That doesn't mean the French don't use them in every day speech.
I've seen French videos and French TV where you'll hear random English words interspersed within casual language. Though it was a while back, I've seen the word "cool" used fairly often.
But the funniest thing was watching a debate on French TV degenerate into an argument. One guy stodd up and very clearly screamed "Shut up!" in a French accent. It was quite strange, but amusing.
It appears that "slough" pronounced "sloo" and "slough" pronounced "sluf" are the true originals. They also have very different meanings. I'll admit that personally, I have never seen the "sloo" meaning used in text.
I'll make a note that if I ever have to use the "sloo" version of "slough", to make sure not to use "slew" or "slue" instead.
Bleh. That's terrible. You can bet it all came from people who were too lazy to learn to spell correctly. *ducks*
Rather than letting a piece of art succeed or fail on its own, they decide what goes to market, and they generally only bet on a sure thing.
Somehow I don't think Britney Spears has a problem getting her checks. Little guys with no weight to throw around, yet create original, creative art get shafted. Because the RIAA has no way to ensure a certain level of profitability for small clients. That's why it sucks. They've got the big dogs that rake in money for them, they don't need to take care of the little guys.
It would be nice if one the recording companies pulled a Jerry Maguire.
btw, forgive me if I'm wrong but I don't remember any of this hubbub over mixtapes. What happened?
I also could be wrong, but I thought that was deemed "okay", since it's not an "exact copy". I.e. each copy of an analog magnetic tape degrades the quality a little, so it can't just be endlessly chain-copied.
So we're supposed to accept DRM because they somehow feel entitled to our money? Oxygen is freely available too. If it were't, someone would be charging for it. That doesn't mean that some chemical company is entitled to a subsidy, tax, or other business structure to prop up their failing business because no-one is willing to pay for their freely-available Oxygen product.
That's not a valid analogy for 2 reasons: 1) No one has to work to produce oxygen. 2) Music, videos, art, etc. are not biological necessities for human life. Entertainment is a luxury, not a right.
Furthermore, the **AA's might be evil, corrupt megacorporations, but they do provide a valuable service: The make sure the consumers know about new media. And they make sure that artists get paid. Granted, they don't do it like we wish they would. Rather than letting a piece of art succeed or fail on its own, they decide what goes to market, and they generally only bet on a sure thing. Which stifles creativity and originality.
But someone's got to do the job. It's a lot of work to have to self-promote on top of the effort of producing quality media. So even if the actual **AA organizations disappear, a similar role, hopefully less corrupted, must be fulfilled by someone else.
Indeed. It comes as no surprise to me, though I am far from the typical modern "Christian", that people use the Bible for their own interests. Like any sufficiently complicated text, with careful quoting and paraphrasing it can be made to say just about anything you want.
In any case, I've always considered it a good guide to look in the New Testament, at the letters from Paul to the gentile churches, to see what is supposed to apply to gentiles as opposed to the Jews. Homosexuality is one thing that is addressed there. But that, of course, doesn't justify lobbying to force everyone to submit to what I believe is right or wrong. There's nothing in the Bible about Jesus organizing protests or picket lines or lobbying for change in the government or anything like that. People are going to do what they want to do. If they don't believe like I do, then I've got no basis from which to tell them what they should and shouldn't do. Unless it's something like murder that is very obviously harmful to society in general.
But alas, I know many Christians do not see things this way. Which is a terrible shame. The oppresive fundamentalists (yes, there are non-oppresive ones) have lost half of the teachings of Jesus they supposedly hold dear. He taught compassion for all, not just for those who agree with you. I may not agree with what someone does, but that doesn't mean I'm going to yell condemnation on the streetcorner or lobby to make their actions criminal.
Sorry, my brain skipped right past the parentheses.
In any case, it sounds like there's still a difference, which I think is fairly significant. I don't think any churches in the U.S. get any tax money from the government. They are exempt from paying most types of taxes (maybe all, I'm not sure about things like property tax). Any religion can qualify for this, but I'm not sure what the government standard is for distinguishing a religious organization from other types of organization.
This does result in the religious sphere behaving according to certain economic principles. I, personally, don't think this is a good thing, because it leads to the same shady dealings that occur in the business sector. The goal of the church becomes growth, expanding their "customer-base", pulling in more money. At a certain tipping-point, it begins to seriously distract from the original motive of many churches, which was simply to be facilitate a gathering of like-minded people to share their philosophy. But it's also one of those things that I don't think can be avoided without stepping on people's freedoms.
