I would argue that all humanity has clearly suffered from or been slaves. It seems hard to think otherwise. I mean, unless a person is so ignorant that they think human history started 300 years ago and only includes a list of currently powerful and respected nations.
Also, many people don't even realize that Europe didn't ban slavery until relatively recently, they had only banned the slave markets! If you had paperwork showing you purchased a slave in Tunisia or some place with legal markets, they you could keep them; that was true even if they were born a free person, even if they looked like you and were your neighbor in the past. If they were captured on the high seas, it was a legal capture, and if they were sold in the right place, it was all legal. In Europe. Until recently.
And there are still lots of places in the world with slavery. But guess what? Few of the masters or slaves speak English, or use the words "master" and "slave."
Did you know that lots of young people like to propose changing the word "kill" to something else? That was a thing 20 years ago, it was a thing again 10 years ago, I'd be very surprised if it isn't still a thing now.
I understand why ignorant people would want to constantly change terms; it reduces their disadvantage if they can interfere with communication! But no, in programming some of the important books are still 30+ years old. I'm not going to stop reading them, I'm not even going to stop using consistent terminology!
All they can achieve is that the libraries in that language have a special name, and the words master/slave still get used to explain that fact, but people don't write the words in their actual code. They can't force people not to use the word, and people will still use it, because as has been known since the earlier efforts, they don't have any idea what good replacement words would be.
On the one hand, I don't really care which words are used.
On the other hand, I do insist that they be reasonable metaphors for the technical algorithm, and not be misleading.
Primary/Secondary are neutral words, so I understand why you like them, but they do not have the right technical implications. Sometimes you have peers where one is the primary, the other the secondary. You can't overload them to describe also master/slave algorithms.
Nor will you even get to say the words "master/slave" less, because now you'll be explaining those algorithms and the local terminology repeatedly, forever, because those are still the primary technical words used for that category of algorithms. Instead, you'll be constantly explaining to new people, "We don't have slaves because we renamed master/slave to foo/bar. Yes you can still use the same external libraries and networking algorithms, we didn't change the functional relationship, we just renamed it."
Bourgeois only means somebody who is self employed and lower-middle class; the canonical example is a cobbler who owns his own shop, with an apartment upstairs. Neither rich nor poor, but completely his own master. Completely different concept, and bourgeois/apprentice does not at all imply the technical relationship that master/slave does.
Prole I'll let somebody else swing at, I'm busy with coffee.
There is your mistake right there; you assumed, but then went on to offer purported corrections based on that, which is both lame and stupid.
Worse, you don't seem to comprehend the difference between matters of literary style, and the correct choice of words. Literary style that is merely different than what you assume you would have written is not any sort of mistake; it is not, for example, a stylistic mistake. Just a different writing style.
Calling out a writing style as if it is mistaken just shows your understanding of written English is mistaken, if even fully formed. It also prevents you from comprehending the large part of communication that consists of word choices; you leave yourself unable to consider, what additional information is implied by the term "don-quixotesque" that is not implied by the word "quixotic?" Considering that most people don't even understand that "tilting" in that context means jousting, and that the cliche is based on an archaic and out-of-place translation from the source language, there is a huge amount of room for a variety of different meanings and implications related not only to the source material, but to the ways it is discussed in popular culture.
There could be whole layers of communication that are happening in front of you in your daily life, but you're too busy trying to correct everybody to even understand what subjects are being discussed.
ownership noun ... 2. legal right of possession; proprietorship.
and also
possession noun ... 4. Law. actual holding or occupancy, either with or without rights of ownership.
So, if you're the one holding it in your hand, and the law allows you that right, you're the owner. Easy, as long as you go past the first definition of each word. The first definition is likely circular, but that doesn't mean the entire definition is so.
The words "purchase" and "contract" are not synonyms, though.
