Borrow the book, copy down/photocopy the problems, and return.
I've been doing this all semester. Instead of buying a $150 book that really isn't very good, I spent $30 on another author's more advanced book that was a couple years old, and borrowed the book from the library to do the problem sets. At my college, they have 2 hour reserves for pretty much all course material, so it isn't hard to get it.
"undergrad-level math hasn't changed in the past 100 years"
Maybe the topics themselves haven't changed, but the technique has changed drastically. Considering that no one really wrote textbooks in the definition-lemma-theorem style until Bourbaki in the 60s, I find reading most books older than about 50 years pretty intolerable. There are a few noted exceptions, but I think the best textbooks in almost every area of undergraduate mathematics were written in the last 15 years.
The interviewee didn't say Microsoft was innovating; she said that in the rapidly expanding market for web browsers in the 1990's, Microsoft was able to grab new users rather than convincing the users of Netscape and other borwsers to change over.
Read TFA, it's about market structure and how the basic assumptions of competitive equilibrium don't hold in the real world. Under basic and simple economic theory, consumers are totally rational and informed, but in the real world, they'll use whatever is put in front of them, as long as it isn't too terrible. She didn't say a single good thing about Microsoft.
I know we all have a big boner for Firefox, though.
If you're in the humanities, what formatting do you have to do besides citations, block quotations and bibliographies? Just make a style for a dissertation, and have them type the content in. To my mind, that's the biggest advantage of LaTeX: it does all the hard work for you.
I agree. Demand in the economic sense, ability and willingness to pay, not demand in the usual sense, as in desire.
I don't think there were a bunch of people, each sitting in their home, thinking, "Can a brother get a fucking drop-shadow in here, or what? Or at least make my pull-down menus semi transparent."
My first question, emphasis added: "Do you have an example of speech that, would have harmed people, had it not been prevented by the law?"
My second question, which is what I was trying to ask in my very first post: Did the speech of the KKK hurt people, or did the ropes/torches/guns/etc.? Would prohibiting the public speech of this secret society, which had many members in the law enforcement employ, have prevented this harm? It seems that all the speech of the KKK that was actually planning violence against other people would have taken place in private.
And, my (second to) last question ever: Do you have a philisophical justification for restricting speech on this basis, even if such a restriction could chill speech that you would view as valuable?
You don't seem to believe that I'm actually interested in the defense of your position and I'm trying to engage your ideas. It seems that the speech restriction follows from a citizen's right to safety, and hate speech potentially infringes on that right to safety. This is what I gather from my reading on the subject. Is this accurate?
My original intent was to see if you think Canadian hate speech laws prevent injury to persons or groups. Do you have an example of speech that, would have harmed people, had it not been prevented by the law? Or speech that would have fallen under the hate speech laws had it taken place in Canada that proved to be harmful?
And, I repeat my question: Is it tolerable to have the expression of one of your beliefs prohibited, in order not to hear or read something you find offensive?
I asked when speech hurt someone, and you brought up the President, whose speech fired bullets or something. I asked if your example of hurtful speech was prohibited under Canadian law, thus helping to justify your defense of hate speech laws. Then you accused me of trying to confuse the issues.
I'll repeat my question: Would you rather have ideas and beliefs where a law would prohibit you from speaking those ideas out loud, or hear something digusting and offensive once in a while?
I think it gets right to the heart of the issue, because it's exactly the trade-off that has to be made. In the United States, not a perfect country by any means, I can express any idea that I want to. The price I pay for that is that I have to hear about shitsacks like David Duke and his worthless ilk. In Canada, You rest assured that egregious hate speech will be prosecuted, but expressing ideas that can be construed as inciting hatred toward people from the US can attract the possibility of prosecution by a dispassionate reading of the law, and people who hold these views might be less inclined to express themselves in a public forum.
First of all, don't accuse me of changing the subject on you, when you keep bringing up other issues. I'm talking about hate speech. I'm not talking about pornography, gun ownership, or anything else.
What is the difference between public and private speech? If I stand on a street corner yelling about the Jews and how they're evil, is it public, even if only two people hear it? If I have a large dinner party with 50 guests and say the same thing, is it private? What if I hold a large event in a venue I own and give a speech about the Jews being evil? If all the people there were invited by me, they are my private guests on my private property listening to my private speech, even if there are 1,000 of them.
I think it's clear at least that there are situations where the distinction between public and private is not cut and dried. You may disagree.
