Er, no, it's not. The infinitive form is the "to X" form; "to boldly split infinitives that no man has split before."
Actually, this is only the English interpretation of the infinitive. When you actaully look at it, the infinitive is the same as the "to X" form you gave, but that it would not include the "to". Thus the infinitive of "am/are/is" is simply "be", not "to be".
The best example of this can be seen during the use of modal verbs. "I can be all I want to be." Notice that "can" governs an infinitive verb, but we see simply "be", not "to be", but in the same sentence we see "want to be". This is because "want" is not a modal verb, and is an auxillary verb which governs a verb phrase, and not an infinitive verb itself.
This distinction is quite clear to one who studies other Germanic language, for instance German, where the infinitive is a single word uninflected for tense, aspect, mood, or person, although there are number of verbs that govern verb phrases which use the preposition "zu", which in fact, even gets inserted inbetween a seperable prefix and its attached verb.
Examples: "Ich kann laufen." (I can run.) "Ich muss laufen." (I must run.) "Ich werde laufen." (I will run.) "Ich will laufen." (I want run.) "Ich höre auf, zu laufen." (I stop to run.) "Ich beginn zu laufen." (I begin to run.) "Ich versuche zu laufen." (I try to run.)
Once you look at it this way, you realize, that there is no way to split an infinitive in English at all, as you can't insert a word between the "b" and the "e" in "be". Of course, you *can* actually place an interjection between two syllables of an infinitive verb. "I'm off to ex-fricking-plore the world!" Although, the same would have been true for Latin as it is true for all natual languages.
Four years ago I had appendicitis. I was treated by laparoscopy, which was done through three small cuts in my belly, about one centimeter each.
Not even fifty years ago. About 12 years ago, I had appendicitis, also. Now, granted mine had burst and was causing perotonitis, but they still had to make a 2 inch incision in order to work inside of me.
I spent two days in the hospital and have no visible scars today. How would a similar treatment be performed fifty years ago? Instead of sending a small remotely controlled equipment into the patient's body, the surgeon had to cut him up enough to get both hands inside.
I spent a month afterwards in the hospital (but that was due to the perotonitis shutting down my digestive system), and I still have the two inch visible scar.
I imagine it could have been worse even 50 years ago, but like I said... just 8 years before you, they were still making fairly large incisions. I'd love to have had no visible scars from my surgery, because as is, I have a scar from approximately my belly button, down two inches.:(
Oddly, it seems to have cleared up some in the past few days, (I don't know why... it's very odd, perhaps since I've started using moisturizing soaps and such, my skin is actually... I don't know...) but then that's the thing that House said in one of his episodes, "That's been the entire progression of medicine. Patients get better and we don't know why, so we have to figure out why."
I shred then incinerate important stuff; shredded paper can make very good firestarting fuel on those cold winter nights. A but tough in the summer, but that's where the barbecue comes in.
I've actually thought of that myself, since regular paper tends to be quite compacted and have insufficient airflow properties, so the fire tends to burn out when there are still bits of paper left unconsumed.
I figured if you shred it, then kind of toss it around like a salad, that the nature of the small strips will lead it to have a better air supply than just flat sheets. Of course crumpling tends to accomplish the same goal, but it's just too much work... I'd rather automate the process.
Actually I have quite a few reciepts from Germany that have my entire credit card number on them. That would never fly in America I believe.
And before you say whatever, I'm looking right now at a reciept from a company selling Die Bahn tickets, that has my full credit card number. I don't even throw away reciepts that have just 4 digits of my credit card number on it.
I don't even trust standard shredders most of the time. If it doesn't cross shred, then what are the chances that some piece of information might slip through without getting shred? And what are the chances that someone who's determined enough would actually be able to piece the parts together and gather that information about you?
At least with a cross shredder, you increase the number of elements by a significant multiple. If your shredder produces anything larger than confetti, then it's too cutting too big. I personally incinerate all important documents.
Does anyone else remember that one of the early, great selling points of DVDs was that you didn't have to rewind them? Wasn't that awesome? And now we take it for granted.
God, thanks for reminding me that my father would ask me to go rewind the movie after it was finished, and I'd get to the DVD player, and then throw my dad the nastiest look possible.
Um, because the Cell isn't just a game console processor, it's a multi-purpose vector processor.
