1) I see no run-on sentence in what he wrote, the sentence seems properly formed to me. Enlighten me, where is the run-on portion?
2) Also, his use of "they" seems quite clear to me, in that he's referring to the teacher or teachers who taught him grammar. What is supposedly wrong about his usage?
3) And finally, I don't see anything wrong with his use of tenses.
True, but that's mostly because I don't relish the opportunity to tell someone to their face, that they are spewing gibberish , unless they're fully indecipherable and I can't avoid it.
Exactly. If I hear "for all intensive purposes", it immediately marks that person as a bit of a fool in my estimation. I probably won't say anything, but their image is forever tarnished in my mind.
If you really want to press the point, sure, I'll concede that it's technically grammatically incorrect - but then I'll refuse to recognize you as any better in this manner, because you used a contraction. Contractions started out as vernacular as well, and we only write proper English around here, eh?
The difference is that contractions are taught in school and are recognized as proper English, but no teacher who has a clue about the language would ever teach that "should of" is correct. None, zero, zip, nada. In fact, contractions date back to Old English (450 AD – 1150 AD). They also appear in Early Modern English (1450 AD to 1750 AD). Nowhere, however, in the history of written language does "should of" appear as proper, but if it's considered acceptable in 500 years or so then I'll reconsider my position.
Or, maybe not. As someone else pointed out, "should of" is wrong because it's a mishearing of "should have", which is completely acceptable. Using "should of" means the person doesn't know what they're really supposed to be saying, just like saying "for all intensive purposes". It makes no sense in any literal or figurative form; instead it indicates that the person saying it doesn't really understand what's supposed to be coming out of their mouth.
It's similar to people who say, "It's a doggy-dog world", when the term they mean to use is, "it's a dog-eat-dog world." One makes sense, the other does not. "Should of" makes no sense and I wish people would stop trying to pretend that it does.
After just 25 short years, we've accomplished nothing!
Considering Linux is used all over the place, is one of the most popular server operating systems, and is also common in embedded devices, I would hardly call that "nothing".
Not knowing the details behind something does not equate to not knowing what you're doing to protect yourself.
Frequently that is exactly what it means.
-
Please do. I prefer 64GB models now. But a real one. I've had a few fake models that weren't really 64GB and actually came with malware on them right from ebay. Feel free to pre-load it with all sorts of nasty things. Worst case you fry my motherboard on my burner PC
I like what you wrote- it's thoughtful and reasoned, and it's written in an open and non-confrontational tone.
This means that they'll immediately shitcan it, and probably add your name to the "harassers" list before forwarding it to the FBI.
Seriously, if I know anything about Ms Feinstein, this is the likely outcome. She doesn't like to hear from mere mortals unless they're slavishly agreeing with everything she does and support her positions to the hilt. She's a consummate politician, and I don't mean that in a good way.
I'll feel safer when they combine this with AI to create a pre-crime system then deploy Robocops to snuff it out pre-emptively using an automated form of Judge Dredd instant justice decision making.
C'mon, they couldn't be doing anything bad or illegal or nefarious or whatever. I mean, when has the FBI ever done anything like that??
Never mind their warrantless GPS tracking, targeting WikiLeaks and Bradley Manning supporters, spying on children while using 'Roving Wiretaps', entrapment of certain Muslims, the 2008 Amendments to the Attorney General’s Guidelines, their war on whistleblowers, proxy detentions outside the US, use of the No Fly List to harass Americans, exaggerating and manufacturing terrorism plots, spying on journalists, labeling non-violent undercover investigators as terrorists, widespread abuse of Patriot Act Powers, undocumented database searches, email interception, back-dooring electronic equipment, subverting encryption protocols, etc etc etc
So yeah, I'm sure those anonymous FBI planes with muffled engines are there to help keep us free.
My computer won't auto execute things on it. Yes, but other people's computers will. My computer has no sensitive stuff on it that is encrypted. Yes, but other people's computers might. My computer has no information that isn't backed up. Yes, but other people's computers do.
-
Dealing with potentially dangerous equipment doesn't make a person stupid without knowing the details behind it.
Errr, sorry, but if you're dealing with "potentially dangerous equipment" without knowing what you're doing ("the details behind it"), then yes, that's stupid. That's the very definition of "stupid".
