I agree. However, I fail to see how that's relevant to my original point that your inclusive "we" doesn't include me and was therefore a little presumptuous, or my restated point that I disapprove of an obsession with material possessions.
I said most. I admit to a computer and an internet connection. I don't play commercial games, I haven't bought a DVD in years, my TV set from 1990 rests in the basement, I don't particularly "like" cell phones.
Even if I did like all those things you named, I can easily name plenty more that don't even cost a smile: -
Really, though, I was trying to make a different point: My disapproval of our obsession over consuming distractions in the wider sense on a regular basis, and the general assumption that everything worth having costs money. I understand my value system might differ substantially from yours. Sorry for the guided idealism.
"He who never thinks of anything as 'mine' does not feel the lack of anything: he is never worried by a sense of loss."
You'd be right it the first sentence of TFA didn't read, "Sony Ericsson may soon make the play button a thing of the past with its new motion-controlled earbuds." With a claim like that, this kind of critical response to the arcticle is to be expected and justified.
1154, from O.E. gemot "meeting" (especially of freemen, to discuss community affairs or mete justice), from P.Gmc. *ga-motan (cf. Old Low Frankish muot "encounter," M.Du. moet, M.H.G. muoz), from collective prefix *ga- + *motan (see meet (v.)). The adj. senses of "debatable" and "not worth considering" arose from moot case, earlier simply moot (n.) "discussion of a hypothetical law case" (1531), in law student jargon, in ref. to students gathering to test their skills in mock cases.
Please notice the word hypothetical, as in theoretical, as in not practical.
Please also notice the mention of the year 1531, which invalidates your 1983 reference with regards to antecedence.
Conclusions:
While whether or not you trumped anything is moot, you did overbid.
As much as I enjoy bickering with you, we should really stop this.:)
The idea of this measure is to save energy. To complain that this will cost jobs in the energy industry, or in companies that produce energy-intensive devices, is like complaining that anti-smoking education will cost jobs in the tobacco industry, that fighting terror will cost jobs in the explosives industry, or that curing cancer will cost the job of many a undertaker.
Dear concerned people, we appreciate you're concerned about lost jobs, but this is exactly what we're trying to achieve here.
While PP's correction of GP's improper choice of homonym is laudable, the incorrect definition PP provides, and the tacit approval of GP's errant usage that stems from that, are unfortunate. Give PP 1 point, but take away 2 points.
When you're correcting someone's correction, you really should double-check your assertions to make sure you're not talking crass nonsense, especially if you do it in that tone.
Your point:
However while "moot" can take several different meanings, "Of no practical importance; irrelevant" is not one of them.
Your fault:
moot, adj.
2: deprived of practical significance : made abstract or purely academic
for i in {1..10}; do cp song_i_ripped_from_my_cd.flac song_i_ripped_from_my_cd_$i.flac; done
This simple script shows that your fact (n > 1) isn't simple.
Moreover, when I don't use FLAC but MP3, i.e. introduce lossiness, I can even give those copies to my friends, who are m > 1 people, and it's still legal, as long as I don't publish, or "make them available to the public". This is true at least in countries that handle this the same sane way audio tapes were handled; which, by the way, include your own country a few years ago.
Copying audio for select friends in a lossy format was, and will always be, moral. That it was, and isn't any longer, legal is of negligible import for everybody who didn't watch too many "public service announcements".
You're right, my fault. I misread the Wiki article. Two paragraphs down, it actually says exactly what you say.
On April 8, 2014, all Windows XP support, including security updates and security-related hotfixes will be terminated.
But hey, who are we to criticize Microsoft for making their new OS more appealing, right? Can't have people unreasonably keep using XP, when Vista and up have all the good trusted computing support.
Alternatively, sue Microsoft because they're breaking a sales promise. Windows XP is officially supported ("Extended Support" including security fixes) until mid 2010.
Windows XP Service Pack 2 will be retired on July 13, 2010, almost six years after its general availability. In accordance with Microsoft's posted timetable, the company stopped general licensing of Windows XP to OEMs and terminated retail sales of the operating system on June 30, 2008, 17 months after the release of Windows Vista. However, an exception was announced on April 3, 2008, for OEMs installing to ultra low-cost PCs (ULCPCs) either until June 30, 2010, or one year after the availability of the next client version of Windows, Windows 7 -- whichever date comes later.
On April 14, 2009, Windows XP and its family of operating systems were moved from Mainstream Support to the Extended Support phase as it marks the progression of the legacy operating system through the Microsoft Support Lifecycle Policy. During the Extended Support Phase, Microsoft will continue to provide security updates every month for Windows XP, however free technical support, warranty claims and design changes are no longer being offered.
They still sold/licensed XP as late as June 2008, which means that in Europe they're even in the mandatory two-year warranty period, regardless of whether they claim your warranty expired in the "Extended Support" phase. I hope they get sued to hell and back. And then back again.
