All these missle attacks were reported by the Clinton Whitehouse staff in televised press conferences; I don't know how you could have missed hearing about them...
The same way people complain that congressmen don't read every bill they vote on... because they're working off assumptions and limited knowledge.
Plus, some people have gained recognizability under their real name. People point to them and say, "oh, I know what he did."
And even if you don't use your real name, that pseudonym becomes attached to your identity perhaps even stronger than your real name if you get enough exposure. There are tons of examples.
It has since been shown that the laboratory method used by Dr. Levy was not effective in predicting bacterial resistance for biocides like triclosan, based on work by Dr. Peter Gilbert in the UK [1] (PMID 12957932). At least seven peer-reviewed and published studies have been conducted demonstrating that triclosan is not significantly associated with bacterial resistance, including one study coauthored by Dr. Levy, published in August of 2004 in Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy (PMID 15273108). In addition, there is 30 years of experience with triclosan without any incidences of acquired bacterial resistance reported, and there are no studies showing acquired resistance after long-term use.
How so? All of the information requested in the assignement can be gotten from any server running a compliant web server, including Windows XP Personal Web Server, with a combination of port scanning tools, netstat, ping, and GRC's webhost.
Want to know what's funny? I can break into your house with perfectly legal tools.
Just because the tools are publicly available and have a non-illegal use, doesn't mean you can use them.
Well, there are quite a few creation stories, mostly with indeterminate authoring dates. I don't think the GP narrowed it down much at all.
Especially, when the most significant creation story used by people believing in Intelligent Design comes from Moses, who was around about 2 thousand years before Jesus, who was 2 thousand years old.
Of course, I personally believe that if the Pope says Intelligent Design is bullshit, and his job essentially REQUIRES belief in God, that it's good enough to me... (and I'm not even Catholic).
Sounds like one in two machines will be stuck with classic. Or maybe even some of those will get the mid-level GUI. But it doesn't say they won't be able to run the OS.
VirtualPC 2004 will run the mid-level GUI, since it's emulating an S3 Trio, I'd hate to imagine what kind of a system one would need to have it fall back onto classic...
It appears there is a conflict at Redmond. In one case they are fixing a bug which has yet to be discovered, in another they are fixing a bug which has existed for around nine months.
It's about time they came up with a proper strategy other than randomly fixing the bugs they want to fix.
It appears there is a conflict in the Linux community. In one case they are developing features which no one else has done, in another they are developing features that have existed in other OSes for years.
Linux really needs to come up with a proper strategy other than randomly developing whatever they want.
Did you not RTFA? This is the BRITISH Red Cross warning about misuse of the symbol. Last I checked US Law doesn't have grounds in Britian.
The fact still remains that the Geneva Convention holds each signatory accountable to protect the Red Cross/Red Cresent/Red Sun and Lion/Red Crystal marks from misuse.
Specifically, the Geneva Convention holds that the emblems are only to be use to denote the following: * facilities for the care of injured and sick armed forces members * armed forces medical personnel and equipment; * military chaplains; * Red Cross groups such as the International Committee of the Red Cross; the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, formerly "the League of Red Cross Societies"; and the 182 national Red Cross and Red Crescent societies.
It's important to note that despite this the emblem is often used to indicate first aid, medical supplies, and the like, which are technically abuses of the emblem and should be forbidden by all signatory powers to the Geneva Conventions.
I tried that at the time, but I couldn't get it working. We're talking about a total of 1 minute of thought between "I wonder what c is in furlongs per fortnight" and getting Google to give me the answer.
I seem to remember trying "c" though, perhaps I had given it a unit or something. Who knows. Regardless of the outcome I used "1 lightyear per year" which to me was the most rational alternative to just saying "the speed of light" at the time.
As a nerd, I wondered what your sig meant, so I figured I'd convert it to meters per second, or miles per hour. I still have no idea. What does it mean?
Actually, the exact number was gotten from using Google to convert "1 lightyear per year" to "furlongs per fortnight".
I know the speed of light is quite close to 300,000,000 m/s, but I wanted the exact value, so rather than look it up, I decided to just use "1 lightyear per year", since that's obviously by definition the speed of light.:)
You wrote an interesting message about German grammar, but I still don't see how this debunks my original point, which was - word compounding doesn't add expressive power to a language (finesse, yes - but not power), and as such, the existence of certain compound words in one language, but not in another, is very unlikely to result in a difference in the way speaker of those different languages think. Thinking of "Aelterzaehne" and thinking of "elder/elderly/old/ancient/rotten teeth" doesn't strike me as different.