Taking a USB stick and blithely plugging it into your PC is not a clever thing to do. It is, frankly, a foolish and stupid thing to do, especially these days. If you disagree, let me mail you a USB mystery-stick so you can plug it in to your PC and see what happens. Surely nothing bad could possibly occur, right?
Sanders made a speech on the Senate floor in October of 2011 that warned that a proposed trade agreement with Panama would open the floodgates of American money flowing into off-shore tax havens, a plea that ultimately fell on deaf ears as the agreement was signed by President Barack Obama later that year.
I'm older, but at 18 or 20 years old my father and grandfather were jumping out of troopships while being shelled and shot at....but millennials shit their pants if the rice in the school cafeteria isn't "authentic" to the way they make sushi in Japan. I'm not making this up.
"Feinstein and Burr are both working on a new bill to limit the use of encryption in consumer technology, expected to be made public in the weeks to come."
Not only is this extremely stupid and utterly unworkable, but fuck these two maggots who think that it's their right to weaken our privacy.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, that's what I'd say if I wanted people to believe that their unlocking method wouldn't work on newer iPhones.
"Don't worry- we can't break into that one, so sleep easy!"
Players: "Why?"
Blizzard: "Because FUCK YOU that's why"
1) I see no run-on sentence in what he wrote, the sentence seems properly formed to me. Enlighten me, where is the run-on portion?
2) Also, his use of "they" seems quite clear to me, in that he's referring to the teacher or teachers who taught him grammar. What is supposedly wrong about his usage?
3) And finally, I don't see anything wrong with his use of tenses.
"Should of" is just people who don't know how "should've" is spelled. Illiteracy is not the same thing as a dialect.
Exactly Thank you for putting it so succinctly.
True, but that's mostly because I don't relish the opportunity to tell someone to their face, that they are spewing gibberish , unless they're fully indecipherable and I can't avoid it.
Exactly. If I hear "for all intensive purposes", it immediately marks that person as a bit of a fool in my estimation. I probably won't say anything, but their image is forever tarnished in my mind.
If you really want to press the point, sure, I'll concede that it's technically grammatically incorrect - but then I'll refuse to recognize you as any better in this manner, because you used a contraction. Contractions started out as vernacular as well, and we only write proper English around here, eh?
The difference is that contractions are taught in school and are recognized as proper English, but no teacher who has a clue about the language would ever teach that "should of" is correct. None, zero, zip, nada. In fact, contractions date back to Old English (450 AD – 1150 AD). They also appear in Early Modern English (1450 AD to 1750 AD). Nowhere, however, in the history of written language does "should of" appear as proper, but if it's considered acceptable in 500 years or so then I'll reconsider my position.
Or, maybe not. As someone else pointed out, "should of" is wrong because it's a mishearing of "should have", which is completely acceptable. Using "should of" means the person doesn't know what they're really supposed to be saying, just like saying "for all intensive purposes". It makes no sense in any literal or figurative form; instead it indicates that the person saying it doesn't really understand what's supposed to be coming out of their mouth.
It's similar to people who say, "It's a doggy-dog world", when the term they mean to use is, "it's a dog-eat-dog world." One makes sense, the other does not. "Should of" makes no sense and I wish people would stop trying to pretend that it does.
By American Vernacular English, that's not wrong.
Ahh, no. It's wrong.
It's like people who say, "For all intensive purposes" when they what they really mean is, "For all intents and purposes".
"Vernacular" is not a synonym for "wrong".
Big deal, 21 brokers and recruiter or student....compared to the overall H1-B abuse, that's nothing. It's not even a rounding error.
After just 25 short years, we've accomplished nothing!
Considering Linux is used all over the place, is one of the most popular server operating systems, and is also common in embedded devices, I would hardly call that "nothing".
Not knowing the details behind something does not equate to not knowing what you're doing to protect yourself.
Frequently that is exactly what it means.
-
Please do. I prefer 64GB models now. But a real one. I've had a few fake models that weren't really 64GB and actually came with malware on them right from ebay. Feel free to pre-load it with all sorts of nasty things. Worst case you fry my motherboard on my burner PC
Sure, what's your address?
I like what you wrote- it's thoughtful and reasoned, and it's written in an open and non-confrontational tone.
