I have mod points, and I was thinking of modding your comment "underrated" at "4, Insightful", but decided to add that I have 'converted' people to Linux and when it is working great they love it, because they don't have to wait and be greeted by a little animation when they right-click for a dialogue, things move quickly and work well...but on XFCE, and that was probably 10.10 of Xubuntu, and that was with me BLOCKING all upgrades, and only making some, sometimes, when I had the time, by going over to visit friends/family, and of course it could get annoying when websites started urging an updated version of Flash...
Now that I have added a few cents of experience, carry on lecturing those without discipline to build things that are stable and functional rather than breaking things like little kids that just have to make something "better" from a dev's p.o.v. "RIGHT NOW!!!"
Ideally, of course, if people everywhere were very rational, intelligent, liberal (in mind, not necessarily politics), and good, ads would serve always to connect a provider of a good or service with someone who could without question benefit from it: to make known something that potential consumer does not know, or a provider they don't know, to become aware either of something of value or help in life or someone who gives more value in providing that something. My father runs "Floormart" in Colorado, for instance. There is a very preliminary website with very hastily written content--1 page of and some sentences--just to get it started in the search engines here, floormartcolorado.com. The reason it's preliminary? He's not tech savvy, he's a flooring guy: been installing and crawling on rug since he was 14 (moved out of his parents house ~15, and at one point was a larger supplier in the Denver Metro). Moving him into the e-space is worse than pulling teeth. Me: "so we need to talk about what we want to say, and how to say it such that it makes people and search engines happy, and doesn't offend either. What would you like to say?" Him: "Just get something up so someone can find me." Me: "But there this thing called rankings..." Him: "How is this talk selling anything?"
But the thing is, he's a sales guy, but he's the type, like today when I helped him (he asked) at a tear-out job, with a woman from New York who wanted to put down wood throughout her entire house, including a basement concrete warping and other defects that would show through such flooring, who will sell less to take care of people: "Ma'am, you have cresting here, which will be very apparent when overlaid with wood flooring, and I have to advise you that in Colorado it's a good idea to have carpet at least on the ground level, for insulation." If he kept silent he could have sold 30Gs of wood, but instead he drastically reduced his potential profits.
And actually, that (and real skill in what he does) has meant a devoted network of repeat customers, individual, builders, realtors, you name it: the problem, of course, is that if their sectors slow down...and he still has to eat. So we're thinking about reaching out to new customers online. Of course, as you put it, there are a lot of wolves, and people's gut tells them "ignore the advertising", but probably more than half of the people out are barely cognizant that you can even get floors cleaned professionally (another thing he does), or that it is even required by manufacturers of carpets to maintain warranties; most who do know, probably think it's a scam--there are a lot of "fly-by-nighters". Those who have cleaning done, are often taken by the mis-information by major pushers, e.g. "'steam' (which is misleading) is the only way to go", "our hot carbonation doo-dad won't get things wet, and will make your rugs tze awsomz!--it's the only way to go": truth is, various methods exist for different circumstances and applications, but the average consumer doesn't want to sit-down and consider those things, they just want to have someone else think for them, and those someones then tend to get the business only by being less informative, more mis-informative, simply whoever has the best pretense and smooth look. The consumer also wants "cheap" by the way: despite the warnings that practically every local news station had made throughout the U.S., with investigative journalism that reports (a big duh) that cleaners at least have to pay for chemicals, gas, and labor, people still call small outfits promising whole house cleanings for between $9 and $99, and bigger ones that can mysteriously do 5-7 jobs/day even when dedicated pros (who will stop and hand-scrub some spot that needs careful chemical and application attention, and who use the same equipment and methods) can maybe do [well] two large houses.
As long as the masses are dupes and lazy--and observers have been writing about hoi polloi being idiots (and in love with their simplicity) sin
In that year, Mr. Allen says he eavesdropped on a discussion in the Microsoft offices in Bellevue, Wash., between Mr. Gates and Steve Ballmer, now the company's CEO, in which he heard the two men talking about Mr. Allen's recent lack of productivity and how they might dilute his equity in the company by issuing options to themselves and other shareholders.
That's why it's important to have provisions in your contracts and company constitutions that provide mechanisms, when more shares are issues, to prevent dilution of equity to shareholders. The only area this can't make up for is when debt is issues, since that reduces residual equity of all shareholders.
A large number of inhabitants within D.C. are the representatives, their staffs, lobbyists and their staffs...it's not exactly like they're unrepresented, just better-connected and less-proxied than the rest of the U.S.
I'm sorry about my angry post above which is really directed at someone else.
You too!!!? : D If you were in the Denver Metro of Colorado I would say we should go get a beer and rant about people who piss us off.
As far as broken English, with regards foreign people you would be surprised how many WANT correction. I remember a guy from Mexico who was going around telling everybody who talked too loud (a LOT of people in America) to just "shut up" because that's all he ever heard Americans say on the street (where he learned English, literally by walking-up to groups and attempting to engage them in their own language: he said it took a while...but not as long as his compatriots who can still barely speak it, while he is fluent). People who realized his mistake were too polite to "offend" him by offering correction, which he gratefully received when someone finally spoke-up: from instances like that I don't try to be "nice" all the time, or worry as much about offending people as my time in academia--and then sales--would have me believe should be important.
But I also get it's/. and people type on phones, overly quickly as they glance articles at work...Dear Slashdot: apologies for correcting something silly while I was in a foul mood, hope however that further posts added fodder for thought, and even better, perhaps criticism that will say YOU'RE WRONG (and give sources, or things to look up). Speaking of which: as much as we downmod offtopic comments, going off on tangents is what makes forums so great and interesting.
But no worries man: I really may become an English teacher, actually. : ) At least while reviewing materials to return to school and finish the medical track. It's always fun to teach Asians the phonetics of/r/ vs./l/, and even more when you realize they still can't perceive the difference!!!
Not a spelling whiz; actually I have a lot of linguistics training at university and personally care little about spelling except for that it permits everyone to read quickly with less uncertainty and by following conventions one doesn't "irk" someone unnecessarily. When I write "please note" it's out of the assumption that you may truly not know--perhaps you're foreign to English? I don't know because it's the web, and it's impersonal, but what I do know is that "errors" like that are used as "tells" (aka Shiboleths) by people when they decide whether they want to interact with or do business with or acknowledge other people, so letting people know about "little" mistakes like that is worth my while: it may help someone significantly whether or not they realize it.
