I use android, but don't want to install Facebook Messenger, or indeed any Facebook apps, on my phone. I was happy enough just using the mobile web site for the few times I used Facebook. There are enough scare stories, true or not, about Facebook that I don't want anything they wrote running on my phone.
Since they started on this campaign to try to force you to install the messenger app (opening up the Google Play store every time you opened a message) they eventually annoyed me enough to close down my Facebook account. It's not as if they are removing the messenger functionality from their site - my understanding is that it will remain on the desktop site. For me this was a final straw. I'm sure I'm not the only one.
I would suggest voting machines that bias the votes towards 'yes' in the question 'should we remove the right to bear arms from the constitution?'.
Otherwise, no, technology won't really help. You need to get guns out of the hands of people who really should never have them, and until you repeal that amendment, your hands are effectively tied.
Once the amendment is gone, you can remove your corner-store gun shops, bring in stronger laws about gun control, etc. etc.
It's a pretty boring game, at least for most of us NPCs (assuming we are, indeed, NPCs). Like, who would enjoy playing a game with your character gets up before sunrise, drives for an hour or more to go to work, sits at a desk all day, drives for an hour to get home, eats, and is too tired to do anything except sit in front of the TV for an hour or two before going to bed? And playing this almost every day for 40 or 50 years worth of their character's life. And then, on top of that, for the character to retire and die a few months later. Or for the character to get a fatal disease...
Nah, we're not in a game. If we were, it would have been turned off by now. And we'd see people standing at the side of a road (or sitting in their car, or whatever) not moving for periods of time while the player was/AFK 'cos their mother called them for dinner.
By highlighting the symptoms, they may spur more people into doing something to 'cure the desease'. Otherwise the masses will do nothing and the issue will continue to escalate.
It's an interesting comment and something I've thought about over the years. In fact, I think we do speak with "capitalisation", although we aren't consciously aware of it. When saying a proper noun, there tends to be a slight change in pronouncing, inflection, and/or tone, or in the separation of the words. If you say these two sentences aloud, you may hear a difference: I'm going to the john I'm going to see John.
It's something I sometimes notice when I'm listening for it. Speech is very complex - we carry meaning in more then just the words we say, but in how we say them. It's one of the reasons written word can be so often misinterpreted as the written word misses these additions. Written word allows for inflection, though highlighting a word use one of many methods, but doesn't allow for everything.
For example, look at the rules around commas and apostrophes. There are sets of conflicting rules here, all trying to help set the meaning so that we can comprehend the written word. But, once the reader comprehends, they can then say that string of words with the correct inflections and tones and pauses so that another listener can also comprehend.
In this case, no. Common usage is incorrect. The 2 terms "internet" and "Internet" have specific meanings. In this case, the majority are not aware of the differences as they are technical in nature. Hence the "common usage". If AP did their research and talked to a few people in the field, they would then know the reasons they shouldn't change. "Common usage" is not always correct, is just common. It means most people are wrong. Instead of following them, they should try to educate them, or we'll end up with more "literally" face-palms in the language. Educate. Steer the language. Don't just follow common usage because teenage girls use "literally" in an ironic sense without knowing (or without knowing what ironic means).
So their correct to change based on common, thus correct, usage in there paper, because actual correctness doesn't matter over they're, yes? (sic)
Common usage isn't always correct. Yes, language evolves, but that didn't mean it can't be steered. National (and international) newspapers have the ability to demonstrate correct usage and help steer that evolution. At least then English teachers, for example, can point to a daily publication as a reference for correctness in the language. But if newspapers are going to follow what people write in blogs and comments sections, the language will degenerate rapidly. Well, more rapidly.
Agreed. They should stick to what is correct in order to at least demonstrate correctness. But what they are saying is that because people abuse the language, they should too, because the abuse becomes "common usage". There is a reason why dictionaries look at only certain types of publications for their weird lists, usages, and definitions. I guess AP will no longer be one of those publications, if indeed if ever was.
Then they should be informed of their error. Just because something is in common usage doesn't make it right. An internet is a network. The Internet is, well, the Internet. Literally (meaning literally, and not figuratively, which is currently the common usage!)!
