I blame a general decline in the standard of Latin instruction everywhere.
These days, Latin is more an ornament than an end-in-itself, with the result that expectations for achievement are very low. People take it with the idea that it will help them on the verbal section of the SAT, and accord it little or no respect as an expressive language in its own right. There's precious little actual reading that takes place in the first two years of most Latin programs I have seen.
Ironically, to get maximum benefit from Latin on the SAT (and in acquisition of other languages) it helps to study Latin as a means to itself.
mea maxima culpa; sententia ultima mea male scripta est. Corrigenda est sic: non decus est ut ignoranteds scribant quod non intellegendum est et ab se ipsis.
Originis is the genitive singular of origo, originis (meaning self-evident). So the line really should be:
In this space our tree has bloomed, fruitful with the fruits of Unknown Elysium [Elysium was paradise] in which place the chosen play, surrounded by the angels of the Origin
A few more points to consider:
While I agree that fecundus (fruitful) must, in context, refer back to arbor (tree), they do not agree in gender--arbor is feminine, while fecundus is masculine.
I read pomis (fruits) as an Ablative of Description, not of agent, and believe it to be better-construed as such
Non decus est ut ignorantes scribent quod non intellegendum est et ab se ipsis.
I've always wanted a service like this--not for books that are in print and thus (relatively) easy to get, but for books that are out of print, and have been out of print for years.
I'm thinking particularly about relatively obscure academic books, which have short print runs...It's somewhat frustrating when you're researching to learn that yes, someone has already explored a particular line of questioning, but that his work is no longer in print and thus not easily available
Fortunately, at least some publishers are becoming responsive to this need. The Cambridge University Press have begun a print-on-demand service. Here's hoping it catches on.
R&D is something you can't skim on, and HP found that out hopefully.
Wishful thinking. R&D pays off long after the investors have sold off their shares; so the investors really don't give a fig about R&D that doesn't bear immediate, marketable fruit.
a lot of toughbooks seem to be showing up government-surplus. I think they were military issued, but can someone with time in the service confirm this?
c'mon, guys. Is it asking too much to report the ACTUAL bandwidth used in the trial, instead of some arbitrarily-high number that the users involved will never actually see??
I'm in for a thermonuclear flaming for so much as suggesting this on slashdot, but here goes:
The Pentagon is charged with defense and defense planning. Drawing up plans like this is their job. They are there to plan for every contingency and to present every option. They are also there to carry those plans out when so ordered. They are not there to carry those plans out without authorization
The United States is a second-strike nuclear power--its weapons are both so numerous and so dispersed that no single strike could easily knock out all of its retaliatory capability. Emerging nuclear powers, in contrast, are usually first-strike powers: their weapons are few and concentrated, geographically.
Given the knowledge that such an emerging nuclear power is preparing to fire its weapons on the United States or its allies, the warplanners are faced with the following choice:
Permit the strike to launch, and then use the dispersed retaliatory capability to launch a tit-for-tat reprisal
Attempt to destroy the enemy strike capability before it launches
Consider the costs and the benefits: a targeted, pre-emptive strike could neutralize a military target and eliminate a threat, all in a single stroke. Striking after the fact, your choice of targets is less optimal--do you hit some *other*, less-crucial part of the enemy's military infrastructure? Or do you retaliate in kind against a civilian target?
Tough choices. But somebody has to make them, eventually.
We're covering this as if most users were going to upgrade from XP to Vista, and will be thus compelled to shell out big bucks for new graphics cards, ram, disks, etc for their current computers just to run the new OS.
This is, of course, not the case. Most users who cannot upgrade will march blithely on with the OS they already have. I'm writing from work, where we're still using Windows 2000. The computer next to me is an ancient Pentium 133--and it runs Win95.
Home users will encounter Vista when they decide to buy a brand new computer, and from that perspective, they'll have gotten a shiny new OS with their shiny new hardware. Nobody will see the cost of the OS and the cost of the hardware to run it as separate things.
Will someone please post information for those of us who are concerned about this revision, and how we can get involved in maybe influencing the final document, if that's at all possible?
Personally, I'm distressed about all of this. What happens to corps with large patent portfolios who have been supporting free software up to now?
Although, I guess even if this goes through, I expect it to be ignored. FSF can promulgate licenses all it wants, but that doesn't stop individual developers from continuing to release their software on terms of their own choosing....so maybe there's time to be relieved.
