Come to think of it, not only is it ambiguous, it doesn't even tell what you story is about - namely the delays in bring Apple Pay to the UK. It's like a story about the JFK assassination being headlined "President visits Dallas."
Supposedly? How about finding out whether it is or not, and then telling us? If you really can't wait to make a story of the things you hear other people saying, the word to use is "reportedly."
"Supposedly" just makes you sound clueless.
You wouldn't catch the BBC tacking on "supposedly." And at least Fox have the chutzpah to just state the things they're not sure of as fact.
Talking about "majority" and then reeling off a list of several examples to compare against one example is bit like arguing that Mandarin isn't the most widely spoken language, because that honour actually falls to Hindi, English and Spanish.
Only retards shoot an olympic bow.
No, they don't. But any person who calls someone a "retard" for their choice of sport is definitely a dick.
Regarding your [what]... the word left of is is 'now'. N and B are right beside on the keyboard. We are talking about bows. So your '[what]' only shows how retarded you are.
Oh, of course, how foolish of me not to immediately recognise a typing error that resulted in a common English word, and to then not automatically know what you meant. I do apologise most humbly for daring to ask for clarification.
By the way, if someone stops arguing with you after you resort to childish slurs, that doesn't mean you were right all along. Might be worth bearing in mind, considering your debating technique.
If you want to defend that toy bows are the right thing for the Olympics, don't talk to me...
That's okay, I'm not here to do that. I just wanted you to justify stating your personal opinion as objective fact. Watching you show yourself up as an ass is an amusing bonus, though.
Regarding to shooting an Olympic bow, that kind of archery is no challange in respect to true archery.
Which true archery would that be? Yumi? British longbow? Recurve hunting bow? Hungarian bow? Korean bow?
Bottom line: I don't get about what you are arguing... you shoot a 'normal bow' as good as an Olimpic does a 'special' bow? Is that your point?
I didn't say anything like that. Are you talking to me, or are you talking to the OP now?
Winning the Olympics means you shoot better than the other competitors... it has no meaning in regards to the rest of the worlds archers (using other bows or distances, who did not join the Olympics)
Err, yes? And? You can go one of two ways then - either restrict archers to whatever it is you consider to be "true" archery, but then what? It's pretty much still exactly the same situation. The result will still have "no meaning" to the rest of the world's archers, using other bows or distances. Or let everyone use whatever bow they want, in which case pretty much everyone with a chance at a medal will be using compounds with zoom sights and stabilisers, and then... guess what? It's exactly the same again - no relevance to archers who use other equipment.
One could make the same arguments about the discus, or the pole vault, or the javelin, or any other event that involves specific equipment. Even running, at a stretch - all that really tells you is that those competitors are among the fastest in the world at running a specific distance on a particular type of track. Usain Bolt is no more or less "the fastest person in the world" than Dennis Kimetto.
Then why are you acting so butthurt about a sport that doesn't confirm to what is simply your personal preference?
However if you don't grasp the difference between better shoes and a bow that is not a bow then you don't qualify for the discussion.
Oh, so now it's not subjective? And if I disagree with you or fail to understand your point, as I may well have done, I'm beneath contempt? Charming.
You could as well say a remote controlled ball, for soccer, golf or tennis is fine...
You couldn't as well say that at all. There's a huge difference between making a tool easier for an individual to use (where that individual is still the only person influencing the action of the tool), and introducing a secondary influence.
Sorry, but a bow with stabelizers and aiming assists has nothing to do with archery...
The people who run the Olympics disagree, as would the majority of archers, who shoot recurves with sights and stabilisers.
Shoot a now [what?] and get a clue instead of nitpicking about words.
I'm nitpicking the attitude that suggests your opinion on this subject is objectively superior to everyone else's (prefacing such a statement with a passive-aggresive "Sorry..." usually being a key indicator). No, I don't expect every statement to be proceeded with "In my opinion" but that's really not the way you're coming across.
As for nitpicking, if deriding Olympic archery as "not archery" isn't nitpicking, I'm not sure what would qualify.
Tool A in competition X.... verus Tool B in competition Y... only is similar in grammar... not in physics.
Ye-es... not quite sure you're getting at there. Go-karts and Formula One are both motor racing. Olympic archery and longbow/bare-bow archery are both archery.
Slashdot Mirror
One swims and one lives on land. Duh.
Come to think of it, not only is it ambiguous, it doesn't even tell what you story is about - namely the delays in bring Apple Pay to the UK. It's like a story about the JFK assassination being headlined "President visits Dallas."
Giggygaxiddy.
You just took my knight. You won't believe what happens next!
Check out this one weird trick with a pawn.
The best part about this hack? It only requires two things: a Spark Core and a replica Sting with lights and sound, like this one.
The worst part about this hack? Ah, who am I kidding, you all know exactly where I'm going with this.
Apple Pay For the UK
That's not ambiguous at all.
Like an episode of 24...
Following the story on Slashdot is like watching all of the "Previouslies..." but none of the episodes.
You pretty much get the gist and save a shitload of time.
Dictionary.com:
Definition 2: publicly or generally known, as for a particular trait
I suspect definition 1 (widely and unfavorably known) would be the one that would be inferred by the overwhelming majority of readers.
something every one of us can help do with very little time, money and effort.
Come back when you've got "very little" down to "none." And "every one of us" down to "someone else."
Canopus belongs to the Carina constellation, notorious for two things
I do not think that means what you think it means.
