Imagine if you tried to create a new Facebook (or whatever) account and you were not able to because California was your home state, and the company decided it would be too much trouble to comply with all that states demands.
No new data harvesters? Nothing of value was lost.
You are RIGHT!
I mean it is the exact ideals talked about in the article, just a few small changes.
You must have a developers license.
You must have another computer. (Of course one made by Apple)
You may only provision it to a limited number of users, unless you get it INTO the store.
To get it into the store, it must pass checks to ensure you are not stealing business from Apple, and may be rejected for any or no reason.
Starting a sentence with a conjunction
You might have been taught that it’s not good English to start a sentence with a conjunction such as and or but. It’s not grammatically incorrect to do so, however, and many respected writers use conjunctions at the start of a sentence to create a dramatic or forceful effect. For example:
What are the government’s chances of winning in court? And what are the consequences?
Beginning a sentence with a conjunction can also be a useful way of conveying surprise:
And are you really going?
But didn’t she tell you?
It’s best not to overdo it, but there is no reason for completely avoiding the use of conjunctions at the start of sentences.
Maybe right near the runway at landing and takeoff. Other then that I don't see it happening. Please feel free to post a link and prove me wrong though. I will be glad to read it.
You are missing the central argument there. Their contention is that you have the same number of violent killings, because the lack of guns has led to criminals using other weapons. Gun activists position is that getting rid of guns will not decrease the rate of senseless violence.
While I agree that the rules are poorly set up right now, I must state that they have an excellent argument there, and I do not believe you have thought it out fully. If lowering gun violence does not lead to less overall violence, then there is little reason to enforce gun ownership more strictly.
Well to be fair, I said there was a fair chance of fatalities, not that the entire plane was going to die.
I did just do some searching, and to be honest Id say fatalies is fairly possible on a runway overshoot. The counterpoint would be that many of those incidents were in third world countries, Indonesia I am looking at you.
Check them mods again.
You received +1 insightful and +1 Underrated. I received +2 Insightful +1 Interesting and -1 Overrated.
But since this has turned into a pissing contest ( You cannot even defend your own point, so you resort to mods?!?) The conversation is now done as far as I am concerned.
Yet you STILL miss the point. Its not about them being technically correct, it is about them being misleading. The fact that you cannot see this, means you do not WANT to see if at this point.
It was a silly idea the first time I read your post up above, it is a silly idea this time as well.
You want me to have to install something in my car? I don't even plan on getting the glasses. You sound like the people who want to install breathalysers in all vehicles no matter what.
I have obviously failed to explain my position adequately.
I understood you correctly if you were saying that apple never made the overt claim that they are safe from trojans. Therefore people should not make any disparaging comments concerning their previous statments.
My supposition is because they made an overt claim that it was safe from viruses, that they implied that they were protected from malware. Due to the implication that Apple was safe and others were not, that they mislead consumers.
That is exactly like Billy misleading America when he said he did not have sex. He did something that most people would consider a form of sex, even if it technically is not.
Apple claimed they do not have viruses. They do have stuff that many people would consider viruses. Even if they technical are not.
Therefore if people believe that Bill lied, then the same logical steps could be used to come to the same conclusion that Apple lied.
Actually in the world of communications, misunderstandings are the speakers fault, and not the listeners fault.
Apple intentionally mislead people. It does not matter if they are technically correct, they left out key information that would have assisted the listener in understanding the issue better. That makes it AOK in my book at least to gripe about the fact that Apple mislead the pleebs.
Food for thought::
Bill Clinton said he did not have sex with Monica, and he didn't, and people still got pissed at him for "lying". Why is that?
You do realize that in the minds of 99.9% of the population that trojans are a type of virus.
Therefore if you say you are immune to viruses, and you KNOW that people think trojans are viruses, and you DO NOT clarify. Then you have INTENTIONALLY misled people.
From what I understood alcohol related deaths increased due to things like bathtub gin. That stuff would literally kill you.
That is actually where cocktails came from, they had to add juices and stuff to the booze to even make it consumable.
Of course if you have a source for your data that has scientific backing (No religious or crazy organizations like MADD) I would be glad to read through it. If you ask I will also look to provide sources to you as well.
You do realise that instead of everyone changing their schedule twice a year is less schedule changing that your idea.
What if my work wants me to come in earlier, but the school doesn't want the kids that early?
What if that prevents me from getting to my job on time?
Exactly, or the fact that you used to be able to use boolean. I want this word to be in the page so I tack on +searchterm, which was very useful. Now they want you to use that to search google plus. They tell you to use quotes now, but that doesn't even work right.
Slashdot Mirror
Imagine if you tried to create a new Facebook (or whatever) account and you were not able to because California was your home state, and the company decided it would be too much trouble to comply with all that states demands.
No new data harvesters? Nothing of value was lost.
You tell em grandpa. Shake your cane some more. Keep them darn kids off your lawn.
You are RIGHT!
/sarc
I mean it is the exact ideals talked about in the article, just a few small changes.
You must have a developers license.
You must have another computer. (Of course one made by Apple)
You may only provision it to a limited number of users, unless you get it INTO the store.
To get it into the store, it must pass checks to ensure you are not stealing business from Apple, and may be rejected for any or no reason.
