First I don't divide 123 into 24723.
I don't even begin to think of it in those terms.
I divide 24723 by 123.
I don't write 24600, I write 246, subtract and then bring down the two to yield 12
I see that 12 is smaller than 123 so I write a 0 up top and bring down the 3.
Yours seems to fit the pattern of past subjunctive and mine appears to fit the pattern of present subjunctive.
The thing about spoken sarcasm is that it's the tone and not the words that tip off that the speaker isn't serious. To achieve that goal in writing means to do something other than the most obvious way to say something and mean it. The subjunctive mood seems to fit that desire. You criticize, but I don't see you offering an alternative.
You should tell that to my college English teacher who insisted I use the subjunctive form, but then failed to tell me it was named the subjunctive form.
I seem to remember warp pipes. Also there was the Star Road in Super Mario World. Oh and Bowser's backdoor. In Mario 64 you have a choice of which stars to get in order to get to Koopa, though there is a small bonus of meeting Yoshi and getting a ton of lives that are absolutely pointless at that point.
In those cases it would also be nice for the game to assess your weakness and indicate a mini game to improve that skill. Maybe you're taking the corners too tightly or breaking or accelerating at the wrong times or your timing is off in some other way. Games don't do enough awareness of your strengths and weakness and help you work on your weaknesses.
But what do you do when both sides have features you don't like? There are elements of the Linux side that I like in terms of morality, but Windows I like in terms of utility, and when it comes to aesthetics both sides are lemons all the way down.
They seriously need to look back over the model of addiction and revamp it, because certain things are happening that are at odds with elements of the current model. One thing that needs to be reexamined is the question of whether "addiction" is always a bad thing. Then there's the whole nature vs. nurture issue.
I see this as definitely a factor in where to draw the line as to which point piracy becomes in essence stealing. When you steal back something that was stolen from you, that's not really stealing. When you steal something in compensation from something that was stolen from you, you have to figure out when you're going too far.
Resolution isn't what makes the graphics system. A live shot still looks more realistic than CG on a television. The big change was changing from a block transfer system to vectors and textures.
Part of it is letting a section feel wrong to me, then breaking that section down, and letting certain parts feel wrong, then asking what would feel right, checking that feeling of right with all the other occurrences. It is important to go to the original texts, for one, but looking at translations in other languages is beneficial too.
Also, while the Bible is the base of my investigations, I read materials from other religions. I've glanced at the Book of Mormon and have serious issues with the fact that the "source text" has gone missing. I look at apocryphal works. Of the materials from other religions, the one most curious to me currently are the http://www.falundafa.org/ documents.
What differentiates a true signal from noise is that in signal there isn't an equal probability that a cancelling pulse exists.
Funny, the pool always feels cold to me when I first jump in, and after I've been in it for a little while it no longer feels cold. Getting out just resets the process.
Re:more proof the RIAA/MPAA are insane
on
Death By DMCA
·
· Score: 1
I don't know what the answer is, but venting on Slash about the end of society isn't any way to bring it about.
No, but it is part of the process to fully suss the situation out so we can consolidate upon what the answer is.
Oh, for fuck's sake - stop with the pseudo-intellectual doublethink and legal definitions masturbation.
Funny, I don't see it that way. If you do, then I suggest you quit holding up your end of the circumstances of talking about the subject.
Now back to the trenches...
The rest of your response doesn't seem to understand the nuanced action in this theater of war.
First, the whole point of the Valve thing is so that they can bask in the glow of their admirers. In their minds, at the very least, it is not part of the arena of debate.
In that sort of situation, their priorities are different than when they are doing the bluster on piracy.
The purpose of doing as you suggested would be to force them back into the arena of debate.
In an environment with sane procedures for negotiating exchange of goods, copyright infringement is closer to stealing. There is also the state of the copyright infringer's mind. If a neutral country or any of its citizens in WW I decided to go over to Germany to knock over banks for the sole purpose of enriching their own pockets with no interest of helping the war effort against Germany, that meets the definition of stealing.
