How is it appropriate? "But" connotes that the information that follows is somehow unexpected, or does not logically follow from whatever preceeded it. If they had raised prices *without* improving services, then "but" would be appropriate.
Of course, but the people who still think this is a good idea have already seen those reasons and still think that solar roadways will work. They are beyond listening to reason, so the only thing left for them to learn from is their own experience. After they try and it doesn't work, they won't even have the argument that "nobody really knows that it won't work because nobody's tried it".
... to just let them try it and find out for themselves, because scientifically literate people telling someone who supports this all of the entirely valid reasons about why it won't work don't mean squat when a person really *wants* to believe something, and that is blinding them to the arguments against it. The only thing left for them to listen to is their own, hard-knocks experience.
It is generally taken to mean that "having the right to sue" means that one can "rightfully sue", which is to say that their case has legitimate merit, and they are objectively and justly deserving of either compensation for it, or some legal action on their behalf against who they are suing in consideration of such merit.
It might discourage people who haven't bought the game yet.
True... but my point was that such people are not legitimate players. I realize now I had poorly interpreted what was really being said and they were really talking about two separate demographics of people when they talked about lost sales and legitimate players, and not one.
Yeah, I know it should be obvious. Sorry, sometimes I can be pretty dense.
No... because illegally acquired evidence doesn't change its status of being illegally acquired simply because it is known. If the only reason to dismiss that point is because it wasn't publicly known, unless it was also actually illegal to disclose it, making the evidence illegally acquired, and inadmissible on that basis, then there would be no further reason to keep it from evidence from that point forward.
It was a silly interpretation that could have been avoided with closer reading or application of common sense.
Well, it wouldn't be the first time that I haven't shown common sense. It's me being stupid, and I deserve a lot of the derision.
The plethora of responses I've received and how irate I seem to have made some people makes me wonder how far an actual troll could have gotten, however.
I see... I would argue that it was poorly worded, then... because it seemed to suggest that the people that the cheaters were ruining the game for were people who would otherwise spend money on the game... where my above point is that if they were playing the game legitimately, then they've already spent their money on it, and cannot represent a "lost sale".
Although I can certainly see how second-hand reports could impact sales, but how the summary was worded didn't suggest that to me, and it had not occurred to me at the time that is what was meant.
Of course, but they didn't say it was ruining the game for *potential* legitimate players, they just said it was ruining the game for legitimate players. If the players are legitimate, then they've already bought the game, and haven't lost that sale.
They say that the cheaters are ruing the game for many legitimate players, but if these players are legitimate, then they have, in fact, already bought the game, and so the cheaters can't actually be causing lost sales.
It might discourage people who aren't cheating from playing the game, of course... but they don't say that, they explicitly use the term "lost sales". I'm not sure how that can possibly be true.
Because you can't hold someone's hand to guide them if you still want them to have just as much control. The fact that some computer users may be willing to surrender that amount of control is irrelevant.
Worrying about how something is formatted when you haven't even pinned down what the content is yet (since the need to edit it is obviously still there) is totally putting the cart before the horse.
Your phrasing indicates that your attitudes towards Linux experts in general are no less snobbish than the very attitudes that you accuse them of having.
The saying about pointing out the speck in someone else's eye when you have a 2x4 in your own comes to mind.
Frequently property managers get $X for every sign-up they refer to the provider
It's my understanding that sort of thing is what the FCC prohibits... if nothing else, the provider would get in trouble unless they were fudging their own books and lying about where money was going without getting caught.
What's the landlord's incentive to disallow access to a company wanting to install a utility for the tenant if the landlord isn't getting some kind of price break on their own utilities in exchange for an effective monopoly ?
The FCC's regulations prohibit such price deals, so why would a landlord participate in keeping a monopoly going when there's nothing in it for them?
You may be trolling, but I'd like to answer a few of these:
1) I have to call bullshit on this. While some distros do indeed push systemd on you, that is a distribution-specific issue, and not a Linux one. There are at least two very mainstream systemd-free distributions of Linux. and both will remain so for the far forseeable future.