If you don't own the content, you did not purchase the content. If you did purchase it, then you do own it. And if somebody takes it away and says otherwise, perhaps they actually stole it? That can be true even if they claim to have authorized themselves.
If the content is widespread in digital form, then we know that physical media will be available. Go to a poor neighborhood and ask people if they know where the swap meet is. They'll either rob you, or introduce you.
If they promise to only sell it to OEMs on special order then there is no need to remember to avoid it. If you're actually in the position to want a low cost used CPU at some point, you're not going to be as picky as you sound right now.:)
You did not understand my comment. Your response doesn't address the points I was making. Instead, it is recycled pap that anybody in the UK could have recited 10 years ago. That you repeat it now, when my comment is in regards to a new situation regarding UK laws, just shows you didn't comprehend it.
Nonsense. There is a guy on the street corner who thinks he's Jesus. My spiritual freedom does not require me to convince him he's wrong. I can actually just ignore it, because he doesn't have magic powers.
Same here. If they're not in charge, nobody needs to tell them. They can learn about it, or not, who cares?
For many things in life (going parachuting, eating a fine meal, having sex, coming face to face with an angry grizzly bear, etc.) the two are not even remotely comparable.
Right, right, right, which of those things are science?
There is no reason to actually want it to constrict, without dumping in more assumptions. Stop at, " it might be feasible, but I'm struggling to think of a material that could be manufactured and/or deployed on that scale"
Slashdot Mirror
Charmer/python is the first proposal I've seen that would at least imply the right technical relationship! Good work.
I would argue that all humanity has clearly suffered from or been slaves. It seems hard to think otherwise. I mean, unless a person is so ignorant that they think human history started 300 years ago and only includes a list of currently powerful and respected nations.
Also, many people don't even realize that Europe didn't ban slavery until relatively recently, they had only banned the slave markets! If you had paperwork showing you purchased a slave in Tunisia or some place with legal markets, they you could keep them; that was true even if they were born a free person, even if they looked like you and were your neighbor in the past. If they were captured on the high seas, it was a legal capture, and if they were sold in the right place, it was all legal. In Europe. Until recently.
And there are still lots of places in the world with slavery. But guess what? Few of the masters or slaves speak English, or use the words "master" and "slave."
Did you know that lots of young people like to propose changing the word "kill" to something else? That was a thing 20 years ago, it was a thing again 10 years ago, I'd be very surprised if it isn't still a thing now.
I understand why ignorant people would want to constantly change terms; it reduces their disadvantage if they can interfere with communication! But no, in programming some of the important books are still 30+ years old. I'm not going to stop reading them, I'm not even going to stop using consistent terminology!
All they can achieve is that the libraries in that language have a special name, and the words master/slave still get used to explain that fact, but people don't write the words in their actual code. They can't force people not to use the word, and people will still use it, because as has been known since the earlier efforts, they don't have any idea what good replacement words would be.
than, not then
On the one hand, I don't really care which words are used.
On the other hand, I do insist that they be reasonable metaphors for the technical algorithm, and not be misleading.
Primary/Secondary are neutral words, so I understand why you like them, but they do not have the right technical implications. Sometimes you have peers where one is the primary, the other the secondary. You can't overload them to describe also master/slave algorithms.
Nor will you even get to say the words "master/slave" less, because now you'll be explaining those algorithms and the local terminology repeatedly, forever, because those are still the primary technical words used for that category of algorithms. Instead, you'll be constantly explaining to new people, "We don't have slaves because we renamed master/slave to foo/bar. Yes you can still use the same external libraries and networking algorithms, we didn't change the functional relationship, we just renamed it."
Bourgeois only means somebody who is self employed and lower-middle class; the canonical example is a cobbler who owns his own shop, with an apartment upstairs. Neither rich nor poor, but completely his own master. Completely different concept, and bourgeois/apprentice does not at all imply the technical relationship that master/slave does.
Prole I'll let somebody else swing at, I'm busy with coffee.
