And put gobs and gobs of well-educated tax preparers out of work in about an hour and a half? We also pay taxes so government can throw pork around. Which isn't always that bad of a thing.
I was going to say something like, "They hate us for our freedom," but it's actually not ridiculous here. Instead, I'll go with, "Microsoft will digest you with its system of mighty organs."
Yes. Because now, when a company is googling to find out the best search engine to advertise with, they're going to stumble onto google. Diabolical. I bet you can hear the mwahaha-ing for miles around the google compound tonight.
The sentence is correct in English, and the words have counterparts in the other language (I would assume). It's possible to translate it. A human translator will probably do it correctly. Whether or not it's the least confusing way to say something is unimportant. If you're limiting what you can say for the ease of computer-based translation, then we might as well all learn some intermediate language with no ambiguity that a computer can translate trivially, 'cause that theoretical translator ain't good enough yet.
This translator, though, might actually be able to do it, if it checks for large matching strings before checking for small ones.
the french government decreed that the word e-mail is to be forbidden and replaced with made-up "courriel". They are forcing their own citizens to be xenophobic!
It didn't "forbid" anything. It encouraged. It may have mandated it in government documents, but that's about as oppressive as forcing employees to call to-do lists "weekly action projections."
Anyway, "e-mail" with French pronunciation is "euh-mal". "Courriel" with French pronunciation is a perfectly good, French word. If I were French, I'd be grateful. It's like "croissant." We took the word, we pronounce it wrong, but we sound stupid doing it, so most of us just call it "that curvy surrender-monkey bread." And the government puts that on its menus below Freedom Fries. So let's not go pointing out the colors of French kettles until we've taken a look at the outside of our pot.
No, see.. he wants to make a SECOND account on the same key. That key already has one account. It's just not his, and accounts can't be transferred.
He wants to create an account in place of another. At no time is there any reason for there to be two accounts. If you're really going to be annoying about it, they can just clear the data out of the old account and re-use it, removing the semantic "second account" problem.
Blizzard posted that publically on their site weeks ago. He should've researched it, since it was clear the included key had already been used to create the one non-transferrable account it's entitled to.
Again, the license said he could buy the game. He assumed he could use it once he did. The crazy fuck.
Blizzard has not been vague or obtuse about how it works.
YES, THEY HAVE! The game is entirely pointless without the account! How is this hard to understand? A website is non-binding. A license agreement is binding.
He WAS paying attention, and that's what got him into trouble. Normally, you'd assume you couldn't transfer it, but it said you could, so he did.
This is the kind of thing that makes people despise lawyers.
1) This guy is trying to buy a character/account off someone...
No. He's trying to make a new account in place of an old one.
So, really there is a sliding scale between "not much money" and "you're a moron" that centers around $17.50.
I don't care if it's 35 cents, you don't screw your customers like that.
It has always been stated that accounts can't be transferred...
Yes....and you can only make one account per key.
And he only wants one account per key.
Blizzard even posted on their site that they will not be selling extra key's (probably because their publisher would have a fit.) It's this guys fault for not paying attention.
I put up a "caution: wet floor" sign in the DVD sales section at my store and some chump slipped in the puddle in the bathroom that it was warning him about. It's his own damn fault for not exhaustively checking every sign in the store.
In any case, so far Blizzard has taken a hard line against people exploiting the game...
Fantastic, but there is absolutely no exploit here. They made it clear you can sell the game. He sold the game. They're trying to screw him out of the ability to use the game. That's it.
SUV owners are already paying $10,000 more to buy their car. At a grossly inefficient 15 miles per gallon and with an extra 10 cents gas tax, they need to drive 15,000 miles for that extra cost to make up 1% of the $10,000 extra they paid for the car. Any tax higher than that is going to get regular-car drivers mighty pissed. Raising gas taxes won't encourage anyone to drive a smaller car.
Raising the gas tax does not provide a disincentive to SUV owners. Polls show they won't even blink until gas prices hit over 3 bucks a gallon. And I know I wouldn't. Not that I'd ever buy an SUV to begin with.
Raising the gas tax just provides government with more money to be grossly inefficient with. Which is not that terrible a thing, but let's just stick to raising taxes when we need to, and not cut off our noses to spite SUV drivers.
Those are all good things, I just don't think Slashdot is qualified to be doing it. Generally, if it won't provoke a fear-mongering overreaction and it doesn't have "MS Sucks" somewhere in the title, the editors aren't interested. You have a good idea, and I'd back it, but this guy would work for the guys who put up "Microsoft: The Faint Smell of Rot" and called Blogging "Open Source Journalism" within an hour of each other.
Slashdot already reeks of whatever spin disease the Bush administration suffers from, and I don't think anyone could trust anything that comes out of their office.
You, however, I would like to see employed by a more reputable news source doing those stories.
