Yes, the notion of tragedy comes from ancient Greece. It matters not that its a different language, it really is the same word. That's the origin of the word, and that's what we were (past tense) talking about. You didn't need to quote a modern definition, as you've just outed yourself as a troll. Yes, I believe it is vanity when someone uses a word like 'tragic' incorrectly... because they want to sound smart... thus, they are vain, thus by the point in your previous post, that I do not agree with, vanity is what ultimately is watering down the meanings of words... people are too vain to use the correct word. Please post one more time if you must, but I have outed you and I am done playing. This is a waste of time.
There really is such a thing as misusing a word. Generally speaking, car accidents aren't all that tragic, yet newspapers want catchy headlines and writers want to sound sophisticated, and so we have it... all car accidents are now written up as tragic accidents, even though by its definition (for thousands of years), tragedy is never an accident. Nevertheless, I seriously doubt that linguists truly believe that vanity is what drives language and changes words from meaningful to less meaningful (though I have heard the argument before).
Yes, of that I am guilty. It is semantics, and should not be dismissed. I insist that words mean what they mean, and not what most people want them to mean. This way, meaning is not diluted, and we can then even have a good idea of exactly what it is we are talking about and not be blithering and ignorant. If we say what we mean and avoid hyperbole when describing misfortune and disaster we will be more honest and better understood. For some reason, many see tragedy as the worst thing that can happen to someone, so every time something really bad happens, it must be tragic. This is simply not so, and I am taking a stand against this sort of bullshit. Tragedy is merely one specific and quite meaningful kind of misfortune... it is not all misfortune.
His point is invalid on its face, as it insinuates meltdown is the only possible harm, ignoring anything else that could and does go wrong.. Nuclear meltdown is merely one of the worst things that can happen. The link provides many examples of awful things that did happen that were not meltdowns.
I see your solution as quite transparent... basically, all we need to do is change "temporary" to "permanent" and viola! problem solved! I believe most residents living within 20 miles of a reactor would completely disagree with your assessment of "perfectly reasonable." Just because the site was deemed safe for a reactor (that has a designated lifetime) and temp storage doesn't make it a "perfectly reasonable" site for 10K+ years of storage for nuclear waste. Yeah, but white wash it, chances are no one will notice its leaked into the river or the ocean or the aquifer until long after you and I are dead from natural causes.
It isn't discussed but we have, by default, already implemented what is probably the best solution.
That's just about the worst reasoning I've ever seen, that decisions made under the gun to allow more time to research and make the best final decision simply be adopted as the final decision without any research because its probably the best solution because thats what we decided when we didn't have any time to think about it... that first volitions be adopted as second volitions just so we don't have to have a second volition. Just... wow. Your logic works neither universally nor specifically. Bad logic, bad idea.
For what its worth, every nuclear power plant in the US has a "temporary" containment facility for spent nuclear fuel. Every single one of them has been at capacity for at least a decade or two. All of them are full... and I don't understand what we've been doing with the spent fuel if we have no where to put it. We need to solve the waste problem NOW, with the waste we already have... before we solve the energy issue.
Unfortunately the nuclear accident seems to have overshadowed reports on the real human tragedy
First of all, its not an accident because it wasn't caused by a mistake. Second of all, unless ironically caused by the Japanese people, earthquakes and tsunamis are not tragic events. And lastly, we don't have tsunamis everywhere, but some potential for nuclear disaster exists everywhere we have a nuclear power plant. This really is a cause for concern for anyone living in the shadow off nuclear proliferation... which means it really is a concern for everyone. Again, it's not nothing. Humans are complex. We can be concerned with consequences of nuclear power and still have compassion for victims of natural disaster.
I think it will shut up nuclear proponets who claim meltdowns are so improbable that they are effectively impossible. This is a natural disaster that has occurred. Human disasters from human mistakes are far more plentiful.
one side of the debate will conclude that nuclear power is universally evil
Its not nuclear power that is evil, and no rational individual would claim that. Its people that are evil, people that forego and downplay any and all warnings or dangers because we want cheap electricity now, and we'll solve this waste issue later... evil is dismissing the opposition because money is more important to them than human life, evil is an ad hominem attack on someone with valid concerns, evil is technology moving at the pace of the maximum speed pockets can be filled and not held back by the time it takes for people to understand all impacts the technology will have, positive, negative, likely or unlikely. Evil is calling you stupid.
