Maybe they're creating super shielded space chairs. Or, since the gravity is lower on the moon, they might be building huge chairs that will survive re-entry while still retaining enough mass to be effective kinetic weapons.
They're moving off planet to avoid problems with anti-trust regulation. Also, chairs thrown from the moon will have much greater impact on earth based targets.
I'm contemptuous of people who think taking work product from anyone without compensation is a valid and moral way of correcting a bad business model.
I'm contemptuous of people who think penalties imposed by flawed, politically tainted trials are a valid and moral way of defending a bad business model.
Just ignore him; he's one of them rushbot/hannitards that thinks it's a fraternity prank and nothing big. He'd freak out in under 20 seconds with actual waterboarding.
What the fuck happened to America that there's so many people that think this kind of shit is ok if you do it in the name of freedom?
You see, those things were done to protect America from the terrorists, and as everyone knows our constitution specifically says the executive branch is free to do whatever it likes - legal or otherwise - without fear of repercussions if it calls any policy it chooses to implement part of a war. (see "drugs, war on" for more details)
I was merely pointing out that condoms are less effective as birth control than this injection, not stating that they result in pregnancy 2 out of every 100 times they're used.
Although, there's this study which suggests that there is something like a 2% rate of exposure to semen (which one could fairly consider a form of failure, for a barrier type contraceptive) for every act of intercourse when using a condom:
PSA was detected in 100% (24/24) of vaginal samples collected immediately after unprotected intercourse and in none of the vaginal samples collected more than 24 h after intercourse (0/90). PSA was also present in 98% (83/85) of the samples collected from the inside of the condom that had failed during intercourse. Excluding uses where the condom failed during intercourse, PSA was detected in 2% (1/47) of the postcoital vaginal samples collected after use of intact condoms and in 41% (14/34) of the samples collected after use of condoms with known 1-mm punctures.
We have representatives in congress, and they perform their jobs based on their personal beliefs and attitudes, as well as the perceived wishes of their constituency. If the constituents fail to make noise when it's warranted, then they're being lax in their responsibilities as citizens.
And, in my experience at least, my congresscritters do actually pay attention when I write them about things; at very least, I get a message back explaining the representative/sentator's position on the issue. Calling is effective, too.
If you do nothing because you're cynical, then nothing ever gets better.
I prefer "righteously indignant freedom fighter in the battle against the idiocy of linguistic prescriptivism and peevishness," but if you called me a jerk it'd probably be simpler and not appreciably less informative. Pedantic is fine, too.
As long as we're all being pedantic, that doesn't beg the question, it raises the question; begging the question is a form of flaw in a logical argument in which the thing to be proved is assumed in the premises of the argument.
Of course, the battle to preserve that usage was lost years ago.
And to treat that remark seriously, it's a good question. Google string searches are often used by linguists as a kind of yardstick of prevalence. Given the 6 fold difference, it's probably a reasonable measure, but if we were really interested in giving a rigorously defensible analysis, we'd probably build a corpus of representative documents with an eye towards genre and source balance and do stats on that. Then there's the problem of dialect differences, etc. skewing results.
Which is why Google searches are nice, cause they're often good enough and less work than doing it completely right.
And what's more, curricula is actually more common than curriculums, judging by the number of Google hits (~12.7 million to 2.2 million, respectively). At very worst, what he did was impose one of his pet peeves on the conversation, in a dickish way that added nothing of value and served to undermine his point.
You, on the other hand, decided to blame your own ignorance and lack of research on someone else's supposed shortcomings, and justify it with a fabricated "rule," that ignores the actual facts and history of the language. He's a schmuck; you're an ignoramus, and an arrogant one at that.
If the timing of the flood accounts wasn't your point, then you ought to have left it out. It's a pointless distraction, at best, and the fact that you begin the paragraph introducing it with "Second," indicates that it's intended to be part of the argument.
But worse is your condescending attitude towards the original poster's - at least as you imagine it - and the completely gratuitous political slap which presumably you only included to tie things in to the general attack on (liberal) intolerance. If the structural issues with your argument weren't enough to convince someone to ignore it, your sounding like a smug little doucebag certainly do their part to discredit you.
If they won't, presenting a copy of Bruner's exhibits will be a 'get out of jail free' card for drunk driving in Minnesota
He could still be found guilty of DUI assuming other evidence was convincing; and for that matter, they could still cart people to a hospital for a blood test.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe they're creating super shielded space chairs.
