English contains a great deal of French words, true, but the real meaning, tied to cultural context, just can't be conveyed unless you are speaking in French.
Right. Anyone who knows worthwhile French can tell you that "individualisme", and "individualism" have very different meanings, and those meanings provide a lot of insight into French and American culture.
What you're thinking of is the sapir-worf hypothesis. It was proven false; children raised speaking Loglan, for instance, are still capable of making first order logic mistakes. They just can't express them in words.
Like I said, I'm not a linguist. So, I'll cite Wikipedia, the duck and run:
The opposing idea -- that language has absolutely no influence on thought at all -- is widely considered to be false (Gumperz: introduction to Gumperz 1996). But the strong version of the Sapir/Whorf hypothesis, that language determines thought, is also thought to be incorrect. The most common view is that the truth lies somewhere in between the two and current linguists, rather than studying whether language affects thought, are studying how it affects thought.
Also, if you read the article I linked to, you'll see that that tribe has difficulty doing tasks that involve more than three objects. There are of course multiple explanations for this, but the issue doesn't seem to be as clear cut as you're making it sound.
That is one way to look at it. However, I'd argue there's a lot more than nostalgia at stake here. I'm no linguist, but it seems fairly self-evident (and something that is backed up by linguistics) that different languages give rise to different ways of thinking about things. Certain concepts just don't exist in language X, but do in Y and Z. This can have a profound effect on higher level thinking in the language, as well as providing for curiosities, like that language that only has words for one, two and many.
Also, there's a lot of linguistic and anthropological history at stake. When languages go extinct, you lose a great resource for understanding the evolution of that language, as well as all the others that are related to it.
Seriously. What is with the lack of uptake on 64-bit? I mean, do they even sell mainstream machines with only 32-bit processors? (I really don't know.) It's been out for, let's see, over 4 YEARS.
Why is it that so many people think that because something is in a digital format that it cannot be "real" property?
Call it property or don't, but understand that the fundamental nature of digital information is that it can be duplicated at negligible cost. Most people aren't familiar with property that behaves like that, so they are (reasonably) unwilling to call digital information property.
So I think saying "DRM sucks" is a popular catchphrase but it is unreasonable to think everything in this life should be free.
Saying DRM sucks has nothing to do with saying things should be free. I think I'd rather say that DRM is futile and misguided. It's an attempt to force constraints in a world where they don't exist.
What they are less keen on is video calling: in Japan, as in the UK, 90% say "no thanks, never".
Why? I for one think it would be pretty neat to have a mobile videophone, and it sure seems like it's within reach of today's technology. Just put another cheap lens on the same side of the phone that has the display. The only major thing I can see that will halt widespread adoption is the outrageous prices the cellular companies will want to charge for it.
The tinkerer's spirit was a big part of what made this country great. Now, if you're an electronics or chemistry hobbyist, people think you're a bombmaker; if you build and fly model rockets, you're suspected of trying to produce some kind of missile; if you've got a microscope and some test tubes, you're assumed to be manufacturing anthrax.
It's not just tinkerers, either. Note that they also confiscated "posters with 'suspicious' Arabic lettering on them." This just made me laugh. If you don't know Arabic, I'm pretty sure you can't tell "suspicious" Arabic lettering from "salaam." I.e., God forbid you're trying to learn a foreign language...
Many, many years ago, I received a piece of warning tape that says "Mines" in both English and Arabic, along with a death's head, as a gag gift. I wonder what would happen if the police stumbled across that, along with my "suspicious" copies of the Qur'an.
Of course, it'll also be extremely difficult to prove that those hard documents, such as paper or CD, are actually from the website in question, and were present on the day that you claim they were present.
No shit? Let's read the first sentence of the Bill of Rights, then:
"After the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred representatives, nor less than one representative for every forty thousand persons."
I really, sincerely hope you're aware that what you just quoted is not actually in the Constitution. The page you quoted from contains the text of twelve proposed amendments to the Constitution. The first two didn't actually make it in.
On a more fundamental level, part of the debate over whether to include a Bill of Rights in the first place revolved around the fear that a Bill of Rights would be construed as a positive delineation of rights, rather than as fundamental rights which were not, under any circumstance, to be infringed. That fear, of course, is present in Article 9:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
We have to ask ourselves: If the rights noted in the Bill of Rights are so important that they had to be spelled out, and are fundamental, what makes Americans so special that only they ought to have these rights? Legally, of course, they may not apply to everyone in the world, but the mere fact that we have enshrined them so indicates that ethically, they probably ought to.