IBM, Sony, and... who's the other person working on it? I forget. Anyways, the people involved each want it for various purposes. Yes, Sony wants to use it in the PS3, but IBM wants to do some serious work with the Cell and potentially replace POWER with it.
I think you've touched upon the key disagreement between Mac and Windows apologists, in that there are often different definitions of value being used.
I couldn't agree anymore if it were possible.
I continually recommend OSX to people because I've received a lot of value from it, and I think they might also... at least I think they should try it just so they know.
But I don't fault some people for liking Windows. They just have extremely alternate values in computers than I do, lol.
We already know that there is no one programming language to solve all problems. When will people realize that there's no one computer to solve all problems? Of course, this would be a lot easier if there were as many computers as there were programming languages.
Of course with the ubiquity of x86, and x86-64, I don't see that happening anytime in the future.
You say that now, but when faced with the Dell that costs $1,200, and the same Mac that costs $2,000, you (or people like you) will sing a different tune.
Dude, I spent $4000~5000 on a Mac that I understood at the time to be only of comparable performance to a PC.
I'm not going to change my tune just because it has an Intel chip in it, rather than a PowerPC chip.
What, like Microsoft is flooded now? No, they'll call the hardware manufacturer, just like they do now when they buy a Brand X hardware for a Mac.
The hardware manufacturers need to initially support OSX for their drivers. It's a chicken and egg thing really. They both depend on each other.
No, they'll have similar pricing to Microsoft (except Apple forces you to buy WAY more upgrades than Microsoft). Except they'd sell a hell of a lot more copies, with the overhead being the cost of the media.
What? So Apple releasing updates and improvements to their OS is now a bad thing? As opposed to Microsoft coming out with two Service packs in the same time that Apple released 5 OS updates?
No one would stop you from buying from Apple if they allowed people to choose whether they want to pay the Apple hardware tax or not.
You don't have to pay the Apple hardware tax either. You just don't get OSX to run on it.
You don't have some God-given right to run OSX on a commodity computer. If Apple wants to leverage its OS and software as an advantage to using their hardware, then that's their right.
What I was attempting to state to you in the first place was that saying that Apple's OSX is everything about how they make their money is stupid. Apple makes money off its hardware, its software, its iPod software, etc.
It's like saying that Microsoft is an OS software company because they make most of their money from Windows.
It just completely neglects everything else that the company is doing. Apple is a computer company. It's not a hardware company, it's not a software company, because it sells and builds whole computers, from putting chip designs together to writing the OS.
Rofl, so out of an examination of which one is cheaper to the consumer, you want to disregard one because it is too cheap? Where did you get these incredible debate skills?
I'm not discussing which is cheaper to the consumer. I'm talking about value to the customer.
Where did I get these incredible debate skills? It's called reality.
Reality: Dell has razor thin margins, because they can afford it, and it makes their computers cheaper.
Reality: Apple doesn't have thin margins, they have very fat margins. Then that's how they make their money.
Reality: Dells are cheaper systems than Apple
Reality: I still wouldn't buy a Dell unless I had to.
You're perfectly free to vote with your wallet to say that you want the cheapest hunk of metal on the earth, and a design that hasn't changed significantly over the last 5 years.
Meanwhile, I'm perfectly free to vote with my wallet, and say I don't just care about something being cheap.
To me, money isn't the most important thing in the world that drives every purchase decision in my life. Money just doesn't drive and control my life and purchasing decisions.
Again, you're entirely free to make your own choice, I'm not arguing AGAINST you, I'm arguing around you. Saying that the money isn't what's important to me. Apple provides things that Dell doesn't, and I like Apple more than Dell. That is why I buy Apples.
I just want people to understand that some of us are grounded in reality, and realize that Apple computers are more expensive. I'm just saying that that's not the only thing that counts.
Apple gets most of its Macintosh money from selling OSX which happens to have hardware forced to be bought along with it. If Apple allowed OSX to be run on commodity hardware, they're sales of OSX would rocket up and their hardware sales would drop into the toilet (though, some would still buy it). Of course, they would make enormously more money that way, too.
Well, I for one would much rather buy Apple hardware than commodity PC. It's designed well, and everything I see in the PC market just doesn't match the level of design put into Apple's systems.