And Shakespaere isn't a good reference authority as he precedes spelling standards of durable fixity: even the King James Bible had varied spelling, and he precedes that. But "then" and "than" represent terms with significantly different vowel sounds, and these terms are now fixed as distinct in writing, in every form of English writing convention, no matter the pronunciation of the vowels in a given dialect. In other words, from an orthographical view to confuse them is a true error: even when fast speakers might vocalize them nigh identically. It's not being a grammar Nazi to point this out, it's a grammar Nazi that (incorrectly) condemns conjugations beginning a sentence, or every case of a dangling participle or so-called incomplete sentence regardless whether a given case is intelligible (therefore grammatical) in its context, or insists upon use of "that" for impersonal objects and "who" for personal ones every time (see "that" following "Nazi" above). A description of my action could consist of that I was simply pointing out the axiomatic fact that on paper these are distinct forms.
Despite involvement with editing projects of centuries-old manuscripts (where one does see "then" used for "than" because spelling was not fixed as much, and vocalization might have suggested "e" to many writers), Latin reading groups, and studies in Ionic Greek, Spanish (include old forms), and whatever else suits my fancy at the time, even I get irked at this! And I "can hardly care" about many kinds of complaint or formalism, so there. I am about the most laid-back guy you would ever find involved in such projects and circles, and yet when I encounter things like this...it's about as bad as the general English reaction to swapping or dropping the definite or indefinite articles by Asians: few even pretend not to disdain someone who does this (though personally I get interested in learning about their psychology from instances like that).
The appellation "Shakespeare" according to the OED is more properly spelled "Shakspere", but we all ignore that because there is a commonly accepted, widely recognized form, i.e. as you and I have spelled it: the same for "then" and "than". Differences like "-ize" and "-ise", however...now those are truly debateable: acceptable standards vary throughout the world on them: they are both etymological and recognizable.
And yeah, I spoke on that and not the topic because this doesn't tend to occur in contexts where people are discussing "then" and "than". I am also sure by the way that this sort of thing can mean the difference between getting a job or being passed over: unfortunately certain formalities matter to people, and ever since the banishment of spelling free-for-alls, written convention tends to be one of them.
"a failure of education in English" -- how trite.
"the assertion of superiority that you are attempting" -- wasn't attempting any. Quite honestly I was just annoyed, queue: http://xkcd.com/386/ I have been dealing with someone with dementia 24/7 for over eight months straight now with almost no help, so I am on edge all the time; and actually I LOVE when people inform me of little errors I make, especially when I didn't know that something was incorrect. Apologies, however, for the tone of what I wrote, with caveat that "Dear Mr. Canuck" was meant respectfully.
: ) http://xkcd.com/386/
Why shouldn't steam be in the repos? That would be wonderful. Maybe flag if "not free" or something, like Ubuntu does with non-free drivers, but that would still be yet more vindication of the model Linux has gone with. I don't know that I prefer the repos--they represent centralization and bureaucracy, after all, but they have their strengths too. It would be wonderful, however, because companies like Canonical could advertise the ease with which one can obtain steam through their own "App" stores: "to get major games running, just download 'Steam' from the Ubuntu Software Center."
Just goes to show how tricky is software: the install of Win7 on my brand new business laptop is crap: it suddenly decides to start thinking hard before doing any small task; if I copy a file and leave to another Window, the damn Windows file dialogue forces itself over everything else; it will go from running alright (minus the incessant and sudden slow-downs just to do small things) to EVERYTHING becomes unresponsive (except, it seems, the OS): kill all of it, re-open a program, and...damn thing hangs: try another program and the same; another and the same.
I miss Linux: then again, it's 10.04 Xubuntu on a ten-year-old computer (9 actually, but approaching the decade) from HP which with 200 tabs open in Firefox is still solid as a rock (occassionally FF will hiccup, but I wait perhaps about as long as the constant "I'm thinking" moments on Win 7, then just weed-out some open tabs and things get back to normal): it has 64Mb on an old Nvidia video card (WOW adding that was a huge boost to performance) and 1 or 2 GB Ram for the general system (can't remember), and key to its success has been a very simple principle: get it installed, tweaked to the way I wanted, and DON'T LET IT INSTALL ANY MORE FARGIN' UPDATES.
Please note that "then" and "than" are separate terms, and in your post you mean the latter; "than" is a comparative, "then" a...?er...let's say "ordinal" (helps to order things). Such as in "if...then", or "b after a", but not just between series of events, but also temporally, e.g. for "at that time". Not wanting to be pedantic, but somehow "then" has spread across the internet with astonishing regularity; maybe it's that vowels are approximants; maybe it's just the Dyslexia induced in the next two generations of Americans from massive exposure to television and the internet (more than me, and that is scary).
On second thought, it might be easier just to blame the Chinese...
'Legal' evil is still evil. There is a distinction between 'legal' and 'lawful', old distinct concepts that lawyers and people who don't believe in morals blurred intentionally. No evil is ever lawful.
I didn't say "let Nazis organize": actually, round them up as terrorists and put them away. Rather, I said "don't ban criticism" (I don't mean cynicism, denial, skepticism, I mean pondering, questioning, even improving upon the understanding of the holocaust: which requires that no set history as a totality be established as ultimately official, though some general tenets and some specific formulas might be). e.g. some get huffy at hearing "Hitler was awful, but Stalin and Mao made him seem lovable after the fact": not altogether untrue (some other names might also be added). Since this questions what, at least in America, would be considered the official version of things--that the holocaust perpetrated against Jews (and homosexuals, retards, and the physically deformed or handicapped, among others) by that megalomaniacal murderer "Hitler" is the single most awful and tragic thing ever to happen, as terrible and badly it feels to compare evils by magnitudes, numbers, methods, how sinister things are/were (after all, they are all evils, with many victims, and heart wrenching fruits), should I be put away? Called an anti-Semite? Etc? Will Israeli Jews and their organizations here (despite my support for the right of Israel to exist, defend itself--even with extreme reactions) in my country oppose me simply because these other mass murderers were progressives/Marxists, while so also were (some are?) the founders (and current leadership?--I really don't know now) of the modern nation-state of Israel?