Come on, we've all sold ourselves during job interviews as being "fast learners."
Oh. Is that what you guys have been doing? That's so much better than the "I'm the best an asshole like you is gonna be able to get," that I've been using.
It wouldn't require privatizing the system, it would require someone to have some common decency. Privatizing just moves the skewed results into someone else's hands.
And I'm not sure what "privatizing the system" would even mean. It's not like there's some finite amount of research to do and companies will pick up what the government drops. Research gets done in the private sector all the time. If they want more, they'll do more.
It's not a black mark on liberalism. It's not any kind of mark on liberalism. If there's a mark to be had there, if it's even true (which I strongly doubt), it's on idiocy. Anyone who would obey that law at that time is an idiot, and they deserved to have their house burned down. Anyone who would enforce it deserved to be in the house at the time.
That said, if your ground is that coated in twigs, they probably fell from something flamable and harder to move pretty nearby.
I partly agree, but there's people that pay money to go up a fraction of that distance under big bags of hot air, so if people want to sell this, I'm sure a bunch of people would be happy to buy it. And I'm reasonably sure it would get you laid if you took your date on that ride.
Then "rotating infinitely" is nonsense. You either meant rotating infinitely fast or for infinite duration. Infinitely fast gets you nothing, as discussed, and infinite duration seems pretty pointless when you could use your magic hole-widening powers in what I assume is finite time. The only thing I can think of that you might have meant is to rotate continuously, which would only serve to widen the hole and crush the square slightly, which again seems pointless considering you apparently have a forstner bit handy.
This is already easily the most childish conversation I've ever had, so I won't respond to the thing about the name.
"Far too often," when in the context of this level of dickery, is twice in a lifetime. I have had the privilege of knowing four. "Gifted" classes are a breeding ground for those kinds of people. I hope they eventually grew out of it.
Slashdot Mirror
I wasn't advocating it, I was saying it's unlikely to get done. Which was wrong, 'cause it's been pointed out that they already do it.
And put gobs and gobs of well-educated tax preparers out of work in about an hour and a half? We also pay taxes so government can throw pork around. Which isn't always that bad of a thing.
I was going to say something like, "They hate us for our freedom," but it's actually not ridiculous here. Instead, I'll go with, "Microsoft will digest you with its system of mighty organs."
Yes. Because now, when a company is googling to find out the best search engine to advertise with, they're going to stumble onto google. Diabolical. I bet you can hear the mwahaha-ing for miles around the google compound tonight.
Okay, I will, as long as next time your best friend does something wrong, you react the way you would if a guy who stole your car had done it.
while the sentence is gramatically passable by the written rules of english, no english speaker would say that.
Sure they would. They just did.
Who cares if a computer can translate a basically nonsensical, badly formed sentence that few people can understand in the native language?
Me. But not much, and I don't expect others to.
The sentence is correct in English, and the words have counterparts in the other language (I would assume). It's possible to translate it. A human translator will probably do it correctly. Whether or not it's the least confusing way to say something is unimportant. If you're limiting what you can say for the ease of computer-based translation, then we might as well all learn some intermediate language with no ambiguity that a computer can translate trivially, 'cause that theoretical translator ain't good enough yet.
This translator, though, might actually be able to do it, if it checks for large matching strings before checking for small ones.
the french government decreed that the word e-mail is to be forbidden and replaced with made-up "courriel". They are forcing their own citizens to be xenophobic!
It didn't "forbid" anything. It encouraged. It may have mandated it in government documents, but that's about as oppressive as forcing employees to call to-do lists "weekly action projections."
Anyway, "e-mail" with French pronunciation is "euh-mal". "Courriel" with French pronunciation is a perfectly good, French word. If I were French, I'd be grateful. It's like "croissant." We took the word, we pronounce it wrong, but we sound stupid doing it, so most of us just call it "that curvy surrender-monkey bread." And the government puts that on its menus below Freedom Fries. So let's not go pointing out the colors of French kettles until we've taken a look at the outside of our pot.
This is so unfair. Cool-humans get everything. I knew I should have played football in highschool. And showered.
No, see.. he wants to make a SECOND account on the same key. That key already has one account. It's just not his, and accounts can't be transferred.
He wants to create an account in place of another. At no time is there any reason for there to be two accounts. If you're really going to be annoying about it, they can just clear the data out of the old account and re-use it, removing the semantic "second account" problem.
Blizzard posted that publically on their site weeks ago. He should've researched it, since it was clear the included key had already been used to create the one non-transferrable account it's entitled to.
Again, the license said he could buy the game. He assumed he could use it once he did. The crazy fuck.
Blizzard has not been vague or obtuse about how it works.
YES, THEY HAVE! The game is entirely pointless without the account! How is this hard to understand? A website is non-binding. A license agreement is binding.
