A nice quotation which is attributed to Thomas Jefferson (but for which the Monticello site finds no citation) is:
"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."
and/or
"The people will not understand the importance of the Second Amendment until it is too late."
If Jefferson didn't say it, he should have.
How would you react if the government proposed to ban certain words or phrases because you don't really "need" to use them in everyday speech?
Political correctness (PC) attempts to do just that. Of course, that was probably exactly the point that you were trying to make.
The worst part of it is that, if you consider how closely connected linguistics and the formation of rational thought is, (non)PC is tanamount to establishing thoughtcrime.
There's no reason for attackers to focus on a single browser any more when they can instead target a plugin like Java that works across all browsers.
Java... Write once, Infect everywhere!
Gee, from your description of "the garden" you could almost be describing the the original "Garden"... Eden.
(assuming you slightly merge God in the descriptions, but the concepts are closely related anyway.)
I used to work as an Advance Quality Engineer in the automotive seating industry. Part of my job involved regularly reviewing the JD Power results for the platforms on which I worked.
The most "amusing" results were when JD Power asked people to rate the ease of movement of the headrest, on a seat which had a fixed/non-movable headrest. (hint... you can't... at least not without "special" tools) Of course, people rated that the headrest was too difficult to move. (duh!) There were lots of questions like that.
I am not saying that JD Power has no value... just that you have to be careful not to take any survey too seriously. Too much depends on the validity of the questions.
No, too much Tolkien...
AuOrchs = Golden Orchs???
Don't feel too bad, even the guy who did his research didn't really... According to the above referenced Wikipedia article:
In 1897, a bill was introduced in the Michigan legislature asking for a ten-year closed season on passenger pigeons. This was a futile gesture. This was a highly gregarious species—the flock could initiate courtship and reproduction only when they were gathered in large numbers; it was realized only too late that smaller groups of passenger pigeons could not breed successfully, and the surviving numbers proved too few to re-establish the species.[3] Attempts at breeding among the captive population also failed for the same reasons.
So, unless they can make a very large quantity of them, it will be difficult to restart the passenger pigeon.
His sig has to be one of the best I have seen. I have almost been caught by it on several occasions, but in each case I realized it was meant to be humor just before I clicked Reply.
Thanks. You have dispelled a few wrong assumptions on my part. This makes much more sense now.
Any technology that has been sold or in use for over a year is unpatentable.
Except if you have applied for the patent prior to it being offered for sale. In theory you then have only a year after the application to get the patent, but there are ways that patent attorneys can stretch this out by making amendments, etc. to the patent application.
I have a couple of applications pending from a previous employer. It has been about three years, and it seems like each year, around August, I get a call/email from the patent attorney asking me to sign another version of the application.
This brings up a point that I have wondered about. The "shutterspeed" on a digital camera.
I always assumed that this was just another word for "how much motion blur do you want?" or "how many sensor refreshes do you want to average together?" and not that the sensor actually has a shutter preventing light from hitting the sensor at any time. So at that point there isn't any difference between the "live-view light costantly flood[ing] the sensor" and when the actual picture is taken.
Same for the "iso speed". It seems like a very artificial analogy back to film for what is really a software brightness setting. In fact, given that both of these probably change multiple things to achieve the effect of shutterspeed or film-speed, I wonder if it might be easier to control and more accurate if the cameras presented the real digital variables to be changed (or something more representative of what is actually happening in the digital camera.)
However, I admit that I don't know if any of this is true. It is a speculation and a request for clairification from anybody out there who is actually programming/designing digital cameras.
The airlines that do that will also deny you the use of the return portion of a ticket if you fail to show up for the incoming flight. How did you get around that?
Good catch! I almost mentioned that too, but thought it sounded too much like a rant and detracted from my point.
I managed it like this: I was able to cancel (surrender) the incoming flight in advance. Which meant I now had two one-way tickets.
To make matters even worse, I had to fly into one airport and leave at another. I totaled 5 different airports in 3 days, booked through three separate systems. It was a mess, costly, and I wouldn't count on being able to pull it off again, but I got the job.
No offense, but buying a one-way ticket and not having luggage shouldn't get quite the reaction you are speaking of. I usually avoid checking luggage, instead keeping to the minimum needed in my carryon. And there are times when one needs a one-way ticket.
For example, I had two interviews in two different cities. Each company bought me round trip tickets, but I couldn't get from one to the other in time without buying a one way in the middle, and forfiting half of the "free" round trips. Another example will be when I move, I will need to drive my car to my new place, fly "home" one way, and drive the second car to my new place. I won't need luggage at all in that case. Third example; one-day business trip (no luggage) + missed return flight (change in plans) = one-way ticket with no luggage.
In example one and three someone will say, "why didn't you just change the flight instead of buying an additional one-way ticket?" The answer is that the airlines are now charging more for the change fee ( >$150) than the cost to buy another one-way ticket.
This brings me to another point, having to buy a round trip ticket to be "less suspicious" isn't going to deter a terrorist. If he is willing to die, why should he care if he spends an extra $140 doing it?
I once realized (before getting to security) that I had my pocket knife. I had parked off-airport so I couldn't get back to my car, and I didn't want to lose the knife. I like your potted plant as the solution, but what I did was to go to the airport lost and found and give it to them.
It almost worked...
I asked them for an envelope and put my name and address on it and enclosed the knife. When I got back the next day, they couldn't find my envelope in the lost and found, but a couple of months later I recieved it in the mail.
Basically, we're looking at Emacs as a self-contradiction as things stand. Too much more of this and it's going to just go *poof*.
No. It is when EMACS and vi come into contact that they annihilate eachother in a loud *poof* (of orange smoke no less!). In fact some physicists theorize that the universe began when EMACS and vi spontaneously separated, and will end when they recombine.
A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming is not worth knowing.
