Be in contradiction with. That is the second definition in TheSage.
So... Hmm......its relative presence everywhere and ease of is in contradiction with what the Ethernet has done for the networking industry...
Maybe the author is trying to convey that many things tech related are complicated and difficult and thus this is surprisingly easy and effective?
I'm not entirely sure, I'm not the author of course, but I agree that it is awkward as all hell. I'm thinking the above parsing may be what was intended.
Hmm... Indeed.
OED has this as the third verb use:
a. to belie the truth : to misrepresent or pervert the truth. Obs. b. To give a false representation or account of, to misrepresent; to be misleading with regard to. Also: to be at variance or incompatible with. Also intr. (obs. rare).
So, yeah, it's a rather unusual sentence but with some twisting and imagination I guess we can probably make it work as the author intended.
Digital Equipment Corp had a fab and R&D facility not too far from where I live. (Side note: Anything under a few hours isn't too far away in Mainiac lingo.) Chances are that any networking equipment from DEC came from Augusta, Maine. Here's a newspaper article:
I never did a whole lot with them. I worked with some of the DEC Alpha systems, which were a 64 bit RISC ISA, I dimly recall them being quite sound and advanced for the day. The sad thing is I don't recall a damned thing specific about it... *sighs* I either burnt those braincells out or I've written new information over them. I should probably spend some time re-familiarizing myself with it just for old time's sake.
I doubt that there are many in use today. A lady friend of mine was on the manufacturing line and I had a couple of friends in research. I'd be surprised if there were any of the systems still alive today but not too terribly surprised (if that makes sense) to find someone running one in their closet somewhere. Yeah, it would be surprising but not too surprising to find a small local bank or business that still has one churning out payroll or the likes.
Hmm... A quick Google (which is a verb I tells ya!) reveals this:
There also appears to be an AlphaLinux so, wow... I guess there probably are a few boxes left that still have life in them. I recall Compaq had some cloned Alpha boxes as well. I seem to recall some of their tech making it into a desktop but I'm going to stop searching before I get locked into a maze that takes me a few hours to negotiate and I'll post this now before it becomes a novella.
Re:Yeah, it drinks pretty heavily now
on
Ethernet Turns 40
·
· Score: 1
While it is an extreme example it is valid. Theft would be an excellent example as well. Laws are often based on morality. To insinuate otherwise is silly.
If you make something and I make a copy of it and sell it as my work then you've lost that freedom, that right, to profit off your labor and to control your property. I'm a fan of taking as little freedom as possible from people. An example would be you writing a novel and I, due to my being more wealthy than you, am able to get your work to press faster than you so I can claim I wrote it, sell it, and keep the profit without rewarding you for your labor. That doesn't foster growth or encourage creation. That deprives the worker of their due profit. That takes away their freedom, that takes away their rights, and it is wrong and serves only to benefit the wealthy or those with means.
Having said that, I'd agree that the duration of protection that copyright affords should be lessened but there's no reasonable alternative and the government is the only facility that can reasonably assure those protections. It is difficult to discuss reform with the slow people insisting that they be heard.
So, yes, you're saying that you don't believe people have the right to profit from their work. It's an interesting way to justify copyright infringement I suppose but you've not really given me any compelling arguments as to why we should abolish them. If you make it then it is yours to decide how it can be used to some extent. If you make it then you have every right to tell me that I can't copy it. If you spent the time, effort, and money to create a new and unique work then you own it - you have control over it, it is your property.
I'm not a fan of taking your property nor am I a fan of taking away your freedom. You may be but, fortunately, you're in the minority. The rest of us are varied but I think you'll find that most would agree that some changes would be beneficial but abolishing would be asinine. I can think of no justification to limit your freedom in these regards. It seems your primary motivation is to be able to take another person's idea and capitalize on it without their permission and without regards to their initial work and that's simply a reduction of freedom that nobody is going to accept. If you want to profit then get off your ass and learn something useful so that you can then create something useful. The idea that you should be able to coast along without doing your own work is absurd.
It is called ownership and yes it does apply to intangibles. It is YOUR idea, your work, your code, your art, and you have a right to control it and profit from its use for a reasonable amount of time (I'd argue that it is an unreasonable amount of time currently, fuck Disney and their mouse). You have that right because you made it. I'm not at liberty to copy your work and profit from it without your permission. If you want to work for free then be my guest but your morality isn't justification for stripping the rights of other people away. We tend to value our freedom, you're not at liberty to deprive us of our freedom.
