Past participle forms cannot always be used as adjectives.. this is particularly true for intransitive verbs but there are some intransitive verbs that can be used transitively for which you cannot use the past participle as an adjective either.
To combine the past participle of "to deprecate" with a subject, one must utilize some conjugation of "to have", not "to be".
I wasn't suggesting that "depreciated" was not a word.... I am saying that it is not an adjective, and as such cannot be combined with a linking verb (eg: "is") to describe a property of the subject. The above usage is about as correct as saying something like "yesterday it was rained" [sic], and for the exact same reasons. "Depreciated" should either stand alone as a verb or be used as a past participle to be combined with a conjugation of "to have". However, one of the biggest problems with it is that often it is not clear whether the speaker is actually meaning to use the word depreciate, or if they actually meant deprecate. Was the speaker in this case remarking about how the cards that they have may be considered unnecessary or even undesirable today, or was the speaker remarking about how the cards' actual value has diminished? Both may be seen as true, so the speaker's intent is actually entirely ambiguous. Even if both were meant to be conveyed, it is not grammatically correct to use a single predicate to express both concepts simultaneously.
2) That is a malformation that comes from the expression "self-deprecate", which originally was "self-depreciate". In virtually any other context beyond talking about a person's self esteem, sense of worth, or the like, it does not mean that. Also, note that I said "in general" they are not interchangeable.
3) True... but if you are saying that something is best avoided, are you not then also providing an express disapproval of it?
4) Again, only in very specific contexts. In general, they are not synonyms.
Wow... saw the mistake literally the *instant* I hit "submit"... and I'm sure the irony isn't lost here, but I meant to say "... are already depreciating", not "... is already depreciating".
Everybody reading "Xs that are already depreciated" *knows* what was meant
Really? Was it a typo of deprecate? Or was it a misuse of the participle form of depreciate? If the latter, it should have read "... is already depreciating" for a present partciple, or "... have already depreciated" for a past participle.
Since, as I said, depreciate and deprecate are not usually interchangeable, the meaning of what was being said varies greatly depending on what word was meant. But contextually, it is conceivable that the writer may have meant to use either term, because both may be applicable, and so it is not clear what the writer was actually saying.
Now they have assloads of cards that are already depreciated....
Okay.... I have had up to.... *HERE* wth this. Sorry, I don't mean to take this out on you specifically, but I'm afraid your comment is the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back for me. I know this entire comment is OT, and I'll probably be modded as such to hell and back, but I feel like I really need to say this.
"Depreciated" is a verb. It is the simple past tense and past participle form of the infinitive "to depreciate". This word is not an adjective, which is how it is being used here. The adjective form for the verb depends on whether one is talking about whether something is either *tending* to depreciate or if it merely *able* to depreciate. For the former, the adjective to use is depreciative, while for the latter, one would use the term depreciable. If one is truly intending to use the verb form by combining it with a present tense verb of "to be", then the word to correctly use is "depreciating".
Additionally, a lot of times I notice people using the word "depreciated" as an adjective when they often mean "deprecated". "Deprecated" is a word which is both a past tense verb *and* an adjective that can be applied to describe nouns, but the word "deprecate" and "depreciate", despite their similar spellings, do *NOT* mean anything close to the same thing. Deprecate refers to the express disapproval of something (which typically may have been formerly viewed as acceptable), while depreciate refers to the loss of monetary value of something. In general, the two words cannot be used interchangeably.
The fact that may have done so only unintentionally is beside the point.
In general, that could be blamed on a user not paying attention to what they are doing more than being a genuinely malicious app (although they are certainly not mutually exclusive).
My point is that if you are giving an app permission to charge your CC, then it's probably not actually free, even strictly financially speaking.
Arguing that it is free just because you don't pay anything up front is like saying that a haircut is free because you usually don't usually have to pay before you see how they cut your hair.
And since so many people will have their credit cards plugged into their phone, this is what happens.
How does one app access data that may have been given to another app on the device? I mean really, not just theoretically.
How does a free application A access credit card details that might have been plugged into application B unless application B was already willing to share them with A (and should therefore have not been trusted with CC details in the first place)?
I'm pretty sure at million times less power than what you use to boil water in a microwave, you aren't adding energy faster than you could ordinarily radiate it away, so.... never.