I deal with it by participating in a non-growth-oriented church. =)
If we allow arguments with no supporting evidence, we HAVE NO BASIS for discussion.
Absolutely. Which is why any truly scientifically minded person will not try to discuss any religion or philosophy in scientific terms. It doesn't work. Anyone trying to convince you you're wrong about God is going to be wasting his time. Just like you're wasting your time trying to convince anyone else they are wrong about God.
What I really find intellectually dishonest is that even those people do not take all of the bible literally, just some of the popular extracts. Most eat pork, travel on the Sabbath (regardless of wether it is Saturday or Sunday), don't free their slaves after 7 years, and (non-nation-level) smiting of others for minor infractions is also somewhat out of favour.
Well, considering it is explicitly stated inthe Bible that your examples there were Hebrew laws which were 1) not meant for all humanity, and 2) taken to ridiculous extremes by lawyers (Pharisees) obsessed with tradition, authority, and constantly looking for loopholes, I don't see this as intellectually dishonest on the part of Christians.
Contrast this with the Qur'an, where war is itself glorified and Allah demands a perfection which can only be obtained in jihad.
While I agree with your criticism of the O.P., this comment is just as much of a strawman argument. I've never personally met a Muslim who really thought that way. There are millions of Muslims the world over mourning the fact that the image much of the world has of them was decided by a bunch of homicidal nuts who hate "infidels". It's just as much a tragedy as the "funamentalist" slander being applied to non-extremist Christianity.
The worst thing is that they think twelve warring theocratic tribes of illiterate sheepherders represent the model for an ideal civilization.
I have never, ever, in my life, heard any Christian say anything of the sort. Even among fundies. (Which is not to say that no one does, just that it's not at all common, let alone universal.) And the fact that you make this "observation" just shows that you don't know anything about what you are criticizing.
Sorry to ruin your flame, but anyone who has any familiarity with scripture would not think that. It's very clearly stated over and over and over again in scripture that the Hebrews in the Old Testament screwed up royally, and every time they were given the opportunity to fix things, they screwed up even worse the next time.
Most any Christian will tell you that the picture of the Hebrews presented in the Old Testament is, if anything, a great example of exactly what not to do.
I could care less whether you think it's all baloney or not. I could also care less if you flame millions of people for their beliefs. But if you are going to flame millions of people for their beliefs, make sure you actually know what they really believe first. Only the ignorant attempt to criticize without first making sure they have their facts straight.
Well, my ultimate goal is to move on to the next class, not to get the highest grade possible.
If I'm smart enough to get 100% for myself, that doesn't mean I trust the other people in the class are smart enough to average out to a good grade on my behalf. So rather than slacking off, I might work hard to ensure that my 100% contributes to the grade I get, ensuring that I move on to the next level of classes. This would be the best way to use the system, if there were absolutely nothing you could do about it.
But there still exists a problem. Some people will work hard and bear the bulk of the labor (or "carry" the class to use a pro sports term). And some will not work very hard and get pulled along to rewards anyway. In short, the reward system is unfair.
The problem is that people do not like unfair rewards. And people in this system who work hard will see that they are being under-rewarded and others are being over-rewarded. They will then work to eliminate this unfairness. In an educational setting, this means transferring to a better professor (or school). In a business setting, it means finding another job. In a political setting, it usually means ousting the leaders and installing a meritocracy.
Of course this doesn't mean there shouldn't be a welfare system for the elderly or mentally disabled. It also doesn't mean there shouldn't be some sort of assistance program for the unfortunate, but able. In an educational setting, students having trouble should have tutoring services and probational enrollment available. This helps them to work through the tough spots and get their own rewards. In a business setting, this can equate to assigning mentors for new hires, to get them through the rough waters of entering a new job. In a political setting, this might mean providing no-condition government employment for people down on their luck, but still able to do some sort of work (not necessarily manual labor). Come in and do some work, and we'll pay you for it. Don't come in, or don't fulfill the requirements, you don't get paid. Disabled, but still mentally able, or partially physically able? Maybe we can send you some paperwork to do from home. The pay may not be great, and the work might not be "stimulating", but at least they would be earning their own money.
Did you completely miss the following sentence in the grandparent's post?
But to defend against a company that is nothing but a patent lawsuit factory (Eolas), you need actual patent reform.
His statement about mutually assured destruction was valid. Within the restrictions of the ridiculous US software patent system, it's one of very few prudent options.
That sucks. And it is, as the grandparent indicated, exactly why we need reform.
Thanks for the info.