First, since the adjective "älter" covers "old/ancient teeth", the word "Älterzähne" very much depicts "old people teeth", which could refer to dentures, rotten teeth, or in fact, nice healthy teeth from someone who just has impecable dental hygene. But that's beside the point.
Fundamentally, there's nothing "powerful" in any language. We all have different variations on how to say things. Yet we can still all say the same things. Saying "Es tut mir leid." (lit. "It does me sorrow.") isn't all that different from "I'm sorry." Or saying "Es gefällt mir." (lit. "it pleases me") isn't that different from "I like it." Yet all four of these examples are the regular and normal use of German/English respectively, and the other forms sound unusual, and odd.
Saying, "Er hat mir geholfen." (lit. "He has helped to me (dative).") vs. "He helped me (accusative)." In the German, there is a more direct statement that the helping was done for my benefit, as opposed to anything else, but then, "helping someone" has that benefit implicit in the very statement. So, while German expresses more "powerfully" here, it is in fact expressing redundantly.
If you want me to find you some unique power from compounding words together, it simply doesn't exist. Neither does any such power exist for any other grammatical form.
Being a libertarian, of course, I'm all for dropping all those freebies (and slashing everybody's taxes to make up for it) and then letting anybody marry anybody or anything they choose... but alas, libertarian nut-jobs like me never get elected to anything.
The AWESOME thing is, that this response is in the lineage of your comment, and thus saying that you disagree with anyone marrying anything is not only not a straw man tactic, but is actually on-topic even.
But Lord knows there's a hojillion people that resort to claiming straw man anytime they can't see a connection with what people are arguing.
it isn't an academic thing; real folks read what you write. The phrase "colored" has the potential to injure.
Funny thing about my choice of the word "colored". I wrote "black" at first (which hasn't become completely derogatory... yet) although when I read it back to myself, I felt that "colored" would fit better, because it was the language of the time, and carries the same tone of racial bigotry that the rest of the statements I've been making have.
I'm sorry if someone reading my comments feels offended, unfortunately, that was exactly the purpose. More so, I'm sorry that they are not mature enough to understand free-speech and the use of offensive comparisons to draw a pathos response from the reader. How many people did I just build a connection for, between these actions in the private property of a game, and the actions of those segregationists in the private property of their diner.
Sometimes when one thing isn't offensive enough to people, it can be necessary to have someone come and draw a parallel that no one wants to hear, just so that it's made MORE offensive, and the people who were fighting it gain more vigor, and strength.
Hey, just because you disagree with my social habits, and the habits of my patrons doesn't mean you have any right to pass judgment upon us. We're doing it all within private property.
On a more serious note, I don't believe any of this. I just find the intolerance of intolerance in otherwise tolerant people to be interesting. Especially, in how hotly they argue it.
Actually, it wasn't "spoken like a true native". The post below is absolutely correct, he forgot the accusative -n ending, and Esperanto should be capitalized (proper name). Better phrasings are also offered, but the minimal correction is, indeed, "Hej! Mi povas paroli Esperanton, you insensitive clod!".
Actually, I should have responded to this saying that I needed the accusative ending, or make it an adverb, I just didn't feel a need to, since it was just a joke.
I personally learned "Mi povas paroli esperante." (without capitalization, because it's no longer a proper noun, but an adverb.)
Capitalization rules are iffy at best in Esperanto anyways, as the various derivative languages use vastly different rules. English uses it for all proper nouns and derivatives, German only uses it for all nouns but not their other part-of-speech derivatives, and romance languages generally (as far as my understanding goes) capitalize proper nouns only while nouns, but not their other part-of-speech derivatives.
Either way, I concede that my grammar was wrong, but my capitalization is a trivial, and generally irrelavent point to complain about in an international auxillary language.
1) Then why the apparent joke? (You were modded funny, which I am sure you didn't mind.)
Because I don't see paragraphation as the same as perscriptivism.
2) I do.
I can respect that, and I get the joke... NOW. Of course, intonation and body language would have made your joke easier to grasp at the time.
3) Had to resort to a thesaurus, huh?
WTF? I've not opened a thesaurus in a long time.
Sadly, you are mistaken misplaced commas!! (And other incorrect) Punctuation, make things more difficult? To read than one, long paragraph.
