This is academia, not industry. We are publicly-funded. Most researchers do not make any money off their discoveries and just get paid from grants. So the poor Indonesian kid probably cannot expect to get rich quick, but at least can be accorded his due share of fame and the benefits arising from that.
It is -- why do you think Apple doesn't run those ads in the EU? Most EU countries (not all, but most) have laws about advertising, and one such law is that you can't knock a competitor's product specifically when advertising yours. This is the reason why, say, washing powder ads always compare the brand to a "generic brand" or "competing brand". Knocking the other person's product is always evil (and thankfully illegal in much of Europe), no matter whether it's Apple or Microsoft doing it.
For the record, I use Linux, and I won't touch either Windows or OS X, and I don't like either company much, but with Apple it's a mild distaste and with Microsoft it's pure resentment and loathing.
You mean, the gospel according to Planesdragon. Because that is not the gospel I believe, or even most Christians. Also, by simplifying it you destroy most of the beauty and subtlety of Jesus' actions and words.
Seriously, if you step back a moment, you can see that your version does not even make sense. If God created us, why would we deserve to go to hell, and why would he want any of us to? Why even hell, an eternity of torture? If there is a reason for it, why would everyone be created to be pre-destined for hell? Why does any of that matter to God? If he loves you, why on earth would he want to send you to hell unless you love him back? That would certainly not be "unconditional love". Why would he want you to love him back? What would such love mean at all -- motivated by gratefulness or terror -- what manifestation is meant?
These are just some of the issues. No, the gospel without its context is less than meaningless, it is senseless.
But with its context, the message and the context are in fact extremely beautiful.
I think me meant that as a metaphor for respect rather than literally "Sir". After all, it might be "Ma'am". But even compulsory respect for authority is pretty bad for freedom. A free people will have a healthy disrespect and distrust for any position of authority (for authority immediately segments populations into classes), even if they voted for it in the first place. I'm not American (I'm European), and I have always considered things like having to call the president "Mr. President" or "President Bush" when addressing him or referring to him (instead of just "Mr. Bush" or "Bush"), or the Pledge of Allegiance, disturbing trends.
You can also see this trend in European countries. Countries with historically high levels of respect for authority -- France, Germany, Russia, Austria -- have each succumbed to totalitarian dictators or monarchs, who often met violent ends, whereas countries with rich and varied phrases and expressions of disrespect and pretty free religions (historically only Britain and the Nordic countries; in modern times, far more) have maintained remarkably stable and nonviolent systems (consider that only one of hundreds of British PMs was ever assasinated, and there hasn't been civil war there since 1688). Modern Europe is different, of course, but the trend is still a valuable one.
No, the administrators and civil servants and settlers sent there built the place up to what it is today. Certainly the criminal classes and their descendants played an important and formative role in Australia's history, but attributing Australia's civilisation to them is disingenuous -- Australia is a former British colony, and its infrastructure and governance were built up in the same boring but reliable way that was used in Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, India, etc.
The same can pretty much be said for xvid. Sure it's patent-encumbered: but so is this. On the other hand, it is GPLv2, so it is also definitely open. I don't see what's novel about Sun's idea -- though I definitely share your sentiment that the more players, the better.
This is win and awesome if you don't mind writing your code to Google's environment, and pretty much forgetting any existing application you may have. If you have existing applications, you can host them for free on very good hosts even today (for instance I discovered zymic.com a few months ago) and get a full, standard LAMP stack instead of something completely different.
This is basically aimed at people writing new applications, who want those applications to scale, but don't want to deal with anything that might even smell low-level (otherwise, you could use EC2).
I was just wondering if anyone in the US used (or knew) this term. In Britain, it is used over Rube Goldberg machine after Heath Robinson, the English journalist and cartoonist, who earlier took an interest in such convoluted contraptions.