It would be hard to make that mistake in my home city because every place is labeled clearly on the sign as a gyro place. I'd never even heard the word doner till I read this thread.
So that's the thing they cut gyro meat from then? Wasn't aware they had a special name for it. Is it actually a Greek word? Is it actually pronounced like "donor"?
I would remedy your unjust trolling, philbowman, but alas I already posted in this thread. Hopefully my post here will draw the attention of another modder and you will get at least a +1 Interesting.
"Cheque" is largely a British spelling. I've seldom seen an American bank call it anything other than a "check".
I would guess that Traveller's Cheques are so-called because they are largely used for international purposes, and America is in the minority in our spelling. For example, in French, the word is "cheque" as well. I would guess the other Romance Languages would likely be the same.
Indeed, there may be an argument to be made that since solar energy heats up the earth naturally, that at least any heat byproducts of using solar energy (are there CO2 byproducts as well?) would not go toward any sort of global warming that on top of natural warming.
Actually, there were an astounding number of girls there. And a lot of them were, contrary to the stereotype, quite good-looking. Though that could be because many were dressed appropriately for a symphony concert.
Some of them, I'm sure, were FF fans themselves. But I guarantee there were a lot of girls who came because of their boyfriends.
I drove down from La Crosse, WI to see the concert, and loved it. The reviewer captures the significance of the event that I'm sure just about every one in attendance was feeling. It was truly a surreal, but thoroughly enjoyable experience.
It was an awesome experience. I recommend anyone who likes the music to try to attend one of these concerts. And make sure to share it with a few friends if you can.
You can be sure that if The Black Mages play a show within 500 miles of me, I'll be there.
The series as a whole maybe, but that does not apply to the games themselves. Name one FF game that was simultaneously released for more than one system. Note that even the collections of old SNES games that were re-released were still only released for PS1.
this is 10 times worst than when RARE went to MS
This is not Square going to MS. This is just one guy, who was far from embodying the spirit of FF, except maybe in the first few games, where he was both planner and director. Anyway, this guy did have a hand in capturing the hearts of millions of Japanese gamers, and so MS's motivation is quite clear. You've got to hand to them, this is an extremely smart strategic move on their part. Just having Sakaguchi's name attached to MS could really help break the XBox into the Japanese market for real.
It is unfortunately very easy to extend this kind of intolerance to all aspects of existence.
How does simply thinking something is wrong equate to intolerance? Some people think killing animals for food or clothing is wrong. Would you say they are all "intolerant" of everyone who eats meat?
The label of "intolerant" has taken the place of the pre-Renaissance "heretic", or "blasphemer". It is used for exactly the same purposes: psychological supression of certain specific, unpopular opinions.
Slashdot Mirror
That doesn't mean the French don't use them in every day speech. I've seen French videos and French TV where you'll hear random English words interspersed within casual language. Though it was a while back, I've seen the word "cool" used fairly often. But the funniest thing was watching a debate on French TV degenerate into an argument. One guy stodd up and very clearly screamed "Shut up!" in a French accent. It was quite strange, but amusing.
Oh my, that is pretty terrible
It appears that "slough" pronounced "sloo" and "slough" pronounced "sluf" are the true originals. They also have very different meanings. I'll admit that personally, I have never seen the "sloo" meaning used in text.
I'll make a note that if I ever have to use the "sloo" version of "slough", to make sure not to use "slew" or "slue" instead.
Bleh. That's terrible. You can bet it all came from people who were too lazy to learn to spell correctly. *ducks*
Rather than letting a piece of art succeed or fail on its own, they decide what goes to market, and they generally only bet on a sure thing.
Somehow I don't think Britney Spears has a problem getting her checks. Little guys with no weight to throw around, yet create original, creative art get shafted. Because the RIAA has no way to ensure a certain level of profitability for small clients. That's why it sucks. They've got the big dogs that rake in money for them, they don't need to take care of the little guys. It would be nice if one the recording companies pulled a Jerry Maguire.
btw, forgive me if I'm wrong but I don't remember any of this hubbub over mixtapes. What happened? I also could be wrong, but I thought that was deemed "okay", since it's not an "exact copy". I.e. each copy of an analog magnetic tape degrades the quality a little, so it can't just be endlessly chain-copied.
So we're supposed to accept DRM because they somehow feel entitled to our money? Oxygen is freely available too. If it were't, someone would be charging for it. That doesn't mean that some chemical company is entitled to a subsidy, tax, or other business structure to prop up their failing business because no-one is willing to pay for their freely-available Oxygen product.