I assumed
There is your mistake right there; you assumed, but then went on to offer purported corrections based on that, which is both lame and stupid.
Worse, you don't seem to comprehend the difference between matters of literary style, and the correct choice of words. Literary style that is merely different than what you assume you would have written is not any sort of mistake; it is not, for example, a stylistic mistake. Just a different writing style.
Calling out a writing style as if it is mistaken just shows your understanding of written English is mistaken, if even fully formed. It also prevents you from comprehending the large part of communication that consists of word choices; you leave yourself unable to consider, what additional information is implied by the term "don-quixotesque" that is not implied by the word "quixotic?" Considering that most people don't even understand that "tilting" in that context means jousting, and that the cliche is based on an archaic and out-of-place translation from the source language, there is a huge amount of room for a variety of different meanings and implications related not only to the source material, but to the ways it is discussed in popular culture.
There could be whole layers of communication that are happening in front of you in your daily life, but you're too busy trying to correct everybody to even understand what subjects are being discussed.
Good start, but consider:
ownership
...
noun
2. legal right of possession; proprietorship.
and also
possession
...
noun
4. Law. actual holding or occupancy, either with or without rights of ownership.
So, if you're the one holding it in your hand, and the law allows you that right, you're the owner. Easy, as long as you go past the first definition of each word. The first definition is likely circular, but that doesn't mean the entire definition is so.
The words "purchase" and "contract" are not synonyms, though.
If you don't own the content, you did not purchase the content. If you did purchase it, then you do own it. And if somebody takes it away and says otherwise, perhaps they actually stole it? That can be true even if they claim to have authorized themselves.
If the content is widespread in digital form, then we know that physical media will be available. Go to a poor neighborhood and ask people if they know where the swap meet is. They'll either rob you, or introduce you.
You don't even seem to have understood the meaning of the words even as far in as, "pros and cons."
You got what you deserved for clicking! Don't read that stuff.
Isolated, exiled, social problems
Well, which was it? The worst sorts of social problems lead to viewing isolation as a goal, exile as victory!
Newsflash, that isn't how words work.
When somebody coins a specialized word, regular words that describe the same thing, still also mean the same thing. They do not call for correction.
Don't be a lame false-pedant.
Are Weather Kids even human, and is accommodating them worth the mess? You really want to see what lightning+water does to a computer network?
Back to Creative Writing with you, we demand better stories.
I use android apps on a wifi tablet, no need to wash hands just wipe the screen afterwards.
I've got a pair of quadraphonic headphones... dual 1/4" stereo plugs!
Maybe I should use an ESP-32 and smarten them up a bit! lol
If they promise to only sell it to OEMs on special order then there is no need to remember to avoid it. If you're actually in the position to want a low cost used CPU at some point, you're not going to be as picky as you sound right now. :)
So it much less significant even than that.
For me that's been true for 20 years, and I also had an 8088! You must have been some rich kid with a HD, everybody else was booting from floppy.
*whoosh*!
You did not understand my comment. Your response doesn't address the points I was making. Instead, it is recycled pap that anybody in the UK could have recited 10 years ago. That you repeat it now, when my comment is in regards to a new situation regarding UK laws, just shows you didn't comprehend it.
Nonsense. There is a guy on the street corner who thinks he's Jesus. My spiritual freedom does not require me to convince him he's wrong. I can actually just ignore it, because he doesn't have magic powers.
Same here. If they're not in charge, nobody needs to tell them. They can learn about it, or not, who cares?
Fish are not considered property until caught.
Next stupid question?
For many things in life (going parachuting, eating a fine meal, having sex, coming face to face with an angry grizzly bear, etc.) the two are not even remotely comparable.
Right, right, right, which of those things are science?
There is no reason to actually want it to constrict, without dumping in more assumptions. Stop at, " it might be feasible, but I'm struggling to think of a material that could be manufactured and/or deployed on that scale"