Here's a reason: you can't run OS X on x86 hardware. I'm not talking about the cost issue: you also can't get the latest graphics cards, etc. However, as far as I'm concerned there are plenty of technological reasons in favour of OS X, which by far outweigh the above: I don't run it because I can't find a reason not to run it, I run it because there are so many reasons to run it.
I'm sorry, but I never gave you permission to use my bandwidth to send me ads.
Cry me a river, yourself. You would prefer to pay for content how? He's talking about Google ads. Are you really trying to claim that they seriously impact your bandwidth allotment? Obviously you browse the web with images turned off, otherwise you wouldn't even slightly have a point. Do you really need blocking for text ads as well?
Your "professional audio engineer" might actually be right.
Although more and more drives now have jitter correction in hardware, and more and more software uses techniques like those of cdparanoia, much of the time on standard equipment the data reaching the DAC from two reads of the same disc will not be identical. The Red Book format allows for interpolation between samples which is pretty much unnoticable between same-generation playbacks. However, using cheap CDDAs is more likely to cause interpolation to be used. So if you rip CDDA from a CD, then burn it to a CDR and rip it again, the two files may well not be identical (although this is becoming less likely as hardware performs more error correction).
It's all too easy to think of CDs as perfect copies -- after all, in the data world, they have to be. But I believe the Orange Book format (for CDR) performs extra error correction, or at least insists upon re-reads where errors are detected -- whereas the Red Book format (for normal CDDA) does not.
He chose to take lower pay in return for stock options. Those options vested at lower than their original value. Everything else: layoffs, re-pricing, etc., is a red herring. He chose to take a risk. He lost. Am I missing something?
SaDan challenges you to name a single automobile or truck that has the engine fan directly connected to the crankshaft.
You claim to have owned 3 trucks where the fan was not connected via a drive belt. You fail to name any of them
I claim that the reason you fail to name them is because you cannot, because they do not exist.
You claim that they do exist, but still fail to name them.
I do a simple search, as you claim would be able to find any, and am unable to. I point out to you that you could settle the argument by simply naming them.
You state that you are unwilling to name them because it would encourage people to post crap, seemingly unaware of the irony. By this time, pretty much every observer is thinking, "It's not just that he won't name them... he can't name them".
I post this reply, in which I reiterate that I have tried a simple search and failed to find any examples whatsoever, and remind you that the burden of proof for your claim is upon you.
Coming up:
You post a tired response about how you shouldn't be doing other people's research for them, but know full well that you cannot name said trucks, and have lost the argument.
Don't feel I need to list them, because it's the most common configuration, and a simple search should find hundreds...
I have never seen a sentence more similar to "If I had a point, I could prove it in the work of a moment, but I don't" without using those actual words.
You know, you have admitted that you have never owned a truck three times in Slashdot comments. I could link to them, but I don't need to, because a simple search will find them. (NB if you can't find them, don't come running to me about your inability to perform even the simplest of searches).
Your point being that you can't form a logical argument? Of course it is: the point of your style of trolling is that you are *never* right, yet you pretend you cannot understand that. That's the bait. But what's the reward from your perspective? Help me to understand you, and you may find that I can help you gain enough self-respect to enter into equal relationships with your peers.
Remember, though: debaters debate because they are able to win arguments; trolls troll because they are not.
Whichever of us posts the last word to this thread before it is archived, you and I, and anyone who ever reads it, will know that you had to resort to ignoring the question because you could not win the argument.
But of course, for you it's not about winning the argument, it's about keeping me posting. And you are prepared to take the role of my "bitch" in order to secure that. I find it all absolutely fascinating, and will continue to post just as long as you continue to provide me with fresh insight into the active-submissive psyche.
Given your unwillingness to address the question (as a result of your inability to form a rational argument), we were getting nowhere with Real and Apple, so I thought I'd try to address the problem at a lower level. Unfortunately your critical faculties don't seem to be up to introspection either.
Remember, wise men talk because they have something to say: fools, because they have to say something.