Actually, I had no difficulty reading your sentence, despite the unusual punctuation. True, you through me off with the "!!", but the rest of it? I didn't even notice. I'm sorry if my ability to deal with variations of punctuation is different from yours; doubly so if that offends you.
On the other hand-- for me-- improper punctuation with paragraphation still leads to legible text, that is interpretable. Interestingly, to me, punctuation is one of those nitpicky items, that I just skip or read over. But when presented with a nasty huge glob of text that is entirely impossible for my eyes to visually break apart, my mind says, "fuck this."
I would be nitpicking if I made fun of your spelling of "quite".
1.) Typo 2.) Mentioning that you would mention it, is still mentioning it.
You sure can dole out the jokes, but you don't seem to take them too well. You remind me of Fred (Eric) Norris.
Oh, I can take jokes, and I really do try to take them as well as one can... when they're funny. I didn't find your joke particularly funny. (Please don't get mad at me because my sense of humor doesn't align with yours.)
In my opinion, perhaps you should work on your delivery. Something to make it obvious that you're being a jokester. Like: "Hey, also good, is proper, use, of punctuation!!"
Hell, if you'd started off with that, I'd have gotten your joke right at the start, and we'd have avoided this long stupid argument over stupid typos, and comma usage, and crappy delivery of stupid jokes.
Yeah, I realize it was wrong just after I posted it. I realized, i needed to make it accusative or adverbal, but I can't go back and edit it now.
As for capitalization, "esperante" wouldn't be capitalized in my opinion, it's an adverb, and no longer a proper noun.
Generally as I've had the understanding that the rules of capitalization in Esperanto are liberal, and deemed "insigificant" since they carry little actual intentional meaning, and rules of capitalization vary significantly across all the derivative languages.
Slashdot Mirror
startkeylogger ... :( No fun for me.
hm... no one running Norton security products?
All these missle attacks were reported by the Clinton Whitehouse staff in televised press conferences; I don't know how you could have missed hearing about them...
The same way people complain that congressmen don't read every bill they vote on... because they're working off assumptions and limited knowledge.
Plus, some people have gained recognizability under their real name. People point to them and say, "oh, I know what he did."
And even if you don't use your real name, that pseudonym becomes attached to your identity perhaps even stronger than your real name if you get enough exposure. There are tons of examples.
That all code should be "production quality" code. There's no excuse to have internal tools written like crap, and unmaintainable.
How so? All of the information requested in the assignement can be gotten from any server running a compliant web server, including Windows XP Personal Web Server, with a combination of port scanning tools, netstat, ping, and GRC's webhost.
Want to know what's funny? I can break into your house with perfectly legal tools.
Just because the tools are publicly available and have a non-illegal use, doesn't mean you can use them.
Well, there are quite a few creation stories, mostly with indeterminate authoring dates. I don't think the GP narrowed it down much at all.
Especially, when the most significant creation story used by people believing in Intelligent Design comes from Moses, who was around about 2 thousand years before Jesus, who was 2 thousand years old.
Of course, I personally believe that if the Pope says Intelligent Design is bullshit, and his job essentially REQUIRES belief in God, that it's good enough to me... (and I'm not even Catholic).
currently viewable in the morning sky around 5 am in the North America
I'd rather enjoy my sleep thank you.
But I'm certain there are other people who care, so I'll let them enjoy the comet.
Easy.
A system which was released *after* vista, and with a videocard it doesn't support out of the box.
Sounds like speculation to me.
I'll say that Vista does show at least the mid-level graphics on an S3 Trio 64, which does not have support in Vista.
Of course this was Beta 1, things may have changed since.
Sounds like one in two machines will be stuck with classic. Or maybe even some of those will get the mid-level GUI. But it doesn't say they won't be able to run the OS.
VirtualPC 2004 will run the mid-level GUI, since it's emulating an S3 Trio, I'd hate to imagine what kind of a system one would need to have it fall back onto classic...
It appears there is a conflict at Redmond. In one case they are fixing a bug which has yet to be discovered, in another they are fixing a bug which has existed for around nine months.
It's about time they came up with a proper strategy other than randomly fixing the bugs they want to fix.
It appears there is a conflict in the Linux community. In one case they are developing features which no one else has done, in another they are developing features that have existed in other OSes for years.
Linux really needs to come up with a proper strategy other than randomly developing whatever they want.