That's not a valid analogy for 2 reasons:
1) No one has to work to produce oxygen.
2) Music, videos, art, etc. are not biological necessities for human life. Entertainment is a luxury, not a right.
Furthermore, the **AA's might be evil, corrupt megacorporations, but they do provide a valuable service: The make sure the consumers know about new media. And they make sure that artists get paid. Granted, they don't do it like we wish they would. Rather than letting a piece of art succeed or fail on its own, they decide what goes to market, and they generally only bet on a sure thing. Which stifles creativity and originality.
But someone's got to do the job. It's a lot of work to have to self-promote on top of the effort of producing quality media. So even if the actual **AA organizations disappear, a similar role, hopefully less corrupted, must be fulfilled by someone else.
In any case, I've always considered it a good guide to look in the New Testament, at the letters from Paul to the gentile churches, to see what is supposed to apply to gentiles as opposed to the Jews. Homosexuality is one thing that is addressed there. But that, of course, doesn't justify lobbying to force everyone to submit to what I believe is right or wrong. There's nothing in the Bible about Jesus organizing protests or picket lines or lobbying for change in the government or anything like that. People are going to do what they want to do. If they don't believe like I do, then I've got no basis from which to tell them what they should and shouldn't do. Unless it's something like murder that is very obviously harmful to society in general.
But alas, I know many Christians do not see things this way. Which is a terrible shame. The oppresive fundamentalists (yes, there are non-oppresive ones) have lost half of the teachings of Jesus they supposedly hold dear. He taught compassion for all, not just for those who agree with you. I may not agree with what someone does, but that doesn't mean I'm going to yell condemnation on the streetcorner or lobby to make their actions criminal.
In any case, it sounds like there's still a difference, which I think is fairly significant. I don't think any churches in the U.S. get any tax money from the government. They are exempt from paying most types of taxes (maybe all, I'm not sure about things like property tax). Any religion can qualify for this, but I'm not sure what the government standard is for distinguishing a religious organization from other types of organization.
This does result in the religious sphere behaving according to certain economic principles. I, personally, don't think this is a good thing, because it leads to the same shady dealings that occur in the business sector. The goal of the church becomes growth, expanding their "customer-base", pulling in more money. At a certain tipping-point, it begins to seriously distract from the original motive of many churches, which was simply to be facilitate a gathering of like-minded people to share their philosophy. But it's also one of those things that I don't think can be avoided without stepping on people's freedoms.
I deal with it by participating in a non-growth-oriented church. =)
Absolutely. Which is why any truly scientifically minded person will not try to discuss any religion or philosophy in scientific terms. It doesn't work. Anyone trying to convince you you're wrong about God is going to be wasting his time. Just like you're wasting your time trying to convince anyone else they are wrong about God.
In the U.S. it's either all or nothing. Any given law must either recognize all religions equally, or none at all.
Well, considering it is explicitly stated inthe Bible that your examples there were Hebrew laws which were 1) not meant for all humanity, and 2) taken to ridiculous extremes by lawyers (Pharisees) obsessed with tradition, authority, and constantly looking for loopholes, I don't see this as intellectually dishonest on the part of Christians.
While I agree with your criticism of the O.P., this comment is just as much of a strawman argument. I've never personally met a Muslim who really thought that way. There are millions of Muslims the world over mourning the fact that the image much of the world has of them was decided by a bunch of homicidal nuts who hate "infidels". It's just as much a tragedy as the "funamentalist" slander being applied to non-extremist Christianity.
The worst thing is that they think twelve warring theocratic tribes of illiterate sheepherders represent the model for an ideal civilization.
I have never, ever, in my life, heard any Christian say anything of the sort. Even among fundies. (Which is not to say that no one does, just that it's not at all common, let alone universal.) And the fact that you make this "observation" just shows that you don't know anything about what you are criticizing.
Sorry to ruin your flame, but anyone who has any familiarity with scripture would not think that. It's very clearly stated over and over and over again in scripture that the Hebrews in the Old Testament screwed up royally, and every time they were given the opportunity to fix things, they screwed up even worse the next time.
Most any Christian will tell you that the picture of the Hebrews presented in the Old Testament is, if anything, a great example of exactly what not to do.
I could care less whether you think it's all baloney or not. I could also care less if you flame millions of people for their beliefs. But if you are going to flame millions of people for their beliefs, make sure you actually know what they really believe first. Only the ignorant attempt to criticize without first making sure they have their facts straight.
