That's horseshit. I lived in Boston for nearly ten years, and Buckner was a frequent guest on tv and radio sports programs. Sox fans recognize he wasn't the only one responsible for that loss. Schiraldi and Stanley get the bulk of the blame (as they deserved) -- it's primarily the rest of the world that improperly place it on Buckner.
Moreover, Buckner didn't leave Boston because of abuse. He left because he was traded to the Angels. He wasn't even *from* Boston. And he moved to Idaho when he retired, not Canada.
I don't know what dictionary you're looking at. That's the noun definition. The adjective is "not likely to provoke dissent or offense; uncontentious or inoffensive, often deliberately so."
I disagree. Most Sox fans I know (and having lived in Boston for a long time, I know many) have terrors over the Stanley wild pitch (which was really what cost them the game). Buckner gets a lot of slack in New England. It's mainly the rest of the country that harps on that play.
Buckner got a bad rap. The game was shot when Stanley threw the wild pitch. The Sox squandered a two-run lead in extra innings at field where they didn't have home-field advantage -- always a good recipe for a loss. Buckner, after all, didn't give up the three hits and two runs that got the Sox in that situation to begin with.
Moreover, most people don't remember how much Buckner did to help the Sox make the postseason in the first place.
There's a hill in the Warner Parks in Nashville, TN where you used to be able to park your car, put it in neutral and (so it appeared) you would roll uphill. Unfortunately the road closed years ago. You can reproduce the illusion on a bike, but it's not nearly as impressive.
I dunno -- I think it's pretty easy to find quality content on, say, YouTube -- just rank your searches by vote. Until someone writes an algorithm that can suss out "quality" (a somewhat subjective term, don't you think), I'd say the 2.0 approach is a pretty good one.
Since when does having friends have anything to do with getting a myspace add? Where I come from, a friend amounts to more than a hit on a counter. Talk about nerdy.
So much for bringing an alternate view to a Slashdot discussion. Look, my degree was in history. But I didn't let that get in the way of getting a broad education. I took a couple of seminars to do something apparently a few of people here never cared to do: to actually find out what was going on in other fields. And what I found was that while there were no shortage of nutcases, there were also a lot of provocative questions that weren't as easy to answer as you might think. Yeah, I know there are plenty of people in the humanities who are fools, but that doesn't mean I'm just going to toss out everything that doesn't involve a proof. A little real curiosity would show you that for every Susan Sontag, there is also a Terry Eagleton.
I really can't get over the transparent attempt that's been made by three people now to condemn me soley on the fact that I said a forbidden word, but as yet no one has bothered to address what I actually wrote. That's akin to ad hominem argumentation, and it's pretty disappointing, even for Slashdot. As for classing lit-crit with ID, you do realize that lit-crit is a rubric that encompasses a great many theories -- some with merit and some without. We're talking about over a hundred years worth of writers in a broad range of humanities, a great many of whom are hardly dopes (call Robert Penn Warren a dope if you must, but I'd rather have dinner with him than you) Moreover, many of the more successful of these theories are so ingrained in our culture that people here -- yes *here* -- often echo their arguments without even being aware of it.
And therein lies the big difference between ID and lit-crit: the former is a dumb idea that is easily understood and easily shot down. The latter is merely stereotyped and dismissed by supposedly intellectually curious people who ought to know better.
Why should I respond to someone who comes to me with a condescending, preconceived stereotype of who I am, who my teachers were, and of the topic at hand? I posted something I thought about a great deal and I get a snotty third-grade rejoinder that misses the point by a mile and a half. More or less the same as you are doing with "go back to your post-modern deconstructionist class," which has about as much to do with what I was talking about as fission does with evolution.
I'd be happy to have a discussion, but I'm not going to have one with people as asinine as you and the previous poster. It's that simple.
When I was in grad school, I took a few seminars in lit-crit, and one of the things that was constantly driven home was that bias is built into language such that even statements of fact revealed it. For example, if I say that the night sky is black, there are all sorts of connotations that go along with "black." Ask yourself how you would line up the dichotomies black : white, feminine : masculine, strong : weak, light : dark, good : evil.
