What the hell does that mean? People are the majority. If you wait until a majority takes a position, then making a statement about the people is inherently make a cover statement about a minority, implying that it covers AT LEAST a majority.
If there had been news articles running for well over 10 years that indicated that plugging in a TV right from the store would cause it to fail, but that you could insert a device between the TV and the wall that would prevent this problem, then yes, your SO has a problem.
Then how do you know that there was a misspelling?;)
In fact, is this case one of those in which usage is used so interchangably that the meaning follows suit? (example: "I could care less" should really be "I *couldn't* care less") Ahh, the ever evolving language is always fun to look at.
(Weary/wary is a pet peeve of mine... it's not just a misspelling, the two words mean completely different things.)
Umm.... same with there/their/they're or lose/loose or then/than. In fact, I am having trouble finding a misspelling that has two words that mean SIMILAR things.
Raise/raze
Altar/alter
it's/its
Accept/except
principle/principal
Nope, none of these
maybe you could give an example of a word that when commonly misspelled has a meaning similar to the original word?
a) OS X *has* man pages.. feel free to use them
b) The man format isn't really appropriate for GUIs
Seriously, for any CLI that is needed, man works just fine. For GUI programs like iWork you read the manual, and for OS type things such as configuring IPs the Help system is technical enough to get you through quite happily.
What I don't understand is how poorly written linux howto's are deemed acceptable. They are almost invariably written for one specific case of one specific flavor of Linux and outdated. Give me the BSD Handbook any day over that.
You do write well, however I would have to say that your linked article doesn't actually have a point. I mean, you build to a final paragraph the begins "So has Apple got an ace up their sleeves with the Mac mini, and will they be promoting it in much the same way as the iPod?" AND you admit you have no idea.
Basically, your entire article says nothing. It may say that you are not fooled by marketing campaigns. But that would mean that the article is about you..oh, that is what the anon cow meant by self-promotion. Simply stating the obvious is hardly giving input from a different perspective.
So originals sell for between US$5.50 and US$7? hmmm, looks like piracy is working to make a competitive market. Either one is damn cheap.
Get an original, it should last longer.
You have spent more time thinking about this than is healthy. I recommend you download some porn or think about how not only do Santa and Satan have the same letters in common, but have never been seen together. Coincidence?
Lojack requires police involvement. Wouldn't you rather use a system that you can use to locate your car wherever it is on your computer? Or you want to track where your 16 year old son goes with your car. How about you get paged/called/whatever when the car leave some predetermined route or general area that you define?
If I were a police officer, every once in a while I'd see if I could convince someone to leave their stolen and located car right where the thieves left it, so I could follow them when they pick it up.
I imagine this would be fairly frequent... some people don't even want their cars back.. just need a policy in place to provide transportation while this is going on and I imagine even Insurance companies would get on board.
If I don't print or store the primes, I can find all the primes under 2 billion in 2 minutes on my 2.4ghz celeron, since after about 46k all it's doing is reading a bit array of what is and isn't prime. But adding a printf slows it down considerably.
Interesting.. If I don't print or store them, I can do it in.00000001 seconds.. plus, the program I do that with is only 4 bytes long, and is cross platform!
Do you ever notice that the software seems to never change on those things? Banks really care about testing, apparently. What does that tell you about the Gov't?
A U.S. District Court in Pennsylvania ruled on January 18,1996 that even if an employer promises not to intercept email on a company system, there is not an expectation of privacy in the email. The case underscores the question of whether the court system has an adequate understanding of the underlying technology.
According to the court, the employer repeatedly told its employees that "all email communications would remain confidential and privileged" and that "e-mail communications could not be used by [the company] against its employees as grounds for termination." Even with that promise, the employer intercepted the communications of Michael Smyth and fired him. The court held that:
We do not find a reasonable expectation of privacy in e-mail
communications voluntarily made by an employee to his supervisor
over the company e-mail system notwithstanding any assurances by
management. Once plaintiff communicated the alleged
unprofessional comments to a second person over an e-mail system
which was apparently utilized by the entire company, any
reasonable expectation of privacy was lost.... we find no privacy
interests in such communications.
