Years ago when I was studying ju-jutsu, we got into basic blindfighting. We'd have to kneel facing our partner while blindfolded. At first, our knees would just barely be touching. Then the non-blindfolded partner would start throwing very slow punches, which the other person would have to try to block. Then we'd move slightly farther apart, and punch slightly quicker.
At first I thought "OK, what the hell kind of bogus ninja crap is this?" And at first there were many cheeks getting tapped. But before too long, most of us found that we could in fact block the punches. Not fast ones (I moved away shortly after this so I don't know what the others achieved in the end), but it was still pretty weird. Even in a room full of rustling gis, you would still be able to get enough audio cues (and at first, tactile ones from the touching knees) to tell more or less where the hit was coming from.
It was pretty cool. I'd love to know how far that could be taken.
Historically, archival copies were allowed and expected to be allowed. No medium is impervious to aging and wear. Some media can be damaged by using them.
Paying $5 (or 5 cents) for the right--and it is still a legal and moral* right to keep archival copies--is wrong. *IMHO, of course.
Why don't we do the math on that *before* we start messing with the net mass of the planet, hm?
In seriousness, I haven't done the math and have no idea whether the mass added by what you propose would be negligible over centuries or longer, say--or whether it would be sufficient to somehow affect Earth's motion. Or whether it would even need to work for centuries or millenia before something fundamentally better came along. But there's always that pesky law of unintended consequences.
OK, so it sounds more like a late Asimov idea than anything else. Just drinking and thinking (the former harder than the latter).
No. You're welcome to talk about whatever you want to, not necessarily qualified to.
Unless, of course, what you talk about counts as hate speech. Then you may speak of it, but only if you accept that you could be prosecuted legally--you do not, in Canada, have the right to say whatever you want, whenever you want.
Speaking only about Canadian rights here, the rest of you understand.:)
I know exactly what I said and meant, you have the right to understand it in a different manner, but you do not have the right to tell me what I said just because you understood it differently.
Ah. But you presumably have this right--this is, after all, exactly what you've been telling me about what I've written.
And anyway, of course I have the right to tell someone that he is mistaken. Anyone may do that. Don't get all victimized over a little wounded pride.
You did not claim that your original post made such a comment, that much is correct. However, you did make the following statement:
And back to the main main point, that open office ad mock up was hidious, someone shoot the person who came up with that shit.
How do you suppose that this was your main point? This was your first mention of the ad in the entire thread. In fact, it was your only mention of the ad. You claim above that:
In a later post I said the ad sucked, but never attempted to in my original posting.
This is not true. You mentioned the original ad only once, when you claimed that it was the "main main point". A point you had not referenced until then, and did not reference after (as you claim above).
Don't lecture me on fact-checking until you can remember your own posts.
The fact that you didn't understand a correct sentence is not my problem. You're focusing on that one non-issue in order to draw attention away from what it was pointing out: that your original post made no mention of the quality of the presented ad as you had claimed.
Just because you don't understand it doesn't make it jazz.
The sentence was fine. You did not in fact state that the ad sucked. You made a snarky attack on an honest mistake and then demonstrated a lack of the skills necessary to justify your arrogance. You even stated that it's fine to only learn part of a language (say, grammar) at the expense of other parts (say, spelling) and still claim to have a mastery of that language. That's like saying you're a fine pilot but you just don't think landing is important so you don't bother with it.
No, you need to lighten up. And to capitalize correctly, if you're going to post on English boards. At least, according to your own rules.
You'd probably be surprised how many people posting on mainly English-speaking sites do not speak English as a first language. Should we belittle them for every mistake to stoke up our own egos, or help them to learn what they're doing wrong so they can improve?
I know which side of that question the person who needs to lighten up falls on.
It is freedom. Freedom does not mean "the developers accept every suggestion and all criticism". You are free to use it, use something else, dig in there and change what you don't like, and even fork it and publish it the way you think it should be. That's freedom.
And of course, Linus is free to do what the hell he wants. He doesn't owe us a thing.
Atheists are not the only kind of non-religious folk. Some of us are simply not superstitious, and prefer to believe the evidence of our senses and the conclusions reached through reason over unsubstantiated claims of dubious origin.
More directly addressing your point, dismissing the idea of control by destiny or some supposed omniscient being does not leave one with only chemical reactions and Einsteinian physics to explain behaviour--some of us subscribe to the idea of free will. At any rate, enough is not understood about the universe to more than leave room for an explanation of consciousness to be made at some later date.
Right. The Americans still weren't done killing off the natives so the Americans could rule with their own imperialist corruption. Luckily they got the job done in the end and we can all enjoy a nice McDonald's burger while sipping a Coke and watching Fox News. Good stuff.
Hey, that sucks. If what you say is true, you got treated badly. But that's a specific situation which doesn't involve what I'm talking about. I'm talking specifically about users feeling a sense of entitlement which makes them feel as though they may treat the developers as employees.
I am specifically referring to messages which cannot be misunderstood to be other than abuse. I am not talking about bug reports or users wishing for things to be done in a timely fashion. However, should the developer choose not to implement the request, the user has no right to abuse that developer. I don't know why you think they do.
Slashdot Mirror
Grease? What if it's *electrical*?
Torben
Years ago when I was studying ju-jutsu, we got into basic blindfighting. We'd have to kneel facing our partner while blindfolded. At first, our knees would just barely be touching. Then the non-blindfolded partner would start throwing very slow punches, which the other person would have to try to block. Then we'd move slightly farther apart, and punch slightly quicker.