Or, since the gravity is lower on the moon, they might be building huge chairs that will survive re-entry while still retaining enough mass to be effective kinetic weapons.
They're moving off planet to avoid problems with anti-trust regulation. Also, chairs thrown from the moon will have much greater impact on earth based targets.
No, no, you're contemptible, not contemptuous.
I'm contemptuous of people who think penalties imposed by flawed, politically tainted trials are a valid and moral way of defending a bad business model.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. You must be new to the software business.
Chortle.
Because that would be socialism and, as everyone knows, socialism is bad because socialism is bad, as well as being not good, also.
Just ignore him; he's one of them rushbot/hannitards that thinks it's a fraternity prank and nothing big. He'd freak out in under 20 seconds with actual waterboarding.
What the fuck happened to America that there's so many people that think this kind of shit is ok if you do it in the name of freedom?
Well, I really wish it was just satire.
But that doesn't count.
You see, those things were done to protect America from the terrorists, and as everyone knows our constitution specifically says the executive branch is free to do whatever it likes - legal or otherwise - without fear of repercussions if it calls any policy it chooses to implement part of a war. (see "drugs, war on" for more details)
I was merely pointing out that condoms are less effective as birth control than this injection, not stating that they result in pregnancy 2 out of every 100 times they're used.
Although, there's this study which suggests that there is something like a 2% rate of exposure to semen (which one could fairly consider a form of failure, for a barrier type contraceptive) for every act of intercourse when using a condom:
Assuming no user error, and over 10% for real life usage.
Actually, yes.
We have representatives in congress, and they perform their jobs based on their personal beliefs and attitudes, as well as the perceived wishes of their constituency. If the constituents fail to make noise when it's warranted, then they're being lax in their responsibilities as citizens.
And, in my experience at least, my congresscritters do actually pay attention when I write them about things; at very least, I get a message back explaining the representative/sentator's position on the issue. Calling is effective, too.
If you do nothing because you're cynical, then nothing ever gets better.
Write your congresscritters. If you fail to do so, you're complicit in whatever happens.
That said, it's a stupid bill.
Ugh. Blended scotch.
Presumably they weren't very good friends. ;-)
I prefer "righteously indignant freedom fighter in the battle against the idiocy of linguistic prescriptivism and peevishness," but if you called me a jerk it'd probably be simpler and not appreciably less informative. Pedantic is fine, too.
As long as we're all being pedantic, that doesn't beg the question, it raises the question; begging the question is a form of flaw in a logical argument in which the thing to be proved is assumed in the premises of the argument.
Of course, the battle to preserve that usage was lost years ago.
And to treat that remark seriously, it's a good question. Google string searches are often used by linguists as a kind of yardstick of prevalence. Given the 6 fold difference, it's probably a reasonable measure, but if we were really interested in giving a rigorously defensible analysis, we'd probably build a corpus of representative documents with an eye towards genre and source balance and do stats on that. Then there's the problem of dialect differences, etc. skewing results.
Which is why Google searches are nice, cause they're often good enough and less work than doing it completely right.
Hurt feelings? Aaawwwww.
Actually, it's not; it's an example of preferring a one plural form over another, more or less equally, acceptable one:
(from here).
And what's more, curricula is actually more common than curriculums, judging by the number of Google hits (~12.7 million to 2.2 million, respectively). At very worst, what he did was impose one of his pet peeves on the conversation, in a dickish way that added nothing of value and served to undermine his point.
You, on the other hand, decided to blame your own ignorance and lack of research on someone else's supposed shortcomings, and justify it with a fabricated "rule," that ignores the actual facts and history of the language. He's a schmuck; you're an ignoramus, and an arrogant one at that.
"educational background," should follow the final hyphen.
If the timing of the flood accounts wasn't your point, then you ought to have left it out. It's a pointless distraction, at best, and the fact that you begin the paragraph introducing it with "Second," indicates that it's intended to be part of the argument.
But worse is your condescending attitude towards the original poster's - at least as you imagine it - and the completely gratuitous political slap which presumably you only included to tie things in to the general attack on (liberal) intolerance. If the structural issues with your argument weren't enough to convince someone to ignore it, your sounding like a smug little doucebag certainly do their part to discredit you.
Now we're gonna get the swine flu spread all over from the flying pigs.
He could still be found guilty of DUI assuming other evidence was convincing; and for that matter, they could still cart people to a hospital for a blood test.
I know, but don't feel bad - I get people all the time.
Firefox makes IE 8 your default browser in Linux? That's kinda odd.