We do not find that a reasonable person would consider the
defendant's interception of these communications to be a substantial
and highly offensive invasion of his privacy"
But I didn't use the noun form, but the adjective form.. specifically in the sense of: Operating outside normal or desirable controls (from the same page) Though heck, I'll take any of the three definitions found there in this instance. None of which have any indication of right and wrong.
I *also* used the word "sell". You used the word teach. Let's go straight to the analogy: If instead of going to classes for 4 years you instead go online and buy a "Real Accredited University Diploma" then you have attended a rogue university. I'm not saying it is right or wrong, but it certainly is an institution "Operating outside normal or desirable controls"
Interestingly enough though, the only disclaimer that makes any sense to me is the one added by the CORPORATION saying that they are not liable for what the INDIVIDUAL has said. This is likely what you are saying.
However, using these as examples to draw from, saying something along the lines "If you are not the intended recipient you should or should not do something" there are a few questions that arise:
If the sender makes a typo, how do I know I am NOT the intended recipient? It says so right at the top, and the sender's server clearly sent it directly to my server
If I *am* the intended recipient, then I can pass along any or all of the email I want to... INCLUDING THE DISCLAIMER:)
Since there is no legal benefit, why include the disclaimer at all? This is my big beef and made me whip out the M word.
the email they received was unsolicited and therefore SPAM
That may be your way of looking at spam, but that is unacceptable for most people. Say your Uncle Sal, whom you haven't spoken with in 10 years because he lives on the other side of the country, happens across your email, say on a University board or something. Is his email Spam?
Oh understood, and occasionally when someone finds my posting on a message board and sends me an email saying that I would be a good candidate for Viagra(tm) I may choose to say "Damn, I think I actually MIGHT send back my credit card number and hope they send me some blue pills"
It is unsolicited. Therefore it wouldn't pass my whitelist. It would find its way into a bin with thousands of other emails. Shit, now you are telling me that I have to read EVERY fucking SPAM because my Uncle SAl might be trying to send me a personal message?
No, my real point is that any kind of legal mumbo jumbo like this should damn well be sent by certified mail, not email. That is not the appropriate medium. If I were to receive this email, I would simply delete it immediately.
That "stupid ass disclaimer" is SOP for most professionals such as lawyers, doctors, accountants and anyone who deals with confidential messages. It doesn't make him look like a moron, in fact he would look like an asshole if he DIDN'T have it on there. All the email I receive from doctors or lawyers (and my IT company specializes in the Health Care Industry) have a very similar disclaimer on them. It's just an automatic signature.
Hmmm, I stand by my statement above that email is not the correct medium for these transmissions. Sending something plaintext MUST BE ASSUMED to be as good as published. Moron: Follows like sheep and puts in a worthless sig. Moron: Sends private data over unencrypted email. Moron: Someone who gets an email from a doctor that DOESN'T have that disclaimer and thinks that that doctor LOOKS LIKE AN ASSHOLE.
If someone truly cared about privacy, then A) it would most likely NOT be sent via email (this disclaimer really seems to be email-centric) b) would ENCRYPT the information or last and easily the easiest c) PUT THE DISCLAIMER FIRST
The sender doesn't give a damn about the recipient's actual privacy, just how the recipient perceives the sender... I think in these particular situations that the exact opposite impression is being given and it patronizes the recipient. Hey, it will work for 90% of people (hey, they seem to care!) but if you look into it in any depth, you see it is a poorly formed method of ass covering.
Meh, as far as I'm concerned, the email they received was unsolicited and therefore SPAM. Plus, that stupid ass disclaimer on the email just makes the sender look like a moron.
Slashdot Mirror
Hell, we even verberize nouns. . .
What the hell does that mean? People are the majority. If you wait until a majority takes a position, then making a statement about the people is inherently make a cover statement about a minority, implying that it covers AT LEAST a majority.
NEWSFLASH!
STFU!
If there had been news articles running for well over 10 years that indicated that plugging in a TV right from the store would cause it to fail, but that you could insert a device between the TV and the wall that would prevent this problem, then yes, your SO has a problem .