It's expected that profit during war goes up as people need that profit to offset the risk of doing business during war. However, the more that a person or group of people take advantage of the war situation to increase profits, the less that it is appropriate to consider it stealing to take from them.
Re:Where are the bunkers to protect Citizens ?
on
Back to the Bunker
·
· Score: 1
As others have said, the Government needs to protect itself first, so that it can still be there to help others later. The reason that this looks so strange is what the Government had done to deplete our ability to fend for ourselves while the Government is taking care of itself.
Part of the point of the second amendment:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
or perhaps the rationale, is that the Government can't be everywhere at once. The most obvious expectation that they should be is due to their attack on our ability to protect ourselves. The main reason I can see for this attack is that being able to protect ourselves means we have the capacity to attack the government, whether for the purposes of protecting ourselves or not. And it's the "or not" that the Government uses as what I see as the main rationale for destroying our ability to defend ourselves.
Re:Making *AA groups illegal...
on
Death By DMCA
·
· Score: 1
If we can somehow goad them into engaging in clearly racketeering activities, we may be able to get them to do that to themselves. They way they act currently it doesn't seem like it would be that hard, though I'm not good at that area of things and the apparent ease may be due to my lack of ability.
How do you know which writings were done by those who had special knowledge of this god, and which were just completely fabricated?
Signal analysis.
One of my tenets is that "special knowledge" isn't needed.
It seems very strange that such a god would allow his message to be so distored.
I start with the first principle that God's message has been distorted. Then the question becomes what God's motivation of letting his message out for it to become distorted.
I posit that there is something that God didn't create and that his purpose is to drive it out. Now if that "other" had any intelligence to it, then God could not rightly be called God. God's goal is to put intelligence into that fabric, but the limitations on the system results in what we experience as time.
All that is good in us is God's message. To understand God's message is to become God's message. In the Bible, the general idea is expressed by Paul when he says: "I am crucified in Christ, therefore I no longer live. Jesus Christ now lives in me."
Slashdot Mirror
I thought I hit preview, but it submitted it. However with this post, it's been doing preview eash time, so bleh!
I don't even begin to think of it in those terms. I divide 24723 by 123.
I don't write 24600, I write 246, subtract and then bring down the two to yield 12
I see that 12 is smaller than 123 so I write a 0 up top and bring down the 3.
Yours seems to fit the pattern of past subjunctive and mine appears to fit the pattern of present subjunctive.
The thing about spoken sarcasm is that it's the tone and not the words that tip off that the speaker isn't serious. To achieve that goal in writing means to do something other than the most obvious way to say something and mean it. The subjunctive mood seems to fit that desire. You criticize, but I don't see you offering an alternative.
I've run into problems where the burn is reported okay, but when I go back to read, there's a CRC error or something.
You should tell that to my college English teacher who insisted I use the subjunctive form, but then failed to tell me it was named the subjunctive form.
because without ALL the content unlocked immediately, games would be just dull and boring and no fun to play
Wow! They check file systems too?
The subjunctive is relevant to sarcasm because it is used to indicate that you aren't really serious.
And that would be useful in this instance how?
Let me introduce you to something called the subjunctive. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjunctive
I seem to remember warp pipes. Also there was the Star Road in Super Mario World. Oh and Bowser's backdoor. In Mario 64 you have a choice of which stars to get in order to get to Koopa, though there is a small bonus of meeting Yoshi and getting a ton of lives that are absolutely pointless at that point.
In those cases it would also be nice for the game to assess your weakness and indicate a mini game to improve that skill. Maybe you're taking the corners too tightly or breaking or accelerating at the wrong times or your timing is off in some other way. Games don't do enough awareness of your strengths and weakness and help you work on your weaknesses.
Oh! Like breathing. I get it now!
But what do you do when both sides have features you don't like? There are elements of the Linux side that I like in terms of morality, but Windows I like in terms of utility, and when it comes to aesthetics both sides are lemons all the way down.
They seriously need to look back over the model of addiction and revamp it, because certain things are happening that are at odds with elements of the current model. One thing that needs to be reexamined is the question of whether "addiction" is always a bad thing. Then there's the whole nature vs. nurture issue.
