The nominative form of "dog" is "dog". The nominative form of "it" is "it". For regular nouns we form possessive from the nominative by adding "'s". It is therefore logical to expect that "it's dog" means "the dog belonging to it".
Your explanation doesn't really reveal any understanding. "His" is already not nominative, thus irrelevant to the argument.
The correct explanation is that personal pronouns have a different genitive/possessive form to regular nouns. "Its" is an exception to a rule; naive grammarians tend not to grasp this, making it difficult for them to explain why it's "its", not "it's". Tits.
The problem with grammar nazi attempts to correct people's apostrophe abuse is that hardly anyone explains why "the ball belonging to it" isn't contracted as "the ball belonging to Steve".
The least fascist person I've ever encountered does not think he knows best about what others are allowed to hear and say. But the person who believes he is the least fascist is very likely to think so.
Like the man said, every anarchist is a baffled dictator.
Yeah, TVs from the '80s were way better than those of the '60s and early '70s - but cheaper processes (hello, China!) through the late '80s and '90s fixed that, and since moving to LCD things have got very shit again. I do not believe that the backlights in your LCDs have not dimmed, unless you barely use them or you only moved to LCD very recently. Backlights are simply not built to stay bright for as many hours as recent CRTs will chug along.
But it's not just the main components which die sooner: "advances" in PSU design often mean not installing over-specced components (must..save..last..$0.01). More recently, regulations on filtering have become enforced (in the EU, certainly) as if no more than friendly advice, with self-certification being the way backward.
Crap yesterday is crap today, but mid-range equipment from 30 years ago - especially electronic - was built to last and built to be repaired.
When I was born we had one main TV, and that same TV was repaired two or three times by a knowledgeable, cheap, well-known, local repair guy until its death over two decades later. None since has lasted more than 5 years without developing some niggle or dying completely.
Even at your desk, LCD longevity is a fucking joke compared to CRTs, and printers are sold disposable with ink DRM. An HP 48 has buttons as fresh today as in 1990, but an HP 49G will make you give up after a couple of hours and a 50G - after several iterations of fail - is only just about usable.
Items 30 years ago were engineered to work - that's all we knew how to do. But now we know how to do something more profitable: items today are engineered as cheaply as possible to last for the length of the warranty. It'd be uncapitalistic not to, right?
Map: like you said, store it on your 'phone. If I'm stuck in the middle of somewhere I don't know and around no-one, I also assume I may not get a quality mobile signal.
Public transport: not routinely, as I plan in advance, but this can be useful in the middle of the night if unexpected problems arise. A low bandwidth application.
Contact information: again rarely as I tend to plan in advance. Rarely enough that I can swallow a voice directory enquiry when it's not included in a plan. Again, a low bandwidth application.
This continues the implication in my first post that a mobile is in the general case only useful for what Outlook can do: contacts, e-mail, calendaring (which timetabling is). And these are all low bandwidth apps if you use dedicated clients/protocols rather than Web 2.0 bloat.
...I paid £50 for one of the latest (i.e. WAP, 3-band GSM etc.) Motorola Timeport 'phones, and for £12.50/month on a 12 month contract with BT Cellnet I got enough inclusive minutes to cover my light usage when not roaming. Data calls were GSM modem, i.e. slow, but this is 1999. Roaming charges were expensive, but I rarely needed to use my mobile abroad, making this is the cheapest mobile plan I've ever had.
All I've seen in the last decade is contract and call costs steadily increasing, while no data plans cater for the very light user who doesn't need to browse Facebook and watch porn on the move, just regularly send/receive e-mail on a mailbox which he's already run through a text filter to limit to a few kB at most.
And, to put my asshole opinion in:-), I've never met anyone who uses mobile data for anything productive except when the usage case could be (and usually is) catered for with e-mail or some group calendaring system such as Outlook.
The meat of exercise could have been summarised in about 3 sentences; I did not need to watch 13 minutes of video. Congrats, you have a GCSE / high school knowledge of electronics.
Have any proof to back up your unfounded assertions that having a degree makes you more conformist?
I asserted that a man with a university degree tends to be more conformist, not that a university degree makes a man more conformist. In other words, the motivation to complete a university degree (specifically - not merely the desire to learn) may be a sign of conformism. Yours is the kind of lack of attention to detail I'd expect from someone with the paucity of skills provided by a modern degree.