At first I thought "OK, what the hell kind of bogus ninja crap is this?" And at first there were many cheeks getting tapped. But before too long, most of us found that we could in fact block the punches. Not fast ones (I moved away shortly after this so I don't know what the others achieved in the end), but it was still pretty weird. Even in a room full of rustling gis, you would still be able to get enough audio cues (and at first, tactile ones from the touching knees) to tell more or less where the hit was coming from.
It was pretty cool. I'd love to know how far that could be taken.
Torben
No.
Historically, archival copies were allowed and expected to be allowed. No medium is impervious to aging and wear. Some media can be damaged by using them.
Paying $5 (or 5 cents) for the right--and it is still a legal and moral* right to keep archival copies--is wrong. *IMHO, of course.
Torben
Why don't we do the math on that *before* we start messing with the net mass of the planet, hm?
In seriousness, I haven't done the math and have no idea whether the mass added by what you propose would be negligible over centuries or longer, say--or whether it would be sufficient to somehow affect Earth's motion. Or whether it would even need to work for centuries or millenia before something fundamentally better came along. But there's always that pesky law of unintended consequences.
OK, so it sounds more like a late Asimov idea than anything else. Just drinking and thinking (the former harder than the latter).
Torben
No. You're welcome to talk about whatever you want to, not necessarily qualified to.
:)
Unless, of course, what you talk about counts as hate speech. Then you may speak of it, but only if you accept that you could be prosecuted legally--you do not, in Canada, have the right to say whatever you want, whenever you want.
Speaking only about Canadian rights here, the rest of you understand.
How is it harder than carding for ammo, smokes or booze?
I'm not trying to argue; I'm not in the service sector. I'm wondering what the difference is.
Ah. But you presumably have this right--this is, after all, exactly what you've been telling me about what I've written.
And anyway, of course I have the right to tell someone that he is mistaken. Anyone may do that. Don't get all victimized over a little wounded pride.
In short: you are mistaken, and I am done.
No, you just didn't say what you thought you did.
That's the power of language.
How do you suppose that this was your main point? This was your first mention of the ad in the entire thread. In fact, it was your only mention of the ad. You claim above that:
This is not true. You mentioned the original ad only once, when you claimed that it was the "main main point". A point you had not referenced until then, and did not reference after (as you claim above).
Don't lecture me on fact-checking until you can remember your own posts.
The fact that you didn't understand a correct sentence is not my problem. You're focusing on that one non-issue in order to draw attention away from what it was pointing out: that your original post made no mention of the quality of the presented ad as you had claimed.
Just because you don't understand it doesn't make it jazz.
The sentence was fine. You did not in fact state that the ad sucked. You made a snarky attack on an honest mistake and then demonstrated a lack of the skills necessary to justify your arrogance. You even stated that it's fine to only learn part of a language (say, grammar) at the expense of other parts (say, spelling) and still claim to have a mastery of that language. That's like saying you're a fine pilot but you just don't think landing is important so you don't bother with it.
So in short: whatever, buddy.
If that one issue (which centres around style and not, in fact, grammar) is your only point--well, then, you haven't got one.
Any writing text with a good chapter on complex sentences and relative pronouns should help. Check out the chapter on commas while you're reading.
By the way, 'sentence' does not have an 'a'.
:)
Read a book and get back to me.
And people not responding positively to unfunny comments doesn't mean they don't have a sense of humour, just that you're not being funny.
No, you need to lighten up. And to capitalize correctly, if you're going to post on English boards. At least, according to your own rules.
You'd probably be surprised how many people posting on mainly English-speaking sites do not speak English as a first language. Should we belittle them for every mistake to stoke up our own egos, or help them to learn what they're doing wrong so they can improve?
I know which side of that question the person who needs to lighten up falls on.
So your point is that until someone achieves perfection, they should be barred from participating? Who gets to set the standard for perfection, then?
The OP may have made a grammatical error, but your error in reason is worse.
You are aware of the rather large portion of the Canadian population which does not speak English as a first language, right?
How many languages do you speak...perfectly?
Thank you for arguing my point.
Bit thick on the polemic, though. Take a look at my banks records before lecturing me on charity.
I want that too.
Now I just have to find somebody to clothe, feed, and house me while I indulge myself.
Coding was SO much more efficient back then. Today it would take many feet of tape.
It is freedom. Freedom does not mean "the developers accept every suggestion and all criticism". You are free to use it, use something else, dig in there and change what you don't like, and even fork it and publish it the way you think it should be. That's freedom.
And of course, Linus is free to do what the hell he wants. He doesn't owe us a thing.
Atheists are not the only kind of non-religious folk. Some of us are simply not superstitious, and prefer to believe the evidence of our senses and the conclusions reached through reason over unsubstantiated claims of dubious origin.
More directly addressing your point, dismissing the idea of control by destiny or some supposed omniscient being does not leave one with only chemical reactions and Einsteinian physics to explain behaviour--some of us subscribe to the idea of free will. At any rate, enough is not understood about the universe to more than leave room for an explanation of consciousness to be made at some later date.
Torben
Right. The Americans still weren't done killing off the natives so the Americans could rule with their own imperialist corruption. Luckily they got the job done in the end and we can all enjoy a nice McDonald's burger while sipping a Coke and watching Fox News. Good stuff.
Hey, that sucks. If what you say is true, you got treated badly. But that's a specific situation which doesn't involve what I'm talking about. I'm talking specifically about users feeling a sense of entitlement which makes them feel as though they may treat the developers as employees.
I am specifically referring to messages which cannot be misunderstood to be other than abuse. I am not talking about bug reports or users wishing for things to be done in a timely fashion. However, should the developer choose not to implement the request, the user has no right to abuse that developer. I don't know why you think they do.