That's where all CS departments began, as part of the Math department. Since the coinage of the term "Software Engineering," however, some have moved partially or completely into the the Engineering department. I know this is what happened at my alma mater, VA Tech, and in speaking with the head of CS and some faculty from Mathematics, turns out it really was simply a marketing decision... the university needs to attract students top students, and they think that will do it. Mathematics, it seems, just isn't as sexy as Engineering. But even the CS department head agreed with me when I balked at this new term and the placement of the department within Engineering... that they're not really engineering anything... its just programming, which was an issue I had with VA Tech's CS program from when I had started there a decade earlier (left school to work after my 2nd year and had returned to finish the degree).. that at the time they weren't teaching CS, but merely testing to see if we already knew this language or that language.
Once again we have some people that want to redefine words. Computer Science is mathematics. Either something is computer science or it is not. I don't know of much computer science going on outside of academia. Programmig is not computer science. Software Engineering has been accepted as a meaningful term in the last 15 years... but I still have trouble understanding exactly what it is that is being engineered under this term... I know it isn't electronics, or computers, or engines or bridges or roads... and I know what programming is... I just don't get it... unless, of course... it is a trumped up marketing term.
No news reports I have seen even speculate as to what caused the building to explode yet still leave the reactor core intact. Why would the building explode?
Contrary to your limited viewpoint, a public library isn't just a place to lend dusty old books. There are uncountable resources in your public library you will never find online. Beyond literature, reference and information, a library is a public service to the community and an undeniable symbol of civilization. It is a social entity of the likes that Facebook (and social web garbage) and idealized digital libraries could never compete with nor replace. A public library is community and serves specifically the community within which it exists. You're not going to find anything online but shallow marketing concerning your local community, yet at your local library you will find people that are dedicated to serving your local reference, informational and literary needs. No computer can replace them. Libraries will evolve to encompass the Internet, but the Internet can never evolve to replace your local public library. A person is far more valuable than a website. If it helps you to understand, you should consider your local library to be identifiable with your local community. You could no more replace your public library with applied computerized data than you could replace yourself, or your occupation, or your government, or your family with the same.
True. All other OSs should be retired immediately. Microsoft has finally perfected the OS and there is simply no valid or rational reason to even have more than that... OS and Windows 7 should now be synonymous. I think after SP3 we won't even need applications or the internet any more... its that good. And I know what I'm talking about because I've been using Windows exclusively since 98, and this, my friends, is it. So go on, put it on, Windows 7 is the last operating system you'll ever use, if you have any clue whatsoever.
Yes, most want IE6 to die. But their reasons are not MS reasons.
OTOH there are valid reasons for some companies to remain on IE6... a lack of resources and the desire not to break internal web applications that are still needed and still work. So long as the users remain locked into their internal network, there are no good reasons to upgrade, and plenty not to upgrade. And the same argument could be made for XP, Office, Server or Exchange.
Microsoft needs you to upgrade, though, to bring their plans of vendor lockin to fruition. They need the marketshare, but they especially need your money. There's not much a business user will benefit (assume their business IT is on the ball) afa functionality, but hey... they've given you shiney, now upgrade, dammit.
Apps are oversold, their greatness exaggerated. At it's heart iPad is a great reader, web surfer platform and li'l mail client, and the new hw won't really make any difference regarding that. Had there been a retina display I would be drooling, but otherwise I can live without new app feature creep. YMMV
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, the notion of tragedy comes from ancient Greece. It matters not that its a different language, it really is the same word. That's the origin of the word, and that's what we were (past tense) talking about. You didn't need to quote a modern definition, as you've just outed yourself as a troll. Yes, I believe it is vanity when someone uses a word like 'tragic' incorrectly... because they want to sound smart... thus, they are vain, thus by the point in your previous post, that I do not agree with, vanity is what ultimately is watering down the meanings of words... people are too vain to use the correct word. Please post one more time if you must, but I have outed you and I am done playing. This is a waste of time.