If Apple allowed OSX to run on commodity hardware, their sales would sky-rocket, and they would be flooded with calls that want them to support this such and the other piece of hardware "Why doesn't my modem work?" blah blah blah, more bullshit. And the price of OSX would need to be raised from around $125 per copy, to around $200 per copy.
I just don't even see that being any sort of intelligent idea. I *like* the way Apple does its business right now, and I don't need some God-granted-right to run OSX on commodity hardware, because I hate Dells, I hate commodity PCs, and I especially hate putting my computers together by hand anymore.
Dell works on razor thin margins. We're talking just a few $100 per computer.
They make money by selling in bulk, but if something happens to any of those, and they have to spend some $200 supporting them or fixing something, or handling customers, then they're out.
I don't think it's fair to compare a company that sells so much bulk that it can actually make money off razor thin margins, to a company that sells well-designed computers that would be unable to exist on the same margins that Dell does.
It's like asking if you'd rather shop at Wal-mart or your local Mom and Pop grocery store. Yeah, Wal-marts cheaper, but that's because they can afford lower margins. It doesn't mean it's worth it, or more value per dollar though, even if you're buying the same products.
People would buy OSX w/o Apple hardware. The reverse isn't true. Therefore, Apple is a software company.
Um... yeah, because no one like Linus would buy a Mac and then run Linux on it. That would just be wrong.
Apple gets the majority of its income from hardware, that makes it a hardware company.
You can also play this game with iPod/iTunes. More people know Apple from iPods than from anything else, so Apple is a music distribution company.
Microsoft is a convicted monopolist.
Microsoft was convicted of including a BROWSER in their operating system. Roll that around in your head for a second -- doesn't that seem utterly ridiculous from the vantage point of 2006? Can you imagine an operation system that doesn't include a browser as a fundamental tool? (I personally thought the whole thing was ridiculous at the time).
Dude, you're arguing with him about this? Microsoft *was* and *is* a monopoly. But it's not something you get "convicted" of, because it's not illegal to be a monopoly.
It's just illegal to leverage that monopoly to get you into other markets. That's the reason why Microsoft had problems with including IE *for free* in their OS, because there was a competing browser out there for pay, which suddenly became unable to keep itself afloat.
If you're going to be an apologist for something, at least align yourself with reality.
The correct way to say what you wanted to was: "Yes, Microsoft was a monopoly, but they got in trouble for leveraging that monopoly for including a browser, which in this day and age is totally ridiculous to fault someone for, and honestly, I thought back at the time, that it was pretty ridiculous to begin with."
It's the anthromorphic bias that we all have. We'd generally much rather hear about humans, and how we're special than about some stupid ape somewhere.
Oh wait, at some point evolution would have all primates descent from a single species...
To expand on your thoughts regarding women and competition, women can and often are competitive in specific areas in which they choose to be. I'm sure there are some women who are competitive in gaming and would love to compete professionally. I know plenty of guys who are competitive about gaming and others who see it as entertainment and are not competitive about it. All women and men who play games share just that fact, they all play games, but what each enjoys from and how each views it is unique to that individual.
Right, I didn't intend to imply that women were without a competitive spirit. Each individual finds those things that interest them the most.
Though if you look at the vast majority of women, in say a game that allows selective PvP action. You will find that a higher number of women would rather play collaboratively against the computer, where as with men you'll find a higher number that would rather play competitively against each other. Thus allowing them to "prove which is better" or something like that.
It's not a stone cut line, but rather just a tendency. Same as women at this time tend to avoid the "hard sciences". I'm not saying that women can't do it, or don't want to do it, but rather than there's simply a statistical tendency for them to be this way.
In my experience, competitive gaming just doesn't happen to be a popular area for women because the benefits of doing so are limited. If the benefits of competitive gaming were more appealling, maybe the economics would change in that regard.
That would likely be my take on it also. Women tend to be more driven to be competitive when required to be so, rather than just because. As stated above, let's take World of Warcraft. Within a guild, the men will tend to boast "I beat Mr. X in a duel", or "Mr. X is just sore because I beat him in a duel." While the women will not even duel between each other.
The reasoning is the placement of importance in society. In our society men are constantly judged by how well they perform against their peers. Much in the same way that females are constantly pressured to look attractive and beautiful. This is all just a tendency of our society, and things could very well be easily different.
The issue here isn't that women *aren't* competitive, but rather that they're not ultra-competitive and driven to make everything into a contest of wills.
