Oops, sorry! In my defense, the second page is way funnier than the first, and contains possibly the greatest quote I've read all year. I think you'll know it when you see it.
Yeah, yeah, but everyone does understand the meaning of these phrases. Terms like "theft of services" are universally understood, in part because "theft" depicts the essential and relevant feature of the act—namely, an unauthorized taking that causes a putative harm. I doubt you stop to "correct" everyone who refers to "identity theft" or "stolen elections" in conversation. Lawyers argue their cases with these phrases, on both sides. Even judges use them in legal opinions, with few exceptions, and nobody complains.
So theft isn't theft, and graffiti ain't art, right? Don't be such a [].:-P
Builders of big objects are big companies, and they don't care, they don't have to.
Not always. Architects as diverse Norman Foster and Bruce Fowle have built their reputations on being green, and their talent doesn't come cheap. Plenty of big companies are willing to pay a premium for the ability to say they're environmentally conscious. Greenroofs are a huge hit in Chicago for this reason. Waterless urinals are the next big thing in New York. Look at the new Hearst building or the Condé Nast headquarters for concrete examples.
I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss "big companies" as pure evil. Sometimes, they do care, because they have to.
Nobody was making a legal argument. You said that equating these forms of fraud with theft was ruining the English language. If you'd said they were confounding the law, you might have a point. But the vernacular is nothing if not flexible and adaptable, and I take issue with those who would destroy the beauty of its ambiguity in the name of imposing some Académie-style set of rules from on high. Particularly when everyone agrees on the meaning of terms like "identity theft," "theft of services," and "stealing elections."
A little inflexible with language, are we? I shudder to think of how you might rail against the likes of Shakespeare and Eliot. "Multitudes? How can an individual contain multitudes?! Walt Whitman is ruining English!"
Hint: expression takes human judgment. Language isn't logic.
Nice try, but I doubt the pro-piracy blowhards on this site will catch the irony. They'll just keep stealing and stealing other people's IP until there's nothing left to take. Thieves aren't the brightest of folk, after all.
You think the news from Iraq needs "spin" to sound negative? You honestly believe the (dwindling number of) Republican politicians when they tell you Rumsfeld's prosecution of this war has been competent?
I have to admit, I just don't understand how anyone can still believe this stuff. Could you do me a favor and explain?
That's not a bad idea. Kerry lost in 2004 in part because people perceived him as being unable to fight back as hard, or as dirty, as the Republicans. If the only way to fight dirty tactics is to fight back with dirty tactics of your own, then so be it.
Firefox looks better than Safari? There's just no disputing Firefox is a terrible, terrible port of a Linux/Windows application in look, let alone feel. No Keychain integration. Preferences are oddly arranged. Forms and controls behave like reanimated simulacra of their Cocoa equivalents. In short, nothing works the way a Mac user would expect them to. Are you a PC user or something?
The mayor of NYC is a Republican, dingbat, and the trans-fat ban is actually a pretty good idea. More to the point, if you want to be unregulated by government, move to rural Somalia and see how well it's working there.
What we really need is fewer roads, fewer cars, more restrictions on driving, and more public transit. It looks likely that Bloomberg's administration will spend its last years following London's example, perhaps even going so far as to turn whole sections of Manhattan into pedestrian-only zones. Making it easier to get around the city can only be good for the regional economy, and personally, I'm all for it.
No, there was an incident not too long ago in which a Wikipedia admin published the passwords of several contributors, but in such a manner that only trolls and vandals could read them. Then, when the problem was pointed out, other admins rushed to Wikipedia's defense, and the account information remained visible for almost a year before a Slashdot story was published, shaming Wikipedia into taking it down.
Reading the (frankly, indefensible) excuses and justifications by many Wikipedia admins in that Slashdot story was when I first started souring on Wikipedia. Yes, legitimate users really were affected, in that they had their username/password combos revealed to trolls and vandals. No, I don't know if they were ever notified.
Surprising you should think that. Wikipedia is mired in politics and bureaucracy, no small part of which follows the example set by Jimbo Wales. This ongoing bureaucratic clusterfuck is regrettable, and a major reason people are leaving the project in droves. Valuable contributors are being driven away by continual harassment from admins who should know better. Others lose interest when they discover the futility of correcting mistakes when those mistakes are being protected, again, by admins who should know better. The project is bleeding talent from the top, as well; Angela Beesley and Larry Sanger are just two of the better-known public faces to have recently quit in frustration.
If you have a point to argue, linking to MEMRI doesn't help you establish credibility. They cherry-pick statements from the most radical, inflammatory people in the Muslim world, and then try to portray these viewpoints as if they were mainstream. It's like describing America by showing a montage of KKK rallies, Fred Phelps waving "GOD HATES FAGS," and lynchings in Wyoming—misleading, unhelpful, uninformative.
If Raul654 were notable for anything, it wouldn't be immodesty. Look into his posting history here, and his habits as an administrator, "arbitrator" (read: bully), and who knows what else on Wikipedia. Raul654 ain't exactly the brightest bulb in this carnival of lights.
For me, "It Just Works" is better than "Plays for Sure" (I know, MS has abandoned that for the Zune, but whatever the new catchphrase, it's code for "only plays with MS stuff).
To be fair, FairPlay only works with Apple stuff, for now. A better code for PlaysForSure might be "only works with stuff that doesn't work."