Well, my ultimate goal is to move on to the next class, not to get the highest grade possible.
If I'm smart enough to get 100% for myself, that doesn't mean I trust the other people in the class are smart enough to average out to a good grade on my behalf. So rather than slacking off, I might work hard to ensure that my 100% contributes to the grade I get, ensuring that I move on to the next level of classes. This would be the best way to use the system, if there were absolutely nothing you could do about it.
But there still exists a problem. Some people will work hard and bear the bulk of the labor (or "carry" the class to use a pro sports term). And some will not work very hard and get pulled along to rewards anyway. In short, the reward system is unfair.
The problem is that people do not like unfair rewards. And people in this system who work hard will see that they are being under-rewarded and others are being over-rewarded. They will then work to eliminate this unfairness. In an educational setting, this means transferring to a better professor (or school). In a business setting, it means finding another job. In a political setting, it usually means ousting the leaders and installing a meritocracy.
Of course this doesn't mean there shouldn't be a welfare system for the elderly or mentally disabled. It also doesn't mean there shouldn't be some sort of assistance program for the unfortunate, but able. In an educational setting, students having trouble should have tutoring services and probational enrollment available. This helps them to work through the tough spots and get their own rewards. In a business setting, this can equate to assigning mentors for new hires, to get them through the rough waters of entering a new job. In a political setting, this might mean providing no-condition government employment for people down on their luck, but still able to do some sort of work (not necessarily manual labor). Come in and do some work, and we'll pay you for it. Don't come in, or don't fulfill the requirements, you don't get paid. Disabled, but still mentally able, or partially physically able? Maybe we can send you some paperwork to do from home. The pay may not be great, and the work might not be "stimulating", but at least they would be earning their own money.
Did you completely miss the following sentence in the grandparent's post?
But to defend against a company that is nothing but a patent lawsuit factory (Eolas), you need actual patent reform.
His statement about mutually assured destruction was valid. Within the restrictions of the ridiculous US software patent system, it's one of very few prudent options.
That sucks. And it is, as the grandparent indicated, exactly why we need reform.
No, but it also takes a lot of relevant experience to replace the testament that an education makes to your ability to:
Secondly, what is Olog(n)? Perhaps you meant log?
Probably he meant O(log n), as in big-O notation, as in time-complexity.
Thanks for the info. It would be hard to make that mistake in my home city because every place is labeled clearly on the sign as a gyro place. I'd never even heard the word doner till I read this thread.
So that's the thing they cut gyro meat from then? Wasn't aware they had a special name for it. Is it actually a Greek word? Is it actually pronounced like "donor"?
I would remedy your unjust trolling, philbowman, but alas I already posted in this thread. Hopefully my post here will draw the attention of another modder and you will get at least a +1 Interesting.
"Cheque" is largely a British spelling. I've seldom seen an American bank call it anything other than a "check".
I would guess that Traveller's Cheques are so-called because they are largely used for international purposes, and America is in the minority in our spelling. For example, in French, the word is "cheque" as well. I would guess the other Romance Languages would likely be the same.
Indeed, there may be an argument to be made that since solar energy heats up the earth naturally, that at least any heat byproducts of using solar energy (are there CO2 byproducts as well?) would not go toward any sort of global warming that on top of natural warming.
Some of them, I'm sure, were FF fans themselves. But I guarantee there were a lot of girls who came because of their boyfriends.
It was an awesome experience. I recommend anyone who likes the music to try to attend one of these concerts. And make sure to share it with a few friends if you can.
You can be sure that if The Black Mages play a show within 500 miles of me, I'll be there.
The series as a whole maybe, but that does not apply to the games themselves. Name one FF game that was simultaneously released for more than one system. Note that even the collections of old SNES games that were re-released were still only released for PS1.
this is 10 times worst than when RARE went to MS
This is not Square going to MS. This is just one guy, who was far from embodying the spirit of FF, except maybe in the first few games, where he was both planner and director. Anyway, this guy did have a hand in capturing the hearts of millions of Japanese gamers, and so MS's motivation is quite clear. You've got to hand to them, this is an extremely smart strategic move on their part. Just having Sakaguchi's name attached to MS could really help break the XBox into the Japanese market for real.
How does simply thinking something is wrong equate to intolerance? Some people think killing animals for food or clothing is wrong. Would you say they are all "intolerant" of everyone who eats meat?
The label of "intolerant" has taken the place of the pre-Renaissance "heretic", or "blasphemer". It is used for exactly the same purposes: psychological supression of certain specific, unpopular opinions.