For an example, get together a mixed-gender group of people, and assign them two two random groups, just for random's sake, let's put all the females in one group, and all the males in the other group.
Now, tell each group to come up with as many things as they can think of that the other gender does that confuses them.
The women will immediately begin collaborating ideas and will come up with a reasonable list.
The men will immediately catalyst the event into a struggle between men and women, and turn it into a contest, where the side with the most number of things about the other gender "wins", they will competitively throw out ideas, and any person not "pulling his weight", would be viewed as dragging the team down, and they will look over at the females' board, which you make sure is available for them to look at (because this isn't a contest afterall) and attempt to "beat" the females, and each other.
** For the record, at my University this experiment was carried out each year I took Human Communications course. The first time I participated, I was unaware of what was going on, and was just as competitive as the other guys, the second time I participated, I was more aware of the situation, and was actually able to gain some greater insight into what was going on, by observing how the women actually worked, rather than paying strict attention to the men in their frenzied imagined competitive contest. **
The issue here isn't that women cannot become competitive in a field of their choice (ice skaters, beauty queens, etc), nor that women aren't by nature prone to compete for scarce resources (two girls going after the same guy).
You're taking my statements far too broadly assuming I'm saying that all women are completely uncompetitive. No, I'm saying that approaching a problem they will generally seek a more collaborative attitude to achieve a solution than a competitive attitude. This naturally doesn't apply with the very rules setup a competition, or competition is expected, or necessary.
Slashdot Mirror
In Soviet Russia, flying cars want you!
:( I'll take the Karma hit.
*sigh* sorry
Er, no, it's not. The infinitive form is the "to X" form; "to boldly split infinitives that no man has split before."
Actually, this is only the English interpretation of the infinitive. When you actaully look at it, the infinitive is the same as the "to X" form you gave, but that it would not include the "to". Thus the infinitive of "am/are/is" is simply "be", not "to be".
The best example of this can be seen during the use of modal verbs. "I can be all I want to be." Notice that "can" governs an infinitive verb, but we see simply "be", not "to be", but in the same sentence we see "want to be". This is because "want" is not a modal verb, and is an auxillary verb which governs a verb phrase, and not an infinitive verb itself.
This distinction is quite clear to one who studies other Germanic language, for instance German, where the infinitive is a single word uninflected for tense, aspect, mood, or person, although there are number of verbs that govern verb phrases which use the preposition "zu", which in fact, even gets inserted inbetween a seperable prefix and its attached verb.
Examples: "Ich kann laufen." (I can run.)
"Ich muss laufen." (I must run.)
"Ich werde laufen." (I will run.)
"Ich will laufen." (I want run.)
"Ich höre auf, zu laufen." (I stop to run.)
"Ich beginn zu laufen." (I begin to run.)
"Ich versuche zu laufen." (I try to run.)
Once you look at it this way, you realize, that there is no way to split an infinitive in English at all, as you can't insert a word between the "b" and the "e" in "be". Of course, you *can* actually place an interjection between two syllables of an infinitive verb. "I'm off to ex-fricking-plore the world!" Although, the same would have been true for Latin as it is true for all natual languages.
Four years ago I had appendicitis. I was treated by laparoscopy, which was done through three small cuts in my belly, about one centimeter each.
:(
Not even fifty years ago. About 12 years ago, I had appendicitis, also. Now, granted mine had burst and was causing perotonitis, but they still had to make a 2 inch incision in order to work inside of me.
I spent two days in the hospital and have no visible scars today. How would a similar treatment be performed fifty years ago? Instead of sending a small remotely controlled equipment into the patient's body, the surgeon had to cut him up enough to get both hands inside.
I spent a month afterwards in the hospital (but that was due to the perotonitis shutting down my digestive system), and I still have the two inch visible scar.
I imagine it could have been worse even 50 years ago, but like I said... just 8 years before you, they were still making fairly large incisions. I'd love to have had no visible scars from my surgery, because as is, I have a scar from approximately my belly button, down two inches.
Oddly, it seems to have cleared up some in the past few days, (I don't know why... it's very odd, perhaps since I've started using moisturizing soaps and such, my skin is actually... I don't know...) but then that's the thing that House said in one of his episodes, "That's been the entire progression of medicine. Patients get better and we don't know why, so we have to figure out why."
It does the same thing on IE 6, also.