You seem to have missed the original poster's point completely. Your right to bear arms has been whittled away, too. In the days when that amendment was made, the arms you had the right to bear really meant something. The arms you can bear now are the equivalent of what a schoolboy's catapult was then.
Similarly, one day everyone will take it for granted that you cannot reproduce anything without the copyright holder's permission, and archaic laws about "fair use" will seem as irrelevant as a shotgun against the government.
Perhaps you should consider McDonalds. Yes, you need to eat, but do they really need to load their food products with fat and sugar, which are more addictive than nutritional?
This virtual girlfriend is not providing therapy, it's teaching him that spending money is the answer to relationship problems. Do you really think that this will help in the long run?
You, sir, are a genius. You put both L's into LOL.
Re:Skills you learn could save your real relations
on
Virtual Girlfriend
·
· Score: 0
Friend, I have some unfortunate news for you. Your use of the phrase "real relationship" is mistaken. Ironically, contrasting it with the "relationship" offered by a virtual girlfriend might aid you in determining what a real relationship really is.
Perfectly so, thanks. Once again: SHOW ME THE CLAIM. And please don't try the same boring tactic: you've already admitted I've won the argument.
So your "position" is based on your assertion of the supposed position of someone who couldn't defend it themselves. Hilarious.
No, my position is based on the clear position of someone who got bored with you. I obviously have too much spare time, plus I have a peculiar fascination with antisocial behaviour.
Once again, the irony is so thick you can cut it with a knife. Remember, wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something.
You don't have to quote that at me. It's in my sig for good reason. You and I both know what the irony is.
What I sometimes wonder is what drives you and others like you. I think you must imagine that whilst I keep replying, you are winning: after all, the art of trolling is all about getting bites, and the more on the same thread the better. Yet given that I am meta-trolling, I am winning for the very same reason in equal measure. So by what metric do you feel that your pursuit is worthwhile? Clearly you know not only that you cannot beat me in a logical debate but also that I know it, I know you know it, you know I know you know it, etc. Do you get some perverse sense of satisfaction from that? Am I just unwittingly playing the role of the Daddy in a bizzare masochistic flagellation exercise? I am truly fascinated.
It's always amusing to hear that from the likes of someone whose approach to discourse is to be purely contrary as an end in itself, regardless of whether or not they can logically defend their position.
My position is that you cannot say what proportion of Apple's iTMS revenue is clear profit, and that you are wrong to accude caddisfly of claiming that AllOfMP3 is losing money. Both points are clearly stated in the first reply I made to this thread and my position on them has not changed.
May I once again suggest you try cutting your claws in real logical rhetoric rather than in empty sophistry? Honestly, it'll keep your mind a lot sharper; you'll thank me in the end. It's like living a healthy lifestyle versus being a junk food couch potato -- sounds like hard work but becomes its own reward.
Wow! If I'd known it was as simple as just stating it, I would have won a long time ago;)
I just won the argument. There!
You're really scraping the bottom of the barrel now. The beauty of meta-trolling is that everyone reading, troll included, knows you've won the argument. Of course the troll can't admit it, because that would lay bare his pursuit as a waste of time. Trolling is like taking candy from a baby. Meta-trolling is like re-integrating candy theives into society. The former probably seems quite fulfilling, until you've tried the latter. May I suggest an upgrade?
Given that Apple declared that they had made a profit on the iTMS, your claim that they are LYING OUT THEIR ASS [sic] becomes a statement that you don't think they did make a profit. So you can't even agree with yourself.
SHOW ME THE CLAIM
You've linked to a question about whether or not AllOfMP3 make a profit, not Apple. I've never seen such a poor attempt in my life. Even if it were about Apple, a question about how you would know if they make a profit, and a statement that they do not make a profit, are two very different things.
SHOW ME THE CLAIM. Show... me... the... claim...!