Sony PlayStation Network Back Up Now, Supposedly
Supposedly? How about finding out whether it is or not, and then telling us? If you really can't wait to make a story of the things you hear other people saying, the word to use is "reportedly."
"Supposedly" just makes you sound clueless.
You wouldn't catch the BBC tacking on "supposedly." And at least Fox have the chutzpah to just state the things they're not sure of as fact.
As the controversy surrounding Sony's handling of it's hack, the movie The Interview and it's aftermath continues
"It's"? Good job. Pretty poorly punctuated and written all round, in fact.
she and her label claim that her track we learned that the track
timothy, what do you do, exactly?
Finn Linked To Lizard Squad Christmas Attack
Also he was a guy and is likely to have two legs.
Is it bad that my first thought was that it was the guy from Tron?
even casual typists can recognize that there's something inherently superior about a mechanical keyboard.
Are you sure it's not that there's something inherently smug about clicky-keyboard fetishists?
I couldn't help feeling just a little bit dirty after reading the summary.
13,000 Passwords, Usernames Leaked For Major Commerce, Porn Sites
Replacing the word "and" with commas pointless, annoying.
You need a flash player to view this site.
What are you blathering on about?
You should save that comment. I think you could use it in at least 80% of stories and be bang on-topic.
Can't you just be content with what you've got? Because you've actually got quite a lot.
With only 5% of the world's population, the U.S. can only expect about 5% of great Americans to be born here.
^ I started writing that sentence as a stupid joke.
the only thing is these days everyone wants their junk to be small.
That's not what the spam in my inbox says.
Something like this?
The majority of archers shoot bows like:...
Talking about "majority" and then reeling off a list of several examples to compare against one example is bit like arguing that Mandarin isn't the most widely spoken language, because that honour actually falls to Hindi, English and Spanish.
Only retards shoot an olympic bow.
No, they don't. But any person who calls someone a "retard" for their choice of sport is definitely a dick.
Regarding your [what] ... the word left of is is 'now'. N and B are right beside on the keyboard. We are talking about bows. So your '[what]' only shows how retarded you are.
Oh, of course, how foolish of me not to immediately recognise a typing error that resulted in a common English word, and to then not automatically know what you meant. I do apologise most humbly for daring to ask for clarification.
By the way, if someone stops arguing with you after you resort to childish slurs, that doesn't mean you were right all along. Might be worth bearing in mind, considering your debating technique.
If you want to defend that toy bows are the right thing for the Olympics, don't talk to me ...
That's okay, I'm not here to do that. I just wanted you to justify stating your personal opinion as objective fact. Watching you show yourself up as an ass is an amusing bonus, though.
Regarding to shooting an Olympic bow, that kind of archery is no challange in respect to true archery.
Which true archery would that be? Yumi? British longbow? Recurve hunting bow? Hungarian bow? Korean bow?
Maybe you should ask a true Scotsman.
Bottom line: I don't get about what you are arguing ... you shoot a 'normal bow' as good as an Olimpic does a 'special' bow? Is that your point?
I didn't say anything like that. Are you talking to me, or are you talking to the OP now?
Winning the Olympics means you shoot better than the other competitors ... it has no meaning in regards to the rest of the worlds archers (using other bows or distances, who did not join the Olympics)
Err, yes? And? You can go one of two ways then - either restrict archers to whatever it is you consider to be "true" archery, but then what? It's pretty much still exactly the same situation. The result will still have "no meaning" to the rest of the world's archers, using other bows or distances. Or let everyone use whatever bow they want, in which case pretty much everyone with a chance at a medal will be using compounds with zoom sights and stabilisers, and then... guess what? It's exactly the same again - no relevance to archers who use other equipment.
One could make the same arguments about the discus, or the pole vault, or the javelin, or any other event that involves specific equipment. Even running, at a stretch - all that really tells you is that those competitors are among the fastest in the world at running a specific distance on a particular type of track. Usain Bolt is no more or less "the fastest person in the world" than Dennis Kimetto.
Of course it is subjective.
Then why are you acting so butthurt about a sport that doesn't confirm to what is simply your personal preference?
However if you don't grasp the difference between better shoes and a bow that is not a bow then you don't qualify for the discussion.
Oh, so now it's not subjective? And if I disagree with you or fail to understand your point, as I may well have done, I'm beneath contempt? Charming.
You could as well say a remote controlled ball, for soccer, golf or tennis is fine ...
You couldn't as well say that at all. There's a huge difference between making a tool easier for an individual to use (where that individual is still the only person influencing the action of the tool), and introducing a secondary influence.
Sorry, but a bow with stabelizers and aiming assists has nothing to do with archery ...
The people who run the Olympics disagree, as would the majority of archers, who shoot recurves with sights and stabilisers.
Shoot a now [what?] and get a clue instead of nitpicking about words.
I'm nitpicking the attitude that suggests your opinion on this subject is objectively superior to everyone else's (prefacing such a statement with a passive-aggresive "Sorry..." usually being a key indicator). No, I don't expect every statement to be proceeded with "In my opinion" but that's really not the way you're coming across.
As for nitpicking, if deriding Olympic archery as "not archery" isn't nitpicking, I'm not sure what would qualify.
Tool A in competition X .... verus ... only is similar in grammar ... not in physics.
Tool B in competition Y
Ye-es... not quite sure you're getting at there. Go-karts and Formula One are both motor racing. Olympic archery and longbow/bare-bow archery are both archery.
So shoes that allow you to run faster/further without hurting your feet are okay, but stabilisers and a sight to help you shoot straight aren't?
It's all arbitrary and subjective.
What's unreal about a recurve bow?