Those are serious questions, with serious answers and potentially terrible ramifications, especially if the answer is "no you can't say that". I'm of that old liberal view, "I'll defend your right to say [whatever]", and also of the view "but reserve my right to question, criticize, challenge, counter, and revoke it", and even my wonderful American right, "and back-up my asseverations with a gun [i.e. effective weapon] if you attempt to silence me". Does that make me a radical, or a sane man protecting himself, btw? Again, another kind of question with mortal consequences (either way), as my nation is now being overrun with people who care not for the law, only what they get away with: and would, in fact, label someone like me a "right wing kook" just for insisting on the defense part. Take a look at how they're using the recent Aurora shootings (my old stamping grounds--that very mall, in fact: a place we all knew, as kids, was dangerous) to argue to remove our ability to have weapons, despite that such would only disarm the populace against criminals like that: a buddy of mine a few miles away from there is armed at all times and, when the guy walked-in and fired a shotgun into the ceiling, he would have immediately fired on that guy (with high-powered armor-piercing rounds). And why am I saying all this? Because it's questioning an "official narrative" created in the minds of my country's "left", that guns kill people--or that disarming them, such as by requiring they be registered, and then in times of crisis declaring martial law and going to take the guns away from all the lawful people--while the thugs never registered them so don't get them confiscated, is somehow going to make us "safer". And note, I was in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina hit the U.S. Gulf Coast, and that's exactly what happened: the army was sent-in by a leftist mayor and governor, and went to every registered gun-owners house and they took the weapons at gunpoint, and guess what happened? Criminals had a hayday--over thirty in under a month, at one point--shooting people who were defenseless, all in the name of "order". So did the mafia-like police force: they treated us like cattle to order around, e.g. "get off the street"; "is there a problem officer?"; "yeah, I don't like you and I'll kick the shit out of you if you ask any more questions": and they did even when people weren't asking questions, they'd just walk-up and beat the living snot out of anyone they pleased.
No it's not: one produces an immediate situation that is able to produce harm (from the stampede), or loss of enjoyment and deprivation of enjoying something that was paid for. In the other we get to see who the loonies and hateful are--if indeed they are saying something like "it didn't happen" (whereas other things that questiong an "official" version of something might not be bad at all: historical revisionism, perhaps trying to point-out some new fact, another consideration, maybe arguing "in light of these other atrocities the holocaust wasn't as bad as considered, but still really really heinous, tragic, and something never to be forgotten!!!"--no, I don't actually assert that to anyone, know anyone who does, and don't know enough about it, but do know that if someone said something like that I wouldn't be thinking, "OMG a denier", either); outlawing such speech only means we can't see who the ill informed are, and have a dangerous precedent for other forms of censure and, though control of the past by making any history "official", control of thought and the present, and therefore the future.
The difference is that English is a language current among people with means and interests to conduct transactions. ; ) "Chinese" is a misnomer--there are many varied languages in China covered by "Chinese", with the "Chinese" that Americans are accustomed to (or were for quite a while), being that found in Chinatowns (same sort as in Hong Kong, "Cantonese"); "Cantonese" is the form found throughout Southeast China and it is altogether a different language--far more than, say, Italian and Spanish differ: not compatible at all (knew a guy from Hong Kong). It was also the form traditionally found in places full of Chinese but outside of China's borders, and remains the more common form outside today, though some of these places now teach "Mandarin" given the PRC's position on Mandarin; the form now most prevalent in media and being the form promulgated by the Chinese government as official, but which much of China, being very "ethnic" (often totally separate peoples who happen to be in their jurisdiction) actually *does not speak: they're working on educating everyone in that language, but it will be a while--when China says it's providing universal this or that, or doing this or that, it may actually be making face: it even struggled to re-build strategic bridges and the communities that supported strategic economic routes in its country after earthquakes (and that said, Dear Chinese folks, that's not meant to be antagonistic criticism or insulting, and it's also not altogether secret knowledge, it was even broadcast on English language Chinese news services, and it is not meant to demean, degrade, or ruin your face: please don't take it that way**).
So often "Chinese" is overplayed as being on par with English: it may largely be, in fact, not only used far less, but like English, many more are still being taught: probably only half of the population there--if we are being generous--actually speaks Mandarin with proficiency. Meanwhile, "Spanish" happens to spread across various jurisdictions and countries with very different histories, suffer major divergences, and happens to be used by...many people who may or may not be accessible or able for said transactions: in some places things for this end are improving, in some places getting worse for them, e.g. Chavez, anyone...anyone? It is mixed-up extremely with various local languages--if it isn't often just those instead; its phonologies sometimes vary too widely for natives from backwater places to be understood (and backwater populations are significant). Then, Portuguese, of course, is quite handy given many speakers in Brazil, which is economically rising; but Brazil is still brimming with excessively impoverished people, is very corrupt, very inefficient (I believe the word of one Brazilian that I read was "hedonistic" instead, and that his is a country that could be competitive but they would all rather leave the offices early and hit the beaches); still, Brazil has a population around three hundred million, most using Portuguese, though some contact languages (of Spanish with Portuguese), besides mere forms of one or the other with extra vocabulary that often fall under the same names e.g. 'Fronterizo/iço" or "Portuñol/hol", have developed in very old points of contact that stretch back continuously, and have significant populations using them. I would guess that, in terms of people using a Romance language that is a standard dialect, with a standard vocabulary, with a standard set of concepts and meanings, without a lot of difficulties, Brazilian Portuguese stomps Spanish: the advantage of being one, unified country. (Don't get me on Italian, with its innumerable dialects, and even separate languages that the government since Fascist times has simply denied are separate at all!)
A "primary" language is just one given precedence--it needn't be so prevalent that nearly all use it. That said, I don't really care whether any single language becomes predominant in the world, as I like languages. : ) Having to learn another's to communicat
It makes sense to choose what's most common because there is a huge established base toward the purpose of choosing one, "intercommunicating with as many people as fast as possible." And your comments seem to assume some serious problems in the language: I'll be dealing with those in a reply to this comment, http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2931057&cid=40406061
English also has an incomparably large amassed amount of literature for all sorts of purposes, which are not useful simply to get ideas, but as guides to the language.