She would have had to spend 9 hours a day for three years to hit that number. That includes weekends and holidays.
I've mulled over your post, and I believe you need to find a new pet peeve.
Starting a sentence with a conjunction You might have been taught that it’s not good English to start a sentence with a conjunction such as and or but. It’s not grammatically incorrect to do so, however, and many respected writers use conjunctions at the start of a sentence to create a dramatic or forceful effect. For example: What are the government’s chances of winning in court? And what are the consequences? Beginning a sentence with a conjunction can also be a useful way of conveying surprise: And are you really going? But didn’t she tell you? It’s best not to overdo it, but there is no reason for completely avoiding the use of conjunctions at the start of sentences.
http://oxforddictionaries.com/words/conjunctions
http://www.writing-skills.com/resources/e-bulletin/october-2011/hit-or-myth-you-cant-start-a-sentence-with-and-or-but
http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/nonerrors.html
http://grammarist.com/grammar/conjunctions-to-start-sentences/
http://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2012/01/can-i-start-a-sentence-with-a-conjunction/
Bioshock looks awesome on my PC, no new console needed.
You are mistaken, it is only in their short term best interests. When it really hits the fan, their short term benefits wont mean much anymore.
Maybe right near the runway at landing and takeoff. Other then that I don't see it happening. Please feel free to post a link and prove me wrong though. I will be glad to read it.
A 500mw laser probably wouldn't make it to your plane, much less actually blind you.
You are missing the central argument there. Their contention is that you have the same number of violent killings, because the lack of guns has led to criminals using other weapons. Gun activists position is that getting rid of guns will not decrease the rate of senseless violence.
While I agree that the rules are poorly set up right now, I must state that they have an excellent argument there, and I do not believe you have thought it out fully. If lowering gun violence does not lead to less overall violence, then there is little reason to enforce gun ownership more strictly.
Well to be fair, I said there was a fair chance of fatalities, not that the entire plane was going to die. I did just do some searching, and to be honest Id say fatalies is fairly possible on a runway overshoot. The counterpoint would be that many of those incidents were in third world countries, Indonesia I am looking at you.
Check them mods again. You received +1 insightful and +1 Underrated. I received +2 Insightful +1 Interesting and -1 Overrated. But since this has turned into a pissing contest ( You cannot even defend your own point, so you resort to mods?!?) The conversation is now done as far as I am concerned.
Yet you STILL miss the point. Its not about them being technically correct, it is about them being misleading. The fact that you cannot see this, means you do not WANT to see if at this point.
Quit yer whining. That happens what 1 out of every 10,000 flights?
Anyways from what I could find it is an extremely rare occurrence, and you'd have a fair chance of being dead anyways in a "runway overshoot"/
It was a silly idea the first time I read your post up above, it is a silly idea this time as well.
You want me to have to install something in my car? I don't even plan on getting the glasses. You sound like the people who want to install breathalysers in all vehicles no matter what.
What if it used the camera to determine if you were sitting behind the wheel? Disable for anyone behind the wheel, but leave everyone else alone?
Proper use of quote tags and/or using the preview function will increase the number of people who will read your post.
I would like to see that enforced, as far as I can tell though it is never enforced.
I have obviously failed to explain my position adequately.
I understood you correctly if you were saying that apple never made the overt claim that they are safe from trojans. Therefore people should not make any disparaging comments concerning their previous statments.
My supposition is because they made an overt claim that it was safe from viruses, that they implied that they were protected from malware. Due to the implication that Apple was safe and others were not, that they mislead consumers.
That is exactly like Billy misleading America when he said he did not have sex. He did something that most people would consider a form of sex, even if it technically is not.
Apple claimed they do not have viruses. They do have stuff that many people would consider viruses. Even if they technical are not.
Therefore if people believe that Bill lied, then the same logical steps could be used to come to the same conclusion that Apple lied.
Actually in the world of communications, misunderstandings are the speakers fault, and not the listeners fault.
Apple intentionally mislead people. It does not matter if they are technically correct, they left out key information that would have assisted the listener in understanding the issue better. That makes it AOK in my book at least to gripe about the fact that Apple mislead the pleebs.
Food for thought::
Bill Clinton said he did not have sex with Monica, and he didn't, and people still got pissed at him for "lying". Why is that?
You do realize that in the minds of 99.9% of the population that trojans are a type of virus. Therefore if you say you are immune to viruses, and you KNOW that people think trojans are viruses, and you DO NOT clarify. Then you have INTENTIONALLY misled people.
From what I understood alcohol related deaths increased due to things like bathtub gin. That stuff would literally kill you. That is actually where cocktails came from, they had to add juices and stuff to the booze to even make it consumable. Of course if you have a source for your data that has scientific backing (No religious or crazy organizations like MADD) I would be glad to read through it. If you ask I will also look to provide sources to you as well.
You do realise that instead of everyone changing their schedule twice a year is less schedule changing that your idea. What if my work wants me to come in earlier, but the school doesn't want the kids that early? What if that prevents me from getting to my job on time?
Exactly, or the fact that you used to be able to use boolean. I want this word to be in the page so I tack on +searchterm, which was very useful. Now they want you to use that to search google plus. They tell you to use quotes now, but that doesn't even work right.