There really is such a thing as misusing a word. Generally speaking, car accidents aren't all that tragic, yet newspapers want catchy headlines and writers want to sound sophisticated, and so we have it... all car accidents are now written up as tragic accidents, even though by its definition (for thousands of years), tragedy is never an accident. Nevertheless, I seriously doubt that linguists truly believe that vanity is what drives language and changes words from meaningful to less meaningful (though I have heard the argument before).
Yes, of that I am guilty. It is semantics, and should not be dismissed. I insist that words mean what they mean, and not what most people want them to mean. This way, meaning is not diluted, and we can then even have a good idea of exactly what it is we are talking about and not be blithering and ignorant. If we say what we mean and avoid hyperbole when describing misfortune and disaster we will be more honest and better understood. For some reason, many see tragedy as the worst thing that can happen to someone, so every time something really bad happens, it must be tragic. This is simply not so, and I am taking a stand against this sort of bullshit. Tragedy is merely one specific and quite meaningful kind of misfortune... it is not all misfortune.
His point is invalid on its face, as it insinuates meltdown is the only possible harm, ignoring anything else that could and does go wrong.. Nuclear meltdown is merely one of the worst things that can happen. The link provides many examples of awful things that did happen that were not meltdowns.
I see your solution as quite transparent... basically, all we need to do is change "temporary" to "permanent" and viola! problem solved! I believe most residents living within 20 miles of a reactor would completely disagree with your assessment of "perfectly reasonable." Just because the site was deemed safe for a reactor (that has a designated lifetime) and temp storage doesn't make it a "perfectly reasonable" site for 10K+ years of storage for nuclear waste. Yeah, but white wash it, chances are no one will notice its leaked into the river or the ocean or the aquifer until long after you and I are dead from natural causes.
It isn't discussed but we have, by default, already implemented what is probably the best solution.
That's just about the worst reasoning I've ever seen, that decisions made under the gun to allow more time to research and make the best final decision simply be adopted as the final decision without any research because its probably the best solution because thats what we decided when we didn't have any time to think about it... that first volitions be adopted as second volitions just so we don't have to have a second volition. Just... wow. Your logic works neither universally nor specifically. Bad logic, bad idea.
For what its worth, every nuclear power plant in the US has a "temporary" containment facility for spent nuclear fuel. Every single one of them has been at capacity for at least a decade or two. All of them are full... and I don't understand what we've been doing with the spent fuel if we have no where to put it. We need to solve the waste problem NOW, with the waste we already have... before we solve the energy issue.
One plus a partial melt in Three Mile Island in about 60 years of history. Doesn't support your assertion.
You are uninformed.
Unfortunately the nuclear accident seems to have overshadowed reports on the real human tragedy
First of all, its not an accident because it wasn't caused by a mistake. Second of all, unless ironically caused by the Japanese people, earthquakes and tsunamis are not tragic events. And lastly, we don't have tsunamis everywhere, but some potential for nuclear disaster exists everywhere we have a nuclear power plant. This really is a cause for concern for anyone living in the shadow off nuclear proliferation... which means it really is a concern for everyone. Again, it's not nothing. Humans are complex. We can be concerned with consequences of nuclear power and still have compassion for victims of natural disaster.
Why not just dismiss any valid arguments that don't support your position? Oh, wait...
right. We should dismiss the danger of natural disaster regarding nuclear power because we don't have any good arguments against it.
I think it will shut up nuclear proponets who claim meltdowns are so improbable that they are effectively impossible. This is a natural disaster that has occurred. Human disasters from human mistakes are far more plentiful.
one side of the debate will conclude that nuclear power is universally evil
Its not nuclear power that is evil, and no rational individual would claim that. Its people that are evil, people that forego and downplay any and all warnings or dangers because we want cheap electricity now, and we'll solve this waste issue later... evil is dismissing the opposition because money is more important to them than human life, evil is an ad hominem attack on someone with valid concerns, evil is technology moving at the pace of the maximum speed pockets can be filled and not held back by the time it takes for people to understand all impacts the technology will have, positive, negative, likely or unlikely. Evil is calling you stupid.
