as a bonus.
Your employer does not pay you for your code - your employer pays you for the time you spent creating the code. It's a very, very different situation.
Assuming that the Hebrews were led out of Egypt by Moses and did not appreciably disrupt Egyptian life, there are a couple other possibilities besides "Egypt didn't rely on slaves." One, the number of Hebrews that left was small enough to be inconsequential. And two, the number of slaves that the Egyptians had was so very much larger than the group Hebrews that it was again inconsequential. The existing slaves temporarily fill in for the ones who left (they're slaves, no one cares if they're horribly overworked for a while), and the Egyptians go out and catch some more to replace the escapees.
"Preliminary results show similarities between its DNA and that of Ahmose Nefertari, the wife of the founder of the 18th dynasty and a probable ancestor of Hatsephsut's."
Of course there were similarities. All Ancient Egyptian royalty was related; they usually married each others cousins and siblings. Since it was a bunch of royal mummies, they're all going to be similar.
There shouldn't really be any problem reaching that sort of speed with a steam car, but the whole thing is a bit pointless.
Of course it's pointless, that's the whole point!
Note to self: oversimplification of examples causes people to berate you.
So instead of looking for the sign saying "HISTORY", you look for the sign that has two numbers, between which the number for the book on your subject of choice is located. Then you scan the shelves, find the right number range, and voila. It's still just following signs, only it requires you to be able to count as well as read. Considering I can search for a book by subject and receive a number from that which leads me directly to the relevent section of the library, I still don't need to know anything about the Dewey Decimal system.
My point is, it's pretty darn easy to find things in a library if you just put a little bit of effort into looking.
I have to say, though, that I have no idea if the system for looking in periodicals is similar to normal books or not. I'm not much of a periodical person, especially since my research focuses tend to be on areas that just don't show up in any useful form in periodicals. If it's still separate like you say it was, I agree that it should be fused with the normal search engine. That's unfortunately not what the article is suggesting, though.
Just because you don't use technology for everything doesn't mean you shouldn't develop new technology at all. So maybe libraries don't take advantage of the pinnacle of technology. That'd be a really crappy reason to stop developing new computers when there are hundreds of other fields that constantly rely on them.
But I can still find the section in the library where the book WOULD have been shelved and I can go to that location to find what OTHER books are there.
That's what bugs me the most. They seem to assume that you have to know the cataloging system in order to find anything - Dewey Decimal system and whatnot - and that if you don't know the system, you're screwed. I have absolutely no clue how the Dewey Decimal system works, but I also have no problem finding things in libraries. It's not like the libraries don't actually label the sections. If you're looking for history books, it'll say "HISTORY" on the shelves. It just means you have to walk around for a bit. Not to mention they ignore the obvious solution of walking up to said librarian and asking "Excuse me, could you tell me where the history section is?" And then they tell you, and all is well.
I don't want my library to be digitalized for the masses! I like to go to the library as a place to go find real books. Yeah, doing research in a library is totally different from doing it online. Isn't that the point? And you definitely don't need to do lots of reading about how to use a library. You want to get information on a subject, you ask a librarian where you can find information about it, they tell you, you go there and you read the books. It's that simple.
And what was with that religion analogy? Someone seems a little biased, on multiple levels.
The biggest obstacles in the way of librarians teaching students are the librarians who don't want to teach, and the students who don't want to learn.
I would guess you don't actually have any experience with Facebook. I do, and maybe a few people use Facebook the way your saying, but no one I know does. No one that the people I know happen to know does either. It's a lot harder to find random people to add to your "friends" on Facebook (if that's what you want to do) than on MySpace. Not to mention that you can't even see people's profiles unless you're already on their friend list, in which case you obviously aren't going to be adding people because you like their profile. It's not exactly like MySpace, despite your obvious desire to believe so.
As for your friend, people can spread stories and lies just as successfully by sending out emails and telling their friends by phone or in person as by using Facebook. That was a problem with him, not with the site. It's not like these social networking sites have some sort of magical honesty button.
That's funny. You know that SoundExchange is the one taking the money here, and that they're not a part of the government, right? Right?
Besides, the whole point of the idea of "democracy" is to let people complain about the government. We can complain all we want. Nyaaaah.
The solar panels go ON the roof. You don't make a roof out of them; that would be ridiculous.
You know all of those shiny office buildings in big cities? That's all, wonder of wonders, glass. If you can have an entire 20, 30, whatever-story building with glass exterior walls, you can put some glass on your roof.
Seriously? Even I've seen Austin Powers.
Yeah this is kind of late, but whatever.
No, I'm not a kid pissed at my parents. As a matter of fact, my parents actually did it right. I never felt the need to really hide anything from my parents, and certaintly not anything I did online.
There's nothing wrong with monitoring and supervision. As I said elsewhere in response to someone else, the defining aspect of "spying" is that the parents do it without their children's knowledge, and actively try to prevent their children from finding out. Parental supervision is not only acceptable, but important. The issue is that you shouldn't lie to your children about it and hide the fact that you're doing it.
To put it as succinctly as possible, I consider it "spying" if the parents do it specifically without their child's knowledge. It's basically the difference between sitting on a bench while keeping an eye on your kid playing in the park, and hiding behind some bushes doing the same.
So long as kids know the rules, know they are being watched, then there's absolutely nothing wrong with it.
I agree 100%. The biggest problem these days with the internet and so-on is that the parents don't tell their kids that they're being watched.