...and now let's go back to reality. Marketing budgets cut through the babel of thousands--millions !--of other products competing for attention in the marketplace. The only "merit" that ensures survival in the marketplace is marketability.
That's a hard truth, but it's what it is. Great work is seldom popular work.
the only class of users Freedom really matters to--in the sense that it will be a make-or-break deciding factor in whether to go for Windows or Linux--is that class of users that has to deal with the IT infrastructures of large organizations
Think about it: to the average home end-user, vendor lock-in isn't a problem. The computer is just another device/appliance which is just as disposable as any other commodity device he uses. If the new whizzbang services which require DRM won't run on his machine, well, dammit, he'll buy something that will run them. It's not as if, having been given his freedom he can usefully do anything with it: most home users sail on blithely with default everything (including security, that's another issue). FOr this type of user, the more locked-down and slick, the better.
But for large corporations, who have to worry about lots of licensing, that's another story. They will want to get what works and stick to it. If GNU/Linux's corporate friends--IBM, Novell, RedHat, etc--sell freedom that says "we won't force you on an upgrade treadmill," they might take notice.
Because, in the end, what put computers everywhere wasn't mom archiving her recipies on the mac in the kitchen--it was dad's boss putting PC-XTs everywhere so the drones could use Lotus 1-2-3. This is where Linux can make a play.
Nice to get the facts. Like I said, I always heard it as a folktale.
Soviet engineering has always fascinated me, though. There's a certain brutal utilitarianism to Soviet design that sometimes creates beautiful and elegant solutions..
I am reminded of an old folktale: Shortly after the first manned missions into orbit, the American and Soviet space programs faced a problem: their ball-point-pens wouldn't work in a zero-G environment.
The Americans, showing great ingenuity and technical prowess, awarded a huge contract to design, test, and build specialized writing implements for astronauts. The result: a sleek ball-point pen with ink in a compressed-nitrogen capsule, able to write under all conditions.
The Soviets used pencils.
You can keep your SpacePenMightyMouse, Apple. I've got a box of Ticonderogas and a perfectly-useable one on my desk.
Slashdot Mirror
So, tell me--what does this new thing do that Evolution doesn't do already?
I blame a general decline in the standard of Latin instruction everywhere.
These days, Latin is more an ornament than an end-in-itself, with the result that expectations for achievement are very low. People take it with the idea that it will help them on the verbal section of the SAT, and accord it little or no respect as an expressive language in its own right. There's precious little actual reading that takes place in the first two years of most Latin programs I have seen.
Ironically, to get maximum benefit from Latin on the SAT (and in acquisition of other languages) it helps to study Latin as a means to itself.
quo in loco isn't ablative absolute. It is, however, a clever-schoolboy way of reordering in quo loco which is what they really meant to say.
mea maxima culpa; sententia ultima mea male scripta est. Corrigenda est sic: non decus est ut ignoranteds scribant quod non intellegendum est et ab se ipsis.
should have used "preview," dammit.Originis is the genitive singular of origo, originis (meaning self-evident). So the line really should be:
A few more points to consider:
Non decus est ut ignorantes scribent quod non intellegendum est et ab se ipsis.
I've always wanted a service like this--not for books that are in print and thus (relatively) easy to get, but for books that are out of print, and have been out of print for years.
I'm thinking particularly about relatively obscure academic books, which have short print runs...It's somewhat frustrating when you're researching to learn that yes, someone has already explored a particular line of questioning, but that his work is no longer in print and thus not easily available
Fortunately, at least some publishers are becoming responsive to this need. The Cambridge University Press have begun a print-on-demand service. Here's hoping it catches on.
There was a Hurricane Xenia in 1956...time to go back to the old naming conventions, I guess.
Hard to be thought of as "stylish" when most of their popular titles are pitched at the 13 and under crowd...
...not going to go over too well with the Sumatrans and the Sundanese...
Once you have tasted the fruit of the Tree of Public Investment, never again will you enter the paradise of telling the Street to get stuffed.
Wishful thinking. R&D pays off long after the investors have sold off their shares; so the investors really don't give a fig about R&D that doesn't bear immediate, marketable fruit.
a lot of toughbooks seem to be showing up government-surplus. I think they were military issued, but can someone with time in the service confirm this?
alternatively, imagine leaving webcams and microphones in every room for your ex-girlfriend.....
c'mon, guys. Is it asking too much to report the ACTUAL bandwidth used in the trial, instead of some arbitrarily-high number that the users involved will never actually see??