Right. IIRC, 34% of statistics are exhaustingly specific answers to surprisingly misleading questions, 22% are imposingly far-reaching conjecture on ridiculously small sample sizes, 44% are just made up on the spot, and the remaining 15% are conducted by people who can't even add up to 100?
Your source disagrees with you. You probably cite this:
According to the ISNA definition above, 1 percent of live births exhibit some degree of sexual ambiguity.
But we're talking about this:
Between 0.1% and 0.2% of live births are ambiguous enough to become the subject of specialist medical attention, including surgery to disguise their sexual ambiguity.
[...]
According to Leonard Sax the prevalence of intersex "restricted to those conditions in which chromosomal sex is inconsistent with phenotypic sex, or in which the phenotype is not classifiable as either male or female" is about 0.018%.
The proper course of action is to obtain a warrant from a court.
If thirty years of TV and cinema have taught me one thing, it's that you can pretty much maim, rape and kill everyone in the goddamn county, if only you have that little piece of evidence to show afterwards, and an attractive blonde to kiss to the swelling music.;)
Either the state court system itself is corrupt, which is possible but not that likely, or he's wrong.
Seriously, that's what I meant. It might be someone in the Superior Court making it impossible for him to take that proper course. Add the Eastwood vigilante desert charm, and you might get the current situation. Maybe he does want to call in the Feds, but can't until he makes sure the evidence won't be gone by then. Anyway, I'm really just playing devil's advocate here because I found the FU comment meritless.
It could be said in a way that would help people who don't know that already understand. Like it is, the comment is redundant for everyone who knows, because they already know, and meaningless for everyone who doesn't know, because it's pure vitriol.
[The system] also is a server and e-mail platform for several county agencies, including the Sheriff's and County Attorney's offices and the Superior Court.
Just as the Sheriff's Office is concerned about civilians' access to records, county management is concerned the Sheriff's Office now has access to information from other county agencies it is investigating, such as the Superior Court. State appellate courts have rebuffed Arpaio's attempts to obtain privileged court e-mails, which would be accessible through the system.
I'm wondering. What if there's incriminating evidence in those e-mail exchanges the Sheriff needs and wants to protect from tampering? It sounds a little like a Hollywood movie, but how do we know. Maybe he knew someone was going to remove that data and he needs it to expose corruption higher up.
I don't know anything about this Joe Arpaio, never heard of him, so it may be obvious this is not the case. But just exclaiming "Fuck you" didn't help me find out either.
Aw, come on. We're on the same page, except I like Cheetos. You're too defensive; don't answer any random anonymous coward who makes a quip.
I, too, think IE is only used by people who don't matter, people who will use any damn thing their vendor tells them to. The swayable, swayed masses. I, too, am wary of Google. I, too, see today's political climate and I go back and forth between desperate stoicism, sheer fright and, rarely, hope.
I feel the pain, too. Don't let it get to you too much and, less importantly, don't answer to every goddamn anonymous coward that crosses your path. All the best to you.
Is your point that a species needs a minimum size, allowing greater complexity, for this level of civilization/sophistication? If so, I think we've reached it, and don't benefit from increases in stature any more. If not, I'd like to know what your point is. Anyway it was nice talking to you.
Humans also continue to grow taller, so I expect that trend to continue.
The only reason that trend will continue is because of aesthetic preferences in a given culture. Generally, the bigger a creature is, the harder it is to survive in the long run.
Slashdot Mirror
I think that's what I said, yes. It's not what I meant to say, but it's probably true anyway.
I agree. However, I fail to see how that's relevant to my original point that your inclusive "we" doesn't include me and was therefore a little presumptuous, or my restated point that I disapprove of an obsession with material possessions.
I have never ever bought anything that was advertised on Slashdot, except the idea of Free Software.
I said most. I admit to a computer and an internet connection. I don't play commercial games, I haven't bought a DVD in years, my TV set from 1990 rests in the basement, I don't particularly "like" cell phones.
Even if I did like all those things you named, I can easily name plenty more that don't even cost a smile: -
Really, though, I was trying to make a different point: My disapproval of our obsession over consuming distractions in the wider sense on a regular basis, and the general assumption that everything worth having costs money. I understand my value system might differ substantially from yours. Sorry for the guided idealism.
"He who never thinks of anything as 'mine' does not feel the lack of anything: he is never worried by a sense of loss."
You'd be right it the first sentence of TFA didn't read, "Sony Ericsson may soon make the play button a thing of the past with its new motion-controlled earbuds." With a claim like that, this kind of critical response to the arcticle is to be expected and justified.
Please leave me out of this. Most of the stuff I like doesn't cost money.
You said it isn't one of them. I showed it is one of them. Your backtracking to say it didn't use to be one of them acquiesces in this.
Secondly, tangential to my point, but intersecting your new position:
Please notice the word hypothetical, as in theoretical, as in not practical. Please also notice the mention of the year 1531, which invalidates your 1983 reference with regards to antecedence.