It is the internet, I don't expect random anonymous pixels to change your mind. But, no. No, I'm not at liberty to take your rights away. I'm not at liberty to take your work and call it my own. Your arguments have been examined, measured, and found lacking. Nobody is going to abolish copyright and your bleating interrupts discussion that may lead to productive copyright and/or patent reforms that could be actually be beneficial. I've wasted enough time on you, you're dismissed.
I was doing a little research for a question below and wanted to make sure that I had the facts before posting (a sin, I know) but it did lead me to an interesting article.
It is worth reading and made me think a bit. That's always a good thing, right? So, I recalled reading some comments about it up-thread and figured I'd share the link with you as you too may find it interesting. One of the good things about the internet is that it enables people to bring questions like this to the forefront and enables us to discuss and learn. For those of us who recall the pre-internet days the contrast is startling.
I can't speak for them but I presume that they're talking about the immediacy. The police did, indeed, end it with a hail of bullets but it was some 20 minutes or a little less (depending on whose timeline you go by it seems) after the fact. I understand it was nearly 15 minutes before the police even arrived on the scene. My impression of the GP's post was that they were speculating that it would have resulted in a hail of bullets (for better or worse) sooner than that.
"Also don't appreciate your ad homimem [sic].... I'm pretty sure your hoplophobia..."
Hypocrisy or irony ?
I am not entirely sure that pointing someone's fear out is an ad hominem as it does appear to be relevant. Here's a link where you can check the definition and decide for yourself if it meets the criteria or not.
Even if you adopt a self-appointed role in choosing where it is appropriate to kill (an interesting position in itself, that you feel so superior that your judgement is wise, great and infallible), how would you face the relatives of someone else killed by crossfire or ricochets (these are busy city streets remember)?
I can answer only for myself. If I were the family of someone who was killed in the crossfire (using worst case scenario) I'd like to think that I'd be angry and would want to kill the person who killed my family with their idiotic gun use. However, I'd like to hope that I got over the feelings quickly because they're absurd and I'd hope that my emotions were such that, after reflection, I was grateful that they had at least made an effort to help.
There is some degree of chance here. I may be less inclined to be grateful should they have been randomly shooting and shooting inappropriately. However, there's always a risk. So, assuming they had good intent and good methods which still resulted in an accidental death I'd like to think I'm rational enough to accept that it was accidental and would like to think that I'd thank the person for having tried. I'm sure that no amount of my berating them would cause them more mental anguish than they were already suffering.
And yes, yes I do have the legal right to carry a concealed weapon. I've never used it and I hope I never have to. I have combat experience where I fired my weapon at an enemy who was returning fire. I don't know if my rounds were the cause of their death but they were killed. We do not live in a utopian society. Removing the right to arm oneself is, in my opinion, a net negative. Freedom means accepting risks and responsibilities. While the loss of life is tragic the measurement we need to use is the scale of the whole rather than the individual.
I can't say other than those whom I've spoken with have all pretty much agreed and my own experiences were those listed above. I dare say, increase funding if it is a problem. We're the "best" nation on the planet. Health care shouldn't be an issue.
I do not believe that people will create without the capacity to control and/or be rewarded for their effort. Being restricted to the kindness of viewers or needing a patriarch isn't going to cut it in modern society.
I'd not be surprised if they were using the Gimbaldi family. They do a good job actually and move a lot of the more famous things. They have some neat rigs and custom moving equipment that they've developed over the years.
Slashdot Mirror
Be in contradiction with. That is the second definition in TheSage.
So... Hmm... ...its relative presence everywhere and ease of is in contradiction with what the Ethernet has done for the networking industry...
Maybe the author is trying to convey that many things tech related are complicated and difficult and thus this is surprisingly easy and effective?
I'm not entirely sure, I'm not the author of course, but I agree that it is awkward as all hell. I'm thinking the above parsing may be what was intended.
Hmm... Indeed.
OED has this as the third verb use:
a. to belie the truth : to misrepresent or pervert the truth. Obs.
b. To give a false representation or account of, to misrepresent; to be misleading with regard to. Also: to be at variance or incompatible with. Also intr. (obs. rare).
So, yeah, it's a rather unusual sentence but with some twisting and imagination I guess we can probably make it work as the author intended.