Heh, I went one step further than the kid in this story. I looked up the books on Amazon, ordered them, and got free shipping. Then, since I needed to do the reading right away, I went to the bookstore and bought the books, with the intention of returning them as soon as I received them from Amazon.
So yeah, basically I'm a horrible person, but I saved $30.
Surely you have to demonstrate that some intellectual effort went into the production of the ISBN for it to come under IP law in the first place (regardless of "ownership"). Presumably the publisher was just allocated a bunch of ISBNs and they just happened to allocat one of them this one book? Shoot me down if you like. I'm not an expert.
I'm not an expert either, but I know that under U.S. copyright law, so called "sweat of the brow" is not enough to warrant copyright. Also, even if the ISBN were copyrighted, it certainly wouldn't be the store's IP. I also highly doubt that you can copyright a serial-number/index number like ISBN.
There's no reason they couldn't do that for free. Plenty of places will run temp authorization of about $1 on your card, just to make sure that it's valid.
The article states that one use of the headband could "augmentation of spatial awareness in hazardous working environments." Then they have a nice diagram of a man wearing a hardhat and a large iron beam swinging towards his back.
That's all well and good, though using one of these might result in increased carelessness about one's working environment. Then there are other issues...
Boss: How are those new headbands working out?
Foreman: Pretty good! Watch this...
(Foreman picks up bottle and throws it at a worker facing away from him; worker ducks just in time to avoid collision)
The result of this flaw is that many things beyond the Extended Rate buffer in the ieee80211_scan_entry structure are corrupted. In a traditional stack overflow, control of execution flow is obtained directly by overwriting an important value, such as the return address. The corruption caused by the ``Extended Rate'' bug is more complicated due to the apparent lack of adjacent control structures.
The most promising avenue for getting execution can be found in a function named ath_copy_scan_results. This function uses the fields that are overwritten to copy memory. An attacker can control the size of the copy and the source of the copy. In addition to crashing reliably on the same data, the size of the memcpy is two bytes wide meaning that up to 65535 bytes can be copied. Since the destination of the memcpy is a structure that ends with a function pointer, the hope is that enough data can written outside of the destination buffer to the point where the function pointer is overwritten. In this way, the next time the function pointer is called, the caller would instead jump to whatever address is now stored in the function pointer. In other words, this represents a two-stage overwrite. The first overwrite does not provide direct code execution, but it allows an attacker to create a second overwrite that will. The Beacon packet contains a number of buffers one can use for this second-stage overwrite. Thus, an overflow in one buffer in the packet (the Extended Rate IE) allows an attacker to control how a second buffer is copied (in this case, the Robust Security Network (RSN) IE). It is the copying of the second buffer that will permit code execution.
Slashdot Mirror
Right. Anyone who knows worthwhile French can tell you that "individualisme", and "individualism" have very different meanings, and those meanings provide a lot of insight into French and American culture.
Like I said, I'm not a linguist. So, I'll cite Wikipedia, the duck and run:
Also, if you read the article I linked to, you'll see that that tribe has difficulty doing tasks that involve more than three objects. There are of course multiple explanations for this, but the issue doesn't seem to be as clear cut as you're making it sound.That is one way to look at it. However, I'd argue there's a lot more than nostalgia at stake here. I'm no linguist, but it seems fairly self-evident (and something that is backed up by linguistics) that different languages give rise to different ways of thinking about things. Certain concepts just don't exist in language X, but do in Y and Z. This can have a profound effect on higher level thinking in the language, as well as providing for curiosities, like that language that only has words for one, two and many.
Also, there's a lot of linguistic and anthropological history at stake. When languages go extinct, you lose a great resource for understanding the evolution of that language, as well as all the others that are related to it.
I balked at that line as well, and I'm a younger person. The iPhone is starting to look more like a theyPhone.
Of course you're still here. The rapture only takes away the good people.
Seriously. What is with the lack of uptake on 64-bit? I mean, do they even sell mainstream machines with only 32-bit processors? (I really don't know.) It's been out for, let's see, over 4 YEARS.