Did you not RTFA? This is the BRITISH Red Cross warning about misuse of the symbol. Last I checked US Law doesn't have grounds in Britian.
r oss#Red_Cross
The fact still remains that the Geneva Convention holds each signatory accountable to protect the Red Cross/Red Cresent/Red Sun and Lion/Red Crystal marks from misuse.
Specifically, the Geneva Convention holds that the emblems are only to be use to denote the following:
* facilities for the care of injured and sick armed forces members
* armed forces medical personnel and equipment;
* military chaplains;
* Red Cross groups such as the International Committee of the Red Cross; the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, formerly "the League of Red Cross Societies"; and the 182 national Red Cross and Red Crescent societies.
It's important to note that despite this the emblem is often used to indicate first aid, medical supplies, and the like, which are technically abuses of the emblem and should be forbidden by all signatory powers to the Geneva Conventions.
If you need help understand that this US Law is to comply with international law, here's a helpful link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emblems_of_the_Red_C
The Red Cross was founded by a guy from Switzerland, and he adopted as their logo the Swiss flag with the colors inverted.
Bonus points if you knew he did this because Switzerland was neutral, and that he wanted the Red Cross to have the same benefits of neutrality.
Thus, if you see a red/white cross on a red/white field: don't shoot.
I tried that at the time, but I couldn't get it working. We're talking about a total of 1 minute of thought between "I wonder what c is in furlongs per fortnight" and getting Google to give me the answer.
I seem to remember trying "c" though, perhaps I had given it a unit or something. Who knows. Regardless of the outcome I used "1 lightyear per year" which to me was the most rational alternative to just saying "the speed of light" at the time.
As a nerd, I wondered what your sig meant, so I figured I'd convert it to meters per second, or miles per hour. I still have no idea. What does it mean?
:)
Actually, the exact number was gotten from using Google to convert "1 lightyear per year" to "furlongs per fortnight".
I know the speed of light is quite close to 300,000,000 m/s, but I wanted the exact value, so rather than look it up, I decided to just use "1 lightyear per year", since that's obviously by definition the speed of light.
DAMN YOU! I was just over the nightmares! /me returns to his huddled fetal position saying "Can't sleep, purple h will get me. Can't sleep..."
You wrote an interesting message about German grammar, but I still don't see how this debunks my original point, which was - word compounding doesn't add expressive power to a language (finesse, yes - but not power), and as such, the existence of certain compound words in one language, but not in another, is very unlikely to result in a difference in the way speaker of those different languages think. Thinking of "Aelterzaehne" and thinking of "elder/elderly/old/ancient/rotten teeth" doesn't strike me as different.
First, since the adjective "älter" covers "old/ancient teeth", the word "Älterzähne" very much depicts "old people teeth", which could refer to dentures, rotten teeth, or in fact, nice healthy teeth from someone who just has impecable dental hygene. But that's beside the point.
Fundamentally, there's nothing "powerful" in any language. We all have different variations on how to say things. Yet we can still all say the same things. Saying "Es tut mir leid." (lit. "It does me sorrow.") isn't all that different from "I'm sorry." Or saying "Es gefällt mir." (lit. "it pleases me") isn't that different from "I like it." Yet all four of these examples are the regular and normal use of German/English respectively, and the other forms sound unusual, and odd.
Saying, "Er hat mir geholfen." (lit. "He has helped to me (dative).") vs. "He helped me (accusative)." In the German, there is a more direct statement that the helping was done for my benefit, as opposed to anything else, but then, "helping someone" has that benefit implicit in the very statement. So, while German expresses more "powerfully" here, it is in fact expressing redundantly.
If you want me to find you some unique power from compounding words together, it simply doesn't exist. Neither does any such power exist for any other grammatical form.
I've just got to say... this humor thread is way better than mine. ;)
Everyone gets all "insightful" on me.
Awesome... I always wanted to cut down someone complaining about Straw Man tactics... Today is my day
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=176200&cid=14
Being a libertarian, of course, I'm all for dropping all those freebies (and slashing everybody's taxes to make up for it) and then letting anybody marry anybody or anything they choose... but alas, libertarian nut-jobs like me never get elected to anything.
The AWESOME thing is, that this response is in the lineage of your comment, and thus saying that you disagree with anyone marrying anything is not only not a straw man tactic, but is actually on-topic even.
But Lord knows there's a hojillion people that resort to claiming straw man anytime they can't see a connection with what people are arguing.
it isn't an academic thing; real folks read what you write. The phrase "colored" has the potential to injure.