-----
"belie, v.2". OED Online. March 2013. Oxford University Press. http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/17366?rskey=LvhK03&result=1 (accessed May 23, 2013).
Digital Equipment Corp had a fab and R&D facility not too far from where I live. (Side note: Anything under a few hours isn't too far away in Mainiac lingo.) Chances are that any networking equipment from DEC came from Augusta, Maine. Here's a newspaper article:
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2209&dat=19761210&id=UaYrAAAAIBAJ&sjid=3_wFAAAAIBAJ&pg=6509,2109951
I never did a whole lot with them. I worked with some of the DEC Alpha systems, which were a 64 bit RISC ISA, I dimly recall them being quite sound and advanced for the day. The sad thing is I don't recall a damned thing specific about it... *sighs* I either burnt those braincells out or I've written new information over them. I should probably spend some time re-familiarizing myself with it just for old time's sake.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DEC_Alpha
I doubt that there are many in use today. A lady friend of mine was on the manufacturing line and I had a couple of friends in research. I'd be surprised if there were any of the systems still alive today but not too terribly surprised (if that makes sense) to find someone running one in their closet somewhere. Yeah, it would be surprising but not too surprising to find a small local bank or business that still has one churning out payroll or the likes.
Hmm... A quick Google (which is a verb I tells ya!) reveals this:
http://wwwasd.web.cern.ch/wwwasd/cgi-bin/listpawfaqs.pl/148
There also appears to be an AlphaLinux so, wow... I guess there probably are a few boxes left that still have life in them. I recall Compaq had some cloned Alpha boxes as well. I seem to recall some of their tech making it into a desktop but I'm going to stop searching before I get locked into a maze that takes me a few hours to negotiate and I'll post this now before it becomes a novella.
*groan*
2/3rds of "pun" is "P-U."
And that was a stinker.
While it is an extreme example it is valid. Theft would be an excellent example as well. Laws are often based on morality. To insinuate otherwise is silly.
If you make something and I make a copy of it and sell it as my work then you've lost that freedom, that right, to profit off your labor and to control your property. I'm a fan of taking as little freedom as possible from people. An example would be you writing a novel and I, due to my being more wealthy than you, am able to get your work to press faster than you so I can claim I wrote it, sell it, and keep the profit without rewarding you for your labor. That doesn't foster growth or encourage creation. That deprives the worker of their due profit. That takes away their freedom, that takes away their rights, and it is wrong and serves only to benefit the wealthy or those with means.
Having said that, I'd agree that the duration of protection that copyright affords should be lessened but there's no reasonable alternative and the government is the only facility that can reasonably assure those protections. It is difficult to discuss reform with the slow people insisting that they be heard.
So, yes, you're saying that you don't believe people have the right to profit from their work. It's an interesting way to justify copyright infringement I suppose but you've not really given me any compelling arguments as to why we should abolish them. If you make it then it is yours to decide how it can be used to some extent. If you make it then you have every right to tell me that I can't copy it. If you spent the time, effort, and money to create a new and unique work then you own it - you have control over it, it is your property.
I'm not a fan of taking your property nor am I a fan of taking away your freedom. You may be but, fortunately, you're in the minority. The rest of us are varied but I think you'll find that most would agree that some changes would be beneficial but abolishing would be asinine. I can think of no justification to limit your freedom in these regards. It seems your primary motivation is to be able to take another person's idea and capitalize on it without their permission and without regards to their initial work and that's simply a reduction of freedom that nobody is going to accept. If you want to profit then get off your ass and learn something useful so that you can then create something useful. The idea that you should be able to coast along without doing your own work is absurd.
It is called ownership and yes it does apply to intangibles. It is YOUR idea, your work, your code, your art, and you have a right to control it and profit from its use for a reasonable amount of time (I'd argue that it is an unreasonable amount of time currently, fuck Disney and their mouse). You have that right because you made it. I'm not at liberty to copy your work and profit from it without your permission. If you want to work for free then be my guest but your morality isn't justification for stripping the rights of other people away. We tend to value our freedom, you're not at liberty to deprive us of our freedom.
It is the internet, I don't expect random anonymous pixels to change your mind. But, no. No, I'm not at liberty to take your rights away. I'm not at liberty to take your work and call it my own. Your arguments have been examined, measured, and found lacking. Nobody is going to abolish copyright and your bleating interrupts discussion that may lead to productive copyright and/or patent reforms that could be actually be beneficial. I've wasted enough time on you, you're dismissed.