This was deep stuff back then. Now these notions are more or less ingrained in our culture. But they still often go unexamined. My "fact" above is a pretty abstract example, so here's a more concrete one: "Walmart forces its suppliers to open their books to Walmart execs." That's a fact (or was a couple years ago), but the word "forces" shows a measure of bias. There are other ways I could phrase it: "Suppliers are compelled to open their books to Walmart execs." See? Passive voice removes Walmart as the bad guy, and "compelled" is a less violent word than forced.
So which one is right? They both say the same thing, but they also both say a lot more. Now to Wikipedia: printed encyclopedias have this sort of bias as well, but the bias is filtered through a consistent editorial viewpoint -- that is to say, there is an individual who is responsible for the whole thing and can defend the choices he/she made. Wikipedia, on the other hand, has at best a loose editorial filter -- the choices are made by zillions of people, and person A cannot necessarily be called upon to defend choices made by person B.
On the one hand, this means the bias on the whole tends to reflect predominant cultural biases. On the other hand, it means that Wikipedia will always be in flux. But I guess that's the point, isn't it?
Whether this is good or bad, I'm not sure, but anyone who thinks that Wikipedia is driving toward an authoritative end needs to disabuse themselves of that notion right away.
Dude, you're insane. You talk about market forces like they're some quirk that businesses need to circumvent. Moreover, you're failing to distinguish between the subject at hand -- namely equality of packets, and schemes for buying volume. Capping bandwidth and offering levels of service to users is totally different than what everyone else here is talking about.
And one more thing: you're also snotty and rude. Reading one mathematician's paper doesn't make you an expert. His opinions have value, but they're not "proof," they're an argument -- one which you weild like an eleven-year old with an AK-47. I'm done with this "conversation." Fact is, it would take me too long to iterate over the basic factual errors you make to even get to the core of what you're saying (e.g. You can easily get flat phone rates, you can pay a lawyer on retainer, and depending on where you live, flat water rates are also available).
So the final word is yours. Take it and spew some more of the bilious crap you've been spewing. Better yet, put that "panicky pussies" bit in your business plan and see how it flies. Just don't have the nerve to tell us Google doesn't pay out the ass for bandwidth.
That's horseshit. Show me the clause in any ISP agreement that defines "overuse." If I buy unlimited access, which is exactly what the majors have been hawking for years now, the company selling it to me hardly has cause to complain if I use it more than they'd prefer. Hope is not a business plan.
How about this: Repubs frequently harp on the importance of small businesses to the U.S. economy. But this would act like a massive tax on small businesses, who would have to pay or be throttled out of the market.
Think about it: the Internet boom was a result of cheap access to a new medium. Take that away and you think it will do the economy good?
1) Let's say you have five local options. That means you're going to wind up with five versions of the Internet. One may throttle a sports site you like but they don't throttle a political site you like. So you switch, only to find the situation reversed. Imagine if electricity worked like this: go to one company and you can use your TV, but not your washing machine. Go to a different company and the washing machine works, but not the TV.
2) Removal of local monopolies is pie in the sky. These companies own the copper, and the only people that can pry it out of their hands is Congress. How long has it been since Congress last had the cojones to split up a big monopoly? 24 years ago. There's not even any movement to split up the local monopolies -- quite the contrary: they just keep getting more and more monopolistic.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, the location in Nashville is also called Gravity Hill. Very original, yes?
Well, i for my part didnt even feel the motivation to click on that link.
But somehow you found the motivation to do something far more time-consuming: bitch about it.That's horseshit. I lived in Boston for nearly ten years, and Buckner was a frequent guest on tv and radio sports programs. Sox fans recognize he wasn't the only one responsible for that loss. Schiraldi and Stanley get the bulk of the blame (as they deserved) -- it's primarily the rest of the world that improperly place it on Buckner.
