hehe

Ghostbusters!

That confused me at first, too. I believe the parent is referring just to prime numbers in base 2.

I suppose you've never heard the 4th stanza to the anthem.

http://www.thenationalanthemproject.org/lyrics.html

FTFA:

It's not entirely the same, but I really cut my teeth on programming on a TI-83+ graphing calculator. It had a variant of BASIC, fairly simple graphics capabilities, and it was fairly easy to pick up.

Incidentally,I think that environment was my first exposure to the ideas of open source software, too. Programs could be shared easily, by linking calculators, and being interpreted, all programs came with source. I certainly learned a bit by reading programs from other students, or downloaded from the internet.

Also, I get a lot of the same feeling of experimentation, reproducibility, and real capability out of messing with microcontrollers, like the Arduino. I think there's really something to be said for working and playing on a relatively limited system. Limitation breeds creativity, perhaps?

'rearden', I suspect, would be a reference to a character in the 1957 novel 'Atlas Shrugged'

The novel is known for it's viewpoint on capitalism, and unregulated markets, as the ideal. I expect the reference works into that.

Personally, it's one of the few books I've started reading but didn't finish. The side characters/'bad guys' at the beginning of the book were just way too fake. If I'm going to read a novel that thick, and give its philosophy and arguments real weight, I don't want to wade through strawmen to do it.

If you're not just trolling - the poem in question was written in 1781. That's how it's written. The 'f's are really 'f's, not 's's.

One of my favorites:

At the start of a recent ecumenical gathering, a secretary rushed in shouting, "The building is on fire!!!"

The Methodists gathered in a corner and prayed.
The Baptists cried, "Where is the water?"
The Quakers quietly praised God for the blessings that fire brings.
The Lutherans posted a notice on the door declaring the fire was evil.
The Roman Catholics passed the plate round to cover the damage.
The Jews posted symbols on the doors hoping the fire would pass.
The Congregationalists shouted, "Every man for himself!"
The Fundamentalists proclaimed, "It's the vengeance of God!"
The Episcopalians formed a procession and marched out.
The Christian Scientists concluded that there was no fire.
The Presbyterians appointed a chair person, who was to appoint a committee to look into the matter and submit a written report.
The Unity Students proclaimed the fire had no power over them.
The Secretary grabbed the fire extinguisher and put the fire out.
The Mormons arrived ten minutes late to the meeting, missing the fire completely!!!

How old was the son? I would conjecture that people under 18 are a lot more likely to be 'fired up' than older people. If nothing else, they've seen less of the 'real world'. It's easier to be idealist when one is younger.

dang. I can't even do that in Vegas. :)

The RIAA, for one.

off the top of my head, fair use related things:

• When iPods first came out, there was a big stink over whether ripping CDs was fair use
• ripping/backing up DVDs
• playing DVDs at all, on linux (or without paying for software on windows)

It doesn't matter the only end-users who care about fair use are zealots, because the big companies DO care.

Nitpicking point - if you really like photography, to the point that you're paying $1000+ on software and equipment, you're no longer merely a consumer. You're either a professional, or a seriously enthusiastic hobbyist/amateur.

John and Jane Q. Public don't pay for a lens and a body, they pay $100 for a point-n-click, and $50 for a printer dock that spits out Polaroid size photos. If they do any editing, it won't be on Photoshop CS3, it'll be in Elements, at best. A consumer won't be messing with curves or layers, they'll be cropping and using auto-red eye, and if they're really fancy, adding some text.

The point is, GIMP isn't on the same plane as CS3 or 4 or whatever we're up to now, it's comparable to Photoshop Elements, and provides similar features at a comparable price point. ($100 or whatever for Elements, time and effort for GIMP)

I disagree with you. Therefore I write:
Not in English one can just add "not" in front in an expression to negate it.

We accept using "not" as a prefix because of roots in basic first-order-logic, and because it makes the syntax cleaner.
Not using "not" as a prefix is an accurate approximation of typical English.

[in fact, that's ambiguous. Consider that phrase as written vs. "using 'not" as a prefix is not an accurate ..."]

+5 funny? I think it's +5 sad.
Then again, most cases don't go to trial anyway, so the ones that make it there are already fringe cases.