I've never had this explained to me, so indulge me:P Isn't the phase of a wave information? If one changed the phase of a wave and it travelled faster than light, wouldn't someone be able to detect it faster?
I realise this is probably a really stupid question, but I'm curious for an answer
Movie trailers arn't free, they're copyrighted and has exactly the same protection as the movies themselves. You could get sued for copyright infringment for burning trailers to a cd and distributing them.
I agree that the literary concept of Dramatic Irony is really quite fascinating, but it is also very far from how we use the word in speech and text every day. While I agree that certain things are simply Wrong (to say "we have a very unique oppertunity" is moronic, and the plural of virus is not virii!!!) and should be corrected, organic evolution of language concepts are thing we just have to accept. Any decent linguist will agree with this.
The reason for the high position of Gothenburg, Stockholm and Malmö in the usama-search is because in Swedish "Osama" is pronounced like "Usama", so it's an easy mistake to make.
Ok, now I feel really stupid, I know the difference between "you're" and "your", I apologise. I'm not a native speaker and it is 2:14 AM here. I think that is a sufficient excuse for any language imperfections........ The link to the slate article is http://www.slate.com/id/2129105/ btw.
(and no, I have no idea how authorotative is spelled)
But there's a tragic humor there that "coincidence" and "synchronicity" fail to connote. You can't really hate on people for expanding the English language to accommodate such a simple and common mental concept.
I agree with this 100%. First of all, languages grow, and words change meaning. One of the best examples is "literally", which means, literally, "by the letter". The word has come to mean something like "this actually happened", but in modern times is mostly used in direct opposition to that definition. "She's literally glowing with pride!" This is completly correct usage in modern english, even though many people wont accept it (there is a great article on slate on this very word, written by an editor of the OED, which should be pretty authoratative).
Same thing with irony. As you said, there is a mental concept very closely tied to situations like these, and there is no other word that even comes close to describing it other than "irony". So why not use the word in that way? If you're answer is "because it is just plain wrong", than you don't understand much about how language develops.
Look at this image crosseyed: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6a/3d_s tereograph_couch.jpg. Is this 3D? It's obviously not, since it is simply a 2D image, just like any other 2D image. It has only x and y, no z. Yet, when we look at it we percieve it as being 3D. But it's not. It's still just the same old x and y.
Key word here is percieve. The brain percieves these two images as if they were 3D. But they're not. They're 2D. The distinction between 2D and 3D is not in how we percieve it, but what it actually is. Finding Nemo is a two dimensional projection of 3D objects. Just like Quake, or Half-Life or VRML.
We can't judge mathematical concepts after what we may or may not be able to percieve. Mathematical judgements are made on objective truth, not on what we as a species may or may not be able to visualise. For instance, the only way possible to visualize a tesseract is to project it to 3-dimensional or 2-dimensional space. Does this mean that the projected object is, infact, not a 4 dimensional object? OFCOURSE NOT! The object is still 4-dimensional, but the projection is 3 or 2 dimensional.
Same thing with three dimensional objects in webpages or first person shooters.
If you're still not convinced: Tell me, is this a three dimensional object? The answer: ofcourse it is. Whether you make an image of it, or whether you describe a dodecahedron using equations, numbers or words, it's still very much a three dimensional object. Now tell me, is the 2-dimensional projection of it on my screen a three dimensional object? The answer: ofcourse it's not, and it doesn't become three dimensional just because you add another copy of the same image from a slightly different angle next to it. You are measuring things using your own subjective judgements, but you HAVE to measure them using mathematical fact. Any other way is not just wrong, but moronic.
Boy, oh, boy are you wrong. First of all, two 2D images projected onto your eyes to simulate depth, are no more 3D than just one 2D image. I might look more 3D, but since you seem to be a stickler for naming things correctly, it's in no way true 3D.
The point is that VRML, just like 3D animated movies and FPSs are modeled inside the computer as three dimensional objects. You translate, shear, scale and rotate in three dimensions. Then it is projected on a 2D surface, that is true, but it still 3D inside the computer. If you demand that the projection also is 3D (and stereoscopic images ARE NOT three dimensional, they are simply two 2D images), the only thing that's going to fulfill that is, well, holograms or a good performance of Hamlet.