I did assert that a degree does not in general reduce conformism, but that's a different argument.
Academics are a very small subset of people with degrees. And I'm not quite sure why clamouring for Kodos rather than Kang makes you a social revolutionary, but arguing here that a modern university degree tends to restrict the mind is like preaching atheism to the converted. Curiosity rarely survives formal education.
People with a university degree tend to be (in b4 outliers) more conformist, walking in lockstep with society and less willing to question themselves or their surroundings. Like the old stereotype says, the easterner spends too much time in meditation staring into space, and the westerner spends too little time doing so.
Before anyone cries, "dropout!" and/or "education broadens your horizons, luddite!", only the components of my degree(s) containing philosophy really helped me contemplate mortality. And we're increasingly insulting about philosophy (even while, in the UK, many of the major players in government/civil service have been through PPE), and study it in an increasingly bookish manner rather than asking students to use it as a vehicle to contemplate for themselves.
What we've learnt about the US is that they privately criticise and occasionally seek intelligence on important figures, and they don't like their citizens being arrested. Moreover, several million people have US "secret" clearance, which means anyone foreign and relevant also had the information: the release was therefore benign.
In other shocking news, I sometimes mumble "idiot!" under my breath after leaving a meeting and double-check a CV. Don't get me wrong, it's a great laugh to see a few fragile egos insulted, but the most interesting thing to come from this in the West will be whatever law stops it happening again.
This leak was damaging to those who the US are currently LARTing, from the UK to Saudi Arabia; from a diplomatic PoV, the US government has come out pretty well while playing the perfect victim. It's almost like we're approaching a significant anniversary of another time it did that: now the fires need stoking from an information warfare angle.
If wikileaks is being DDoS'd, it certainly isn't the US government trying to put some genie back in a bottle.
If you believe that "Arbeit macht frei" implies that you should be treated as a slave you couldn't be more wrong. It's more about the satisfaction of a job well done than having to work in perpetuality.
No, the cynical installation of the sign was derived from a very good understanding of where such philosophy leads, and you are playing the role of the Fool who takes the message at face value.
I'd perhaps expect an "OMG Godwin!", but the fact that you continue to advocate for the devil while he stares you in the face implies that you are either a troll or genuinely believe that scary nonsense you are spouting.
There isn't any sound evidence for causation, only correlation. There can be truth to it, but there is no evidence of truth to it. Those such as yourself prejudiced by racism choose an unscientific explanation based on inferiority of race then challenge others to falsify your choice, ignoring the work of criminologists, psychologists and other professionals.
Similarly, it could be true that working a shitty job just means you're lazy, aka Victorian "the poor are just lazy", but nothing beyond uninformed bigotry supports that position. You ignore, for example, sociological or demographical studies of social mobility or psychologists' understanding of aspects of intelligence set at birth or in early youth.
Maybe the reason there are more incarcerated blacks than whites in the US is because blacks are somehow inherently intellectually inferior and unable to apply themselves other than violently.
Or maybe not, and this is another case of a bigot using his prejudices to divine some sort of causation.
If you can't be bothered to do your job right, then in my book you are a complete asshole and deserve all the ill treatment and abusive posts you can get.
(1) Throwing packages around at the fastest speed possible probably is "doing your job right". Remember that an employee of a courier is working for the business owner, not the customer. The target is probably "n packages delivered, not more than x% damaged" - not "n/10 packages delivered, everyone's precious Macbook unscratched".
(2) No-one is "obliged" to do anything well. There is no God in the sky instilling universal paternalistic values in you. Here's another philosophy: someone who is treated like shit ought to do the job badly until they're treated better, because otherwise people will get away with treating you and others like shit. Striking may be an option in some industries, but not everywhere.
As an extension of (2), if you want someone to do a job as well as you, make sure they're compensated as well as you. Supply/demand of skills may be relevant on a national scale, but to the individual what matters is whether his effort is worth his remuneration. If you don't like this, consider a less capitalistic model where a man works for more than himself.
Slashdot Mirror
We have loads scattered around for rdp clients / light browsing w/ XP and MSE 1 has been great. Is MSE 2 under XP more of a hog/same/faster?
The nominative form of "dog" is "dog". The nominative form of "it" is "it". For regular nouns we form possessive from the nominative by adding "'s". It is therefore logical to expect that "it's dog" means "the dog belonging to it".
Your explanation doesn't really reveal any understanding. "His" is already not nominative, thus irrelevant to the argument.