So someone leaves a gun lying around, another picks it up, and I the perfect shot am not supposed to put a bullet down the barrel pointed at me? Or a more likely scenario, you leave your pencil on the table, another picks it up and tries to stab me; the angle is perfect for me to snap the pencil in three places with a few quick, simple moves, in such a way as to render it essentially useless as an attack implement (and destroying their current effective weapon), but since it is someone else's (yours, rather than the attacker's), it's wrong to destroy the thing being used to attack me? Sorry man, sucks as it may, think about it. You are being assaulted with a utensil, and if that utensil is the means to attack...actually these cases fail because in either of them the attacker can still hit or pull another weapon immediately right there, but in the case of someone relying upon a third party computer that's it, it's what they've got, they'll have to get another first and there is distance between you and them. Destroying, therefore, that weapon of theirs is even more justified.
I can't think of a single significant religion that would be adversely affected by discovery of life elsewhere in the universe; that would require some kind of direct denial of that in its canons or whatever source of authority it may happen to have. So viperidaenz--put on your non-skeptic's dunce cap!
p.s. "religious nutters" is so broad it's even worse reasoning: the Chinese 'religious' are often the kind believing in some form of pantheism where 'heaven' is believed in, an all-powerful impersonal force (or passive power) that isn't like a 'god' in other religions; Indic religion, e.g. Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. either have many gods, and wouldn't be disturbed by such a find, or none--and wouldn't be disturbed by such a fine; one can keep going down the list of any religion that would be recognized or can be succinctly described to someone.
You make yourself the nutter by showing you're superstitious rather than knowledgeable about religion, as you rail against despite your own ignorance, given that like it or not, religions play a huge role in the world and are therefore important enough NOT to make such errors.
Arguing from statistics like that is popular today and done even by some rather great minds, but it's nonetheless an abuse of statistics and numbers, and they people should know better: it just assumes and lets men become the faithful of numbers and their own assumptions, rather than real explorers and open-minded scientists.
Wanted to add that there are bacteria (and micro-organisms, generally) found ALL THE TIME whose metabolism we don't understand: most bacteria can't be cultured in a lab because of this, and for purposes like deriving drugs produced by them (and frankly just learning about them) it's a real problem, and why species that can host DNA from other bacteria are so important (i.e. "penicillin-derived" drugs often means "penicillin were used to act upon foreign DNA and make the antibiotic of another kind of micro-organism"). That the metabolisms of bacteria (and micro-organisms, generally) are extremely diverse and, sadly, largely unknown to us is no secret among biologists. It's one of those scientific frontiers still unpenetrated enough to have space for exploration and discovery!!!
Dude, it's a Russian firm: it's in Russia's interests to put out information like this. Maybe you didn't know but given the extent of Russia, Iran is in their sphere of influence: it's their back-yard. So they are going to do it. If you want a period of silence of loyalty you better insure the other nation-state doesn't discover the software. I also wouldn't be surprised if this is of great interest to them for having somehow been involved in the nuclear affairs of Iran--they wanted to manage a nuclear power scheme for the Iranians, after all, who of course declined the offer in favor of controlling their own infrastructure and materials. If you want them to not do this, go make a good argument to Vladmir Putin: make a Pitch of why it is in the best interests of him and the fatherland, and how keeping silent (and in a way, thus becoming allied to us), will benefit them. From all accounts the guy is a nationalist so if it's in the interests of his country and his power, he might listen (and make a call to Kaspersky labs). So the question "should we..." is misinformed. Even if you re-apply it simply to our media...why wouldn't we report to our citizens when the rest of the world already knows? It was like the military stupidity of ordering our troops not to read the Wikileaks' dump for being "classified!!!" "Classified" has to do with "do not distribute", and nothing about permission to read: if you drop the file, it's open, and Congress and the Supreme Court alike have affirmed this: but even if they hadn't, when the rest of the world is already busy reading away, how would it be good or wise to let our so-called "servants" in office order any U.S. citizen not to become informed with the latest information available?
No we should not represent scientific theories as facts to the public at large, neither do any but simpletons and the intellectually reduced think 'they might as well be'; furthermore I have friends who work in department researching climate change, regularly sat and spoke with a world renowned researcher who controls, maintains, and uses collection sites around the world for climate modelling and research purposes; my degree is natural sciences concentrated in biology, I regularly review articles for scientific conference writers and neurobiological research--after living with a neurobiology Phd candidate for few years, and happen to have a dilettantes interest in religious matters, (given their import), history, epistemology, and non-occult metaphysics (the kind of considerations related to epistemoligy); also a sciolist's interest in philosophy, and a technician's interest in linguistics. So I stand by my previous statements and mock your dumb assumptions. But somehow the pertinent significances of these things, I fear, will be lost on you. p.s. in my view of science--true liberal--skepticism, antagonism, alternatives, and denialists are ways welcome, especially to piss on and break-up the herds.
Scientific theories are supported by facts, not facts, and the names--even big ones--conflating the two in their battles with creationists are enormous idiots for suggesting otherwise just to score rhetorical points: if 'evolution' is fact then tell me, which conception? Evolution, or punctuated equilibrium? Darwinian or Mendelian-informed or the new Darwinism (or Datwinian synthesis) or pre-Darwinian naturalism or...morons. Stop herding and start thinking.
I checked (Googled it and then did investigative Googling on the Hebrew) that reference btw, that you call a fail cite, and it uses a term for a circle or sphere, so wt*!? (The Hebrew seems to refer to the curve of a sphere, like we speak of the curve of the earth perceptible at altitude.) I conclude thus...if so many other relatively sophisticated ancient societies knew the earth was flat, is it that modern people professing Christianity who are considered idiots by some that means ancient Jews, at some stage of their history, couldn't have had an inkling?