They were outshone, all the way through, by the English, the Germans, the Italians, even the Scots, and later the Americans. They weren't, in a nutshell, at the forefront of many areas (England and Germany were). I think you view their role in a slightly exaggerated fashion. For every prominent French scientist, there were half a dozen English and German ones. For every artist and writer, half a dozen Italian, German and English ones. For every philosopher, half a dozen English and Scottish ones. For every military leader, half a dozen English, American and German ones. They were probably a broad second in many of those fields, though.
Not to disagree with the thrust of your statement, but he was British -- his writings probably do not reflect the American self-image, value systems, etc. as much as general Western self-image, value systems et al.
It'll always be different between profit-driven private broadcasting (almost all of what is in the US), charterered but partly commercially funded broadcasting (most of Europe and the Commonwealth) and entirely chartered and publicly funded broadcasting (the BBC and the Nordic broadcasters). (Independent broadcasting receives very little audience share.)
At one end of the spectrum, the private end, there is almost zero value, as the viewer is merely a revenue-generating machine, whose desires and psychology are carefully analysed and catered to. Too much education or critical thinking would even impede his consumerism. At the other end of the spectrum there is the BBC, with its absolutely stellar documentary, science and news output. The BBC's mission is to educate, entertain and inform, and though falling short of perfection, not to mention being mauled by Thatcher & New Labour, it is still probably the best broadcaster in the world. It actually often broadcasts good science and good news, for instance.
And the ABC, NZBC, CBC, PBS -- these will always occupy middle grounds in this spectrum, until they become wholly publicly funded.
Many adults don't consider gross violence, nudity, etc. as entertainment and frankly it degrades the entertainment value to the point where those people find something else to watch. Speak for yourself when generalising. Although I think violence degrades the entertainment value of programmes, incidental nudity can only add to it. If it's prolonged, it could be distracting, but in most entertainment programmes, it never is, so short bursts of it only enhance the pleasure of the entertainment.
It's not the case in the UK, because the tech people, along with the wider intelligentsia, tend to be broadly Old Labour, because there is at least a semblance of a working welfare state, and nobody can deny that it works, and that clearly doesn't jive with libertarianism. Plus there is a broad scepticism of the far right in Europe. In America, there is less such scepticism, and there is mass indoctrination about the free market and socialism -- a relic of the Cold War and superpower status, which needed mass indoctrination to maintain itself.
This was going to be the first post, but it took such a long time to clear with the censors because of the also, possibly I shouldn't have written about or about rights to free issues.
My major? Maths and Computer Science. I won't change just yet.
I admit I only dabble in history. And I admit that Founding Fathers of America tried to distance themselves from the British system in many aspects. But the system is as remarkable for its similarity to the British system as for the points in which it differed, which in any case often did not pan out as planned. For instance, the Electoral College. It was designed to fulfil the role of the House of Commons in electing the head of government, but be distinct from the legislature. Net result? By taking away the function that actually gave the electing body any purpose, and giving it a mock purpose every four years, it became an ineffective pretence, and quite often a liability. Or fixed terms for the Cabinet and the legislature. The result is inflexibility: political deadlock between the House of Representatives and the White House, when from different parties.
Anyway, the Bill of Rights doesn't really apply "through MPs". Some rights, e.g. to petition the Monarch, apply through MPs, but most of the protections applied to all Englishmen. The American Bill of Rights does have extra provisions, naturally, which is unsurprising it came a hundred years of political thought later.
The idea of it being in the rights of man to form his own government was certainly significant. I wouldn't, however, attribute much importance to the fact that these documents are not in a "written constitution" in the UK. The British constitution, although not one document but a collection of hundreds of laws and some conventions, is no less solid or real than the American constitution, which, although one single piece of paper, is as open to interpretation or abuse (as we are seeing in this decade) as the other.
Slashdot Mirror
This is academia, not industry. We are publicly-funded. Most researchers do not make any money off their discoveries and just get paid from grants. So the poor Indonesian kid probably cannot expect to get rich quick, but at least can be accorded his due share of fame and the benefits arising from that.