I see this as definitely a factor in where to draw the line as to which point piracy becomes in essence stealing. When you steal back something that was stolen from you, that's not really stealing. When you steal something in compensation from something that was stolen from you, you have to figure out when you're going too far.
You've weathered rather well.
Resolution isn't what makes the graphics system. A live shot still looks more realistic than CG on a television. The big change was changing from a block transfer system to vectors and textures.
Part of it is letting a section feel wrong to me, then breaking that section down, and letting certain parts feel wrong, then asking what would feel right, checking that feeling of right with all the other occurrences. It is important to go to the original texts, for one, but looking at translations in other languages is beneficial too.
Also, while the Bible is the base of my investigations, I read materials from other religions. I've glanced at the Book of Mormon and have serious issues with the fact that the "source text" has gone missing. I look at apocryphal works. Of the materials from other religions, the one most curious to me currently are the http://www.falundafa.org/ documents.
What differentiates a true signal from noise is that in signal there isn't an equal probability that a cancelling pulse exists.
Funny, the pool always feels cold to me when I first jump in, and after I've been in it for a little while it no longer feels cold. Getting out just resets the process.
I don't know what the answer is, but venting on Slash about the end of society isn't any way to bring it about.
No, but it is part of the process to fully suss the situation out so we can consolidate upon what the answer is.
Oh, for fuck's sake - stop with the pseudo-intellectual doublethink and legal definitions masturbation.
Funny, I don't see it that way. If you do, then I suggest you quit holding up your end of the circumstances of talking about the subject.
Now back to the trenches...
The rest of your response doesn't seem to understand the nuanced action in this theater of war.
First, the whole point of the Valve thing is so that they can bask in the glow of their admirers. In their minds, at the very least, it is not part of the arena of debate.
In that sort of situation, their priorities are different than when they are doing the bluster on piracy.
The purpose of doing as you suggested would be to force them back into the arena of debate.
In an environment with sane procedures for negotiating exchange of goods, copyright infringement is closer to stealing. There is also the state of the copyright infringer's mind. If a neutral country or any of its citizens in WW I decided to go over to Germany to knock over banks for the sole purpose of enriching their own pockets with no interest of helping the war effort against Germany, that meets the definition of stealing.
It's expected that profit during war goes up as people need that profit to offset the risk of doing business during war. However, the more that a person or group of people take advantage of the war situation to increase profits, the less that it is appropriate to consider it stealing to take from them.
As others have said, the Government needs to protect itself first, so that it can still be there to help others later. The reason that this looks so strange is what the Government had done to deplete our ability to fend for ourselves while the Government is taking care of itself.
Part of the point of the second amendment:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
or perhaps the rationale, is that the Government can't be everywhere at once. The most obvious expectation that they should be is due to their attack on our ability to protect ourselves. The main reason I can see for this attack is that being able to protect ourselves means we have the capacity to attack the government, whether for the purposes of protecting ourselves or not. And it's the "or not" that the Government uses as what I see as the main rationale for destroying our ability to defend ourselves.
If we can somehow goad them into engaging in clearly racketeering activities, we may be able to get them to do that to themselves. They way they act currently it doesn't seem like it would be that hard, though I'm not good at that area of things and the apparent ease may be due to my lack of ability.
How do you know which writings were done by those who had special knowledge of this god, and which were just completely fabricated?
Signal analysis.
One of my tenets is that "special knowledge" isn't needed.
It seems very strange that such a god would allow his message to be so distored.
I start with the first principle that God's message has been distorted. Then the question becomes what God's motivation of letting his message out for it to become distorted.
I posit that there is something that God didn't create and that his purpose is to drive it out. Now if that "other" had any intelligence to it, then God could not rightly be called God. God's goal is to put intelligence into that fabric, but the limitations on the system results in what we experience as time.
All that is good in us is God's message. To understand God's message is to become God's message. In the Bible, the general idea is expressed by Paul when he says: "I am crucified in Christ, therefore I no longer live. Jesus Christ now lives in me."