Sure, but it still leaves one wondering how a free app can subscribe people to paid services unless they gave it their credit card info in the first place.
All they are doing in refusing cash is refusing the *FORM* of payment, not refusing payment at all. While taking a video could prove that you offered them cash, their refusal to accept cash does not actually equal any cancellation of a debt (as someone else pointed out, however, it may limit their ability to seek any interest damages if actual payment is postponed).
Must be nice to have so much free time that you can afford to waste it waiting 8 or 9 hours for cops to arrive to a scene that is *NOT* an emergency. I can all but guarantee that such a call would probably be at the very bottom of their priority list, and when they do actually get there, they may even fine you for calling the police to a scene where no matter that actually needs to involve the police has actually occurred. Certainly no crime has taken place (unless you walk out without satisfying the debt or arranging payment that is amenable to the debtor, or else you may be guilty of stealing).
Much as some people might like to think so, it is *NOT* illegal to refuse to accept cash as payment, and whether or not a service has already been rendered or possession of a product already transferred in advance of the payment is irrelevant.
There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person, or an organization must accept currency or coins as payment for goods or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether to accept cash unless there is a state law which says otherwise.
All that "legal tender" means is that short of entire economic and societal collapse where money is going to be worthless anyways, the government will respect the face value of the currency, it does not mean that refusal to accept it for a debt equates to cancellation of that debt.
And unless you get a receipt, you can't prove you ever gave them cash. If they refuse to give you a receipt for a cash payment what do you do, right then and right there?
I agree privacy is important. But it's not a right. Privacy, in fact, is largely illusionary, and ultimately only reflective of how ignorant one remains of whether or not someone else is interested in what one is saying or doing.
That would be stealing. Note it says for all *debts*. You don't owe them anything until they have either already offered you a service in advance of payment or given you a product on credit.
The killer feature for Netbeans native development for me is the ability to import freeform Makefile projects that may have been developed in other environments, and doing so will not affect the build process used in such other environments if the code is shared.
Slashdot Mirror
Past participle forms cannot always be used as adjectives.. this is particularly true for intransitive verbs but there are some intransitive verbs that can be used transitively for which you cannot use the past participle as an adjective either.
To combine the past participle of "to deprecate" with a subject, one must utilize some conjugation of "to have", not "to be".
I wasn't suggesting that "depreciated" was not a word.... I am saying that it is not an adjective, and as such cannot be combined with a linking verb (eg: "is") to describe a property of the subject. The above usage is about as correct as saying something like "yesterday it was rained" [sic], and for the exact same reasons. "Depreciated" should either stand alone as a verb or be used as a past participle to be combined with a conjugation of "to have". However, one of the biggest problems with it is that often it is not clear whether the speaker is actually meaning to use the word depreciate, or if they actually meant deprecate. Was the speaker in this case remarking about how the cards that they have may be considered unnecessary or even undesirable today, or was the speaker remarking about how the cards' actual value has diminished? Both may be seen as true, so the speaker's intent is actually entirely ambiguous. Even if both were meant to be conveyed, it is not grammatically correct to use a single predicate to express both concepts simultaneously.
1) deprecated
2) That is a malformation that comes from the expression "self-deprecate", which originally was "self-depreciate". In virtually any other context beyond talking about a person's self esteem, sense of worth, or the like, it does not mean that. Also, note that I said "in general" they are not interchangeable.
3) True... but if you are saying that something is best avoided, are you not then also providing an express disapproval of it?
4) Again, only in very specific contexts. In general, they are not synonyms.
Wow... saw the mistake literally the *instant* I hit "submit"... and I'm sure the irony isn't lost here, but I meant to say "... are already depreciating", not "... is already depreciating".
Really? Was it a typo of deprecate? Or was it a misuse of the participle form of depreciate? If the latter, it should have read "... is already depreciating" for a present partciple, or "... have already depreciated" for a past participle.
Since, as I said, depreciate and deprecate are not usually interchangeable, the meaning of what was being said varies greatly depending on what word was meant. But contextually, it is conceivable that the writer may have meant to use either term, because both may be applicable, and so it is not clear what the writer was actually saying.