Actually, the two that actually render up and aren't just screenshots don't work correctly with IE 6
I know that's like a sin against man to make things look nice for IE 6, but there are some of us who are forced to use it at work.
I had a friend tell me he got an eBay link for "Vasectomy".
Who ever buys a Vasectomy from eBay though, probably needs one so they stop spreading their genes.
Personally, I'm worried about all the 16-year-old kids cursing up a storm.
:(
My 26-year-old ears don't like it anymore
I shred then incinerate important stuff; shredded paper can make very good firestarting fuel on those cold winter nights. A but tough in the summer, but that's where the barbecue comes in.
I've actually thought of that myself, since regular paper tends to be quite compacted and have insufficient airflow properties, so the fire tends to burn out when there are still bits of paper left unconsumed.
I figured if you shred it, then kind of toss it around like a salad, that the nature of the small strips will lead it to have a better air supply than just flat sheets. Of course crumpling tends to accomplish the same goal, but it's just too much work... I'd rather automate the process.
Actually I have quite a few reciepts from Germany that have my entire credit card number on them. That would never fly in America I believe.
And before you say whatever, I'm looking right now at a reciept from a company selling Die Bahn tickets, that has my full credit card number. I don't even throw away reciepts that have just 4 digits of my credit card number on it.
I don't even trust standard shredders most of the time. If it doesn't cross shred, then what are the chances that some piece of information might slip through without getting shred? And what are the chances that someone who's determined enough would actually be able to piece the parts together and gather that information about you?
At least with a cross shredder, you increase the number of elements by a significant multiple. If your shredder produces anything larger than confetti, then it's too cutting too big. I personally incinerate all important documents.
Just grab a mug of an ugly troll from WoW, then take his face, then use morphing software to put it somewhere in between.
Heck, if someone can photoshop Bill Gate's image into a Borg, then someone can photoshop Dvorak's pic into a Troll.
They should just make him a topic, so people can block stories about him if they want.
Hell, as much as they do post about him, they *should* make him a topic.
Does anyone else remember that one of the early, great selling points of DVDs was that you didn't have to rewind them? Wasn't that awesome? And now we take it for granted.
God, thanks for reminding me that my father would ask me to go rewind the movie after it was finished, and I'd get to the DVD player, and then throw my dad the nastiest look possible.
WHY are you implementing it on a GAME CONSOLE?
Um, because the Cell isn't just a game console processor, it's a multi-purpose vector processor.
IBM, Sony, and... who's the other person working on it? I forget. Anyways, the people involved each want it for various purposes. Yes, Sony wants to use it in the PS3, but IBM wants to do some serious work with the Cell and potentially replace POWER with it.
I think you've touched upon the key disagreement between Mac and Windows apologists, in that there are often different definitions of value being used.
I couldn't agree anymore if it were possible.
I continually recommend OSX to people because I've received a lot of value from it, and I think they might also... at least I think they should try it just so they know.
But I don't fault some people for liking Windows. They just have extremely alternate values in computers than I do, lol.
We already know that there is no one programming language to solve all problems. When will people realize that there's no one computer to solve all problems? Of course, this would be a lot easier if there were as many computers as there were programming languages.
Of course with the ubiquity of x86, and x86-64, I don't see that happening anytime in the future.
You say that now, but when faced with the Dell that costs $1,200, and the same Mac that costs $2,000, you (or people like you) will sing a different tune.
Dude, I spent $4000~5000 on a Mac that I understood at the time to be only of comparable performance to a PC.
I'm not going to change my tune just because it has an Intel chip in it, rather than a PowerPC chip.
What, like Microsoft is flooded now? No, they'll call the hardware manufacturer, just like they do now when they buy a Brand X hardware for a Mac.
The hardware manufacturers need to initially support OSX for their drivers. It's a chicken and egg thing really. They both depend on each other.
No, they'll have similar pricing to Microsoft (except Apple forces you to buy WAY more upgrades than Microsoft). Except they'd sell a hell of a lot more copies, with the overhead being the cost of the media.
What? So Apple releasing updates and improvements to their OS is now a bad thing? As opposed to Microsoft coming out with two Service packs in the same time that Apple released 5 OS updates?
No one would stop you from buying from Apple if they allowed people to choose whether they want to pay the Apple hardware tax or not.