4) No argument about compatibility, my wife has griped about the same thing, but one could just as easily argue that the windows versions are inferior because they aren't compatible with open source alternatives. The notion of which is actually better depends on what a person happens to personally prefer, and is not based on objective and universal truth. Simply being adopted by fewer people does not make inferior by the same reasoning that suggesting the earth was not the center of the universe is not flawed either.
9) Three words: 'fsck -a/dev/sda1'. Some distros even come with an option at boot time to launch a recovery shell, but in a pinch you can always just boot from a usb recovery image or dvd. In my experience, recovery time on Linux in the event of a catastrophic failure is much faster (not to mention much less frequently needed in the first place) than it is on Windows.
And finally:
11) You are quite mistaken. First of all, not even all distributions require you to use X, let alone gnome, of which Bug Buddy is just a part. Secondly, only a very small amount of technical skill is required to block it.
The chief reason why Linux will probably not succeed on the desktop has nothing to do with any technical characteristics, merits, or lack thereof of the OS itself, but rather on the typical technical aptitude of computer users. Linux doesn't hold your hand the way that some other OS's might, and this can be intimidating for some people, but with the freedom that Linux gives to its users comes a great ability to control and customize your computer to behave exactly the way that you want.... in ways that Windows users probably cannot even imagine.
I think that the *bsd folks would have something to say about kde or gnome becoming irretrievably dependent on systemd.... don't you? My earlier point about forks remains.
Most of large projects have essentially a zero percent chance of ever becoming dependant on systemd, because they are not actually dependant on Linux in the first place. The number of essential or otherwise even moderately important projects for Linux that are truly dependent on Linux itself is actually quite small, and even if every one of them forked, it is unlikely to become unmanageable, given the number of people that use Linux.
Slashdot Mirror
How is it appropriate? "But" connotes that the information that follows is somehow unexpected, or does not logically follow from whatever preceeded it. If they had raised prices *without* improving services, then "but" would be appropriate.
Of course, but the people who still think this is a good idea have already seen those reasons and still think that solar roadways will work. They are beyond listening to reason, so the only thing left for them to learn from is their own experience. After they try and it doesn't work, they won't even have the argument that "nobody really knows that it won't work because nobody's tried it".
Shouldn't that be "and"?
Please people... learn your conjunctions for cryin' out loud.
(Damn... now I have that old "conjunction junction" song stuck in my head).
... to just let them try it and find out for themselves, because scientifically literate people telling someone who supports this all of the entirely valid reasons about why it won't work don't mean squat when a person really *wants* to believe something, and that is blinding them to the arguments against it. The only thing left for them to listen to is their own, hard-knocks experience.
Generally, that's more of a reflection of a flaw in the person that needs to cheat to have fun than it is of a flaw in the game.
It is generally taken to mean that "having the right to sue" means that one can "rightfully sue", which is to say that their case has legitimate merit, and they are objectively and justly deserving of either compensation for it, or some legal action on their behalf against who they are suing in consideration of such merit.
True... but my point was that such people are not legitimate players. I realize now I had poorly interpreted what was really being said and they were really talking about two separate demographics of people when they talked about lost sales and legitimate players, and not one.
Yeah, I know it should be obvious. Sorry, sometimes I can be pretty dense.
No... because illegally acquired evidence doesn't change its status of being illegally acquired simply because it is known. If the only reason to dismiss that point is because it wasn't publicly known, unless it was also actually illegal to disclose it, making the evidence illegally acquired, and inadmissible on that basis, then there would be no further reason to keep it from evidence from that point forward.
Well, it wouldn't be the first time that I haven't shown common sense. It's me being stupid, and I deserve a lot of the derision.
The plethora of responses I've received and how irate I seem to have made some people makes me wonder how far an actual troll could have gotten, however.
I see... I would argue that it was poorly worded, then... because it seemed to suggest that the people that the cheaters were ruining the game for were people who would otherwise spend money on the game... where my above point is that if they were playing the game legitimately, then they've already spent their money on it, and cannot represent a "lost sale".