I just hope they don't to the MS thing with forced reboots - wouldn't be good driving down the motorway at 120km/h and your car telling you that it will reboot itself in 10 minutes and not give a cancel option
It's more that there are a lot of people who want to see something at home and don't want to go to the cinema. With large numbers of people have good home cinema setups, they'd like to use their equipment to view these blockbusters. There are some movies that I really couldn't be bother going to the cimema to see, but may watch at home. (There are some that I'd still go to the cinema for, though). Also, some people just can't get to the cinema for various reasons.
So, yeah, I probably be tempted to fork out some money to watch a movie at home instead of a noisy cinema, where I can enjoy it more. $50 is a lot (€45, which is 4 cinema tickets here), but with a few people around to watch it, you'd break even.
And I'm sure it will lead to a certain degree of reduced piracy, where some people will be happy to pay to have a good copy streamed to their TV, rather than download a low quality (and illegal) camera copy. But the impact likely won't be huge. I'm sure most will still just download the cemera copy, but at least the option would be there to allow you to purchase it for viewing, legally, and in Blu-Ray quality (or even 4K!)
â15 a month for 1Gb internet (enough for me - I have WiFi at home), and 300 texts (or 300 minutes, but I text more). I use hangouts to talk to just about everyone else. I haven't had a need for WhatsApp.
The best application of autonomous driving would be public transport. Having a bus that will pick you up, you tell is where you what to go, and it will factor your destination into its current route will remove the need for most cars on the road. Most people use cars to get them from A (home) to B (work) and back again. If autonomous public transport will do this faster and cheaper, and more conveniently than current (slower than driving and doesn't drop you at the door) driving, them it will prove to be the "killer app" on autonomous driving, removing the need for the privately owned car, removing vehicles from the roads, and ultimately producing less carbon emissions.
I still use some of the incadescent bulbs that came with the house 9 year ago in some of the rooms, and I've never had to replace them (yet). In the rest of the rooms I've replaced most with the low-energy (non-LED) replacements. I can't use LED lighting because of the flicker as it can make me dizzy.
I have Halogen in some rooms (50W GU10 bulbs). They are very bright and more efficient than standard incadescent, but each bulbs is still 50W, and only lights up what it's pointed to. Hence I have 4 of them in the kitchen (=200W). There are LED alternatives available which are 4W, but I'd never be able to use my kitchen again without feeling dizzy from the flicker.
So for people like me, this sort of technology is a must.
Interesting. However, Donald wants to close it up for everybody, whereas this is talking about identifying (but not actually blocking, yet that _could_ be a next step) certain types of speech behaviour. This is more about identification than obstruction.
Outside of the USA, the USA doesn't have a great image. It never really had, to be honest.
And, unfortunately for the USA, Donald Trump is doing absolutely nothing to make that image any better.
If anyone were to look just at Donald and how he represents you guys, then they will see an idiot, a racist, a bigot, a religious intolerant... he posses, in their worst forms, all of the bad stereotypes applied to "Americans". And, in many ways, he is the most un-American person one could point to. Taking just the simplest of American values - Freedom: He wants to close down the internet, ban Muslims, and have everyone saying 'Merry Christmas', because that's obviously what Freedom means to him.
I really feel sorry for you guys. He really does make the whole country look like a joke. I dare not imagine what your country will become if he were to be elected.
To be honest, there's an awful lot of things that he says that reminds me of one Adolf Hitler.
Slashdot Mirror
I use android, but don't want to install Facebook Messenger, or indeed any Facebook apps, on my phone. I was happy enough just using the mobile web site for the few times I used Facebook. There are enough scare stories, true or not, about Facebook that I don't want anything they wrote running on my phone.
Since they started on this campaign to try to force you to install the messenger app (opening up the Google Play store every time you opened a message) they eventually annoyed me enough to close down my Facebook account. It's not as if they are removing the messenger functionality from their site - my understanding is that it will remain on the desktop site. For me this was a final straw. I'm sure I'm not the only one.
I would suggest voting machines that bias the votes towards 'yes' in the question 'should we remove the right to bear arms from the constitution?'.