You don't have to pay the Apple hardware tax either. You just don't get OSX to run on it.
You don't have some God-given right to run OSX on a commodity computer. If Apple wants to leverage its OS and software as an advantage to using their hardware, then that's their right.
What I was attempting to state to you in the first place was that saying that Apple's OSX is everything about how they make their money is stupid. Apple makes money off its hardware, its software, its iPod software, etc.
It's like saying that Microsoft is an OS software company because they make most of their money from Windows.
It just completely neglects everything else that the company is doing. Apple is a computer company. It's not a hardware company, it's not a software company, because it sells and builds whole computers, from putting chip designs together to writing the OS.
Rofl, so out of an examination of which one is cheaper to the consumer, you want to disregard one because it is too cheap? Where did you get these incredible debate skills?
I'm not discussing which is cheaper to the consumer. I'm talking about value to the customer.
Where did I get these incredible debate skills? It's called reality.
Reality: Dell has razor thin margins, because they can afford it, and it makes their computers cheaper.
Reality: Apple doesn't have thin margins, they have very fat margins. Then that's how they make their money.
Reality: Dells are cheaper systems than Apple
Reality: I still wouldn't buy a Dell unless I had to.
You're perfectly free to vote with your wallet to say that you want the cheapest hunk of metal on the earth, and a design that hasn't changed significantly over the last 5 years.
Meanwhile, I'm perfectly free to vote with my wallet, and say I don't just care about something being cheap.
To me, money isn't the most important thing in the world that drives every purchase decision in my life. Money just doesn't drive and control my life and purchasing decisions.
Again, you're entirely free to make your own choice, I'm not arguing AGAINST you, I'm arguing around you. Saying that the money isn't what's important to me. Apple provides things that Dell doesn't, and I like Apple more than Dell. That is why I buy Apples.
I just want people to understand that some of us are grounded in reality, and realize that Apple computers are more expensive. I'm just saying that that's not the only thing that counts.
Apple gets most of its Macintosh money from selling OSX which happens to have hardware forced to be bought along with it. If Apple allowed OSX to be run on commodity hardware, they're sales of OSX would rocket up and their hardware sales would drop into the toilet (though, some would still buy it). Of course, they would make enormously more money that way, too.
Well, I for one would much rather buy Apple hardware than commodity PC. It's designed well, and everything I see in the PC market just doesn't match the level of design put into Apple's systems.
If Apple allowed OSX to run on commodity hardware, their sales would sky-rocket, and they would be flooded with calls that want them to support this such and the other piece of hardware "Why doesn't my modem work?" blah blah blah, more bullshit. And the price of OSX would need to be raised from around $125 per copy, to around $200 per copy.
I just don't even see that being any sort of intelligent idea. I *like* the way Apple does its business right now, and I don't need some God-granted-right to run OSX on commodity hardware, because I hate Dells, I hate commodity PCs, and I especially hate putting my computers together by hand anymore.
Dell works on razor thin margins. We're talking just a few $100 per computer.
They make money by selling in bulk, but if something happens to any of those, and they have to spend some $200 supporting them or fixing something, or handling customers, then they're out.
I don't think it's fair to compare a company that sells so much bulk that it can actually make money off razor thin margins, to a company that sells well-designed computers that would be unable to exist on the same margins that Dell does.
It's like asking if you'd rather shop at Wal-mart or your local Mom and Pop grocery store. Yeah, Wal-marts cheaper, but that's because they can afford lower margins. It doesn't mean it's worth it, or more value per dollar though, even if you're buying the same products.
Um... yeah, because no one like Linus would buy a Mac and then run Linux on it. That would just be wrong.
Apple gets the majority of its income from hardware, that makes it a hardware company.
You can also play this game with iPod/iTunes. More people know Apple from iPods than from anything else, so Apple is a music distribution company.
Microsoft was convicted of including a BROWSER in their operating system. Roll that around in your head for a second -- doesn't that seem utterly ridiculous from the vantage point of 2006? Can you imagine an operation system that doesn't include a browser as a fundamental tool? (I personally thought the whole thing was ridiculous at the time).
Dude, you're arguing with him about this? Microsoft *was* and *is* a monopoly. But it's not something you get "convicted" of, because it's not illegal to be a monopoly.