Slashdot Mirror
I have mod points, and I was thinking of modding your comment "underrated" at "4, Insightful", but decided to add that I have 'converted' people to Linux and when it is working great they love it, because they don't have to wait and be greeted by a little animation when they right-click for a dialogue, things move quickly and work well...but on XFCE, and that was probably 10.10 of Xubuntu, and that was with me BLOCKING all upgrades, and only making some, sometimes, when I had the time, by going over to visit friends/family, and of course it could get annoying when websites started urging an updated version of Flash...
Now that I have added a few cents of experience, carry on lecturing those without discipline to build things that are stable and functional rather than breaking things like little kids that just have to make something "better" from a dev's p.o.v. "RIGHT NOW!!!"
Ideally, of course, if people everywhere were very rational, intelligent, liberal (in mind, not necessarily politics), and good, ads would serve always to connect a provider of a good or service with someone who could without question benefit from it: to make known something that potential consumer does not know, or a provider they don't know, to become aware either of something of value or help in life or someone who gives more value in providing that something. My father runs "Floormart" in Colorado, for instance. There is a very preliminary website with very hastily written content--1 page of and some sentences--just to get it started in the search engines here, floormartcolorado.com. The reason it's preliminary? He's not tech savvy, he's a flooring guy: been installing and crawling on rug since he was 14 (moved out of his parents house ~15, and at one point was a larger supplier in the Denver Metro). Moving him into the e-space is worse than pulling teeth. Me: "so we need to talk about what we want to say, and how to say it such that it makes people and search engines happy, and doesn't offend either. What would you like to say?" Him: "Just get something up so someone can find me." Me: "But there this thing called rankings..." Him: "How is this talk selling anything?"
But the thing is, he's a sales guy, but he's the type, like today when I helped him (he asked) at a tear-out job, with a woman from New York who wanted to put down wood throughout her entire house, including a basement concrete warping and other defects that would show through such flooring, who will sell less to take care of people: "Ma'am, you have cresting here, which will be very apparent when overlaid with wood flooring, and I have to advise you that in Colorado it's a good idea to have carpet at least on the ground level, for insulation." If he kept silent he could have sold 30Gs of wood, but instead he drastically reduced his potential profits.
And actually, that (and real skill in what he does) has meant a devoted network of repeat customers, individual, builders, realtors, you name it: the problem, of course, is that if their sectors slow down...and he still has to eat. So we're thinking about reaching out to new customers online. Of course, as you put it, there are a lot of wolves, and people's gut tells them "ignore the advertising", but probably more than half of the people out are barely cognizant that you can even get floors cleaned professionally (another thing he does), or that it is even required by manufacturers of carpets to maintain warranties; most who do know, probably think it's a scam--there are a lot of "fly-by-nighters". Those who have cleaning done, are often taken by the mis-information by major pushers, e.g. "'steam' (which is misleading) is the only way to go", "our hot carbonation doo-dad won't get things wet, and will make your rugs tze awsomz!--it's the only way to go": truth is, various methods exist for different circumstances and applications, but the average consumer doesn't want to sit-down and consider those things, they just want to have someone else think for them, and those someones then tend to get the business only by being less informative, more mis-informative, simply whoever has the best pretense and smooth look. The consumer also wants "cheap" by the way: despite the warnings that practically every local news station had made throughout the U.S., with investigative journalism that reports (a big duh) that cleaners at least have to pay for chemicals, gas, and labor, people still call small outfits promising whole house cleanings for between $9 and $99, and bigger ones that can mysteriously do 5-7 jobs/day even when dedicated pros (who will stop and hand-scrub some spot that needs careful chemical and application attention, and who use the same equipment and methods) can maybe do [well] two large houses.
As long as the masses are dupes and lazy--and observers have been writing about hoi polloi being idiots (and in love with their simplicity) sin
In that year, Mr. Allen says he eavesdropped on a discussion in the Microsoft offices in Bellevue, Wash., between Mr. Gates and Steve Ballmer, now the company's CEO, in which he heard the two men talking about Mr. Allen's recent lack of productivity and how they might dilute his equity in the company by issuing options to themselves and other shareholders.
That's why it's important to have provisions in your contracts and company constitutions that provide mechanisms, when more shares are issues, to prevent dilution of equity to shareholders. The only area this can't make up for is when debt is issues, since that reduces residual equity of all shareholders.
A large number of inhabitants within D.C. are the representatives, their staffs, lobbyists and their staffs...it's not exactly like they're unrepresented, just better-connected and less-proxied than the rest of the U.S.
I'm sorry about my angry post above which is really directed at someone else.
You too!!!? : D If you were in the Denver Metro of Colorado I would say we should go get a beer and rant about people who piss us off.
/. and people type on phones, overly quickly as they glance articles at work...Dear Slashdot: apologies for correcting something silly while I was in a foul mood, hope however that further posts added fodder for thought, and even better, perhaps criticism that will say YOU'RE WRONG (and give sources, or things to look up). Speaking of which: as much as we downmod offtopic comments, going off on tangents is what makes forums so great and interesting.
/r/ vs. /l/, and even more when you realize they still can't perceive the difference!!!
As far as broken English, with regards foreign people you would be surprised how many WANT correction. I remember a guy from Mexico who was going around telling everybody who talked too loud (a LOT of people in America) to just "shut up" because that's all he ever heard Americans say on the street (where he learned English, literally by walking-up to groups and attempting to engage them in their own language: he said it took a while...but not as long as his compatriots who can still barely speak it, while he is fluent). People who realized his mistake were too polite to "offend" him by offering correction, which he gratefully received when someone finally spoke-up: from instances like that I don't try to be "nice" all the time, or worry as much about offending people as my time in academia--and then sales--would have me believe should be important.
But I also get it's
But no worries man: I really may become an English teacher, actually. : ) At least while reviewing materials to return to school and finish the medical track. It's always fun to teach Asians the phonetics of
Not a spelling whiz; actually I have a lot of linguistics training at university and personally care little about spelling except for that it permits everyone to read quickly with less uncertainty and by following conventions one doesn't "irk" someone unnecessarily. When I write "please note" it's out of the assumption that you may truly not know--perhaps you're foreign to English? I don't know because it's the web, and it's impersonal, but what I do know is that "errors" like that are used as "tells" (aka Shiboleths) by people when they decide whether they want to interact with or do business with or acknowledge other people, so letting people know about "little" mistakes like that is worth my while: it may help someone significantly whether or not they realize it.
