Or you could just register a non-country specific domain with a local registrar. I have a.net domain registered with an Irish company.
The language thing should be solved by correctly specified language attributes on webpages and smarter spiders but I wouldn't count on that happening soon.
I do get a little disturbed when I turn on the TV only to see the end credits and think "Damn! I missed Futurama!" Then I realize I have every episode available to watch whenever I like and I still think "but if I had seen that one, I could still watch any of the others now."
Definitely worth it. The commentaries are often as godd as if not better than the episodes themselves. I've watched every episode with and without commentary at least two or three times and I haven't given up yet.
I would think that any government department, in any government, would have little difficulty using up its whole budget. The Finance Minister does more than checking to see if last year's money was spent. Of course it was, it always is. And they don't need to spend it on tech to spend it.
The reason Opera and Mozilla want to create this quickly is so that developers don't get started with whatever Microsoft comes up with. If they start with a proprietary Microsft tecnology they won't switch to an open standard when it becomes available because Microsoft will have enough reason not to support the new standard ("Why support that? We have this; this is what everyone uses.") Then we have a whole new round of vendor lock-in. If Microsoft was unilaterally developing an open specification it would be different (though I'd prefer to see input from many organisation), but I can't see that happening any time this century.
I was able to gauge my progress through school and college based on the number of significant digits in g. "g is 10", "g is 9.8m/s", "g is 9.81ms^-1", "screw g; you want G!", "G? This is General Relativity!"
No problem with the plagiarism as long as he admitted it (and repented?), or no problem with the punishment since they have a confession? I hope you mean the latter.
Um, Troll? How is this a Troll? It's emotional, yes, but it's not misleading, flamebait or a flame. Swearing is not Trolling and the point of view is valid. Please someone mod this up at least a little to give this guy his karma back.
Slashdot has no collective morals beyond the most trivial. You will find people who applaud, cheer, flame, congratulate, adulate, despise, and ignore any of the activities you listed and more. There are more than three quarters of a million of us, we're bound to disagree on some things.
That bug has thankfully been fixed so will not be present in 0.9. This is the kind of bug to which the response is "sorry, still in beta; thanks, fixed now". It sucks that that kind of bug is there, but if they weren't it'd be called Firefox 1.0.
You say you use the word as a test, that people who object are likely to be people you don't want to hear from in general. I have a similar test. Anyone who engages in debate and refuses to make a single constructive point is a waste of time.
All of these are your opinion, and I disagree with each and every one of them. However, it's not worth debating them over, really.
You've posted nine comments with the title "Who's the retard?" Why is it that after a concise and clear description of the foundations of the opposing point you suddenly decide it's not worth arguing after all?
With regard to usage, you said yourself that you've never said the word and I have never seen it used outside of Slashdot. That isn't widespread. I don't object to the introduction of new words but this one has nothing of value to offer. It is less communicative than the one it replaces and less conforming to English conventions, so harder for people to learn. It has no worth, limited support, and is clearly founded on a misconception.
As long as meaning is conveyed between the people doing the communicating, which word you use is irrelevant.
no dowt you can figur aut what this sentance is ment to meen two but that doesnt meen its not ridled with tyops. It's irritating to have to translate someone's text into English before I can read it (more accurately as I read it). If you want to communicate you should make every reasonable effort to achieve correctness of language. If you want to argue the descriptive-vs-prescriptive nature of dictionaries then feel free to substitute the word 'consistency' for 'correctness'. That is consistency with others, not self-consistency. 'Virii' has nowhere near enough support to be considered a meaningful word.
I mainly use the word because it pisses off people who are anal about the word "virii".
Using a word to annoy people is not a pleasant behaviour whether or not you agree with them on this one issue.
I simply like the word better as it's more descriptive, IMO.
More descriptive? At best 'virii' carries the same meaning as 'viruses'. At worst it carries no meaning. 'Viruses' follows standard English rules of pluralisation - again, if you object to prescriptive language feel free to substitute the word 'conventions' for 'rules' - so that anyone who knows the word 'virus' can discern its meaning. 'Virii' follows no standard rule, not even the imaginary Latin rule that spawned it.
If I were to pronounce it, "vye-rye" sounds better to me.