The law also treats the internet as a soapbox rather than a library. My writing on a webpage is viewed as if I had spoken those words into a megaphone in the town square, rather than making a newsletter or something similar available if someone chooses to seek it out. The internet is a public forum, but no one has to look at every website.
To draw a legal line between thought and speech is to say that you have the right think anything you want, you just can't say it out loud, even if there's no one there.
Simply on a personal level, would you rather have an idea and not be allowed to express it, or hear something offensive every once in a while? Because I never want to face prosecution for expressing something I believe.
I'll be clear. I disagree with laws prohibiting hate speech, such as those in Canada, on principle. Speech has never injured anyone. There isn't a fine line between thought and speech, and there isn't a fine line between private and publc speech. There is no line at all.
I recognize that words have tremendous power, but they do not themselves have the capacity to inflict harm. The President, in selling the Iraq War to the American public, used speech, in conjuction with the power of his office, to mislead much of the country. The American press did not give a platform to a significant number of people who disagreed with the war and could articulate it well. Within certain limits, the President has immunity from prosecution related to the execution of his office.
When I asked for an example of speech hurting someone, I was looking for an example that would justify having in place a law declaring certain ideas to be unacceptable.
"Your freedom ends where my freedom begins"
Amendment I, Canadian Constitution
Parliament shall pass no law abridging the freedom not to hear things you don't like.
The problem is that the tiers the article is talking about are based on the content of your packets. I've read very interesting economic articles about internet pricing, but I've also read disturbing articles on cable/telephone companies trying to restrict access based on what you're doing.
I don't have a problem with paying for the resources I'm using. I would have a problem if the internet infrastructure would not send my data because it didn't like it.
Slashdot Mirror
While he's checking his e-mail?
Nowhere!
What is click?
Damn. I've only got the Commutative Algebra one in front of me, and it dates to 1964. I guess it was one of the later ones.
You think math is straightforward?
Borrow the book, copy down/photocopy the problems, and return.
I've been doing this all semester. Instead of buying a $150 book that really isn't very good, I spent $30 on another author's more advanced book that was a couple years old, and borrowed the book from the library to do the problem sets. At my college, they have 2 hour reserves for pretty much all course material, so it isn't hard to get it.
I agree with most of your post, except this:
"undergrad-level math hasn't changed in the past 100 years"
Maybe the topics themselves haven't changed, but the technique has changed drastically. Considering that no one really wrote textbooks in the definition-lemma-theorem style until Bourbaki in the 60s, I find reading most books older than about 50 years pretty intolerable. There are a few noted exceptions, but I think the best textbooks in almost every area of undergraduate mathematics were written in the last 15 years.
But not in the last 3.
The interviewee didn't say Microsoft was innovating; she said that in the rapidly expanding market for web browsers in the 1990's, Microsoft was able to grab new users rather than convincing the users of Netscape and other borwsers to change over.
Read TFA, it's about market structure and how the basic assumptions of competitive equilibrium don't hold in the real world. Under basic and simple economic theory, consumers are totally rational and informed, but in the real world, they'll use whatever is put in front of them, as long as it isn't too terrible. She didn't say a single good thing about Microsoft.
I know we all have a big boner for Firefox, though.
If you're in the humanities, what formatting do you have to do besides citations, block quotations and bibliographies? Just make a style for a dissertation, and have them type the content in. To my mind, that's the biggest advantage of LaTeX: it does all the hard work for you.
Looking at OOo makes me feel like I'm being stabbed in the eyes. That doesn't sound very productive.
I think you're overlooking the fact that "Snakes On A Plane" is the best movie title since caveman times.
I agree. Demand in the economic sense, ability and willingness to pay, not demand in the usual sense, as in desire. I don't think there were a bunch of people, each sitting in their home, thinking, "Can a brother get a fucking drop-shadow in here, or what? Or at least make my pull-down menus semi transparent."
If writing in a book is wrong, I don't want to be right.
My first question, emphasis added: "Do you have an example of speech that, would have harmed people, had it not been prevented by the law?"
My second question, which is what I was trying to ask in my very first post: Did the speech of the KKK hurt people, or did the ropes/torches/guns/etc.? Would prohibiting the public speech of this secret society, which had many members in the law enforcement employ, have prevented this harm? It seems that all the speech of the KKK that was actually planning violence against other people would have taken place in private.