He WAS paying attention, and that's what got him into trouble. Normally, you'd assume you couldn't transfer it, but it said you could, so he did.
This is the kind of thing that makes people despise lawyers.
1) This guy is trying to buy a character/account off someone...
...and you can only make one account per key.
No. He's trying to make a new account in place of an old one.
So, really there is a sliding scale between "not much money" and "you're a moron" that centers around $17.50.
I don't care if it's 35 cents, you don't screw your customers like that.
It has always been stated that accounts can't be transferred...
Yes.
And he only wants one account per key.
Blizzard even posted on their site that they will not be selling extra key's (probably because their publisher would have a fit.) It's this guys fault for not paying attention.
I put up a "caution: wet floor" sign in the DVD sales section at my store and some chump slipped in the puddle in the bathroom that it was warning him about. It's his own damn fault for not exhaustively checking every sign in the store.
In any case, so far Blizzard has taken a hard line against people exploiting the game...
Fantastic, but there is absolutely no exploit here. They made it clear you can sell the game. He sold the game. They're trying to screw him out of the ability to use the game. That's it.
You're just going to have to trust me. And stop masturbating so much, it makes me sad.
Absolute power doesn't corrupt. Absolute power enlightens. It's being within reach of absolute power that corrupts.
SUV owners are already paying $10,000 more to buy their car. At a grossly inefficient 15 miles per gallon and with an extra 10 cents gas tax, they need to drive 15,000 miles for that extra cost to make up 1% of the $10,000 extra they paid for the car. Any tax higher than that is going to get regular-car drivers mighty pissed. Raising gas taxes won't encourage anyone to drive a smaller car.
Raising the gas tax does not provide a disincentive to SUV owners. Polls show they won't even blink until gas prices hit over 3 bucks a gallon. And I know I wouldn't. Not that I'd ever buy an SUV to begin with.
Raising the gas tax just provides government with more money to be grossly inefficient with. Which is not that terrible a thing, but let's just stick to raising taxes when we need to, and not cut off our noses to spite SUV drivers.
Sweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet. This means I can charge my brother for toast he makes in the crappy toaster I bought him for his wedding, right?
Those are all good things, I just don't think Slashdot is qualified to be doing it. Generally, if it won't provoke a fear-mongering overreaction and it doesn't have "MS Sucks" somewhere in the title, the editors aren't interested. You have a good idea, and I'd back it, but this guy would work for the guys who put up "Microsoft: The Faint Smell of Rot" and called Blogging "Open Source Journalism" within an hour of each other.
Slashdot already reeks of whatever spin disease the Bush administration suffers from, and I don't think anyone could trust anything that comes out of their office.
You, however, I would like to see employed by a more reputable news source doing those stories.
That sounds good in theory, but you know you'd just end up reading things like "Wisconsin Boy's Puppy Drowns: 'No Comment,' Says Microsoft."
Come on, we've all sold ourselves during job interviews as being "fast learners."
Oh. Is that what you guys have been doing? That's so much better than the "I'm the best an asshole like you is gonna be able to get," that I've been using.
Okay. Cool. Glad you cleared that up.
It wouldn't require privatizing the system, it would require someone to have some common decency. Privatizing just moves the skewed results into someone else's hands.
And I'm not sure what "privatizing the system" would even mean. It's not like there's some finite amount of research to do and companies will pick up what the government drops. Research gets done in the private sector all the time. If they want more, they'll do more.
It's not a black mark on liberalism. It's not any kind of mark on liberalism. If there's a mark to be had there, if it's even true (which I strongly doubt), it's on idiocy. Anyone who would obey that law at that time is an idiot, and they deserved to have their house burned down. Anyone who would enforce it deserved to be in the house at the time.
That said, if your ground is that coated in twigs, they probably fell from something flamable and harder to move pretty nearby.
I partly agree, but there's people that pay money to go up a fraction of that distance under big bags of hot air, so if people want to sell this, I'm sure a bunch of people would be happy to buy it. And I'm reasonably sure it would get you laid if you took your date on that ride.
Then "rotating infinitely" is nonsense. You either meant rotating infinitely fast or for infinite duration. Infinitely fast gets you nothing, as discussed, and infinite duration seems pretty pointless when you could use your magic hole-widening powers in what I assume is finite time. The only thing I can think of that you might have meant is to rotate continuously, which would only serve to widen the hole and crush the square slightly, which again seems pointless considering you apparently have a forstner bit handy.
This is already easily the most childish conversation I've ever had, so I won't respond to the thing about the name.
You're obviously not looking very hard.
"Far too often," when in the context of this level of dickery, is twice in a lifetime. I have had the privilege of knowing four. "Gifted" classes are a breeding ground for those kinds of people. I hope they eventually grew out of it.