Otherwise, no, technology won't really help. You need to get guns out of the hands of people who really should never have them, and until you repeal that amendment, your hands are effectively tied.
Once the amendment is gone, you can remove your corner-store gun shops, bring in stronger laws about gun control, etc. etc.
It's a pretty boring game, at least for most of us NPCs (assuming we are, indeed, NPCs). Like, who would enjoy playing a game with your character gets up before sunrise, drives for an hour or more to go to work, sits at a desk all day, drives for an hour to get home, eats, and is too tired to do anything except sit in front of the TV for an hour or two before going to bed? And playing this almost every day for 40 or 50 years worth of their character's life. And then, on top of that, for the character to retire and die a few months later. Or for the character to get a fatal disease...
Nah, we're not in a game. If we were, it would have been turned off by now. And we'd see people standing at the side of a road (or sitting in their car, or whatever) not moving for periods of time while the player was /AFK 'cos their mother called them for dinner.
By highlighting the symptoms, they may spur more people into doing something to 'cure the desease'.
Otherwise the masses will do nothing and the issue will continue to escalate.
http://www.wolframalpha.com/in...
Result:
2.722×10^14 kg (kilograms)
2.722×10^11 t (metric tons)
Volume V of water from V = m/rho_(H_2O):
| 2.722×10^14 L (liters)
| 272 km^3 (cubic kilometers)
| (assuming maximum water density ~~ 1000 kg/m^3)
Common usage determines common usage. What's common isn't always correct.
It's an interesting comment and something I've thought about over the years. In fact, I think we do speak with "capitalisation", although we aren't consciously aware of it. When saying a proper noun, there tends to be a slight change in pronouncing, inflection, and/or tone, or in the separation of the words. If you say these two sentences aloud, you may hear a difference:
I'm going to the john
I'm going to see John.
It's something I sometimes notice when I'm listening for it. Speech is very complex - we carry meaning in more then just the words we say, but in how we say them. It's one of the reasons written word can be so often misinterpreted as the written word misses these additions. Written word allows for inflection, though highlighting a word use one of many methods, but doesn't allow for everything.
For example, look at the rules around commas and apostrophes. There are sets of conflicting rules here, all trying to help set the meaning so that we can comprehend the written word. But, once the reader comprehends, they can then say that string of words with the correct inflections and tones and pauses so that another listener can also comprehend.
Just my take on this anyway.
*dog
*yard
*laptop
*network
Winter is correct. All seasons have capitals. The rest are not proper nouns. We aren't German.
Ever hear of a typo...? Allow for some mistakes, as humans aren't perfect, and read the comment for the content therein.
That would be the Multinet, surely!
In this case, no. Common usage is incorrect. The 2 terms "internet" and "Internet" have specific meanings. In this case, the majority are not aware of the differences as they are technical in nature. Hence the "common usage". If AP did their research and talked to a few people in the field, they would then know the reasons they shouldn't change. "Common usage" is not always correct, is just common. It means most people are wrong. Instead of following them, they should try to educate them, or we'll end up with more "literally" face-palms in the language. Educate. Steer the language. Don't just follow common usage because teenage girls use "literally" in an ironic sense without knowing (or without knowing what ironic means).
So their correct to change based on common, thus correct, usage in there paper, because actual correctness doesn't matter over they're, yes? (sic)
Common usage isn't always correct. Yes, language evolves, but that didn't mean it can't be steered. National (and international) newspapers have the ability to demonstrate correct usage and help steer that evolution. At least then English teachers, for example, can point to a daily publication as a reference for correctness in the language. But if newspapers are going to follow what people write in blogs and comments sections, the language will degenerate rapidly. Well, more rapidly.
Agreed. They should stick to what is correct in order to at least demonstrate correctness. But what they are saying is that because people abuse the language, they should too, because the abuse becomes "common usage". There is a reason why dictionaries look at only certain types of publications for their weird lists, usages, and definitions. I guess AP will no longer be one of those publications, if indeed if ever was.
Then they should be informed of their error. Just because something is in common usage doesn't make it right. An internet is a network. The Internet is, well, the Internet. Literally (meaning literally, and not figuratively, which is currently the common usage!)!
