This 'guy' doesn't need to worry. Pretty soon the autocomplete will be "Guy Hingston douchebag frivolous lawsuit asshole" and then he can feel smug because he succeeded in hiding away that bankruptcy thing.
Why is two years considered Long Term? In my short career I've worked with many machines which have run the same version of an OS for a lot longer than that. I would think ten years would be a *minimum* threshold for "long term support". Ten years from now, yes, some machines will need that critical security update. No, we can't expend six months every two years to re-test the systems to make sure they work with the new kernel.
There's a sliding scale of how reasonable it is to keep backporting bug fixes but two years? Two years doesn't seem long enough. Even my laptop has a three-year-old version of OS X on it.
Ha! It's all emotion. Perhaps it's only because I'm an American, but I feel strongly that the entire concept of royalty is disgusting. It's very nice, however, that European monarchs haven't done much oppressing in the last couple hundred years (have they? I can't think of any).
My suggestion is if you like the queen so much, then elect her.
That statistic about 90% of voters disapprove of Congress is nonsense. Voters who disapprove of Congress don't re-elect the same people to Congress, and America just re-elected the same people to Congress. Based on that, America is absolutely satisfied with their representation.
What that statistic really means is people like to pretend they are angry when they really aren't. This is a corollary to people like to pretend they are for small government when they really aren't. We have a government which is fantastically, almost perfectly aligned with what nearly every single voter wants. But, it's not in line with what voters like to pretend they want.
Agreed. GP mistakenly equates these two statements:
1. Like all humans, politicians are egotistical and hate to admit when they are wrong, so do it as rarely as the average person (perhaps even less) 2. No politician has ever changed his stance
If GP thinks #2 is right, then he isn't paying attention. Shit, this month we even saw some Republicans willing to raise taxes and tell Norquist to FOAD. If that can happen, then anything can happen.
The gay marriage thing is, as you point out, perhaps the best example. In that case it was a straightforward calculus of democracy: literally the month that polls showed 50% of Americans supporting marriage equality, the GOP shut up about it -- and almost immediately suddenly Obama "evolved" to support it (which is to say, sacked up and openly admitted his longstanding opinion).
Some people try to say "oh, that's silly, our King doesn't really rule the country". Oh, he doesn't? Then why is he the king? If your countrymen are willing to abide the notion of royalty and the presence of a monarch, then sorry, you aren't a democracy, you're a bunch of fools. The entire concept of "royalty" is anathema to the individual equality upon which real democracy is premised.
If your* country has a king, then you live in a kingdom. Stop trying to quorum with modern states. Dump the royals, then we'll talk.
It seems silly to doubt something that is obviously true.
Yes, most Americans want to use flying robots with missiles to blow up terrorists without going through trials. This shouldn't be hard to believe, considering it is the world you live in.
Yes, a majority of Americans want to continue prosecuting the war on drugs. This shouldn't be hard to believe, considering it's a cornerstone of winning elections for the last three generations.
Is it really hard for you to believe that people considered the same issues you consider, and concluded differently? You just really really can't even fathom that possibility?
How can you say nobody cares? We have an enormous infrastructure dedicated to making cars increasingly safe, and that infrastructure has been successful over the last sixty or so years. Similarly we have an enormous and expensive infrastructure for protecting children from abuse, and it has also been very successful. These aren't the kinds of problems that can be "solved" but they can be highly suppressed. We also care a lot about jet crashes and have a similar infrastructure. Maybe you've noticed how incredibly rare jet crashes are.
We care a lot about those problems which is why we put so many resources into solving them. For some reason, however, Americans have an allergic reaction when it comes to suppressing the problem of gun violence. All you ever hear is "well there's nothing you can do", which is nonsense. Of course there are things we can do! Can you imagine if our leaders had said "oh, well there's nothing that can be done about airline crashes, so instead we'll just pass a law exempting airlines from liability". And yet that's exactly what we did with guns.
"Can it be that, after a suitable period of time with a sufficient number of observers, the Absence of Evidence actually becomes Evidence of Absence?"
Of course it does. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence when the evidence shouldn't be absent. At that point the argument becomes special pleading.
Srsly. I feel like I'm in old timey days any time I hear someone say "the web address is ache tee tee pee colon forward slash forward slash double-yoo double-yoo dot..."
Let me be perfectly clear: I am definitely a dick. And I'm just arguing the point for fun, although I do believe it: taking a hard line on something like language is simply foolhearty and almost always has no historical basis. The quibbles that pedants have today, pedants had hundreds of years ago, so if everyone has understood the construction (whichever one) for so long, then it is sort of meaningless to say that it is "not correct". A language is whatever expressions communicate meaning among a population; if singular "they" conveys meaning among a population, then it's part of the language. If it's been done since Chaucer, then it's been part of the language so long that it's sort of silly to sit around complaining about it.
