It annoys me that people keep saying “figuratively” is what they mean instead of “literally”. “Figuratively” may be the opposite, and technically correct, but the use of the word “literally” in this way is to strengthen a statement. A more appropriate correction would be “actually” or “seriously”, which holds the intended meaning. “Figuratively” is the last thing it should be replaced with.
Book burnings are bad when they are used to prevent the free sharing of information or ideas. It is a form of censorship. Burning the Quran is not censorship, because this is not an attempt to ban the Quran or prevent anyone from reading it. Its an entirely symbolic gesture. Its comparable to burning the American flag, which I’m guessing you’re not so against.
If that was pretentious, I must be some kind of stuck up asshole
That sounds nice and all, but is useless as a definition. The way I see it used, wisdom is knowledge and intuition that is gained from experience, whereas intelligence is a property of a person that allows them to learn quickly.
Well letters don’t really have a single canonical shape. There are many acceptable ways of rendering each. While two letters might usually look the same, it is very possible that some shape could be acceptable for one but not the other. So, it makes sense to distinguish between them in binary representation. That allows the interpreting software to determine if it cares about the difference or not.
Also, the Unicode code tables do mention which characters look (nearly) identical, so it’s definitely possible to make a program interpret something like a Greek question mark the same as a semicolon. I guess it’s just that no one has bothered, since it’s such a rare edge case.
Well it’s all fine and dandy until you try to buy some spinach, fumble around on the touchscreen for a while until you figure out how to add something manually, then can’t find spinach anywhere and finally ask for help, feeling like a total idiot who can’t use a touchscreen interface that a boomer soccer mom could figure out, but then you figure out it was listed under “leafy green spinach” so now you’re mad at both at yourself and whoever decided that was a good idea.
But the term was created to legitimize the material.
Do you have a source for that? I can’t find anything that states the origin of the term itself is seedy. Besides, it’s just a plain description: it’s pornography with children in it.
The only sources I can find that support CSAM over CP claim that CP somehow implies consent. But I’m saying that simply isn’t the case. I am not saying that words arent powerful. I am not saying that no words ever need to be changed. I am saying that these words don’t need to be changed.
Based on those same sources, I’d speculate that this outrage is just misplaced anger. They almost immediately start talking about how bad sexual abuse is, which is not really relevant to whether it should be called CP or CSAM. Just because CP is bad, does not mean the term CP is bad.
That is needlessly pedantic. I have never heard of anyone using the word pornography to imply legality or moral acceptability. There is no such thing as “legitimate” CP, so there is no need to specify that it’s not ok every time it is mentioned. No one in their right mind would presume he’s some kind of CP supporting monster for failing to do so.
I think it’s the other way around. I often find only one source (if any) for configuring windows, and it’s some registry edit that hasn’t worked for years. On linux, there will be a dozen people providing multiple ways of getting it done, most of which work.
They’re probably picturing the typical American grocery store: giant warehouse-like building, massive parking lot, tons of people coming and going. It would be a bad idea to put one of those in the middle of a neighborhood.