I'm one of the game creators; and there IS a linux version, I use it every day, but somehow the story broke a day too early. Just hang on, please.
It is -- why do you think Apple doesn't run those ads in the EU? Most EU countries (not all, but most) have laws about advertising, and one such law is that you can't knock a competitor's product specifically when advertising yours. This is the reason why, say, washing powder ads always compare the brand to a "generic brand" or "competing brand". Knocking the other person's product is always evil (and thankfully illegal in much of Europe), no matter whether it's Apple or Microsoft doing it. For the record, I use Linux, and I won't touch either Windows or OS X, and I don't like either company much, but with Apple it's a mild distaste and with Microsoft it's pure resentment and loathing.
You mean, the gospel according to Planesdragon. Because that is not the gospel I believe, or even most Christians. Also, by simplifying it you destroy most of the beauty and subtlety of Jesus' actions and words.
Seriously, if you step back a moment, you can see that your version does not even make sense. If God created us, why would we deserve to go to hell, and why would he want any of us to? Why even hell, an eternity of torture? If there is a reason for it, why would everyone be created to be pre-destined for hell? Why does any of that matter to God? If he loves you, why on earth would he want to send you to hell unless you love him back? That would certainly not be "unconditional love". Why would he want you to love him back? What would such love mean at all -- motivated by gratefulness or terror -- what manifestation is meant?
These are just some of the issues. No, the gospel without its context is less than meaningless, it is senseless.
But with its context, the message and the context are in fact extremely beautiful.
NoScript, however, does block flash reliably, before it loads.
Whoops, this was meant in reply to http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=527194&cid=23118166
I think me meant that as a metaphor for respect rather than literally "Sir". After all, it might be "Ma'am". But even compulsory respect for authority is pretty bad for freedom. A free people will have a healthy disrespect and distrust for any position of authority (for authority immediately segments populations into classes), even if they voted for it in the first place. I'm not American (I'm European), and I have always considered things like having to call the president "Mr. President" or "President Bush" when addressing him or referring to him (instead of just "Mr. Bush" or "Bush"), or the Pledge of Allegiance, disturbing trends. You can also see this trend in European countries. Countries with historically high levels of respect for authority -- France, Germany, Russia, Austria -- have each succumbed to totalitarian dictators or monarchs, who often met violent ends, whereas countries with rich and varied phrases and expressions of disrespect and pretty free religions (historically only Britain and the Nordic countries; in modern times, far more) have maintained remarkably stable and nonviolent systems (consider that only one of hundreds of British PMs was ever assasinated, and there hasn't been civil war there since 1688). Modern Europe is different, of course, but the trend is still a valuable one.
No, the administrators and civil servants and settlers sent there built the place up to what it is today. Certainly the criminal classes and their descendants played an important and formative role in Australia's history, but attributing Australia's civilisation to them is disingenuous -- Australia is a former British colony, and its infrastructure and governance were built up in the same boring but reliable way that was used in Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, India, etc.
More reliable language means less debugging -- and that's typically what a C/C++ programmer spends most of his/her time in.
The same can pretty much be said for xvid. Sure it's patent-encumbered: but so is this. On the other hand, it is GPLv2, so it is also definitely open. I don't see what's novel about Sun's idea -- though I definitely share your sentiment that the more players, the better.
This is win and awesome if you don't mind writing your code to Google's environment, and pretty much forgetting any existing application you may have. If you have existing applications, you can host them for free on very good hosts even today (for instance I discovered zymic.com a few months ago) and get a full, standard LAMP stack instead of something completely different.
This is basically aimed at people writing new applications, who want those applications to scale, but don't want to deal with anything that might even smell low-level (otherwise, you could use EC2).
Unless you happen to be Russia. And it's your Western front. Then, safe bet.