Although I can certainly see how second-hand reports could impact sales, but how the summary was worded didn't suggest that to me, and it had not occurred to me at the time that is what was meant.
Of course, but they didn't say it was ruining the game for *potential* legitimate players, they just said it was ruining the game for legitimate players. If the players are legitimate, then they've already bought the game, and haven't lost that sale.
They say that the cheaters are ruing the game for many legitimate players, but if these players are legitimate, then they have, in fact, already bought the game, and so the cheaters can't actually be causing lost sales.
It might discourage people who aren't cheating from playing the game, of course... but they don't say that, they explicitly use the term "lost sales". I'm not sure how that can possibly be true.
The irony is that it *IS* public knowledge now, so the reason that it is "not public knowledge" would not apply to it anymore.
How does disallowing access for utility companies that the landlord might not want on his property keep tenants, exactly?
Because you can't hold someone's hand to guide them if you still want them to have just as much control. The fact that some computer users may be willing to surrender that amount of control is irrelevant.
Best. Computer game. Ever.
How about a text file?
Worrying about how something is formatted when you haven't even pinned down what the content is yet (since the need to edit it is obviously still there) is totally putting the cart before the horse.
Your phrasing indicates that your attitudes towards Linux experts in general are no less snobbish than the very attitudes that you accuse them of having.
The saying about pointing out the speck in someone else's eye when you have a 2x4 in your own comes to mind.
It's my understanding that sort of thing is what the FCC prohibits... if nothing else, the provider would get in trouble unless they were fudging their own books and lying about where money was going without getting caught.
What's the landlord's incentive to disallow access to a company wanting to install a utility for the tenant if the landlord isn't getting some kind of price break on their own utilities in exchange for an effective monopoly ?
The FCC's regulations prohibit such price deals, so why would a landlord participate in keeping a monopoly going when there's nothing in it for them?
You may be trolling, but I'd like to answer a few of these:
1) I have to call bullshit on this. While some distros do indeed push systemd on you, that is a distribution-specific issue, and not a Linux one. There are at least two very mainstream systemd-free distributions of Linux. and both will remain so for the far forseeable future.
4) No argument about compatibility, my wife has griped about the same thing, but one could just as easily argue that the windows versions are inferior because they aren't compatible with open source alternatives. The notion of which is actually better depends on what a person happens to personally prefer, and is not based on objective and universal truth. Simply being adopted by fewer people does not make inferior by the same reasoning that suggesting the earth was not the center of the universe is not flawed either.
9) Three words: 'fsck -a /dev/sda1'. Some distros even come with an option at boot time to launch a recovery shell, but in a pinch you can always just boot from a usb recovery image or dvd. In my experience, recovery time on Linux in the event of a catastrophic failure is much faster (not to mention much less frequently needed in the first place) than it is on Windows.
And finally:
11) You are quite mistaken. First of all, not even all distributions require you to use X, let alone gnome, of which Bug Buddy is just a part. Secondly, only a very small amount of technical skill is required to block it.
The chief reason why Linux will probably not succeed on the desktop has nothing to do with any technical characteristics, merits, or lack thereof of the OS itself, but rather on the typical technical aptitude of computer users. Linux doesn't hold your hand the way that some other OS's might, and this can be intimidating for some people, but with the freedom that Linux gives to its users comes a great ability to control and customize your computer to behave exactly the way that you want.... in ways that Windows users probably cannot even imagine.
That's kind of my point. Systemd poses no risk to distros that want to remain systemd-free.
Made those in attendance chuckle, and so perfectly fit my wife's and my personalities.
I think that the *bsd folks would have something to say about kde or gnome becoming irretrievably dependent on systemd.... don't you? My earlier point about forks remains.
Most of large projects have essentially a zero percent chance of ever becoming dependant on systemd, because they are not actually dependant on Linux in the first place. The number of essential or otherwise even moderately important projects for Linux that are truly dependent on Linux itself is actually quite small, and even if every one of them forked, it is unlikely to become unmanageable, given the number of people that use Linux.