Of course it does, because that version ('viri', not 'virii') at least sounds like it could be a real word like in the common Latin '-us' becomes '-i' rule (note that this isn't a general rule for Latin words; see elsewhere for where this perception comes from).
I do use the alternative. I also point out the use of 'virii' so that people who are unaware that it is not (yet) a generally accepted word can be made aware of that fact.
The difficulty in discerning native and non-native speakers is a big part in my general forgiveness of even the most glaring errors. However I do often take part in the anti-virii crusade for the very reason that it is generally not a mistake. That is people use the word deliberately. Whether or not the poster knows the word's state of acceptance is not really an issue if someone chooses to bring it to their attention. It becomes either an informative response or a critical one, depending on whether the poster made a mistake in copying the illiterate (as a non-native or uneducated person might) or whether they willfully used a badly concocted and unnecessary bastardisation of an existing word.
We could always respond to both. I tend to think it's rude to correct people's spelling and grammar but I sometimes make an exception when they display willful ignorance, as in 'virii'.
Repeat after me: Ad hominem is not a valid debating method.
Viruses looks and sounds [...] stupid.
'Viruses' looks and sounds like the huge majority of plural English nouns. Do you find them to be stupid too?
I use virii, because I like that word better.
I take this to mean that you don't think you use the word out of ignorance. In that case, how do you pronounce 'virii'? 'Vye-rye', or 'vye-ree-eye'? If the former, you are now also using a wildly inaccurate pronunciation. If the latter it should already be clear to you how horrible a word it is.
There's a difference between slang and wrong. If I think that a woman is very physically attractive it's okay to remark that she is "hot" without people responding that her body temperature is within normal bounds, but it's simply wrong to refer to her a "bewtiful" when I mean "beautiful". Similarly, for "viruses" feel free to come up with a slang term for them but don't try to tell anyone that "virii" is anything but ignorant (and pompous at that).
Now that's funny! Really I don't mean to offend, I also laugh at jokes at my own expense (not that that's an excuse, but at least it avoids hypocrisy). I have no reason to think you'll be going to Hell with us, but I hear it has all the best musicians so you might look into it as an option.
Slashdot Mirror
The language thing should be solved by correctly specified language attributes on webpages and smarter spiders but I wouldn't count on that happening soon.
I do get a little disturbed when I turn on the TV only to see the end credits and think "Damn! I missed Futurama!" Then I realize I have every episode available to watch whenever I like and I still think "but if I had seen that one, I could still watch any of the others now."
There are no earlier versions of Firefox.
Definitely worth it. The commentaries are often as godd as if not better than the episodes themselves. I've watched every episode with and without commentary at least two or three times and I haven't given up yet.
I would think that any government department, in any government, would have little difficulty using up its whole budget. The Finance Minister does more than checking to see if last year's money was spent. Of course it was, it always is. And they don't need to spend it on tech to spend it.
Surely if this chapter is A New Hope the next would be Microsoft Strikes Back and then The Return of Netscape 4? I don't think any of us want that.
The reason Opera and Mozilla want to create this quickly is so that developers don't get started with whatever Microsoft comes up with. If they start with a proprietary Microsft tecnology they won't switch to an open standard when it becomes available because Microsoft will have enough reason not to support the new standard ("Why support that? We have this; this is what everyone uses.") Then we have a whole new round of vendor lock-in. If Microsoft was unilaterally developing an open specification it would be different (though I'd prefer to see input from many organisation), but I can't see that happening any time this century.
Is there any way I can weasel out of this without looking stupid? No? Oh well, carry on with my ridicule, I've earned it.
I was able to gauge my progress through school and college based on the number of significant digits in g. "g is 10", "g is 9.8m/s", "g is 9.81ms^-1", "screw g; you want G!", "G? This is General Relativity!"
No problem with the plagiarism as long as he admitted it (and repented?), or no problem with the punishment since they have a confession? I hope you mean the latter.
Um, Troll? How is this a Troll? It's emotional, yes, but it's not misleading, flamebait or a flame. Swearing is not Trolling and the point of view is valid. Please someone mod this up at least a little to give this guy his karma back.
Slashdot has no collective morals beyond the most trivial. You will find people who applaud, cheer, flame, congratulate, adulate, despise, and ignore any of the activities you listed and more. There are more than three quarters of a million of us, we're bound to disagree on some things.