ATM
Slashdot is not your personal fetish site! ;)
On a more serious note... Happy Birthday and thanks for the memories.
I was doing a little research for a question below and wanted to make sure that I had the facts before posting (a sin, I know) but it did lead me to an interesting article.
What definition of the term includes this horrific act of violence but excludes the acts of the US, the UK and its allies?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/23/woolwich-attack-terrorism-blowback
It is worth reading and made me think a bit. That's always a good thing, right? So, I recalled reading some comments about it up-thread and figured I'd share the link with you as you too may find it interesting. One of the good things about the internet is that it enables people to bring questions like this to the forefront and enables us to discuss and learn. For those of us who recall the pre-internet days the contrast is startling.
I can't speak for them but I presume that they're talking about the immediacy. The police did, indeed, end it with a hail of bullets but it was some 20 minutes or a little less (depending on whose timeline you go by it seems) after the fact. I understand it was nearly 15 minutes before the police even arrived on the scene. My impression of the GP's post was that they were speculating that it would have resulted in a hail of bullets (for better or worse) sooner than that.
"Also don't appreciate your ad homimem [sic] .... I'm pretty sure your hoplophobia..."
Hypocrisy or irony ?
I am not entirely sure that pointing someone's fear out is an ad hominem as it does appear to be relevant. Here's a link where you can check the definition and decide for yourself if it meets the criteria or not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Even if you adopt a self-appointed role in choosing where it is appropriate to kill (an interesting position in itself, that you feel so superior that your judgement is wise, great and infallible), how would you face the relatives of someone else killed by crossfire or ricochets (these are busy city streets remember)?
I can answer only for myself. If I were the family of someone who was killed in the crossfire (using worst case scenario) I'd like to think that I'd be angry and would want to kill the person who killed my family with their idiotic gun use. However, I'd like to hope that I got over the feelings quickly because they're absurd and I'd hope that my emotions were such that, after reflection, I was grateful that they had at least made an effort to help.
There is some degree of chance here. I may be less inclined to be grateful should they have been randomly shooting and shooting inappropriately. However, there's always a risk. So, assuming they had good intent and good methods which still resulted in an accidental death I'd like to think I'm rational enough to accept that it was accidental and would like to think that I'd thank the person for having tried. I'm sure that no amount of my berating them would cause them more mental anguish than they were already suffering.
And yes, yes I do have the legal right to carry a concealed weapon. I've never used it and I hope I never have to. I have combat experience where I fired my weapon at an enemy who was returning fire. I don't know if my rounds were the cause of their death but they were killed. We do not live in a utopian society. Removing the right to arm oneself is, in my opinion, a net negative. Freedom means accepting risks and responsibilities. While the loss of life is tragic the measurement we need to use is the scale of the whole rather than the individual.
Not posted AC... I've got the karma to burn.
I bet they all drank milk too!
You realize that you're attempting to argue that things like murder should be legal?
You don't believe you have the right to profit off your labor?
By taking away copyright (and patents) you're taking away someone's freedom to protect their intellectual property.
I think you're out to lunch.
Obama's health care, the ACA, is absurd and idiotic. That's a given.
Well, there went an hour. Damn you!
I was drinking, heavily, and have no idea what I did. I really need to learn to stay away from the keyboard while drunk.
It certainly does seem to behave like an STD I guess. Did you add it as a second account?
https://mail.google.com/mail/#settings/accounts
I love my 740il.
I believe they meant to say that 94.586493271% actually.
Doing nothing maintains the status quo. I'm in favor of that though I do believe we should shorten the length of copyright. Fuck Disney.
I can't say other than those whom I've spoken with have all pretty much agreed and my own experiences were those listed above. I dare say, increase funding if it is a problem. We're the "best" nation on the planet. Health care shouldn't be an issue.
I do not believe that people will create without the capacity to control and/or be rewarded for their effort. Being restricted to the kindness of viewers or needing a patriarch isn't going to cut it in modern society.
This required the Google. I am so sorry for you. Really. I would say that you should come to Maine but, no...
I'd not be surprised if they were using the Gimbaldi family. They do a good job actually and move a lot of the more famous things. They have some neat rigs and custom moving equipment that they've developed over the years.
I looked recently and IIRC their stock is about back to where it was five years ago.