That's also why it is wrong to call DOOM a 3D shooter, because while it looks like 3D, the engine is pure 2D.
I'm pretty sure that you can't use any technologies that are based on there being an atmosphere. That is, no helicopters, no parachutes. Basically, it's supposed to work equally well in a vacuum.
My favorite health stat comes courtesy of the CIA World Factbook. If you look at the world rankings for infant mortality rate, Cuba beats the US by 0.21! This really reflects more on Cuba than it does the US, but it's still fun. Infact, more than 40 countries beat the US, including Taiwan, Greece, Portugal, Slovenia and Malta.
I don't mean to read to much into these things, ("Lies, damn lies, and statistics", and all that), but still, you guys MIGHT want to, you know, provide a little more healthcare than you already are. You have the by far highest GDP, and the only ones that beat your GDP per capita can be considered anomalies.
You can save documents in.doc in OO.o. If the other person only has MS Word, what's the problem with that? I do this regularly when I have to collaborate with people who don't use OO.org.
Tell me, is it just because you are a whiny open source-guy who cries "But I DON'T WANNA use.doc!" anytime someone isn't as hip as you?
I'm neither a lawyer nor an american, but isn't "homosexual conduct" protected under the 14th amendments equal protection clause? If we forbid certain adults to have sex with eachother, we certainly are not offering them "equal protection of the laws". Right?
It might have something to do with Lost. The commandline looks just like the one in lost, and also, the meta-description in the head of the source says "Please help push the buttons before the time runs out", which every lost viewer will find out. Punching in the Lost numbers 4,8,15,16,23,42 or 108 doesn't help though....
Flash does not suck. It's sucks when people use it annoyingly, but it's great at doing alot of things. The grand-parents example is one of them. Google Video is another (although, I would prefer if they did that in Java, but tha's just me).
You may dislike how people use it, but it's a great technology for embedding lightweight widgets in a web-page.
But this is not some modern cultural phenomenon, the Evil TV that mushes us up into brain-dead advertisment consumers. This is what culture, and more specifically, entertainment always have been. The greeks and romans watched people being stupid on stage in the town square, or they watched gladiators ripping eachother up. More modern examples include Commedia dell'arte, Punch and Judy shows, carnivals, and even Shakespeare. What do you think the reason is for all those drunken fools in the commedies, that do nothing else but fart and act like general jackasses. It was to entertain the illiterate merchants, the men who had had a long day of work and needed just to relax, and catch a show.
Each period has had it's low-culture entertainment, something stupid that is there purely for entertainment.
To make a paralell with your example, what you would say had you been the friend with the shoe... Benedick comes to me and starts railing on how much he hates Beatrice. My answer:
- Dear God, man! You're in love with her, you ninny! And she's in love with you! It's so obvious any school child can see it! But nooooo, we have to concoct a stupid ass plan to make you realise what's so darn obvious to everyone else! Now leave me alone, I am a prince you know, and I have an army to run, and parties to attend to!
So stop railing on TV. If you don't like it, fine, but it's not some lower form of culture, only for the poor, dum serfs. To diss TV is not insightful, it's not some badge of honor ("I'm so educated, I don't even have a TV!"), it just makes you look like a jackass.
Also, if you look at the ancient greeks, they had no divine imperative to be moral or ethical beings (the only divine sin was hubris, and there was no heaven or hell, all went to Hades), yet they had one of the most sophisticated rule of law and government in ancient times, really only rivaled by post-enlightenment western societies. Hell, Aristotle wrote the damn book on Ethics (literally)!
Stop saying that the judicial system is derived from the ten commandments. That's crap, and nothing else.
Come on, it's comedy! You know Waiting for Godot? The spend a lot more than 21 minutes obsessing over shoes, and it's like one of the greatest plays from the 20th century.