I read that as having Hamlet live (long 'i'), as in not prerecorded. I thought "WTF? It's a play, why wouldn't it be live?"
That site performs functions that wouldn't be possible under any other browser. Just think of IE as the Windows Update tool rather than as a browser.
That bug has thankfully been fixed so will not be present in 0.9. This is the kind of bug to which the response is "sorry, still in beta; thanks, fixed now". It sucks that that kind of bug is there, but if they weren't it'd be called Firefox 1.0.
You say you use the word as a test, that people who object are likely to be people you don't want to hear from in general. I have a similar test. Anyone who engages in debate and refuses to make a single constructive point is a waste of time.
You've posted nine comments with the title "Who's the retard?" Why is it that after a concise and clear description of the foundations of the opposing point you suddenly decide it's not worth arguing after all?
With regard to usage, you said yourself that you've never said the word and I have never seen it used outside of Slashdot. That isn't widespread. I don't object to the introduction of new words but this one has nothing of value to offer. It is less communicative than the one it replaces and less conforming to English conventions, so harder for people to learn. It has no worth, limited support, and is clearly founded on a misconception.
no dowt you can figur aut what this sentance is ment to meen two but that doesnt meen its not ridled with tyops. It's irritating to have to translate someone's text into English before I can read it (more accurately as I read it). If you want to communicate you should make every reasonable effort to achieve correctness of language. If you want to argue the descriptive-vs-prescriptive nature of dictionaries then feel free to substitute the word 'consistency' for 'correctness'. That is consistency with others, not self-consistency. 'Virii' has nowhere near enough support to be considered a meaningful word.
Using a word to annoy people is not a pleasant behaviour whether or not you agree with them on this one issue.
More descriptive? At best 'virii' carries the same meaning as 'viruses'. At worst it carries no meaning. 'Viruses' follows standard English rules of pluralisation - again, if you object to prescriptive language feel free to substitute the word 'conventions' for 'rules' - so that anyone who knows the word 'virus' can discern its meaning. 'Virii' follows no standard rule, not even the imaginary Latin rule that spawned it.
Of course it does, because that version ('viri', not 'virii') at least sounds like it could be a real word like in the common Latin '-us' becomes '-i' rule (note that this isn't a general rule for Latin words; see elsewhere for where this perception comes from).
I do use the alternative. I also point out the use of 'virii' so that people who are unaware that it is not (yet) a generally accepted word can be made aware of that fact.
The difficulty in discerning native and non-native speakers is a big part in my general forgiveness of even the most glaring errors. However I do often take part in the anti-virii crusade for the very reason that it is generally not a mistake. That is people use the word deliberately. Whether or not the poster knows the word's state of acceptance is not really an issue if someone chooses to bring it to their attention. It becomes either an informative response or a critical one, depending on whether the poster made a mistake in copying the illiterate (as a non-native or uneducated person might) or whether they willfully used a badly concocted and unnecessary bastardisation of an existing word.
That would go well with my proposed "-1, illiterate" catagory.
We could always respond to both. I tend to think it's rude to correct people's spelling and grammar but I sometimes make an exception when they display willful ignorance, as in 'virii'.
Repeat after me: Ad hominem is not a valid debating method.
'Viruses' looks and sounds like the huge majority of plural English nouns. Do you find them to be stupid too?
I take this to mean that you don't think you use the word out of ignorance. In that case, how do you pronounce 'virii'? 'Vye-rye', or 'vye-ree-eye'? If the former, you are now also using a wildly inaccurate pronunciation. If the latter it should already be clear to you how horrible a word it is.
There's a difference between slang and wrong. If I think that a woman is very physically attractive it's okay to remark that she is "hot" without people responding that her body temperature is within normal bounds, but it's simply wrong to refer to her a "bewtiful" when I mean "beautiful". Similarly, for "viruses" feel free to come up with a slang term for them but don't try to tell anyone that "virii" is anything but ignorant (and pompous at that).
Now that's funny! Really I don't mean to offend, I also laugh at jokes at my own expense (not that that's an excuse, but at least it avoids hypocrisy). I have no reason to think you'll be going to Hell with us, but I hear it has all the best musicians so you might look into it as an option.