[joke]Sadly, it only scores a 4.1 on the Windows Experience Index.[/joke]
Call it property or don't, but understand that the fundamental nature of digital information is that it can be duplicated at negligible cost. Most people aren't familiar with property that behaves like that, so they are (reasonably) unwilling to call digital information property.
Saying DRM sucks has nothing to do with saying things should be free. I think I'd rather say that DRM is futile and misguided. It's an attempt to force constraints in a world where they don't exist.
Why? I for one think it would be pretty neat to have a mobile videophone, and it sure seems like it's within reach of today's technology. Just put another cheap lens on the same side of the phone that has the display. The only major thing I can see that will halt widespread adoption is the outrageous prices the cellular companies will want to charge for it.
From TFA:
Better hope you don't break down in a no parking zone... Instead of AAA, you'll have the DHS stopping by to help you!
It's not just tinkerers, either. Note that they also confiscated "posters with 'suspicious' Arabic lettering on them." This just made me laugh. If you don't know Arabic, I'm pretty sure you can't tell "suspicious" Arabic lettering from "salaam." I.e., God forbid you're trying to learn a foreign language...
Many, many years ago, I received a piece of warning tape that says "Mines" in both English and Arabic, along with a death's head, as a gag gift. I wonder what would happen if the police stumbled across that, along with my "suspicious" copies of the Qur'an.
Wow - I never thought to look you up on Slashdot. I really enjoyed "The Cuckoo's Egg" when I read it back in high school!
Of course, it'll also be extremely difficult to prove that those hard documents, such as paper or CD, are actually from the website in question, and were present on the day that you claim they were present.
At a significantly increased size compared with the original file. Or, you could avoid all this nonsense with QTFairUse or hymn, no?
Can I sue the grocery store for refusing to sell me one egg?
Maybe not, but the grocery store (at least mine) also offers eggs in packages of 2, 6, 12, and 18.
If a terrorist were dumb enough to do that, it sure as hell wouldn't be in english.
Which is exactly why we need to detain anybody reading a book in a foreign language!
No shit? Let's read the first sentence of the Bill of Rights, then:
I really, sincerely hope you're aware that what you just quoted is not actually in the Constitution. The page you quoted from contains the text of twelve proposed amendments to the Constitution. The first two didn't actually make it in.
On a more fundamental level, part of the debate over whether to include a Bill of Rights in the first place revolved around the fear that a Bill of Rights would be construed as a positive delineation of rights, rather than as fundamental rights which were not, under any circumstance, to be infringed. That fear, of course, is present in Article 9:
We have to ask ourselves: If the rights noted in the Bill of Rights are so important that they had to be spelled out, and are fundamental, what makes Americans so special that only they ought to have these rights? Legally, of course, they may not apply to everyone in the world, but the mere fact that we have enshrined them so indicates that ethically, they probably ought to.Heh, I went one step further than the kid in this story. I looked up the books on Amazon, ordered them, and got free shipping. Then, since I needed to do the reading right away, I went to the bookstore and bought the books, with the intention of returning them as soon as I received them from Amazon.
So yeah, basically I'm a horrible person, but I saved $30.
Surely you have to demonstrate that some intellectual effort went into the production of the ISBN for it to come under IP law in the first place (regardless of "ownership"). Presumably the publisher was just allocated a bunch of ISBNs and they just happened to allocat one of them this one book? Shoot me down if you like. I'm not an expert.
I'm not an expert either, but I know that under U.S. copyright law, so called "sweat of the brow" is not enough to warrant copyright. Also, even if the ISBN were copyrighted, it certainly wouldn't be the store's IP. I also highly doubt that you can copyright a serial-number/index number like ISBN.
One word: soma.
There's no reason they couldn't do that for free. Plenty of places will run temp authorization of about $1 on your card, just to make sure that it's valid.
The article states that one use of the headband could "augmentation of spatial awareness in hazardous working environments." Then they have a nice diagram of a man wearing a hardhat and a large iron beam swinging towards his back.
That's all well and good, though using one of these might result in increased carelessness about one's working environment. Then there are other issues...
Boss: How are those new headbands working out?
Foreman: Pretty good! Watch this...
(Foreman picks up bottle and throws it at a worker facing away from him; worker ducks just in time to avoid collision)
Shun! Shun the non-believer! Shunnnnnnnnnnnnnn....
Here's a link to the actual paper.
And here's the important part:
Yeah, doesn't that make you want to ******inate someone?
Burninate?