In fact, is this case one of those in which usage is used so interchangably that the meaning follows suit? (example: "I could care less" should really be "I *couldn't* care less") Ahh, the ever evolving language is always fun to look at.
Raise/raze
Altar/alter
it's/its
Accept/except
principle/principal
Nope, none of these
maybe you could give an example of a word that when commonly misspelled has a meaning similar to the original word?
In direct opposition to TFA, but nevertheless completely correct.
b) The man format isn't really appropriate for GUIs
Seriously, for any CLI that is needed, man works just fine. For GUI programs like iWork you read the manual, and for OS type things such as configuring IPs the Help system is technical enough to get you through quite happily.
What I don't understand is how poorly written linux howto's are deemed acceptable. They are almost invariably written for one specific case of one specific flavor of Linux and outdated. Give me the BSD Handbook any day over that.
Basically, your entire article says nothing. It may say that you are not fooled by marketing campaigns. But that would mean that the article is about you..oh, that is what the anon cow meant by self-promotion. Simply stating the obvious is hardly giving input from a different perspective.
So originals sell for between US$5.50 and US$7? hmmm, looks like piracy is working to make a competitive market. Either one is damn cheap.
Get an original, it should last longer.
ummmm, openbsd isn't GPL'd ;)
You have spent more time thinking about this than is healthy. I recommend you download some porn or think about how not only do Santa and Satan have the same letters in common, but have never been seen together. Coincidence?
Linky to your 5-15% stats?
Do you ever notice that the software seems to never change on those things? Banks really care about testing, apparently. What does that tell you about the Gov't?
If we had a truly free media, we wouldn't have people that just say fuck-all who have nothing concrete to back it up.
Correct score with the Troll, BTW.. but don't eat me, there will be someone along shortly to flame you that is bigger and tastier.
I *also* used the word "sell". You used the word teach. Let's go straight to the analogy: If instead of going to classes for 4 years you instead go online and buy a "Real Accredited University Diploma" then you have attended a rogue university. I'm not saying it is right or wrong, but it certainly is an institution "Operating outside normal or desirable controls"
However, using these as examples to draw from, saying something along the lines "If you are not the intended recipient you should or should not do something" there are a few questions that arise:
If the sender makes a typo, how do I know I am NOT the intended recipient? It says so right at the top, and the sender's server clearly sent it directly to my server
If I *am* the intended recipient, then I can pass along any or all of the email I want to... INCLUDING THE DISCLAIMER :)
Since there is no legal benefit, why include the disclaimer at all? This is my big beef and made me whip out the M word.
It is unsolicited. Therefore it wouldn't pass my whitelist. It would find its way into a bin with thousands of other emails. Shit, now you are telling me that I have to read EVERY fucking SPAM because my Uncle SAl might be trying to send me a personal message?
No, my real point is that any kind of legal mumbo jumbo like this should damn well be sent by certified mail, not email. That is not the appropriate medium. If I were to receive this email, I would simply delete it immediately.
Hmmm, I stand by my statement above that email is not the correct medium for these transmissions. Sending something plaintext MUST BE ASSUMED to be as good as published. Moron: Follows like sheep and puts in a worthless sig. Moron: Sends private data over unencrypted email. Moron: Someone who gets an email from a doctor that DOESN'T have that disclaimer and thinks that that doctor LOOKS LIKE AN ASSHOLE.The sender doesn't give a damn about the recipient's actual privacy, just how the recipient perceives the sender... I think in these particular situations that the exact opposite impression is being given and it patronizes the recipient. Hey, it will work for 90% of people (hey, they seem to care!) but if you look into it in any depth, you see it is a poorly formed method of ass covering.
Doesn't the fact that the disclaimer lies at the END of the message set off any alarms or bells for you that it is completely worthless?
Who said it is wrong? I'm just saying when country A who hates country B gets teh bomb, then country B is perfectly justified in being afraid.
Meh, as far as I'm concerned, the email they received was unsolicited and therefore SPAM. Plus, that stupid ass disclaimer on the email just makes the sender look like a moron.