Ohh, and by the way, I suspect that you are reffering to the wedding episode, where Chandler wanted to dance with his new bride, but couldn't because of his slippery shoes. He wanted to loan Joeys, but they turned out to be a few sizes to small (but he assures us that everything else is normal-sized, he'll show ya!) Meanwhile, Ross is trying to pick up a girl named Mona, but to do that he has to let a bunch of children dance on his feet, including a slightly overweight girl, crushing his poor toes. Also, Rachel just found out she is pregnant, and Monica and Pheobe helps her deal.
If that doesn't rival Ibsen and Beckett, I don't know what does!
(in other words, it is possible to like high-falutin' stuff, and at the same time dig the low-brow. I hear Bergman was a fan of the TV show Dallas)
This is exactly the point. I wish I had mod points, I'd mod you up. If you are using your own moral judgement to pick passages to follow, how is that different from making your own moral judgement without using the bible at all.
The data is one bit long, when we talk about algorithms we don't relate it to such ugly things as real world filsystems, it all lives in the wonderful world of pseudocode.
While I agree with your general senitiment, atleast Joe can now remove it at all. Had microdoft not hard-coded this he may have been stuck with that damn virus. I don't necessarily think this is all bad.
Slashdot Mirror
I realise this is probably a really stupid question, but I'm curious for an answer
Oh no, you didn't! That dude with blankie are going to kick your ass!
Movie trailers arn't free, they're copyrighted and has exactly the same protection as the movies themselves. You could get sued for copyright infringment for burning trailers to a cd and distributing them.
I agree that the literary concept of Dramatic Irony is really quite fascinating, but it is also very far from how we use the word in speech and text every day. While I agree that certain things are simply Wrong (to say "we have a very unique oppertunity" is moronic, and the plural of virus is not virii!!!) and should be corrected, organic evolution of language concepts are thing we just have to accept. Any decent linguist will agree with this.
The reason for the high position of Gothenburg, Stockholm and Malmö in the usama-search is because in Swedish "Osama" is pronounced like "Usama", so it's an easy mistake to make.
(and no, I have no idea how authorotative is spelled)
I agree with this 100%. First of all, languages grow, and words change meaning. One of the best examples is "literally", which means, literally, "by the letter". The word has come to mean something like "this actually happened", but in modern times is mostly used in direct opposition to that definition. "She's literally glowing with pride!" This is completly correct usage in modern english, even though many people wont accept it (there is a great article on slate on this very word, written by an editor of the OED, which should be pretty authoratative).
Same thing with irony. As you said, there is a mental concept very closely tied to situations like these, and there is no other word that even comes close to describing it other than "irony". So why not use the word in that way? If you're answer is "because it is just plain wrong", than you don't understand much about how language develops.
Be descriptive, not prescriptive!
Key word here is percieve. The brain percieves these two images as if they were 3D. But they're not. They're 2D. The distinction between 2D and 3D is not in how we percieve it, but what it actually is. Finding Nemo is a two dimensional projection of 3D objects. Just like Quake, or Half-Life or VRML.
We can't judge mathematical concepts after what we may or may not be able to percieve. Mathematical judgements are made on objective truth, not on what we as a species may or may not be able to visualise. For instance, the only way possible to visualize a tesseract is to project it to 3-dimensional or 2-dimensional space. Does this mean that the projected object is, infact, not a 4 dimensional object? OFCOURSE NOT! The object is still 4-dimensional, but the projection is 3 or 2 dimensional.
Same thing with three dimensional objects in webpages or first person shooters.
If you're still not convinced: Tell me, is this a three dimensional object? The answer: ofcourse it is. Whether you make an image of it, or whether you describe a dodecahedron using equations, numbers or words, it's still very much a three dimensional object. Now tell me, is the 2-dimensional projection of it on my screen a three dimensional object? The answer: ofcourse it's not, and it doesn't become three dimensional just because you add another copy of the same image from a slightly different angle next to it. You are measuring things using your own subjective judgements, but you HAVE to measure them using mathematical fact. Any other way is not just wrong, but moronic.