Here's one I made up just now, in honour of you:
Debaters debate because they are able to win arguments; trolls troll because they are not.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's a reason: you can't run OS X on x86 hardware. I'm not talking about the cost issue: you also can't get the latest graphics cards, etc. However, as far as I'm concerned there are plenty of technological reasons in favour of OS X, which by far outweigh the above: I don't run it because I can't find a reason not to run it, I run it because there are so many reasons to run it.
I'm sorry, but I never gave you permission to use my bandwidth to send me ads.
Cry me a river, yourself. You would prefer to pay for content how? He's talking about Google ads. Are you really trying to claim that they seriously impact your bandwidth allotment? Obviously you browse the web with images turned off, otherwise you wouldn't even slightly have a point. Do you really need blocking for text ads as well?
Your "professional audio engineer" might actually be right.
Although more and more drives now have jitter correction in hardware, and more and more software uses techniques like those of cdparanoia, much of the time on standard equipment the data reaching the DAC from two reads of the same disc will not be identical. The Red Book format allows for interpolation between samples which is pretty much unnoticable between same-generation playbacks. However, using cheap CDDAs is more likely to cause interpolation to be used. So if you rip CDDA from a CD, then burn it to a CDR and rip it again, the two files may well not be identical (although this is becoming less likely as hardware performs more error correction).
It's all too easy to think of CDs as perfect copies -- after all, in the data world, they have to be. But I believe the Orange Book format (for CDR) performs extra error correction, or at least insists upon re-reads where errors are detected -- whereas the Red Book format (for normal CDDA) does not.
He chose to take lower pay in return for stock options. Those options vested at lower than their original value. Everything else: layoffs, re-pricing, etc., is a red herring. He chose to take a risk. He lost. Am I missing something?
You sure you don't use a MAC? Ethernet is very widespread these days!
IT'S Mac, NOT MAC, GODDAMMIT!
Current state of play:
Coming up:
You obviously didn't look through all your comments then! I found three in which you claimed not to own a truck. Keep searching.
But seriously, why not just name the trucks? It would settle the argument.
Don't feel I need to list them, because it's the most common configuration, and a simple search should find hundreds...
I have never seen a sentence more similar to "If I had a point, I could prove it in the work of a moment, but I don't" without using those actual words.
You know, you have admitted that you have never owned a truck three times in Slashdot comments. I could link to them, but I don't need to, because a simple search will find them. (NB if you can't find them, don't come running to me about your inability to perform even the simplest of searches).
Remember to tell me to remember that wise men talk because they have something to say: fools, because they have to say something.
Remember:
Such a shame you're so used to getting shafted you find the entire concept of an alternative hilarious. Remember:
LOL. I proved my point in the second post.
Your point being that you can't form a logical argument? Of course it is: the point of your style of trolling is that you are *never* right, yet you pretend you cannot understand that. That's the bait. But what's the reward from your perspective? Help me to understand you, and you may find that I can help you gain enough self-respect to enter into equal relationships with your peers.
Remember, though: debaters debate because they are able to win arguments; trolls troll because they are not.
Whichever of us posts the last word to this thread before it is archived, you and I, and anyone who ever reads it, will know that you had to resort to ignoring the question because you could not win the argument.
But of course, for you it's not about winning the argument, it's about keeping me posting. And you are prepared to take the role of my "bitch" in order to secure that. I find it all absolutely fascinating, and will continue to post just as long as you continue to provide me with fresh insight into the active-submissive psyche.
Given your unwillingness to address the question (as a result of your inability to form a rational argument), we were getting nowhere with Real and Apple, so I thought I'd try to address the problem at a lower level. Unfortunately your critical faculties don't seem to be up to introspection either.
Remember, wise men talk because they have something to say: fools, because they have to say something.
You seem to have missed the original poster's point completely. Your right to bear arms has been whittled away, too. In the days when that amendment was made, the arms you had the right to bear really meant something. The arms you can bear now are the equivalent of what a schoolboy's catapult was then.