And Shakespaere isn't a good reference authority as he precedes spelling standards of durable fixity: even the King James Bible had varied spelling, and he precedes that. But "then" and "than" represent terms with significantly different vowel sounds, and these terms are now fixed as distinct in writing, in every form of English writing convention, no matter the pronunciation of the vowels in a given dialect. In other words, from an orthographical view to confuse them is a true error: even when fast speakers might vocalize them nigh identically. It's not being a grammar Nazi to point this out, it's a grammar Nazi that (incorrectly) condemns conjugations beginning a sentence, or every case of a dangling participle or so-called incomplete sentence regardless whether a given case is intelligible (therefore grammatical) in its context, or insists upon use of "that" for impersonal objects and "who" for personal ones every time (see "that" following "Nazi" above). A description of my action could consist of that I was simply pointing out the axiomatic fact that on paper these are distinct forms.
Despite involvement with editing projects of centuries-old manuscripts (where one does see "then" used for "than" because spelling was not fixed as much, and vocalization might have suggested "e" to many writers), Latin reading groups, and studies in Ionic Greek, Spanish (include old forms), and whatever else suits my fancy at the time, even I get irked at this! And I "can hardly care" about many kinds of complaint or formalism, so there. I am about the most laid-back guy you would ever find involved in such projects and circles, and yet when I encounter things like this...it's about as bad as the general English reaction to swapping or dropping the definite or indefinite articles by Asians: few even pretend not to disdain someone who does this (though personally I get interested in learning about their psychology from instances like that).
The appellation "Shakespeare" according to the OED is more properly spelled "Shakspere", but we all ignore that because there is a commonly accepted, widely recognized form, i.e. as you and I have spelled it: the same for "then" and "than". Differences like "-ize" and "-ise", however...now those are truly debateable: acceptable standards vary throughout the world on them: they are both etymological and recognizable.
And yeah, I spoke on that and not the topic because this doesn't tend to occur in contexts where people are discussing "then" and "than". I am also sure by the way that this sort of thing can mean the difference between getting a job or being passed over: unfortunately certain formalities matter to people, and ever since the banishment of spelling free-for-alls, written convention tends to be one of them.
"a failure of education in English" -- how trite.
"the assertion of superiority that you are attempting" -- wasn't attempting any. Quite honestly I was just annoyed, queue: http://xkcd.com/386/ I have been dealing with someone with dementia 24/7 for over eight months straight now with almost no help, so I am on edge all the time; and actually I LOVE when people inform me of little errors I make, especially when I didn't know that something was incorrect. Apologies, however, for the tone of what I wrote, with caveat that "Dear Mr. Canuck" was meant respectfully.
: )
http://xkcd.com/386/
Why shouldn't steam be in the repos? That would be wonderful. Maybe flag if "not free" or something, like Ubuntu does with non-free drivers, but that would still be yet more vindication of the model Linux has gone with. I don't know that I prefer the repos--they represent centralization and bureaucracy, after all, but they have their strengths too. It would be wonderful, however, because companies like Canonical could advertise the ease with which one can obtain steam through their own "App" stores: "to get major games running, just download 'Steam' from the Ubuntu Software Center."
Just goes to show how tricky is software: the install of Win7 on my brand new business laptop is crap: it suddenly decides to start thinking hard before doing any small task; if I copy a file and leave to another Window, the damn Windows file dialogue forces itself over everything else; it will go from running alright (minus the incessant and sudden slow-downs just to do small things) to EVERYTHING becomes unresponsive (except, it seems, the OS): kill all of it, re-open a program, and...damn thing hangs: try another program and the same; another and the same.
I miss Linux: then again, it's 10.04 Xubuntu on a ten-year-old computer (9 actually, but approaching the decade) from HP which with 200 tabs open in Firefox is still solid as a rock (occassionally FF will hiccup, but I wait perhaps about as long as the constant "I'm thinking" moments on Win 7, then just weed-out some open tabs and things get back to normal): it has 64Mb on an old Nvidia video card (WOW adding that was a huge boost to performance) and 1 or 2 GB Ram for the general system (can't remember), and key to its success has been a very simple principle: get it installed, tweaked to the way I wanted, and DON'T LET IT INSTALL ANY MORE FARGIN' UPDATES.
Dear Mr. Canuck,
Please note that "then" and "than" are separate terms, and in your post you mean the latter; "than" is a comparative, "then" a...?er...let's say "ordinal" (helps to order things). Such as in "if...then", or "b after a", but not just between series of events, but also temporally, e.g. for "at that time". Not wanting to be pedantic, but somehow "then" has spread across the internet with astonishing regularity; maybe it's that vowels are approximants; maybe it's just the Dyslexia induced in the next two generations of Americans from massive exposure to television and the internet (more than me, and that is scary).
On second thought, it might be easier just to blame the Chinese...
'Legal' evil is still evil. There is a distinction between 'legal' and 'lawful', old distinct concepts that lawyers and people who don't believe in morals blurred intentionally. No evil is ever lawful.
I didn't say "let Nazis organize": actually, round them up as terrorists and put them away. Rather, I said "don't ban criticism" (I don't mean cynicism, denial, skepticism, I mean pondering, questioning, even improving upon the understanding of the holocaust: which requires that no set history as a totality be established as ultimately official, though some general tenets and some specific formulas might be). e.g. some get huffy at hearing "Hitler was awful, but Stalin and Mao made him seem lovable after the fact": not altogether untrue (some other names might also be added). Since this questions what, at least in America, would be considered the official version of things--that the holocaust perpetrated against Jews (and homosexuals, retards, and the physically deformed or handicapped, among others) by that megalomaniacal murderer "Hitler" is the single most awful and tragic thing ever to happen, as terrible and badly it feels to compare evils by magnitudes, numbers, methods, how sinister things are/were (after all, they are all evils, with many victims, and heart wrenching fruits), should I be put away? Called an anti-Semite? Etc? Will Israeli Jews and their organizations here (despite my support for the right of Israel to exist, defend itself--even with extreme reactions) in my country oppose me simply because these other mass murderers were progressives/Marxists, while so also were (some are?) the founders (and current leadership?--I really don't know now) of the modern nation-state of Israel?