I was just wondering if anyone in the US used (or knew) this term. In Britain, it is used over Rube Goldberg machine after Heath Robinson, the English journalist and cartoonist, who earlier took an interest in such convoluted contraptions.
They were outshone, all the way through, by the English, the Germans, the Italians, even the Scots, and later the Americans. They weren't, in a nutshell, at the forefront of many areas (England and Germany were). I think you view their role in a slightly exaggerated fashion. For every prominent French scientist, there were half a dozen English and German ones. For every artist and writer, half a dozen Italian, German and English ones. For every philosopher, half a dozen English and Scottish ones. For every military leader, half a dozen English, American and German ones. They were probably a broad second in many of those fields, though.
Utter rubbish. An appreciation of the frontier is apolitical.
Not to disagree with the thrust of your statement, but he was British -- his writings probably do not reflect the American self-image, value systems, etc. as much as general Western self-image, value systems et al.
It'll always be different between profit-driven private broadcasting (almost all of what is in the US), charterered but partly commercially funded broadcasting (most of Europe and the Commonwealth) and entirely chartered and publicly funded broadcasting (the BBC and the Nordic broadcasters). (Independent broadcasting receives very little audience share.) At one end of the spectrum, the private end, there is almost zero value, as the viewer is merely a revenue-generating machine, whose desires and psychology are carefully analysed and catered to. Too much education or critical thinking would even impede his consumerism. At the other end of the spectrum there is the BBC, with its absolutely stellar documentary, science and news output. The BBC's mission is to educate, entertain and inform, and though falling short of perfection, not to mention being mauled by Thatcher & New Labour, it is still probably the best broadcaster in the world. It actually often broadcasts good science and good news, for instance. And the ABC, NZBC, CBC, PBS -- these will always occupy middle grounds in this spectrum, until they become wholly publicly funded.
Three's Company and Three's a Crowd from Man About the House and Robin's Nest. etc.
Copycat? Penney co-developed it.
Then it's evidently higher quality to you than any other offering, including proprietary or closed ones.
Britain.
It's not the case in the UK, because the tech people, along with the wider intelligentsia, tend to be broadly Old Labour, because there is at least a semblance of a working welfare state, and nobody can deny that it works, and that clearly doesn't jive with libertarianism. Plus there is a broad scepticism of the far right in Europe. In America, there is less such scepticism, and there is mass indoctrination about the free market and socialism -- a relic of the Cold War and superpower status, which needed mass indoctrination to maintain itself.
This was going to be the first post, but it took such a long time to clear with the censors because of the also, possibly I shouldn't have written about or about rights to free issues.
My major? Maths and Computer Science. I won't change just yet. I admit I only dabble in history. And I admit that Founding Fathers of America tried to distance themselves from the British system in many aspects. But the system is as remarkable for its similarity to the British system as for the points in which it differed, which in any case often did not pan out as planned. For instance, the Electoral College. It was designed to fulfil the role of the House of Commons in electing the head of government, but be distinct from the legislature. Net result? By taking away the function that actually gave the electing body any purpose, and giving it a mock purpose every four years, it became an ineffective pretence, and quite often a liability. Or fixed terms for the Cabinet and the legislature. The result is inflexibility: political deadlock between the House of Representatives and the White House, when from different parties. Anyway, the Bill of Rights doesn't really apply "through MPs". Some rights, e.g. to petition the Monarch, apply through MPs, but most of the protections applied to all Englishmen. The American Bill of Rights does have extra provisions, naturally, which is unsurprising it came a hundred years of political thought later. The idea of it being in the rights of man to form his own government was certainly significant. I wouldn't, however, attribute much importance to the fact that these documents are not in a "written constitution" in the UK. The British constitution, although not one document but a collection of hundreds of laws and some conventions, is no less solid or real than the American constitution, which, although one single piece of paper, is as open to interpretation or abuse (as we are seeing in this decade) as the other.