The correct explanation is that personal pronouns have a different genitive/possessive form to regular nouns. "Its" is an exception to a rule; naive grammarians tend not to grasp this, making it difficult for them to explain why it's "its", not "it's". Tits.
You still haven't explained why the ball "belonging to dog" is written "dog's ball" but the ball "belonging to it" isn't written "it's ball".
Steve's ball.
Dog's ball.
It's ball.
The problem with grammar nazi attempts to correct people's apostrophe abuse is that hardly anyone explains why "the ball belonging to it" isn't contracted as "the ball belonging to Steve".
The least fascist person I've ever encountered does not think he knows best about what others are allowed to hear and say. But the person who believes he is the least fascist is very likely to think so.
Like the man said, every anarchist is a baffled dictator.
So go build an army and start a fascist revolution. If enough people support you, we'll get the sort of world you want.
Yeah, TVs from the '80s were way better than those of the '60s and early '70s - but cheaper processes (hello, China!) through the late '80s and '90s fixed that, and since moving to LCD things have got very shit again. I do not believe that the backlights in your LCDs have not dimmed, unless you barely use them or you only moved to LCD very recently. Backlights are simply not built to stay bright for as many hours as recent CRTs will chug along.
But it's not just the main components which die sooner: "advances" in PSU design often mean not installing over-specced components (must..save..last..$0.01). More recently, regulations on filtering have become enforced (in the EU, certainly) as if no more than friendly advice, with self-certification being the way backward.
Crap yesterday is crap today, but mid-range equipment from 30 years ago - especially electronic - was built to last and built to be repaired.
When I was born we had one main TV, and that same TV was repaired two or three times by a knowledgeable, cheap, well-known, local repair guy until its death over two decades later. None since has lasted more than 5 years without developing some niggle or dying completely.
Even at your desk, LCD longevity is a fucking joke compared to CRTs, and printers are sold disposable with ink DRM. An HP 48 has buttons as fresh today as in 1990, but an HP 49G will make you give up after a couple of hours and a 50G - after several iterations of fail - is only just about usable.
Items 30 years ago were engineered to work - that's all we knew how to do. But now we know how to do something more profitable: items today are engineered as cheaply as possible to last for the length of the warranty. It'd be uncapitalistic not to, right?
Map: like you said, store it on your 'phone. If I'm stuck in the middle of somewhere I don't know and around no-one, I also assume I may not get a quality mobile signal.
Public transport: not routinely, as I plan in advance, but this can be useful in the middle of the night if unexpected problems arise. A low bandwidth application.
Contact information: again rarely as I tend to plan in advance. Rarely enough that I can swallow a voice directory enquiry when it's not included in a plan. Again, a low bandwidth application.
This continues the implication in my first post that a mobile is in the general case only useful for what Outlook can do: contacts, e-mail, calendaring (which timetabling is). And these are all low bandwidth apps if you use dedicated clients/protocols rather than Web 2.0 bloat.
...I paid £50 for one of the latest (i.e. WAP, 3-band GSM etc.) Motorola Timeport 'phones, and for £12.50/month on a 12 month contract with BT Cellnet I got enough inclusive minutes to cover my light usage when not roaming. Data calls were GSM modem, i.e. slow, but this is 1999. Roaming charges were expensive, but I rarely needed to use my mobile abroad, making this is the cheapest mobile plan I've ever had.
All I've seen in the last decade is contract and call costs steadily increasing, while no data plans cater for the very light user who doesn't need to browse Facebook and watch porn on the move, just regularly send/receive e-mail on a mailbox which he's already run through a text filter to limit to a few kB at most.
And, to put my asshole opinion in :-), I've never met anyone who uses mobile data for anything productive except when the usage case could be (and usually is) catered for with e-mail or some group calendaring system such as Outlook.
The meat of exercise could have been summarised in about 3 sentences; I did not need to watch 13 minutes of video. Congrats, you have a GCSE / high school knowledge of electronics.
You administered the wrong dose of vitriol, Nursie. Don't backpedal by telling Doctor you're just guilty of an abuse of language.
Have any proof to back up your unfounded assertions that having a degree makes you more conformist?
I asserted that a man with a university degree tends to be more conformist, not that a university degree makes a man more conformist. In other words, the motivation to complete a university degree (specifically - not merely the desire to learn) may be a sign of conformism. Yours is the kind of lack of attention to detail I'd expect from someone with the paucity of skills provided by a modern degree.