That's where all CS departments began, as part of the Math department. Since the coinage of the term "Software Engineering," however, some have moved partially or completely into the the Engineering department. I know this is what happened at my alma mater, VA Tech, and in speaking with the head of CS and some faculty from Mathematics, turns out it really was simply a marketing decision... the university needs to attract students top students, and they think that will do it. Mathematics, it seems, just isn't as sexy as Engineering. But even the CS department head agreed with me when I balked at this new term and the placement of the department within Engineering... that they're not really engineering anything... its just programming, which was an issue I had with VA Tech's CS program from when I had started there a decade earlier (left school to work after my 2nd year and had returned to finish the degree).. that at the time they weren't teaching CS, but merely testing to see if we already knew this language or that language.
Once again we have some people that want to redefine words. Computer Science is mathematics. Either something is computer science or it is not. I don't know of much computer science going on outside of academia. Programmig is not computer science. Software Engineering has been accepted as a meaningful term in the last 15 years... but I still have trouble understanding exactly what it is that is being engineered under this term... I know it isn't electronics, or computers, or engines or bridges or roads... and I know what programming is... I just don't get it... unless, of course... it is a trumped up marketing term.
No news reports I have seen even speculate as to what caused the building to explode yet still leave the reactor core intact. Why would the building explode?
Ridiculous... though I admit, I fantasized about that computer.
Contrary to your limited viewpoint, a public library isn't just a place to lend dusty old books. There are uncountable resources in your public library you will never find online. Beyond literature, reference and information, a library is a public service to the community and an undeniable symbol of civilization. It is a social entity of the likes that Facebook (and social web garbage) and idealized digital libraries could never compete with nor replace. A public library is community and serves specifically the community within which it exists. You're not going to find anything online but shallow marketing concerning your local community, yet at your local library you will find people that are dedicated to serving your local reference, informational and literary needs. No computer can replace them. Libraries will evolve to encompass the Internet, but the Internet can never evolve to replace your local public library. A person is far more valuable than a website. If it helps you to understand, you should consider your local library to be identifiable with your local community. You could no more replace your public library with applied computerized data than you could replace yourself, or your occupation, or your government, or your family with the same.
In truth, the passage in question was indeed mistranslated
Bummer, bombers.
windows 7 is too good to bother with other OSes
True. All other OSs should be retired immediately. Microsoft has finally perfected the OS and there is simply no valid or rational reason to even have more than that... OS and Windows 7 should now be synonymous. I think after SP3 we won't even need applications or the internet any more... its that good. And I know what I'm talking about because I've been using Windows exclusively since 98, and this, my friends, is it. So go on, put it on, Windows 7 is the last operating system you'll ever use, if you have any clue whatsoever.
Yes, most want IE6 to die. But their reasons are not MS reasons.
OTOH there are valid reasons for some companies to remain on IE6... a lack of resources and the desire not to break internal web applications that are still needed and still work. So long as the users remain locked into their internal network, there are no good reasons to upgrade, and plenty not to upgrade. And the same argument could be made for XP, Office, Server or Exchange.
Microsoft needs you to upgrade, though, to bring their plans of vendor lockin to fruition. They need the marketshare, but they especially need your money. There's not much a business user will benefit (assume their business IT is on the ball) afa functionality, but hey... they've given you shiney, now upgrade, dammit.
You mean AMEE, and you ruined the joke I was going to make, you insensitive clod!
How about you can't sue the government... unless... ?
lovingly constructed with machine code by Batsly
O RLY? Perhaps the author meant assembly.
Apps are oversold, their greatness exaggerated. At it's heart iPad is a great reader, web surfer platform and li'l mail client, and the new hw won't really make any difference regarding that. Had there been a retina display I would be drooling, but otherwise I can live without new app feature creep. YMMV
I believe the consensus was that Democrats fail at doing good, whereas Republicans succeed at doing evil.
(It's not quite that black and white; some democrats are evil, and some republicans are incompetent.)
nicely put!