Conclusions:
The idea of this measure is to save energy. To complain that this will cost jobs in the energy industry, or in companies that produce energy-intensive devices, is like complaining that anti-smoking education will cost jobs in the tobacco industry, that fighting terror will cost jobs in the explosives industry, or that curing cancer will cost the job of many a undertaker.
Dear concerned people, we appreciate you're concerned about lost jobs, but this is exactly what we're trying to achieve here.
While PP's correction of GP's improper choice of homonym is laudable, the incorrect definition PP provides, and the tacit approval of GP's errant usage that stems from that, are unfortunate. Give PP 1 point, but take away 2 points.
When you're correcting someone's correction, you really should double-check your assertions to make sure you're not talking crass nonsense, especially if you do it in that tone.
Your point:
However while "moot" can take several different meanings, "Of no practical importance; irrelevant" is not one of them.
Your fault:
How about we stop worrying so much about prosecuting the people complying with the demands until we get to the people who were behind the demands?
This simple script shows that your fact (n > 1) isn't simple.
Moreover, when I don't use FLAC but MP3, i.e. introduce lossiness, I can even give those copies to my friends, who are m > 1 people, and it's still legal, as long as I don't publish, or "make them available to the public". This is true at least in countries that handle this the same sane way audio tapes were handled; which, by the way, include your own country a few years ago.
Copying audio for select friends in a lossy format was, and will always be, moral. That it was, and isn't any longer, legal is of negligible import for everybody who didn't watch too many "public service announcements".
I get "Mobile Linux", but maybe I'm strange.
You're right, my fault. I misread the Wiki article. Two paragraphs down, it actually says exactly what you say.
But hey, who are we to criticize Microsoft for making their new OS more appealing, right? Can't have people unreasonably keep using XP, when Vista and up have all the good trusted computing support.
Alternatively, sue Microsoft because they're breaking a sales promise. Windows XP is officially supported ("Extended Support" including security fixes) until mid 2010.
From Wikipedia:
They still sold/licensed XP as late as June 2008, which means that in Europe they're even in the mandatory two-year warranty period, regardless of whether they claim your warranty expired in the "Extended Support" phase. I hope they get sued to hell and back. And then back again.
Please clean your links. That way we'd know you're not some lowly affiliate spammer.
Right. IIRC, 34% of statistics are exhaustingly specific answers to surprisingly misleading questions, 22% are imposingly far-reaching conjecture on ridiculously small sample sizes, 44% are just made up on the spot, and the remaining 15% are conducted by people who can't even add up to 100?
Your source disagrees with you. You probably cite this:
But we're talking about this:
Ouch. Sorry, I meant well.
The proper course of action is to obtain a warrant from a court.
If thirty years of TV and cinema have taught me one thing, it's that you can pretty much maim, rape and kill everyone in the goddamn county, if only you have that little piece of evidence to show afterwards, and an attractive blonde to kiss to the swelling music. ;)
Seriously, that's what I meant. It might be someone in the Superior Court making it impossible for him to take that proper course. Add the Eastwood vigilante desert charm, and you might get the current situation. Maybe he does want to call in the Feds, but can't until he makes sure the evidence won't be gone by then. Anyway, I'm really just playing devil's advocate here because I found the FU comment meritless.
It could be said in a way that would help people who don't know that already understand. Like it is, the comment is redundant for everyone who knows, because they already know, and meaningless for everyone who doesn't know, because it's pure vitriol.
I'm wondering. What if there's incriminating evidence in those e-mail exchanges the Sheriff needs and wants to protect from tampering? It sounds a little like a Hollywood movie, but how do we know. Maybe he knew someone was going to remove that data and he needs it to expose corruption higher up.
I don't know anything about this Joe Arpaio, never heard of him, so it may be obvious this is not the case. But just exclaiming "Fuck you" didn't help me find out either.
Aw, come on. We're on the same page, except I like Cheetos. You're too defensive; don't answer any random anonymous coward who makes a quip.
I, too, think IE is only used by people who don't matter, people who will use any damn thing their vendor tells them to. The swayable, swayed masses. I, too, am wary of Google. I, too, see today's political climate and I go back and forth between desperate stoicism, sheer fright and, rarely, hope.
I feel the pain, too. Don't let it get to you too much and, less importantly, don't answer to every goddamn anonymous coward that crosses your path. All the best to you.
SHODAN wasn't evil, just misunderstood.
97.34% correct. What is it they fear anyway? The end of their trivial existence?
Is your point that a species needs a minimum size, allowing greater complexity, for this level of civilization/sophistication? If so, I think we've reached it, and don't benefit from increases in stature any more. If not, I'd like to know what your point is. Anyway it was nice talking to you.
Humans also continue to grow taller, so I expect that trend to continue.
The only reason that trend will continue is because of aesthetic preferences in a given culture. Generally, the bigger a creature is, the harder it is to survive in the long run.