It's just illegal to leverage that monopoly to get you into other markets. That's the reason why Microsoft had problems with including IE *for free* in their OS, because there was a competing browser out there for pay, which suddenly became unable to keep itself afloat.
If you're going to be an apologist for something, at least align yourself with reality.
The correct way to say what you wanted to was: "Yes, Microsoft was a monopoly, but they got in trouble for leveraging that monopoly for including a browser, which in this day and age is totally ridiculous to fault someone for, and honestly, I thought back at the time, that it was pretty ridiculous to begin with."
Yeah, it looks like Spear, but it is classified polearm.
Well, during the Beta Blizzard dropped Spears and made them all polearms.
So, this totally makes sense.
It's the anthromorphic bias that we all have. We'd generally much rather hear about humans, and how we're special than about some stupid ape somewhere.
Oh wait, at some point evolution would have all primates descent from a single species...
Can't empathize enough to make an apology or retraction?
I won't apologize you fucking penis-wielding asshole. You men make me sick.
Would it help if I had breasts?
More like grow a vagina and grow up.
Cooperation is however distinctly different from ultra-competitivism.
This is the line I'm trying to draw.
I am not intending to say that women have no competitive drive.
Fuck you and your penis.
How's that for misandrony?
To expand on your thoughts regarding women and competition, women can and often are competitive in specific areas in which they choose to be. I'm sure there are some women who are competitive in gaming and would love to compete professionally. I know plenty of guys who are competitive about gaming and others who see it as entertainment and are not competitive about it. All women and men who play games share just that fact, they all play games, but what each enjoys from and how each views it is unique to that individual.
Right, I didn't intend to imply that women were without a competitive spirit. Each individual finds those things that interest them the most.
Though if you look at the vast majority of women, in say a game that allows selective PvP action. You will find that a higher number of women would rather play collaboratively against the computer, where as with men you'll find a higher number that would rather play competitively against each other. Thus allowing them to "prove which is better" or something like that.
It's not a stone cut line, but rather just a tendency. Same as women at this time tend to avoid the "hard sciences". I'm not saying that women can't do it, or don't want to do it, but rather than there's simply a statistical tendency for them to be this way.
In my experience, competitive gaming just doesn't happen to be a popular area for women because the benefits of doing so are limited. If the benefits of competitive gaming were more appealling, maybe the economics would change in that regard.
That would likely be my take on it also. Women tend to be more driven to be competitive when required to be so, rather than just because. As stated above, let's take World of Warcraft. Within a guild, the men will tend to boast "I beat Mr. X in a duel", or "Mr. X is just sore because I beat him in a duel." While the women will not even duel between each other.
The reasoning is the placement of importance in society. In our society men are constantly judged by how well they perform against their peers. Much in the same way that females are constantly pressured to look attractive and beautiful. This is all just a tendency of our society, and things could very well be easily different.
The issue here isn't that women *aren't* competitive, but rather that they're not ultra-competitive and driven to make everything into a contest of wills.
For an example, get together a mixed-gender group of people, and assign them two two random groups, just for random's sake, let's put all the females in one group, and all the males in the other group.
Now, tell each group to come up with as many things as they can think of that the other gender does that confuses them.
The women will immediately begin collaborating ideas and will come up with a reasonable list.
The men will immediately catalyst the event into a struggle between men and women, and turn it into a contest, where the side with the most number of things about the other gender "wins", they will competitively throw out ideas, and any person not "pulling his weight", would be viewed as dragging the team down, and they will look over at the females' board, which you make sure is available for them to look at (because this isn't a contest afterall) and attempt to "beat" the females, and each other.
** For the record, at my University this experiment was carried out each year I took Human Communications course. The first time I participated, I was unaware of what was going on, and was just as competitive as the other guys, the second time I participated, I was more aware of the situation, and was actually able to gain some greater insight into what was going on, by observing how the women actually worked, rather than paying strict attention to the men in their frenzied imagined competitive contest. **
The issue here isn't that women cannot become competitive in a field of their choice (ice skaters, beauty queens, etc), nor that women aren't by nature prone to compete for scarce resources (two girls going after the same guy).
You're taking my statements far too broadly assuming I'm saying that all women are completely uncompetitive. No, I'm saying that approaching a problem they will generally seek a more collaborative attitude to achieve a solution than a competitive attitude. This naturally doesn't apply with the very rules setup a competition, or competition is expected, or necessary.