I'm in for a thermonuclear flaming for so much as suggesting this on slashdot, but here goes:
The Pentagon is charged with defense and defense planning. Drawing up plans like this is their job. They are there to plan for every contingency and to present every option. They are also there to carry those plans out when so ordered. They are not there to carry those plans out without authorization
The United States is a second-strike nuclear power--its weapons are both so numerous and so dispersed that no single strike could easily knock out all of its retaliatory capability. Emerging nuclear powers, in contrast, are usually first-strike powers: their weapons are few and concentrated, geographically.
Given the knowledge that such an emerging nuclear power is preparing to fire its weapons on the United States or its allies, the warplanners are faced with the following choice:
Consider the costs and the benefits: a targeted, pre-emptive strike could neutralize a military target and eliminate a threat, all in a single stroke. Striking after the fact, your choice of targets is less optimal--do you hit some *other*, less-crucial part of the enemy's military infrastructure? Or do you retaliate in kind against a civilian target?
Tough choices. But somebody has to make them, eventually.
We're covering this as if most users were going to upgrade from XP to Vista, and will be thus compelled to shell out big bucks for new graphics cards, ram, disks, etc for their current computers just to run the new OS.
This is, of course, not the case. Most users who cannot upgrade will march blithely on with the OS they already have. I'm writing from work, where we're still using Windows 2000. The computer next to me is an ancient Pentium 133--and it runs Win95.
Home users will encounter Vista when they decide to buy a brand new computer, and from that perspective, they'll have gotten a shiny new OS with their shiny new hardware. Nobody will see the cost of the OS and the cost of the hardware to run it as separate things.
Will someone please post information for those of us who are concerned about this revision, and how we can get involved in maybe influencing the final document, if that's at all possible?
Personally, I'm distressed about all of this. What happens to corps with large patent portfolios who have been supporting free software up to now?
Although, I guess even if this goes through, I expect it to be ignored. FSF can promulgate licenses all it wants, but that doesn't stop individual developers from continuing to release their software on terms of their own choosing....so maybe there's time to be relieved.
A fragment, from Christopher Smart's long and bizarre "Jubilate Agno,"--beat poetry from the 18th century":
...and now let's go back to reality. Marketing budgets cut through the babel of thousands--millions !--of other products competing for attention in the marketplace. The only "merit" that ensures survival in the marketplace is marketability.
That's a hard truth, but it's what it is. Great work is seldom popular work.
This post is a second-order dupe.
...because my battery life sucks now, and having that kind of power would kick ass
But most of the present FOSS community are there because they were trying to escape Clippy's smothering love!
the only class of users Freedom really matters to--in the sense that it will be a make-or-break deciding factor in whether to go for Windows or Linux--is that class of users that has to deal with the IT infrastructures of large organizations
Think about it: to the average home end-user, vendor lock-in isn't a problem. The computer is just another device/appliance which is just as disposable as any other commodity device he uses. If the new whizzbang services which require DRM won't run on his machine, well, dammit, he'll buy something that will run them. It's not as if, having been given his freedom he can usefully do anything with it: most home users sail on blithely with default everything (including security, that's another issue). FOr this type of user, the more locked-down and slick, the better.
But for large corporations, who have to worry about lots of licensing, that's another story. They will want to get what works and stick to it. If GNU/Linux's corporate friends--IBM, Novell, RedHat, etc--sell freedom that says "we won't force you on an upgrade treadmill," they might take notice.
Because, in the end, what put computers everywhere wasn't mom archiving her recipies on the mac in the kitchen--it was dad's boss putting PC-XTs everywhere so the drones could use Lotus 1-2-3. This is where Linux can make a play.
Nice to get the facts. Like I said, I always heard it as a folktale.
Soviet engineering has always fascinated me, though. There's a certain brutal utilitarianism to Soviet design that sometimes creates beautiful and elegant solutions..
I am reminded of an old folktale: Shortly after the first manned missions into orbit, the American and Soviet space programs faced a problem: their ball-point-pens wouldn't work in a zero-G environment.
The Americans, showing great ingenuity and technical prowess, awarded a huge contract to design, test, and build specialized writing implements for astronauts. The result: a sleek ball-point pen with ink in a compressed-nitrogen capsule, able to write under all conditions.
The Soviets used pencils.
You can keep your SpacePenMightyMouse, Apple. I've got a box of Ticonderogas and a perfectly-useable one on my desk.