I did assert that a degree does not in general reduce conformism, but that's a different argument.
Academics are a very small subset of people with degrees. And I'm not quite sure why clamouring for Kodos rather than Kang makes you a social revolutionary, but arguing here that a modern university degree tends to restrict the mind is like preaching atheism to the converted. Curiosity rarely survives formal education.
People with a university degree tend to be (in b4 outliers) more conformist, walking in lockstep with society and less willing to question themselves or their surroundings. Like the old stereotype says, the easterner spends too much time in meditation staring into space, and the westerner spends too little time doing so.
Before anyone cries, "dropout!" and/or "education broadens your horizons, luddite!", only the components of my degree(s) containing philosophy really helped me contemplate mortality. And we're increasingly insulting about philosophy (even while, in the UK, many of the major players in government/civil service have been through PPE), and study it in an increasingly bookish manner rather than asking students to use it as a vehicle to contemplate for themselves.
and you keep him reliant on you for life.
Remember, only the white man is civilised enough to play with dangerous toys.
I was going to link to an auditing web site via 2 URL shorteners, but it wouldn't let me.
That won't be abused.
You won't find child porn on Google either.
How do you know?
What we've learnt about the US is that they privately criticise and occasionally seek intelligence on important figures, and they don't like their citizens being arrested. Moreover, several million people have US "secret" clearance, which means anyone foreign and relevant also had the information: the release was therefore benign.
In other shocking news, I sometimes mumble "idiot!" under my breath after leaving a meeting and double-check a CV. Don't get me wrong, it's a great laugh to see a few fragile egos insulted, but the most interesting thing to come from this in the West will be whatever law stops it happening again.
This leak was damaging to those who the US are currently LARTing, from the UK to Saudi Arabia; from a diplomatic PoV, the US government has come out pretty well while playing the perfect victim. It's almost like we're approaching a significant anniversary of another time it did that: now the fires need stoking from an information warfare angle.
If wikileaks is being DDoS'd, it certainly isn't the US government trying to put some genie back in a bottle.
If you believe that "Arbeit macht frei" implies that you should be treated as a slave you couldn't be more wrong. It's more about the satisfaction of a job well done than having to work in perpetuality.
No, the cynical installation of the sign was derived from a very good understanding of where such philosophy leads, and you are playing the role of the Fool who takes the message at face value.
I'd perhaps expect an "OMG Godwin!", but the fact that you continue to advocate for the devil while he stares you in the face implies that you are either a troll or genuinely believe that scary nonsense you are spouting.
There isn't any sound evidence for causation, only correlation. There can be truth to it, but there is no evidence of truth to it. Those such as yourself prejudiced by racism choose an unscientific explanation based on inferiority of race then challenge others to falsify your choice, ignoring the work of criminologists, psychologists and other professionals.
Similarly, it could be true that working a shitty job just means you're lazy, aka Victorian "the poor are just lazy", but nothing beyond uninformed bigotry supports that position. You ignore, for example, sociological or demographical studies of social mobility or psychologists' understanding of aspects of intelligence set at birth or in early youth.
tl;dr Arbeit macht frei, right?
Maybe the reason there are more incarcerated blacks than whites in the US is because blacks are somehow inherently intellectually inferior and unable to apply themselves other than violently.
Or maybe not, and this is another case of a bigot using his prejudices to divine some sort of causation.
If you can't be bothered to do your job right, then in my book you are a complete asshole and deserve all the ill treatment and abusive posts you can get.
(1) Throwing packages around at the fastest speed possible probably is "doing your job right". Remember that an employee of a courier is working for the business owner, not the customer. The target is probably "n packages delivered, not more than x% damaged" - not "n/10 packages delivered, everyone's precious Macbook unscratched".
(2) No-one is "obliged" to do anything well. There is no God in the sky instilling universal paternalistic values in you. Here's another philosophy: someone who is treated like shit ought to do the job badly until they're treated better, because otherwise people will get away with treating you and others like shit. Striking may be an option in some industries, but not everywhere.
As an extension of (2), if you want someone to do a job as well as you, make sure they're compensated as well as you. Supply/demand of skills may be relevant on a national scale, but to the individual what matters is whether his effort is worth his remuneration. If you don't like this, consider a less capitalistic model where a man works for more than himself.