Boy, oh, boy are you wrong. First of all, two 2D images projected onto your eyes to simulate depth, are no more 3D than just one 2D image. I might look more 3D, but since you seem to be a stickler for naming things correctly, it's in no way true 3D. The point is that VRML, just like 3D animated movies and FPSs are modeled inside the computer as three dimensional objects. You translate, shear, scale and rotate in three dimensions. Then it is projected on a 2D surface, that is true, but it still 3D inside the computer. If you demand that the projection also is 3D (and stereoscopic images ARE NOT three dimensional, they are simply two 2D images), the only thing that's going to fulfill that is, well, holograms or a good performance of Hamlet. That's also why it is wrong to call DOOM a 3D shooter, because while it looks like 3D, the engine is pure 2D.
I'm pretty sure that you can't use any technologies that are based on there being an atmosphere. That is, no helicopters, no parachutes. Basically, it's supposed to work equally well in a vacuum.
I don't mean to read to much into these things, ("Lies, damn lies, and statistics", and all that), but still, you guys MIGHT want to, you know, provide a little more healthcare than you already are. You have the by far highest GDP, and the only ones that beat your GDP per capita can be considered anomalies.
Tell me, is it just because you are a whiny open source-guy who cries "But I DON'T WANNA use .doc!" anytime someone isn't as hip as you?
I'm neither a lawyer nor an american, but isn't "homosexual conduct" protected under the 14th amendments equal protection clause? If we forbid certain adults to have sex with eachother, we certainly are not offering them "equal protection of the laws". Right?
Hey, I'm overjoyed for my 3/5ths of a user.
It might have something to do with Lost. The commandline looks just like the one in lost, and also, the meta-description in the head of the source says "Please help push the buttons before the time runs out", which every lost viewer will find out. Punching in the Lost numbers 4,8,15,16,23,42 or 108 doesn't help though....
Hell, I fill up half of my 4 gb mini on podcasts alone, not to mention my 35 gb music library my computer.
You may dislike how people use it, but it's a great technology for embedding lightweight widgets in a web-page.
Oh no, you're not anti-elitist at all
Each period has had it's low-culture entertainment, something stupid that is there purely for entertainment.
To make a paralell with your example, what you would say had you been the friend with the shoe... Benedick comes to me and starts railing on how much he hates Beatrice. My answer:
- Dear God, man! You're in love with her, you ninny! And she's in love with you! It's so obvious any school child can see it! But nooooo, we have to concoct a stupid ass plan to make you realise what's so darn obvious to everyone else! Now leave me alone, I am a prince you know, and I have an army to run, and parties to attend to!
So stop railing on TV. If you don't like it, fine, but it's not some lower form of culture, only for the poor, dum serfs. To diss TV is not insightful, it's not some badge of honor ("I'm so educated, I don't even have a TV!"), it just makes you look like a jackass.
Stop saying that the judicial system is derived from the ten commandments. That's crap, and nothing else.
Ohh, and by the way, I suspect that you are reffering to the wedding episode, where Chandler wanted to dance with his new bride, but couldn't because of his slippery shoes. He wanted to loan Joeys, but they turned out to be a few sizes to small (but he assures us that everything else is normal-sized, he'll show ya!) Meanwhile, Ross is trying to pick up a girl named Mona, but to do that he has to let a bunch of children dance on his feet, including a slightly overweight girl, crushing his poor toes. Also, Rachel just found out she is pregnant, and Monica and Pheobe helps her deal.
If that doesn't rival Ibsen and Beckett, I don't know what does!
(in other words, it is possible to like high-falutin' stuff, and at the same time dig the low-brow. I hear Bergman was a fan of the TV show Dallas)
This is exactly the point. I wish I had mod points, I'd mod you up. If you are using your own moral judgement to pick passages to follow, how is that different from making your own moral judgement without using the bible at all.
The data is one bit long, when we talk about algorithms we don't relate it to such ugly things as real world filsystems, it all lives in the wonderful world of pseudocode.
While I agree with your general senitiment, atleast Joe can now remove it at all. Had microdoft not hard-coded this he may have been stuck with that damn virus. I don't necessarily think this is all bad.
Indeed, you are right, the question is whether it's a proper subset.....