Moreover, Buckner didn't leave Boston because of abuse. He left because he was traded to the Angels. He wasn't even *from* Boston. And he moved to Idaho when he retired, not Canada.
I don't know what dictionary you're looking at. That's the noun definition. The adjective is "not likely to provoke dissent or offense; uncontentious or inoffensive, often deliberately so."
I disagree. Most Sox fans I know (and having lived in Boston for a long time, I know many) have terrors over the Stanley wild pitch (which was really what cost them the game). Buckner gets a lot of slack in New England. It's mainly the rest of the country that harps on that play.
Buckner got a bad rap. The game was shot when Stanley threw the wild pitch. The Sox squandered a two-run lead in extra innings at field where they didn't have home-field advantage -- always a good recipe for a loss. Buckner, after all, didn't give up the three hits and two runs that got the Sox in that situation to begin with.
Moreover, most people don't remember how much Buckner did to help the Sox make the postseason in the first place.
There's a hill in the Warner Parks in Nashville, TN where you used to be able to park your car, put it in neutral and (so it appeared) you would roll uphill. Unfortunately the road closed years ago. You can reproduce the illusion on a bike, but it's not nearly as impressive.
all the websites on myspace look like crap
Jesus, you looked at *every single one of them???*I dunno -- I think it's pretty easy to find quality content on, say, YouTube -- just rank your searches by vote. Until someone writes an algorithm that can suss out "quality" (a somewhat subjective term, don't you think), I'd say the 2.0 approach is a pretty good one.
Since when does having friends have anything to do with getting a myspace add? Where I come from, a friend amounts to more than a hit on a counter. Talk about nerdy.
"Script" is a term programmers use to demean programmers working in different languages.
Is that really such a bad thing? I got my start programming when I was about ten -- copying games programs out of computer magazines.
Yet again my argument is bypassed in favor of cheap stereotyping.
To a physicist, a black hole is black and yet it radiates energy. Hmm... A physicist using language metaphorically -- imagine that!
So much for bringing an alternate view to a Slashdot discussion. Look, my degree was in history. But I didn't let that get in the way of getting a broad education. I took a couple of seminars to do something apparently a few of people here never cared to do: to actually find out what was going on in other fields. And what I found was that while there were no shortage of nutcases, there were also a lot of provocative questions that weren't as easy to answer as you might think. Yeah, I know there are plenty of people in the humanities who are fools, but that doesn't mean I'm just going to toss out everything that doesn't involve a proof. A little real curiosity would show you that for every Susan Sontag, there is also a Terry Eagleton.
I really can't get over the transparent attempt that's been made by three people now to condemn me soley on the fact that I said a forbidden word, but as yet no one has bothered to address what I actually wrote. That's akin to ad hominem argumentation, and it's pretty disappointing, even for Slashdot. As for classing lit-crit with ID, you do realize that lit-crit is a rubric that encompasses a great many theories -- some with merit and some without. We're talking about over a hundred years worth of writers in a broad range of humanities, a great many of whom are hardly dopes (call Robert Penn Warren a dope if you must, but I'd rather have dinner with him than you) Moreover, many of the more successful of these theories are so ingrained in our culture that people here -- yes *here* -- often echo their arguments without even being aware of it.
And therein lies the big difference between ID and lit-crit: the former is a dumb idea that is easily understood and easily shot down. The latter is merely stereotyped and dismissed by supposedly intellectually curious people who ought to know better.
What a waste of space you are.
Why should I respond to someone who comes to me with a condescending, preconceived stereotype of who I am, who my teachers were, and of the topic at hand? I posted something I thought about a great deal and I get a snotty third-grade rejoinder that misses the point by a mile and a half. More or less the same as you are doing with "go back to your post-modern deconstructionist class," which has about as much to do with what I was talking about as fission does with evolution.
I'd be happy to have a discussion, but I'm not going to have one with people as asinine as you and the previous poster. It's that simple.
That may be the most ignorant thing I've ever read on Slashdot. You really ought to think a little bit before you spew your knee-jerk crap.
