Yes, but that wording carefully evades explicitly saying they don’t scan content in the service of ads. For example they still could use your drive content to enrich how they target to other people who have similar profiles.
> Perhaps if the docs started with a simple example of what has been seen over time to be the most common incantation for each command it might be tolerable.
Rsync’s man page opens with examples, and even though I never actually those specific commands, they are usually enough for me to remember how to do whatever I wanted to do.
Any work that involves a lot of puns and dialect will be hard to translate, as will anything that uses a lot of rhetorical flair. Puns are often impossible because they involve a "collision" of meaning between two words. If this collision isn't possible in the translated language, the best thing the translator can do is try to come up with their pun. Dialect and slang also will be hard, because slang is kind of a capsule of the culture it comes from. So the translator is going to have to choose a more normal world, losing the original flavor, or pick some slang from the L2, thus bringing an "import" into the world of the work. Rhythm and prosody depend on the harmony between the sounds of the words in the original language. Of course, the words of the translation language will have an entirely different set of sounds, and perhaps the grammar won't even permit similar acts of parallelism. As a stupid example look at
>Vini, Vidi, vici
>I came, I saw, I conquered.
Notice Latin doesn't require the pronoun I. But literally translating "Came,saw, conquered" sounds like it was written by a petulant 14 year old. Secondly, Caesar's clauses are a nice triplet of two syllables. The English version does pretty well there, until it reaches "conquered," which throws the rhythm off. I said it was a stupid example, because the English translates pretty well IMO, but hopefully I demonstrated the difficult work of the translator.
Off the top of my head, I think these would be tough to translate.
-Shakespeare. Too many puns, and the meter is tied to a rhythm natural to English. All poetry is difficult really.
-Huckleberry Finn. Heavy dialect, which often involves the racial prejudices of the time. How can you translate that part? Nothing will be as disrespectful as the word is in English. Furthermore, how do you translate something like:
>It must a been close on to one o’clock
Do you preserve the grammar error? What's the difference between "close" and "close on"?
-Faulkner. Same as Twain, plus some very heavy rhetoric.
-Joyce. Same as Faulkner, but more puns, heavier rhetoric. If there's anything harder to translate than Finnegans Wake, let me know.
-Gadsby. This book does not contain the letter E! E is the most common vowel in English, but it's not in many other languages. Is the translator "cheating" if constrains the same letter? Amazingly this problem has been tackled in the translation of a different book, La Disparation, a French novel also without any e's either. The English translation, A Void, avoids the character too. However, omitting the E would be too easy in Russian, so that version doesn't contain any O's.
You make a good point, but finally encryption is just a tool. The virtual and the physical spaces are both domains, whose different nature offers different tools at their disposal. I don't think you can protect anything in the physical domain with the same certainty and mathematical elegance that's available to digital files, but if there were I wouldn't be opposed to it.
Imagine if there were a safe that couldn't be opened by anyone but the owner without destroying its contents. Would you be opposed to that? What if the design mechanism of this safe were as easy to implement as the encryption protocols are? Yes, one day some expert safe-cracker might break it. And in the even farther future the advent of "quantum safecracking" would perhaps make the safe as secure as a luggage lock. In the meantime the police would have to resort to their traditional methods.
Unfortunately all kinds of damning evidence have been lost to time. Fire is older than paper.
But stories do have multiple sides, even if one side is flat out wrong.
I don't think anyone on the right or left would say that the present problem with Journalists is that they present both sides too well.
That's not to say that there's never a correct position. Assuming there is another version is different from assuming all versions are on multiple footing.
Strongly disagree. While I can accept that it's supposedly valuable for you as a consumer to be "identified and attached" to a company—even though it's something that I want nothing to do do with and consider a net bad for society—the notion that whole-scale identification of persons entering a store may be an acceptable default behavior is absurd, even before considering the so-called "dimension of privacy."
As the other child comment mentioned, there are many ways to identify yourself to a store that don't require facial recognition. The YMCA for example has a system that lets users track their exercise history; there's no reason Macy's couldn't do the same for your purchases. If indiscriminate ID'ing is the default position, then you have decided that _your convenience is more important than the freedom of every other person in the store._ It should be the responsibility of the person who wants this convenience to opt in, not the responsibility of the rest of us to opt out.
The desire to not have PiD stored by anyone should be reason enough to close the debate. But if it's not, we fortunately have hundreds (thousands?) of cases of corporate consumer abuse and irresponsible data storage to point to.
I agree with parent, planes are a great space to focus for me. I don't think there's anywhere else that I've done so much heavy reading. The lack of connection and the white noise of the engines make it the perfect place to zone in (or zone out!).
I don't think they're in any way contradictory. I think he was a genuinely great critic, and that can't be taken away from him. But that doesn't mean I can't be disappointed to learn he made female graduate students uncomfortable.
Similarly I fully support Handke winning the Nobel this year, but it doesn't mean I can't deplore his support of Milosevic.
Excuse me, but this does not make any sense. If somebody stopped losing weight after making progress for six months on the exact same diet, it would only mean that their body is now burning as much as it is consuming, so their intake would need to be reduced again. This is basic thermodynamic stuff. I promise I could lose weight eating nothing but ice cream sprinkled with powdered starch, as long as I could control my portions.