I just hope they don't to the MS thing with forced reboots - wouldn't be good driving down the motorway at 120km/h and your car telling you that it will reboot itself in 10 minutes and not give a cancel option
#annoying
It's more that there are a lot of people who want to see something at home and don't want to go to the cinema. With large numbers of people have good home cinema setups, they'd like to use their equipment to view these blockbusters. There are some movies that I really couldn't be bother going to the cimema to see, but may watch at home. (There are some that I'd still go to the cinema for, though). Also, some people just can't get to the cinema for various reasons.
So, yeah, I probably be tempted to fork out some money to watch a movie at home instead of a noisy cinema, where I can enjoy it more. $50 is a lot (€45, which is 4 cinema tickets here), but with a few people around to watch it, you'd break even.
And I'm sure it will lead to a certain degree of reduced piracy, where some people will be happy to pay to have a good copy streamed to their TV, rather than download a low quality (and illegal) camera copy. But the impact likely won't be huge. I'm sure most will still just download the cemera copy, but at least the option would be there to allow you to purchase it for viewing, legally, and in Blu-Ray quality (or even 4K!)
â15 a month for 1Gb internet (enough for me - I have WiFi at home), and 300 texts (or 300 minutes, but I text more). I use hangouts to talk to just about everyone else. I haven't had a need for WhatsApp.
The best application of autonomous driving would be public transport. Having a bus that will pick you up, you tell is where you what to go, and it will factor your destination into its current route will remove the need for most cars on the road. Most people use cars to get them from A (home) to B (work) and back again. If autonomous public transport will do this faster and cheaper, and more conveniently than current (slower than driving and doesn't drop you at the door) driving, them it will prove to be the "killer app" on autonomous driving, removing the need for the privately owned car, removing vehicles from the roads, and ultimately producing less carbon emissions.
Ok, yeah, I know what it is. But I don't use it. And I'm sure I'm not the only one who doesn't use it. So this will have zero effect on me.
This will only affect those people who use Whatsapp in anger. Many people who will no longer be able to use it will just switch to something else.
Note for developers: Niche market coming up for someone who wants to create a whatsapp type app that runs on older (as well as newer) mobile systems!
I guess there's a new niche in the market now - the AdBlocker Blocker...
I still use some of the incadescent bulbs that came with the house 9 year ago in some of the rooms, and I've never had to replace them (yet). In the rest of the rooms I've replaced most with the low-energy (non-LED) replacements. I can't use LED lighting because of the flicker as it can make me dizzy.
I have Halogen in some rooms (50W GU10 bulbs). They are very bright and more efficient than standard incadescent, but each bulbs is still 50W, and only lights up what it's pointed to. Hence I have 4 of them in the kitchen (=200W). There are LED alternatives available which are 4W, but I'd never be able to use my kitchen again without feeling dizzy from the flicker.
So for people like me, this sort of technology is a must.
We should then all use the word "censored" as a curse word. Let's make it something worse than f*ck. Then see how it plays out...
Kinda like putting them inside a anti-Dalek?
Person: My name is Osaba Bin Laden
Translator: My name is John.
Person: Death to all infidels!
Translator: Pleased to meet you.
It might cause some confusion, though...
Interesting. However, Donald wants to close it up for everybody, whereas this is talking about identifying (but not actually blocking, yet that _could_ be a next step) certain types of speech behaviour. This is more about identification than obstruction.
Outside of the USA, the USA doesn't have a great image. It never really had, to be honest.
And, unfortunately for the USA, Donald Trump is doing absolutely nothing to make that image any better.
If anyone were to look just at Donald and how he represents you guys, then they will see an idiot, a racist, a bigot, a religious intolerant... he posses, in their worst forms, all of the bad stereotypes applied to "Americans". And, in many ways, he is the most un-American person one could point to. Taking just the simplest of American values - Freedom: He wants to close down the internet, ban Muslims, and have everyone saying 'Merry Christmas', because that's obviously what Freedom means to him.
I really feel sorry for you guys. He really does make the whole country look like a joke. I dare not imagine what your country will become if he were to be elected.
To be honest, there's an awful lot of things that he says that reminds me of one Adolf Hitler.
- observations from an outsider.