Funny thing about my choice of the word "colored". I wrote "black" at first (which hasn't become completely derogatory... yet) although when I read it back to myself, I felt that "colored" would fit better, because it was the language of the time, and carries the same tone of racial bigotry that the rest of the statements I've been making have.
I'm sorry if someone reading my comments feels offended, unfortunately, that was exactly the purpose. More so, I'm sorry that they are not mature enough to understand free-speech and the use of offensive comparisons to draw a pathos response from the reader. How many people did I just build a connection for, between these actions in the private property of a game, and the actions of those segregationists in the private property of their diner.
Sometimes when one thing isn't offensive enough to people, it can be necessary to have someone come and draw a parallel that no one wants to hear, just so that it's made MORE offensive, and the people who were fighting it gain more vigor, and strength.
You know that's actually legal, right?
I can believe that it could be. But I can still disagree that it should be, or agree that it shouldn't be of my own accord.
Hey, just because you disagree with my social habits, and the habits of my patrons doesn't mean you have any right to pass judgment upon us. We're doing it all within private property.
On a more serious note, I don't believe any of this. I just find the intolerance of intolerance in otherwise tolerant people to be interesting. Especially, in how hotly they argue it.
Actually, it wasn't "spoken like a true native". The post below is absolutely correct, he forgot the accusative -n ending, and Esperanto should be capitalized (proper name). Better phrasings are also offered, but the minimal correction is, indeed, "Hej! Mi povas paroli Esperanton, you insensitive clod!".
Actually, I should have responded to this saying that I needed the accusative ending, or make it an adverb, I just didn't feel a need to, since it was just a joke.
I personally learned "Mi povas paroli esperante." (without capitalization, because it's no longer a proper noun, but an adverb.)
Capitalization rules are iffy at best in Esperanto anyways, as the various derivative languages use vastly different rules. English uses it for all proper nouns and derivatives, German only uses it for all nouns but not their other part-of-speech derivatives, and romance languages generally (as far as my understanding goes) capitalize proper nouns only while nouns, but not their other part-of-speech derivatives.
Either way, I concede that my grammar was wrong, but my capitalization is a trivial, and generally irrelavent point to complain about in an international auxillary language.
1) Then why the apparent joke? (You were modded funny, which I am sure you didn't mind.)
Because I don't see paragraphation as the same as perscriptivism.
2) I do.
I can respect that, and I get the joke... NOW. Of course, intonation and body language would have made your joke easier to grasp at the time.
3) Had to resort to a thesaurus, huh?
WTF? I've not opened a thesaurus in a long time.
Sadly, you are mistaken misplaced commas!! (And other incorrect) Punctuation, make things more difficult? To read than one, long paragraph.
Actually, I had no difficulty reading your sentence, despite the unusual punctuation. True, you through me off with the "!!", but the rest of it? I didn't even notice. I'm sorry if my ability to deal with variations of punctuation is different from yours; doubly so if that offends you.
On the other hand-- for me-- improper punctuation with paragraphation still leads to legible text, that is interpretable. Interestingly, to me, punctuation is one of those nitpicky items, that I just skip or read over. But when presented with a nasty huge glob of text that is entirely impossible for my eyes to visually break apart, my mind says, "fuck this."
I would be nitpicking if I made fun of your spelling of "quite".
1.) Typo
2.) Mentioning that you would mention it, is still mentioning it.
You sure can dole out the jokes, but you don't seem to take them too well. You remind me of Fred (Eric) Norris.
Oh, I can take jokes, and I really do try to take them as well as one can... when they're funny. I didn't find your joke particularly funny. (Please don't get mad at me because my sense of humor doesn't align with yours.)
In my opinion, perhaps you should work on your delivery. Something to make it obvious that you're being a jokester. Like: "Hey, also good, is proper, use, of punctuation!!"
Hell, if you'd started off with that, I'd have gotten your joke right at the start, and we'd have avoided this long stupid argument over stupid typos, and comma usage, and crappy delivery of stupid jokes.
Yeah, I realize it was wrong just after I posted it. I realized, i needed to make it accusative or adverbal, but I can't go back and edit it now.
As for capitalization, "esperante" wouldn't be capitalized in my opinion, it's an adverb, and no longer a proper noun.
Generally as I've had the understanding that the rules of capitalization in Esperanto are liberal, and deemed "insigificant" since they carry little actual intentional meaning, and rules of capitalization vary significantly across all the derivative languages.