Those are serious questions, with serious answers and potentially terrible ramifications, especially if the answer is "no you can't say that". I'm of that old liberal view, "I'll defend your right to say [whatever]", and also of the view "but reserve my right to question, criticize, challenge, counter, and revoke it", and even my wonderful American right, "and back-up my asseverations with a gun [i.e. effective weapon] if you attempt to silence me". Does that make me a radical, or a sane man protecting himself, btw? Again, another kind of question with mortal consequences (either way), as my nation is now being overrun with people who care not for the law, only what they get away with: and would, in fact, label someone like me a "right wing kook" just for insisting on the defense part. Take a look at how they're using the recent Aurora shootings (my old stamping grounds--that very mall, in fact: a place we all knew, as kids, was dangerous) to argue to remove our ability to have weapons, despite that such would only disarm the populace against criminals like that: a buddy of mine a few miles away from there is armed at all times and, when the guy walked-in and fired a shotgun into the ceiling, he would have immediately fired on that guy (with high-powered armor-piercing rounds). And why am I saying all this? Because it's questioning an "official narrative" created in the minds of my country's "left", that guns kill people--or that disarming them, such as by requiring they be registered, and then in times of crisis declaring martial law and going to take the guns away from all the lawful people--while the thugs never registered them so don't get them confiscated, is somehow going to make us "safer". And note, I was in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina hit the U.S. Gulf Coast, and that's exactly what happened: the army was sent-in by a leftist mayor and governor, and went to every registered gun-owners house and they took the weapons at gunpoint, and guess what happened? Criminals had a hayday--over thirty in under a month, at one point--shooting people who were defenseless, all in the name of "order". So did the mafia-like police force: they treated us like cattle to order around, e.g. "get off the street"; "is there a problem officer?"; "yeah, I don't like you and I'll kick the shit out of you if you ask any more questions": and they did even when people weren't asking questions, they'd just walk-up and beat the living snot out of anyone they pleased.
No it's not: one produces an immediate situation that is able to produce harm (from the stampede), or loss of enjoyment and deprivation of enjoying something that was paid for. In the other we get to see who the loonies and hateful are--if indeed they are saying something like "it didn't happen" (whereas other things that questiong an "official" version of something might not be bad at all: historical revisionism, perhaps trying to point-out some new fact, another consideration, maybe arguing "in light of these other atrocities the holocaust wasn't as bad as considered, but still really really heinous, tragic, and something never to be forgotten!!!"--no, I don't actually assert that to anyone, know anyone who does, and don't know enough about it, but do know that if someone said something like that I wouldn't be thinking, "OMG a denier", either); outlawing such speech only means we can't see who the ill informed are, and have a dangerous precedent for other forms of censure and, though control of the past by making any history "official", control of thought and the present, and therefore the future.
The difference is that English is a language current among people with means and interests to conduct transactions. ; ) "Chinese" is a misnomer--there are many varied languages in China covered by "Chinese", with the "Chinese" that Americans are accustomed to (or were for quite a while), being that found in Chinatowns (same sort as in Hong Kong, "Cantonese"); "Cantonese" is the form found throughout Southeast China and it is altogether a different language--far more than, say, Italian and Spanish differ: not compatible at all (knew a guy from Hong Kong). It was also the form traditionally found in places full of Chinese but outside of China's borders, and remains the more common form outside today, though some of these places now teach "Mandarin" given the PRC's position on Mandarin; the form now most prevalent in media and being the form promulgated by the Chinese government as official, but which much of China, being very "ethnic" (often totally separate peoples who happen to be in their jurisdiction) actually *does not speak: they're working on educating everyone in that language, but it will be a while--when China says it's providing universal this or that, or doing this or that, it may actually be making face: it even struggled to re-build strategic bridges and the communities that supported strategic economic routes in its country after earthquakes (and that said, Dear Chinese folks, that's not meant to be antagonistic criticism or insulting, and it's also not altogether secret knowledge, it was even broadcast on English language Chinese news services, and it is not meant to demean, degrade, or ruin your face: please don't take it that way**).
So often "Chinese" is overplayed as being on par with English: it may largely be, in fact, not only used far less, but like English, many more are still being taught: probably only half of the population there--if we are being generous--actually speaks Mandarin with proficiency. Meanwhile, "Spanish" happens to spread across various jurisdictions and countries with very different histories, suffer major divergences, and happens to be used by...many people who may or may not be accessible or able for said transactions: in some places things for this end are improving, in some places getting worse for them, e.g. Chavez, anyone...anyone? It is mixed-up extremely with various local languages--if it isn't often just those instead; its phonologies sometimes vary too widely for natives from backwater places to be understood (and backwater populations are significant). Then, Portuguese, of course, is quite handy given many speakers in Brazil, which is economically rising; but Brazil is still brimming with excessively impoverished people, is very corrupt, very inefficient (I believe the word of one Brazilian that I read was "hedonistic" instead, and that his is a country that could be competitive but they would all rather leave the offices early and hit the beaches); still, Brazil has a population around three hundred million, most using Portuguese, though some contact languages (of Spanish with Portuguese), besides mere forms of one or the other with extra vocabulary that often fall under the same names e.g. 'Fronterizo/iço" or "Portuñol/hol", have developed in very old points of contact that stretch back continuously, and have significant populations using them. I would guess that, in terms of people using a Romance language that is a standard dialect, with a standard vocabulary, with a standard set of concepts and meanings, without a lot of difficulties, Brazilian Portuguese stomps Spanish: the advantage of being one, unified country. (Don't get me on Italian, with its innumerable dialects, and even separate languages that the government since Fascist times has simply denied are separate at all!)
A "primary" language is just one given precedence--it needn't be so prevalent that nearly all use it. That said, I don't really care whether any single language becomes predominant in the world, as I like languages. : ) Having to learn another's to communicat
Changed my mind: I don't really want to go into a huge mass of linguistic details.
People are actually translating the Bible into Klingon. Just looked it up: Google "Klingon Bible".