And, my (second to) last question ever: Do you have a philisophical justification for restricting speech on this basis, even if such a restriction could chill speech that you would view as valuable?
You don't seem to believe that I'm actually interested in the defense of your position and I'm trying to engage your ideas. It seems that the speech restriction follows from a citizen's right to safety, and hate speech potentially infringes on that right to safety. This is what I gather from my reading on the subject. Is this accurate?
An oval is two-dimensional and an ellipsoid is three-dimensional.
My original intent was to see if you think Canadian hate speech laws prevent injury to persons or groups. Do you have an example of speech that, would have harmed people, had it not been prevented by the law? Or speech that would have fallen under the hate speech laws had it taken place in Canada that proved to be harmful?
And, I repeat my question: Is it tolerable to have the expression of one of your beliefs prohibited, in order not to hear or read something you find offensive?
I asked when speech hurt someone, and you brought up the President, whose speech fired bullets or something. I asked if your example of hurtful speech was prohibited under Canadian law, thus helping to justify your defense of hate speech laws. Then you accused me of trying to confuse the issues.
I'll repeat my question: Would you rather have ideas and beliefs where a law would prohibit you from speaking those ideas out loud, or hear something digusting and offensive once in a while?
I think it gets right to the heart of the issue, because it's exactly the trade-off that has to be made. In the United States, not a perfect country by any means, I can express any idea that I want to. The price I pay for that is that I have to hear about shitsacks like David Duke and his worthless ilk. In Canada, You rest assured that egregious hate speech will be prosecuted, but expressing ideas that can be construed as inciting hatred toward people from the US can attract the possibility of prosecution by a dispassionate reading of the law, and people who hold these views might be less inclined to express themselves in a public forum.
First of all, don't accuse me of changing the subject on you, when you keep bringing up other issues. I'm talking about hate speech. I'm not talking about pornography, gun ownership, or anything else.
What is the difference between public and private speech? If I stand on a street corner yelling about the Jews and how they're evil, is it public, even if only two people hear it? If I have a large dinner party with 50 guests and say the same thing, is it private? What if I hold a large event in a venue I own and give a speech about the Jews being evil? If all the people there were invited by me, they are my private guests on my private property listening to my private speech, even if there are 1,000 of them.
I think it's clear at least that there are situations where the distinction between public and private is not cut and dried. You may disagree.
The law also treats the internet as a soapbox rather than a library. My writing on a webpage is viewed as if I had spoken those words into a megaphone in the town square, rather than making a newsletter or something similar available if someone chooses to seek it out. The internet is a public forum, but no one has to look at every website.
To draw a legal line between thought and speech is to say that you have the right think anything you want, you just can't say it out loud, even if there's no one there.
Simply on a personal level, would you rather have an idea and not be allowed to express it, or hear something offensive every once in a while? Because I never want to face prosecution for expressing something I believe.
I'll be clear. I disagree with laws prohibiting hate speech, such as those in Canada, on principle. Speech has never injured anyone. There isn't a fine line between thought and speech, and there isn't a fine line between private and publc speech. There is no line at all. I recognize that words have tremendous power, but they do not themselves have the capacity to inflict harm. The President, in selling the Iraq War to the American public, used speech, in conjuction with the power of his office, to mislead much of the country. The American press did not give a platform to a significant number of people who disagreed with the war and could articulate it well. Within certain limits, the President has immunity from prosecution related to the execution of his office. When I asked for an example of speech hurting someone, I was looking for an example that would justify having in place a law declaring certain ideas to be unacceptable.
"Your freedom ends where my freedom begins" Amendment I, Canadian Constitution Parliament shall pass no law abridging the freedom not to hear things you don't like.
So then would speaking about Iraq's weapons capabilities be prohibited under the Canadian laws?
Can you tell me a specific incident when speech hurt someone?
Um...learn to read? "I couldn't get my non-winmodem or sound card to work" It's NOT a winmodem.
The problem is that the tiers the article is talking about are based on the content of your packets. I've read very interesting economic articles about internet pricing, but I've also read disturbing articles on cable/telephone companies trying to restrict access based on what you're doing.
I don't have a problem with paying for the resources I'm using. I would have a problem if the internet infrastructure would not send my data because it didn't like it.
one more dongle to pack in your case
Yeah, that's what she said.
I'll see your Print Screen and Scroll Lock and raise you a SysRq.