Okay.... I have had up to.... *HERE* wth this. Sorry, I don't mean to take this out on you specifically, but I'm afraid your comment is the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back for me. I know this entire comment is OT, and I'll probably be modded as such to hell and back, but I feel like I really need to say this.
"Depreciated" is a verb. It is the simple past tense and past participle form of the infinitive "to depreciate". This word is not an adjective, which is how it is being used here. The adjective form for the verb depends on whether one is talking about whether something is either *tending* to depreciate or if it merely *able* to depreciate. For the former, the adjective to use is depreciative, while for the latter, one would use the term depreciable. If one is truly intending to use the verb form by combining it with a present tense verb of "to be", then the word to correctly use is "depreciating".
Additionally, a lot of times I notice people using the word "depreciated" as an adjective when they often mean "deprecated". "Deprecated" is a word which is both a past tense verb *and* an adjective that can be applied to describe nouns, but the word "deprecate" and "depreciate", despite their similar spellings, do *NOT* mean anything close to the same thing. Deprecate refers to the express disapproval of something (which typically may have been formerly viewed as acceptable), while depreciate refers to the loss of monetary value of something. In general, the two words cannot be used interchangeably.
#rant
Okay, I get that... but doesn't the word "intentionally" need to be in there somewhere?
So then the user *DID* give permission.
The fact that may have done so only unintentionally is beside the point.
In general, that could be blamed on a user not paying attention to what they are doing more than being a genuinely malicious app (although they are certainly not mutually exclusive).
Arguing that it is free just because you don't pay anything up front is like saying that a haircut is free because you usually don't usually have to pay before you see how they cut your hair.
How does one app access data that may have been given to another app on the device? I mean really, not just theoretically.
How does a free application A access credit card details that might have been plugged into application B unless application B was already willing to share them with A (and should therefore have not been trusted with CC details in the first place)?
I'm pretty sure at million times less power than what you use to boil water in a microwave, you aren't adding energy faster than you could ordinarily radiate it away, so.... never.
What paid services has Google ever subscribed its users to without consent?
Sure, but it still leaves one wondering how a free app can subscribe people to paid services unless they gave it their credit card info in the first place.
All they are doing in refusing cash is refusing the *FORM* of payment, not refusing payment at all. While taking a video could prove that you offered them cash, their refusal to accept cash does not actually equal any cancellation of a debt (as someone else pointed out, however, it may limit their ability to seek any interest damages if actual payment is postponed).
Must be nice to have so much free time that you can afford to waste it waiting 8 or 9 hours for cops to arrive to a scene that is *NOT* an emergency. I can all but guarantee that such a call would probably be at the very bottom of their priority list, and when they do actually get there, they may even fine you for calling the police to a scene where no matter that actually needs to involve the police has actually occurred. Certainly no crime has taken place (unless you walk out without satisfying the debt or arranging payment that is amenable to the debtor, or else you may be guilty of stealing).
Much as some people might like to think so, it is *NOT* illegal to refuse to accept cash as payment, and whether or not a service has already been rendered or possession of a product already transferred in advance of the payment is irrelevant.
All that "legal tender" means is that short of entire economic and societal collapse where money is going to be worthless anyways, the government will respect the face value of the currency, it does not mean that refusal to accept it for a debt equates to cancellation of that debt.
If you owe them something, where is it written in the *law* that refusal to accept cash equates to a cancellation of the debt?
Seriously? The cops probably gave more important things to do than get in the middle of a private transaction dispute.
Not viable if they are likely to punch you back.
Whet do you do if they refuse to accept cadh fir the debt and don't give you a receipt for it? How do yiu prove that debt is paid?
And unless you get a receipt, you can't prove you ever gave them cash. If they refuse to give you a receipt for a cash payment what do you do, right then and right there?
I agree privacy is important. But it's not a right. Privacy, in fact, is largely illusionary, and ultimately only reflective of how ignorant one remains of whether or not someone else is interested in what one is saying or doing.
That would be stealing. Note it says for all *debts*. You don't owe them anything until they have either already offered you a service in advance of payment or given you a product on credit.
Emphasis mine.
Care to explain how "more" isn't really "more"?
The killer feature for Netbeans native development for me is the ability to import freeform Makefile projects that may have been developed in other environments, and doing so will not affect the build process used in such other environments if the code is shared.