I also disagree with the statement that there is a "right way and wrong way" to do everything. For most things there are many ways, and rightness or wrongness isn't easy to judge.
That said, I am also a grammar troll! Perhaps that makes me a hypocrite but usually it's just trolling for fun, ad hominem attacks and whatnot.
Believe what you will man. Don't take it too seriously. One tip: if you are going to complain about grammar or composition or "the right way to write", then make sure to capitalize your sentences.
True, but he didn't exactly say that. He just says he gets sick from it. "Feeling ill" is the same as "gets sick".
But that minor point aside, I still bet the guy is wrong. I bet he doesn't actually get sick consistently each year. I myself was suspicious after two years of exactly the same progression of illness the week following a flu shot. I talked it through with a friend who actually does the ongoing flu vaccine research and he convinced me that it was a coincidence. The third and now fourth years? No reaction.
Obviously so you can inforce them against the poor and against racial minorities [who aren't rich or famous]. Get with the program, man, it's the same reason we fight the war on drugs.
You replied to a shallow thinker. Some people like to pretend that their personal behaviors have no effect on the world around them. You hear that kind of thing a lot from libertarians. It's a necessary fiction within that kind of philosophy.
I agree. Rhetorically equating slavery with a legal restriction from copying software is crass. The underlying point is still valid but the hyperbole masks the message.
P.S. While researching the Generic You I learned that "you" was historically exclusively plural; "ye" or "thee" were the singular forms. That makes it extra interesting if "you" becomes exclusively singular with "y'all" or similar becoming the exclusive plural.
"Their" has been used as a singular pronoun for over five hundred years. I'm not the one who made it that way. Like you, I was born long, long after that language evolution took place.
There is no objective "correctness" of language. The closest qualification is understanding by native speakers. You understand the Singular They; I understand it; everyone understands it; therefore it is correct.
It's fine with me, though, if you decide to prop up your self respect by inventing false reasons to think badly of other people. I won't try to dissuade you, just don't take yourself too seriously.
Slashdot Mirror
Indeed, and I figured out too late why my private pre-school failed: Nebraska Advanced Mind & Body Learning Academy.
This 'guy' doesn't need to worry. Pretty soon the autocomplete will be "Guy Hingston douchebag frivolous lawsuit asshole" and then he can feel smug because he succeeded in hiding away that bankruptcy thing.
Why is two years considered Long Term? In my short career I've worked with many machines which have run the same version of an OS for a lot longer than that. I would think ten years would be a *minimum* threshold for "long term support". Ten years from now, yes, some machines will need that critical security update. No, we can't expend six months every two years to re-test the systems to make sure they work with the new kernel.
There's a sliding scale of how reasonable it is to keep backporting bug fixes but two years? Two years doesn't seem long enough. Even my laptop has a three-year-old version of OS X on it.
Ha! It's all emotion. Perhaps it's only because I'm an American, but I feel strongly that the entire concept of royalty is disgusting. It's very nice, however, that European monarchs haven't done much oppressing in the last couple hundred years (have they? I can't think of any).
My suggestion is if you like the queen so much, then elect her.
That statistic about 90% of voters disapprove of Congress is nonsense. Voters who disapprove of Congress don't re-elect the same people to Congress, and America just re-elected the same people to Congress. Based on that, America is absolutely satisfied with their representation.
What that statistic really means is people like to pretend they are angry when they really aren't. This is a corollary to people like to pretend they are for small government when they really aren't. We have a government which is fantastically, almost perfectly aligned with what nearly every single voter wants. But, it's not in line with what voters like to pretend they want.
Agreed. GP mistakenly equates these two statements:
1. Like all humans, politicians are egotistical and hate to admit when they are wrong, so do it as rarely as the average person (perhaps even less)
2. No politician has ever changed his stance
If GP thinks #2 is right, then he isn't paying attention. Shit, this month we even saw some Republicans willing to raise taxes and tell Norquist to FOAD. If that can happen, then anything can happen.
The gay marriage thing is, as you point out, perhaps the best example. In that case it was a straightforward calculus of democracy: literally the month that polls showed 50% of Americans supporting marriage equality, the GOP shut up about it -- and almost immediately suddenly Obama "evolved" to support it (which is to say, sacked up and openly admitted his longstanding opinion).
Oh you did? Well, they're not, not all of them, not even most of them. Two thirds of Scandanavia is ruled by monarchs.
Denmark: monarchy
Finland: democracy
Greenland: monarchy
Iceland: democracy
Norway: monarchy
Sweden: monarchy
Some people try to say "oh, that's silly, our King doesn't really rule the country". Oh, he doesn't? Then why is he the king? If your countrymen are willing to abide the notion of royalty and the presence of a monarch, then sorry, you aren't a democracy, you're a bunch of fools. The entire concept of "royalty" is anathema to the individual equality upon which real democracy is premised.
If your* country has a king, then you live in a kingdom. Stop trying to quorum with modern states. Dump the royals, then we'll talk.