Slashdot Mirror
Oops, sorry! In my defense, the second page is way funnier than the first, and contains possibly the greatest quote I've read all year. I think you'll know it when you see it.
Yeah, yeah, but everyone does understand the meaning of these phrases. Terms like "theft of services" are universally understood, in part because "theft" depicts the essential and relevant feature of the act—namely, an unauthorized taking that causes a putative harm. I doubt you stop to "correct" everyone who refers to "identity theft" or "stolen elections" in conversation. Lawyers argue their cases with these phrases, on both sides. Even judges use them in legal opinions, with few exceptions, and nobody complains.
:-P
So theft isn't theft, and graffiti ain't art, right? Don't be such a [].
e.g. at the new Bank of America tower. So no, I'm not referring to the subway platform.
I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss "big companies" as pure evil. Sometimes, they do care, because they have to.
Nobody was making a legal argument. You said that equating these forms of fraud with theft was ruining the English language. If you'd said they were confounding the law, you might have a point. But the vernacular is nothing if not flexible and adaptable, and I take issue with those who would destroy the beauty of its ambiguity in the name of imposing some Académie-style set of rules from on high. Particularly when everyone agrees on the meaning of terms like "identity theft," "theft of services," and "stealing elections."
A little inflexible with language, are we? I shudder to think of how you might rail against the likes of Shakespeare and Eliot. "Multitudes? How can an individual contain multitudes?! Walt Whitman is ruining English!"
Hint: expression takes human judgment. Language isn't logic.
Nice try, but I doubt the pro-piracy blowhards on this site will catch the irony. They'll just keep stealing and stealing other people's IP until there's nothing left to take. Thieves aren't the brightest of folk, after all.
Grow a sense of humor. "I don't know, Jenny. I don't know..." How can you not crack a smile?
You think the news from Iraq needs "spin" to sound negative? You honestly believe the (dwindling number of) Republican politicians when they tell you Rumsfeld's prosecution of this war has been competent?
I have to admit, I just don't understand how anyone can still believe this stuff. Could you do me a favor and explain?
That's not a bad idea. Kerry lost in 2004 in part because people perceived him as being unable to fight back as hard, or as dirty, as the Republicans. If the only way to fight dirty tactics is to fight back with dirty tactics of your own, then so be it.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! *snort*
Oh, I kill me. I really do.
Firefox looks better than Safari? There's just no disputing Firefox is a terrible, terrible port of a Linux/Windows application in look, let alone feel. No Keychain integration. Preferences are oddly arranged. Forms and controls behave like reanimated simulacra of their Cocoa equivalents. In short, nothing works the way a Mac user would expect them to. Are you a PC user or something?
The mayor of NYC is a Republican, dingbat, and the trans-fat ban is actually a pretty good idea. More to the point, if you want to be unregulated by government, move to rural Somalia and see how well it's working there.
It's because Slashdot is dying.
What we really need is fewer roads, fewer cars, more restrictions on driving, and more public transit. It looks likely that Bloomberg's administration will spend its last years following London's example, perhaps even going so far as to turn whole sections of Manhattan into pedestrian-only zones. Making it easier to get around the city can only be good for the regional economy, and personally, I'm all for it.
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/05/2
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/08/10/2
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/11/19/14324
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/11/19/07452
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/11/01/15924
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/10/16/07621
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/12/30/12432
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/06/13/04282
No, there was an incident not too long ago in which a Wikipedia admin published the passwords of several contributors, but in such a manner that only trolls and vandals could read them. Then, when the problem was pointed out, other admins rushed to Wikipedia's defense, and the account information remained visible for almost a year before a Slashdot story was published, shaming Wikipedia into taking it down.
Reading the (frankly, indefensible) excuses and justifications by many Wikipedia admins in that Slashdot story was when I first started souring on Wikipedia. Yes, legitimate users really were affected, in that they had their username/password combos revealed to trolls and vandals. No, I don't know if they were ever notified.
Surprising you should think that. Wikipedia is mired in politics and bureaucracy, no small part of which follows the example set by Jimbo Wales. This ongoing bureaucratic clusterfuck is regrettable, and a major reason people are leaving the project in droves. Valuable contributors are being driven away by continual harassment from admins who should know better. Others lose interest when they discover the futility of correcting mistakes when those mistakes are being protected, again, by admins who should know better. The project is bleeding talent from the top, as well; Angela Beesley and Larry Sanger are just two of the better-known public faces to have recently quit in frustration.
If you have a point to argue, linking to MEMRI doesn't help you establish credibility. They cherry-pick statements from the most radical, inflammatory people in the Muslim world, and then try to portray these viewpoints as if they were mainstream. It's like describing America by showing a montage of KKK rallies, Fred Phelps waving "GOD HATES FAGS," and lynchings in Wyoming—misleading, unhelpful, uninformative.
I'd rather have petrified elephant shit than a CD with Linux on it. At least you could call the former "art."
If Raul654 were notable for anything, it wouldn't be immodesty. Look into his posting history here, and his habits as an administrator, "arbitrator" (read: bully), and who knows what else on Wikipedia. Raul654 ain't exactly the brightest bulb in this carnival of lights.
Verbal irony, I think.
ITYM "dissent," but, as it happens, yours works too.
What better antidote to Diebold could there be?
"Better" meaning practical and effective, not necessarily morally right.