This means that they'll immediately shitcan it, and probably add your name to the "harassers" list before forwarding it to the FBI.
Seriously, if I know anything about Ms Feinstein, this is the likely outcome. She doesn't like to hear from mere mortals unless they're slavishly agreeing with everything she does and support her positions to the hilt. She's a consummate politician, and I don't mean that in a good way.
I'll feel safer when they combine this with AI to create a pre-crime system then deploy Robocops to snuff it out pre-emptively using an automated form of Judge Dredd instant justice decision making.
Can we get a KickStarter going for this?
C'mon, they couldn't be doing anything bad or illegal or nefarious or whatever. I mean, when has the FBI ever done anything like that??
Never mind their warrantless GPS tracking, targeting WikiLeaks and Bradley Manning supporters, spying on children while using 'Roving Wiretaps', entrapment of certain Muslims, the 2008 Amendments to the Attorney General’s Guidelines, their war on whistleblowers, proxy detentions outside the US, use of the No Fly List to harass Americans, exaggerating and manufacturing terrorism plots, spying on journalists, labeling non-violent undercover investigators as terrorists, widespread abuse of Patriot Act Powers, undocumented database searches, email interception, back-dooring electronic equipment, subverting encryption protocols, etc etc etc
So yeah, I'm sure those anonymous FBI planes with muffled engines are there to help keep us free.
"Reddit users can now use the new "block user" feature to better deal with harassment."
TRANSLATION:
"Reddit social justice warriors can now use the new "block user" feature to better shut down disagreement or speech they don't like."
My computer won't auto execute things on it. Yes, but other people's computers will.
My computer has no sensitive stuff on it that is encrypted. Yes, but other people's computers might.
My computer has no information that isn't backed up. Yes, but other people's computers do.
-
Dealing with potentially dangerous equipment doesn't make a person stupid without knowing the details behind it.
Errr, sorry, but if you're dealing with "potentially dangerous equipment" without knowing what you're doing ("the details behind it"), then yes, that's stupid. That's the very definition of "stupid".
Taking a USB stick and blithely plugging it into your PC is not a clever thing to do. It is, frankly, a foolish and stupid thing to do, especially these days. If you disagree, let me mail you a USB mystery-stick so you can plug it in to your PC and see what happens. Surely nothing bad could possibly occur, right?
Bernie Sanders in 12,000BC warned us this fire thing would come back to bite us!
And damn if he wasn't right about that too.
I meant in this context or case. I thought that was obvious, or are you just joking around?
Sometimes even I can't tell. ;)
Bernie Sanders warned us about this back in 2011 or so...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Sanders made a speech on the Senate floor in October of 2011 that warned that a proposed trade agreement with Panama would open the floodgates of American money flowing into off-shore tax havens, a plea that ultimately fell on deaf ears as the agreement was signed by President Barack Obama later that year.
Wordpress vulnerabilities - for once they're a help and not a hindrance.
But seeing "Trump 2016" chalked onto a sidewalk will make those same weak-willed twits wail in horror?
Awww, such special snowflakes!
I'm older, but at 18 or 20 years old my father and grandfather were jumping out of troopships while being shelled and shot at....but millennials shit their pants if the rice in the school cafeteria isn't "authentic" to the way they make sushi in Japan. I'm not making this up.
Banning encryption would be unconstitutional.
Lol, and what's your point? It's not going to stop scumbags like Feinstein and Burr. The Constitution is optional for people like them.
"Feinstein and Burr are both working on a new bill to limit the use of encryption in consumer technology, expected to be made public in the weeks to come."
Not only is this extremely stupid and utterly unworkable, but fuck these two maggots who think that it's their right to weaken our privacy.
It simplified computer use for the average dumbass, it just didn't take malicious actors into account.
Well that was kinda stupid. On second thought, strike the word "kinda".
Disable auto run always, never open executables outside of your Vm, what's the problem?
The sentence above would mystify at least 50% of the people you'd find wandering around almost any campus or city street.
They'd say, "Disable what? Never open what outside of what?"
I too would plug in a random USB stick. Without knowing the situation of the device I plug it into why would you assume that I am stupid?
Because plugging in a USB stick that you found laying around in the parking lot or other random place would be a stupid thing to do.