When I was in grad school, I took a few seminars in lit-crit, and one of the things that was constantly driven home was that bias is built into language such that even statements of fact revealed it. For example, if I say that the night sky is black, there are all sorts of connotations that go along with "black." Ask yourself how you would line up the dichotomies black : white, feminine : masculine, strong : weak, light : dark, good : evil.
This was deep stuff back then. Now these notions are more or less ingrained in our culture. But they still often go unexamined. My "fact" above is a pretty abstract example, so here's a more concrete one: "Walmart forces its suppliers to open their books to Walmart execs." That's a fact (or was a couple years ago), but the word "forces" shows a measure of bias. There are other ways I could phrase it: "Suppliers are compelled to open their books to Walmart execs." See? Passive voice removes Walmart as the bad guy, and "compelled" is a less violent word than forced.
So which one is right? They both say the same thing, but they also both say a lot more. Now to Wikipedia: printed encyclopedias have this sort of bias as well, but the bias is filtered through a consistent editorial viewpoint -- that is to say, there is an individual who is responsible for the whole thing and can defend the choices he/she made. Wikipedia, on the other hand, has at best a loose editorial filter -- the choices are made by zillions of people, and person A cannot necessarily be called upon to defend choices made by person B.
On the one hand, this means the bias on the whole tends to reflect predominant cultural biases. On the other hand, it means that Wikipedia will always be in flux. But I guess that's the point, isn't it?
Whether this is good or bad, I'm not sure, but anyone who thinks that Wikipedia is driving toward an authoritative end needs to disabuse themselves of that notion right away.
You know what's funny to me? The only time I ever hear the phrase "Web 2.0" anymore is when someone is bitching about the hype.
Dude, you're insane. You talk about market forces like they're some quirk that businesses need to circumvent. Moreover, you're failing to distinguish between the subject at hand -- namely equality of packets, and schemes for buying volume. Capping bandwidth and offering levels of service to users is totally different than what everyone else here is talking about.
And one more thing: you're also snotty and rude. Reading one mathematician's paper doesn't make you an expert. His opinions have value, but they're not "proof," they're an argument -- one which you weild like an eleven-year old with an AK-47. I'm done with this "conversation." Fact is, it would take me too long to iterate over the basic factual errors you make to even get to the core of what you're saying (e.g. You can easily get flat phone rates, you can pay a lawyer on retainer, and depending on where you live, flat water rates are also available).
So the final word is yours. Take it and spew some more of the bilious crap you've been spewing. Better yet, put that "panicky pussies" bit in your business plan and see how it flies. Just don't have the nerve to tell us Google doesn't pay out the ass for bandwidth.
That's horseshit. Show me the clause in any ISP agreement that defines "overuse." If I buy unlimited access, which is exactly what the majors have been hawking for years now, the company selling it to me hardly has cause to complain if I use it more than they'd prefer. Hope is not a business plan.
a) You're damn right it is. How many Slashdotters do you think there are?
b) Since when are all Slashdot users also Linux users.
How about this: Repubs frequently harp on the importance of small businesses to the U.S. economy. But this would act like a massive tax on small businesses, who would have to pay or be throttled out of the market.
Think about it: the Internet boom was a result of cheap access to a new medium. Take that away and you think it will do the economy good?
A correction: I meant the Justice department, not Congress.
A couple problems with that:
1) Let's say you have five local options. That means you're going to wind up with five versions of the Internet. One may throttle a sports site you like but they don't throttle a political site you like. So you switch, only to find the situation reversed. Imagine if electricity worked like this: go to one company and you can use your TV, but not your washing machine. Go to a different company and the washing machine works, but not the TV.
2) Removal of local monopolies is pie in the sky. These companies own the copper, and the only people that can pry it out of their hands is Congress. How long has it been since Congress last had the cojones to split up a big monopoly? 24 years ago. There's not even any movement to split up the local monopolies -- quite the contrary: they just keep getting more and more monopolistic.