It makes sense to choose what's most common because there is a huge established base toward the purpose of choosing one, "intercommunicating with as many people as fast as possible." And your comments seem to assume some serious problems in the language: I'll be dealing with those in a reply to this comment, http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2931057&cid=40406061
English also has an incomparably large amassed amount of literature for all sorts of purposes, which are not useful simply to get ideas, but as guides to the language.
So someone leaves a gun lying around, another picks it up, and I the perfect shot am not supposed to put a bullet down the barrel pointed at me? Or a more likely scenario, you leave your pencil on the table, another picks it up and tries to stab me; the angle is perfect for me to snap the pencil in three places with a few quick, simple moves, in such a way as to render it essentially useless as an attack implement (and destroying their current effective weapon), but since it is someone else's (yours, rather than the attacker's), it's wrong to destroy the thing being used to attack me? Sorry man, sucks as it may, think about it. You are being assaulted with a utensil, and if that utensil is the means to attack...actually these cases fail because in either of them the attacker can still hit or pull another weapon immediately right there, but in the case of someone relying upon a third party computer that's it, it's what they've got, they'll have to get another first and there is distance between you and them. Destroying, therefore, that weapon of theirs is even more justified.
It's called "being human"--from the latin "humanus". : D Latina es gaudium et utilis et debes cognizare de humano.
I can't think of a single significant religion that would be adversely affected by discovery of life elsewhere in the universe; that would require some kind of direct denial of that in its canons or whatever source of authority it may happen to have. So viperidaenz--put on your non-skeptic's dunce cap!
p.s. "religious nutters" is so broad it's even worse reasoning: the Chinese 'religious' are often the kind believing in some form of pantheism where 'heaven' is believed in, an all-powerful impersonal force (or passive power) that isn't like a 'god' in other religions; Indic religion, e.g. Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. either have many gods, and wouldn't be disturbed by such a find, or none--and wouldn't be disturbed by such a fine; one can keep going down the list of any religion that would be recognized or can be succinctly described to someone.
You make yourself the nutter by showing you're superstitious rather than knowledgeable about religion, as you rail against despite your own ignorance, given that like it or not, religions play a huge role in the world and are therefore important enough NOT to make such errors.
Arguing from statistics like that is popular today and done even by some rather great minds, but it's nonetheless an abuse of statistics and numbers, and they people should know better: it just assumes and lets men become the faithful of numbers and their own assumptions, rather than real explorers and open-minded scientists.
Wanted to add that there are bacteria (and micro-organisms, generally) found ALL THE TIME whose metabolism we don't understand: most bacteria can't be cultured in a lab because of this, and for purposes like deriving drugs produced by them (and frankly just learning about them) it's a real problem, and why species that can host DNA from other bacteria are so important (i.e. "penicillin-derived" drugs often means "penicillin were used to act upon foreign DNA and make the antibiotic of another kind of micro-organism"). That the metabolisms of bacteria (and micro-organisms, generally) are extremely diverse and, sadly, largely unknown to us is no secret among biologists. It's one of those scientific frontiers still unpenetrated enough to have space for exploration and discovery!!!
All that is assuming, of course, it's a U.S. thing: it could be any number of actors.
Dude, it's a Russian firm: it's in Russia's interests to put out information like this. Maybe you didn't know but given the extent of Russia, Iran is in their sphere of influence: it's their back-yard. So they are going to do it. If you want a period of silence of loyalty you better insure the other nation-state doesn't discover the software. I also wouldn't be surprised if this is of great interest to them for having somehow been involved in the nuclear affairs of Iran--they wanted to manage a nuclear power scheme for the Iranians, after all, who of course declined the offer in favor of controlling their own infrastructure and materials. If you want them to not do this, go make a good argument to Vladmir Putin: make a Pitch of why it is in the best interests of him and the fatherland, and how keeping silent (and in a way, thus becoming allied to us), will benefit them. From all accounts the guy is a nationalist so if it's in the interests of his country and his power, he might listen (and make a call to Kaspersky labs). So the question "should we..." is misinformed. Even if you re-apply it simply to our media...why wouldn't we report to our citizens when the rest of the world already knows? It was like the military stupidity of ordering our troops not to read the Wikileaks' dump for being "classified!!!" "Classified" has to do with "do not distribute", and nothing about permission to read: if you drop the file, it's open, and Congress and the Supreme Court alike have affirmed this: but even if they hadn't, when the rest of the world is already busy reading away, how would it be good or wise to let our so-called "servants" in office order any U.S. citizen not to become informed with the latest information available?
No we should not represent scientific theories as facts to the public at large, neither do any but simpletons and the intellectually reduced think 'they might as well be'; furthermore I have friends who work in department researching climate change, regularly sat and spoke with a world renowned researcher who controls, maintains, and uses collection sites around the world for climate modelling and research purposes; my degree is natural sciences concentrated in biology, I regularly review articles for scientific conference writers and neurobiological research--after living with a neurobiology Phd candidate for few years, and happen to have a dilettantes interest in religious matters, (given their import), history, epistemology, and non-occult metaphysics (the kind of considerations related to epistemoligy); also a sciolist's interest in philosophy, and a technician's interest in linguistics. So I stand by my previous statements and mock your dumb assumptions. But somehow the pertinent significances of these things, I fear, will be lost on you. p.s. in my view of science--true liberal--skepticism, antagonism, alternatives, and denialists are ways welcome, especially to piss on and break-up the herds.
Scientific theories are supported by facts, not facts, and the names--even big ones--conflating the two in their battles with creationists are enormous idiots for suggesting otherwise just to score rhetorical points: if 'evolution' is fact then tell me, which conception? Evolution, or punctuated equilibrium? Darwinian or Mendelian-informed or the new Darwinism (or Datwinian synthesis) or pre-Darwinian naturalism or...morons. Stop herding and start thinking.
I checked (Googled it and then did investigative Googling on the Hebrew) that reference btw, that you call a fail cite, and it uses a term for a circle or sphere, so wt*!? (The Hebrew seems to refer to the curve of a sphere, like we speak of the curve of the earth perceptible at altitude.) I conclude thus...if so many other relatively sophisticated ancient societies knew the earth was flat, is it that modern people professing Christianity who are considered idiots by some that means ancient Jews, at some stage of their history, couldn't have had an inkling?