*The general you, not you GNious.
It seems silly to doubt something that is obviously true.
Yes, most Americans want to use flying robots with missiles to blow up terrorists without going through trials. This shouldn't be hard to believe, considering it is the world you live in.
Yes, a majority of Americans want to continue prosecuting the war on drugs. This shouldn't be hard to believe, considering it's a cornerstone of winning elections for the last three generations.
Is it really hard for you to believe that people considered the same issues you consider, and concluded differently? You just really really can't even fathom that possibility?
How can you say nobody cares? We have an enormous infrastructure dedicated to making cars increasingly safe, and that infrastructure has been successful over the last sixty or so years. Similarly we have an enormous and expensive infrastructure for protecting children from abuse, and it has also been very successful. These aren't the kinds of problems that can be "solved" but they can be highly suppressed. We also care a lot about jet crashes and have a similar infrastructure. Maybe you've noticed how incredibly rare jet crashes are.
We care a lot about those problems which is why we put so many resources into solving them. For some reason, however, Americans have an allergic reaction when it comes to suppressing the problem of gun violence. All you ever hear is "well there's nothing you can do", which is nonsense. Of course there are things we can do! Can you imagine if our leaders had said "oh, well there's nothing that can be done about airline crashes, so instead we'll just pass a law exempting airlines from liability". And yet that's exactly what we did with guns.
"Can it be that, after a suitable period of time with a sufficient number of observers, the Absence of Evidence actually becomes Evidence of Absence?"
Of course it does. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence when the evidence shouldn't be absent. At that point the argument becomes special pleading.
All reports say one thing, so yes, it is safe to assume the opposite. Good thinking.
Srsly. I feel like I'm in old timey days any time I hear someone say "the web address is ache tee tee pee colon forward slash forward slash double-yoo double-yoo dot..."
It's running on my Intel Mac. There must be some other subtlety to the problem you are having.
That is an example of "literally" well used.
Let me be perfectly clear: I am definitely a dick. And I'm just arguing the point for fun, although I do believe it: taking a hard line on something like language is simply foolhearty and almost always has no historical basis. The quibbles that pedants have today, pedants had hundreds of years ago, so if everyone has understood the construction (whichever one) for so long, then it is sort of meaningless to say that it is "not correct". A language is whatever expressions communicate meaning among a population; if singular "they" conveys meaning among a population, then it's part of the language. If it's been done since Chaucer, then it's been part of the language so long that it's sort of silly to sit around complaining about it.
I also disagree with the statement that there is a "right way and wrong way" to do everything. For most things there are many ways, and rightness or wrongness isn't easy to judge.
That said, I am also a grammar troll! Perhaps that makes me a hypocrite but usually it's just trolling for fun, ad hominem attacks and whatnot.
Believe what you will man. Don't take it too seriously. One tip: if you are going to complain about grammar or composition or "the right way to write", then make sure to capitalize your sentences.
Nah, that's not true. Libertarians get a pass on bad beliefs. Constitutional textualists get a pass on bad beliefs.
True, but he didn't exactly say that. He just says he gets sick from it. "Feeling ill" is the same as "gets sick".
But that minor point aside, I still bet the guy is wrong. I bet he doesn't actually get sick consistently each year. I myself was suspicious after two years of exactly the same progression of illness the week following a flu shot. I talked it through with a friend who actually does the ongoing flu vaccine research and he convinced me that it was a coincidence. The third and now fourth years? No reaction.
Seriously. This is like an Orthodox Jew claiming religious persecution because the Bacon Factory fired him after he refused to cut the meat.
Obviously so you can inforce them against the poor and against racial minorities [who aren't rich or famous]. Get with the program, man, it's the same reason we fight the war on drugs.
It must just be you. Can you explain what you think is a contradiction?
You replied to a shallow thinker. Some people like to pretend that their personal behaviors have no effect on the world around them. You hear that kind of thing a lot from libertarians. It's a necessary fiction within that kind of philosophy.
I agree. Rhetorically equating slavery with a legal restriction from copying software is crass. The underlying point is still valid but the hyperbole masks the message.
P.S. While researching the Generic You I learned that "you" was historically exclusively plural; "ye" or "thee" were the singular forms. That makes it extra interesting if "you" becomes exclusively singular with "y'all" or similar becoming the exclusive plural.
"Their" has been used as a singular pronoun for over five hundred years. I'm not the one who made it that way. Like you, I was born long, long after that language evolution took place.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they#Examples_of_generic_they
There is no objective "correctness" of language. The closest qualification is understanding by native speakers. You understand the Singular They; I understand it; everyone understands it; therefore it is correct.
It's fine with me, though, if you decide to prop up your self respect by inventing false reasons to think badly of other people. I won't try to dissuade you, just don't take yourself too seriously.
The language will be improved when the "y'all" construct becomes universal and standard. I often use it.