I wasn't trivialising the weapons themselves. I think we've learned not to trivialise anything about China.
I'm saying that if an arms dealer wants to sell any kind of weapon from any country to any country, they can do it very easily indeed. And many do.
After talking to friends round the world, I'm finding that the behaviour depends on geographic location.
What do people see here? http://youtube.com/watch?v=eBGIQ7ZuuiU
Forgot that thing beginning with G?
A good place to start looking is http://www.google.com/ , you can find most things there if you remember a few details.
and another thing, if it was identical (I now know it isn't) then could that be considered a lack of alternative meaning? Kinda like in fuzzy logic, does mu(0) == false and does mu(1) == true?
Yeah fair enough. I agree with that principle entirely. But that's my opinion which I wouldn't foist on anyone else, however personally objectionable. Voltaire and that.
But we're missing the really important question. Was the duck in flight?
Argh. I'm aware of the presence of the meaning. I'm not aware of the meaning itself. I think it's fair to say "I'm not aware of the meaning of X" signifying that I realise that X has a meaning, but I don't know what it is. But this is probably an argument about localised colloquialism rather than semiotics.
The real point is that the meaning of the word could be so similar as to negate any difference in meaning in the context in which I meant it. I wouldn't know this so a caveat would be a sensible precaution. I also had to account for the possibility that the meaning is so different that it becomes a point of contention, detracting from the actual point I was trying to make.
It would only contradict itself if you assumed that I was a native American English speaker immersed in American culture and politics. I'm from Britain, and I heard somewhere that our 'liberal' is different to American 'liberal', though I'm not sure of the exact difference.
Looking at the summary on wikileaks (I didn't look at the PDF) this doesn't exactly look like scientology material. They're a church, the community expecting them to behave like a politically liberal* non-religious organisation is a religious / political argument not a freedom-of-information one. It looks like the person who selected those highlights for the wikileaks page had a religious objection, which is not a strong argument against the church or the document.
And I don't think every organisation should be mandated to release all their materials. You, the person reading this, show me your bank details.
I'd welcome (and invite) mormon bashing on any other score (such as corruption in corporate america etc). I have my reasons for absolutely despising them. But from these summaries, this is a weak basis for argument.
* I understand liberal has a slightly different meaning in America, which I'm not aware of. YMeaningMV.
> Seagate, which claims to be the first company to ship a billion drives, says all those drives amounted to 79 million terabytes of capacity, enough for 158 billion hours of digital video or 1.2 trillion hours of MP3 songs
Slashdot Mirror
I'm happy with Site5. It's in the US but the latency beats my previous (London) host.
Interesting. So it's natural to assume that any law that doesn't explicitly have 'Americans' in the name is international? That figures.
... violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Does everything have to be patriotic over there? Even your disability laws?Mixing Python and PHP ... that's beauty
... just wait whilst open source I my hello world program
Me too... ... and we have a queue. It really is that easy.
The difference between the US and the UK is that we (in the UK) have a free press.
I love the unilateral everyone-lives-in-the-US assumption...
I wasn't trivialising the weapons themselves. I think we've learned not to trivialise anything about China. I'm saying that if an arms dealer wants to sell any kind of weapon from any country to any country, they can do it very easily indeed. And many do.
C'mon. Sound weapons? That's the least of it.
After talking to friends round the world, I'm finding that the behaviour depends on geographic location. What do people see here? http://youtube.com/watch?v=eBGIQ7ZuuiU
Forgot that thing beginning with G? A good place to start looking is http://www.google.com/ , you can find most things there if you remember a few details.
and another thing, if it was identical (I now know it isn't) then could that be considered a lack of alternative meaning? Kinda like in fuzzy logic, does mu(0) == false and does mu(1) == true?
Yeah fair enough. I agree with that principle entirely. But that's my opinion which I wouldn't foist on anyone else, however personally objectionable. Voltaire and that.
But we're missing the really important question. Was the duck in flight?
Argh. I'm aware of the presence of the meaning. I'm not aware of the meaning itself. I think it's fair to say "I'm not aware of the meaning of X" signifying that I realise that X has a meaning, but I don't know what it is. But this is probably an argument about localised colloquialism rather than semiotics.
The real point is that the meaning of the word could be so similar as to negate any difference in meaning in the context in which I meant it. I wouldn't know this so a caveat would be a sensible precaution. I also had to account for the possibility that the meaning is so different that it becomes a point of contention, detracting from the actual point I was trying to make.
Kinda like this conversation.
It would only contradict itself if you assumed that I was a native American English speaker immersed in American culture and politics. I'm from Britain, and I heard somewhere that our 'liberal' is different to American 'liberal', though I'm not sure of the exact difference.
Looking at the summary on wikileaks (I didn't look at the PDF) this doesn't exactly look like scientology material. They're a church, the community expecting them to behave like a politically liberal* non-religious organisation is a religious / political argument not a freedom-of-information one. It looks like the person who selected those highlights for the wikileaks page had a religious objection, which is not a strong argument against the church or the document.
And I don't think every organisation should be mandated to release all their materials. You, the person reading this, show me your bank details.
I'd welcome (and invite) mormon bashing on any other score (such as corruption in corporate america etc). I have my reasons for absolutely despising them. But from these summaries, this is a weak basis for argument.
* I understand liberal has a slightly different meaning in America, which I'm not aware of. YMeaningMV.
an existential philosopher turned empiricist perhaps?
Not true. It wasn't the first post either. Apart from those points, entirely relevant.
A year of so, I reckon. Some time around April 1st 2009...
> Seagate, which claims to be the first company to ship a billion drives, says all those drives amounted to 79 million terabytes of capacity, enough for 158 billion hours of digital video or 1.2 trillion hours of MP3 songs
... illegally
Like then yeah well if yeah, in as much as so.
K and R wrote THE text on C, informally defining a standard.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K_and_R_C
He probably means he's read the book. It doesn't contain things like systems programming.
how else are you going to get inside the ____ server to do ____ prank?
We have a new name for 'long tail'. Good riddance!