Similarly, one day everyone will take it for granted that you cannot reproduce anything without the copyright holder's permission, and archaic laws about "fair use" will seem as irrelevant as a shotgun against the government.
Okay: I'm a man. Can I give birth to a child please?
Perhaps you should consider McDonalds. Yes, you need to eat, but do they really need to load their food products with fat and sugar, which are more addictive than nutritional?
This virtual girlfriend is not providing therapy, it's teaching him that spending money is the answer to relationship problems. Do you really think that this will help in the long run?
But then we're not living with the kind of guilt-masters Japanese women are.
Why, what kind of guilt-masters are Japanese women living with?
You, sir, are a genius. You put both L's into LOL.
Friend, I have some unfortunate news for you. Your use of the phrase "real relationship" is mistaken. Ironically, contrasting it with the "relationship" offered by a virtual girlfriend might aid you in determining what a real relationship really is.
You see: when you get married, you have to stop having sex with the woman you marry... but you don't get to stop spending money on her!
Can I have (+5, Funny) for explaining the joke too please?!
He didn't argue that? You sure?
Perfectly so, thanks. Once again: SHOW ME THE CLAIM. And please don't try the same boring tactic: you've already admitted I've won the argument.
So your "position" is based on your assertion of the supposed position of someone who couldn't defend it themselves. Hilarious.
No, my position is based on the clear position of someone who got bored with you. I obviously have too much spare time, plus I have a peculiar fascination with antisocial behaviour.
Once again, the irony is so thick you can cut it with a knife. Remember, wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something.
You don't have to quote that at me. It's in my sig for good reason. You and I both know what the irony is.
What I sometimes wonder is what drives you and others like you. I think you must imagine that whilst I keep replying, you are winning: after all, the art of trolling is all about getting bites, and the more on the same thread the better. Yet given that I am meta-trolling, I am winning for the very same reason in equal measure. So by what metric do you feel that your pursuit is worthwhile? Clearly you know not only that you cannot beat me in a logical debate but also that I know it, I know you know it, you know I know you know it, etc. Do you get some perverse sense of satisfaction from that? Am I just unwittingly playing the role of the Daddy in a bizzare masochistic flagellation exercise? I am truly fascinated.
It's always amusing to hear that from the likes of someone whose approach to discourse is to be purely contrary as an end in itself, regardless of whether or not they can logically defend their position.
My position is that you cannot say what proportion of Apple's iTMS revenue is clear profit, and that you are wrong to accude caddisfly of claiming that AllOfMP3 is losing money. Both points are clearly stated in the first reply I made to this thread and my position on them has not changed.
May I once again suggest you try cutting your claws in real logical rhetoric rather than in empty sophistry? Honestly, it'll keep your mind a lot sharper; you'll thank me in the end. It's like living a healthy lifestyle versus being a junk food couch potato -- sounds like hard work but becomes its own reward.
Wow! If I'd known it was as simple as just stating it, I would have won a long time ago ;)
I just won the argument. There!
You're really scraping the bottom of the barrel now. The beauty of meta-trolling is that everyone reading, troll included, knows you've won the argument. Of course the troll can't admit it, because that would lay bare his pursuit as a waste of time. Trolling is like taking candy from a baby. Meta-trolling is like re-integrating candy theives into society. The former probably seems quite fulfilling, until you've tried the latter. May I suggest an upgrade?
Given that Apple declared that they had made a profit on the iTMS, your claim that they are LYING OUT THEIR ASS [sic] becomes a statement that you don't think they did make a profit. So you can't even agree with yourself.
SHOW ME THE CLAIM
You've linked to a question about whether or not AllOfMP3 make a profit, not Apple. I've never seen such a poor attempt in my life. Even if it were about Apple, a question about how you would know if they make a profit, and a statement that they do not make a profit, are two very different things.
SHOW ME THE CLAIM. Show... me... the... claim...!
Here's one I made up just now, in honour of you:
Debaters debate because they are able to win arguments; trolls troll because they are not.
Put that in your sig and smoke it!