Yes, and in all the English classes I have ever had told me the possessive form of Chris was always Chris' until I talked to some people with masters degrees who said it does not matter if it is Chris' or Chris's. So just remember everything you learned may not be the complete truth.
Because the meaning of more means additionally.. If you want number 2 you would say "I have x and want 10 times as many instead" You are losing 1 word in your wording, and significantly changing the meaning. In fact it begins to confuse people, because you are making words lose their meaning.
You are vastly mistating "dangerous". Guns are more dangerous because they are more "likely or able to inflict harm or injury". A car coming at you is more visible and avoidable than a gun shooting at you from a crowd, or a roof top.
I think you need to give yourself a fucking break.. No where did I state that we should mandate the technology.. I was just pointing out the bad logic that being used to counter the cars analogy, but keep up your strawman.
Not to the same level, or with the same level of anonymity. Guns are small, compact and allow people to remain somewhat hidden when shooting. Cars are much larger, and noticeable in crowds. Lets see you kill or maim someone with a car from the safety of a roof top.
You and I have a vastly different idea of the democratic process.. I mean if we dont know whats in it, and cannot vote on it, then there is no democratic process involved.
Actually your "fine line" is incorrect tot he scenario being discussed. It would be more like you paid your lawyer, when then paid the judge a campaign donation to rule in your favor, I mean help him get elected next time.
That has nothing to do with what I said. It is like refusing to support windows boot issues because I am running openoffice instead of MS word on my machine.
Unless they are not doing OS level support on RHEL contracts if the company is using the competitors open stack implementation. Then that would be a major issue.
Slashdot Mirror
To some of my fellow Americans anything we do is the global norm, to everyone else around the globe, what they do is considered out of the ordinary.
Yes, and in all the English classes I have ever had told me the possessive form of Chris was always Chris' until I talked to some people with masters degrees who said it does not matter if it is Chris' or Chris's. So just remember everything you learned may not be the complete truth.
Could just be you. Not sure where you got a BA in mathematics, but hey. There are loads of jobs here in NC for programmers and IT professionals.
Because the meaning of more means additionally.. If you want number 2 you would say "I have x and want 10 times as many instead" You are losing 1 word in your wording, and significantly changing the meaning. In fact it begins to confuse people, because you are making words lose their meaning.
No, because "in greater quantity" still means additional, or above the amount.
No, 10x is 9 times more than 1x.
You can do a simple mathematical proof
Let x = 10
1x = 10
10x = 100
According to your logic 10x +1x = 100, but it does not 9x + 1x = 100.
The problem is the word MORE, which means additional. If you have 10x additional you have to add it back to the base amount
Does your first phrase indicate your intelligence level, or do you just like coming up with strawmen?
where do you get your 10k deaths from? There were over 32k deaths per year from guns.
That is funny, there is about the same amount of car deaths in the US as there are gun deaths.
more than likely the *case* was. I dont know about you, but in school they taught me how to infer certain things about a sentence.
You are vastly mistating "dangerous". Guns are more dangerous because they are more "likely or able to inflict harm or injury". A car coming at you is more visible and avoidable than a gun shooting at you from a crowd, or a roof top.
You make the poor assumption that dangerous just means to oneself, not to others as well.
My gun, no, but neither has any of my cars.
What are you smoking? The gun in my closet is 100x more dangerous than pretty much any car by virtually any measure.
I think you need to give yourself a fucking break.. No where did I state that we should mandate the technology.. I was just pointing out the bad logic that being used to counter the cars analogy, but keep up your strawman.
Not to the same level, or with the same level of anonymity. Guns are small, compact and allow people to remain somewhat hidden when shooting. Cars are much larger, and noticeable in crowds. Lets see you kill or maim someone with a car from the safety of a roof top.
you used the word problems, you are fired!
You and I have a vastly different idea of the democratic process.. I mean if we dont know whats in it, and cannot vote on it, then there is no democratic process involved.
Actually your "fine line" is incorrect tot he scenario being discussed. It would be more like you paid your lawyer, when then paid the judge a campaign donation to rule in your favor, I mean help him get elected next time.
The story is more about the come back of their great designer who has done a lot, and how they are betting on him.
It is not out of context. The complaint from the referee if you read the complaint is that it was simplistic.
That has nothing to do with what I said. It is like refusing to support windows boot issues because I am running openoffice instead of MS word on my machine.
Unless they are not doing OS level support on RHEL contracts if the company is using the competitors open stack implementation. Then that would be a major issue.
well seeing as what he calls a landfill is a secure site specifically designed for this type of storage, probably a lot less than he implies.
Does not matter if most do it, a lot do it, or just some do it, over generalization is still over generalization.