Oh, were there grammatical errors as well? I'm afraid I didn't even notice, what with you abusing words right and left. Allow me to suggest that you learn basic English usage before you concern yourself with rules of grammar.
Dramatic or tragic irony is a dramaturgical and literary device. Unless you're claiming that the scene in question was somehow intentionally scripted, the definition you cite has no relevance.
The relevant definition is, "an outcome of events contrary to what was, or might have been, expected," which I think anyone familiar with Scientology will agree is hardly the case here.
"It's all right, you can swear on the Internet; your mum probably isn't going to read it. I know because she's too busy being FUCKED, by me." --Yahtzee Croshaw
If by "just fine" and "quite healthy", you mean, "not obviously sick or dying," then yeah, sure. Most people with that diet are still observably slower and more sluggish, dying or not.
Seriously, visit the Midwest some time.
Also a lolcat, apparently. I like that.
Lolcat is a quintessentially American dialect, no?
Wait, are you suggesting that a North American diet doesn't make North Americans slow and sluggish? Because, as someone who lives surrounded by the fuckers (I are American), I beg to differ.
There is a difference in many (most?) text-based browsers (e.g., lynx/links) between setting alt = "" and omitting the alt attribute entirely.
Setting the attribute to a null string results in the null being "displayed", effectively removing the element from the rendered page. Failing to set it, by contrast, causes the browser to supply its own alt text for the image (lynx uses the image filename).
The result of the latter is that the page becomes littered with irrelevant text everywhere an image with no alt attribute appears. This is annoying, at best, to sighted users, and could potentially render the page completely unintelligible to anyone relying on a screen reader.
So the ability to grow a beard in the first place is a prerequisite to success in creating a programming language? I'm sure Smalltalk co-creator Adele Goldberg, among others, would have something to say about that premise.
You really need to re-read the summary more carefully: nobody said anything about "keeping the second condition".
The entire premise of the summary is that
a) like it or not, genetic testing for many medical conditions will be a reality,
b) without anti-discrimination laws, private insurance companies will use these predictive tests to disqualify applicants who would otherwise have qualified for coverage, unbalancing the private insurance system in favor of insurers, and
c) if prevented from discriminating, insurance companies will be taken advantage of by individuals who "stock up" on insurance knowing that they will be cashing it in, thus unbalancing the system in favor of consumers — and ultimately breaking it, since insurance plans can only pay out so long as the majority of those insured will never require them.
Way to (conveniently) ignore the first and crucial clause of my claim: invalidating the GPL would be a serious setback to the OSS movement, but given the existence of other open source licenses, many of which are not derived from GPL, it would not be tantamount to forbidding open-source development. Which, you may recall, is what we were discussing in the first place, not whether Microsoft is generally hostile toward OSS (any idiot could tell you that without reference to SCO's legal escapades). The GP's comment, while accurate in itself, fails to in any way demonstrate the validity of the GGP's (still poor) analogy.
(As to the second, even if you wished, for the sake of argument, to imagine that MS's attempts to sow FUD vis a vis the GPL through SCO had been largely successful, it still wouldn't be equivalent to MS telling you that you can't use the GPL -- you'd just have a hard(er) time enforcing the license in court. That's a semantic quibble, though, relative to the main thrust of my argument.)
The GPL is an open source license; one among many. The GPL is not synonymous with open source software. Even if it were, arguing against the validity of the license in court is several steps removed from telling you that you can't use it, let alone that you can't produce free/open-source software. You fail as badly at logic as the GP does at analogy.
Billy-boy's bizarrely-postulated objections to open source notwithstanding, when did Microsoft ever tell you that you CAN'T produce open-source software?
You claimed that, "Dems just argue that signing statements and torture should only take place for their causes." I asked you to provide a citation for your assertion. You promptly attempted to change the subject by asking me to provide a citation on a point that I didn't argue one way or the other.
You still haven't verified your claim. Can we take this as an admission that you're full of shit?
Slashdot Mirror
Jesus, are you still blustering on about this? You're definitively wrong, dude; face facts and get over it. I'm sure everyone else has.
If you really, really need to believe that you're right, that's fine, just...please, shut the fuck up about it.
Grammar Naz—?!
Oh, were there grammatical errors as well? I'm afraid I didn't even notice, what with you abusing words right and left. Allow me to suggest that you learn basic English usage before you concern yourself with rules of grammar.
"Laud" its "pratfalls"? What, praise its physical comedy?
Maybe you meant, "decry [its] pitfalls."
Well...maybe that's the word they use for yours...
Dramatic or tragic irony is a dramaturgical and literary device. Unless you're claiming that the scene in question was somehow intentionally scripted, the definition you cite has no relevance.
The relevant definition is, "an outcome of events contrary to what was, or might have been, expected," which I think anyone familiar with Scientology will agree is hardly the case here.
"It's all right, you can swear on the Internet; your mum probably isn't going to read it. I know because she's too busy being FUCKED, by me." --Yahtzee Croshaw
"-1, Troll"? Seriously? You fat fucks need to lighten up, and I don't just mean dietarily.
Seriously, visit the Midwest some time.
Lolcat is a quintessentially American dialect, no?
Wait, are you suggesting that a North American diet doesn't make North Americans slow and sluggish? Because, as someone who lives surrounded by the fuckers (I are American), I beg to differ.
Have you ever been to a North American mall?
Welcome to the grown-up Internet. You can swear here.
Heh. Lest you get troll-modded into oblivion by people who missed the reference, here's a link to the Zero Punctuation review of GH3:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/editorials/zeropunctuation/2716-Zero-Punctuation-Guitar-Hero-III
I'd trust the average five year-old over the average corporation any day.
At least most five year-olds aren't actively trying to fuck you over.
Good luck getting acceptable wireless signal through concrete.
My work here is done.
There is a difference in many (most?) text-based browsers (e.g., lynx/links) between setting alt = "" and omitting the alt attribute entirely.
Setting the attribute to a null string results in the null being "displayed", effectively removing the element from the rendered page. Failing to set it, by contrast, causes the browser to supply its own alt text for the image (lynx uses the image filename).
The result of the latter is that the page becomes littered with irrelevant text everywhere an image with no alt attribute appears. This is annoying, at best, to sighted users, and could potentially render the page completely unintelligible to anyone relying on a screen reader.
So the ability to grow a beard in the first place is a prerequisite to success in creating a programming language? I'm sure Smalltalk co-creator Adele Goldberg, among others, would have something to say about that premise.
You really need to re-read the summary more carefully: nobody said anything about "keeping the second condition".
The entire premise of the summary is that
a) like it or not, genetic testing for many medical conditions will be a reality,
b) without anti-discrimination laws, private insurance companies will use these predictive tests to disqualify applicants who would otherwise have qualified for coverage, unbalancing the private insurance system in favor of insurers, and
c) if prevented from discriminating, insurance companies will be taken advantage of by individuals who "stock up" on insurance knowing that they will be cashing it in, thus unbalancing the system in favor of consumers — and ultimately breaking it, since insurance plans can only pay out so long as the majority of those insured will never require them.
Way to (conveniently) ignore the first and crucial clause of my claim: invalidating the GPL would be a serious setback to the OSS movement, but given the existence of other open source licenses, many of which are not derived from GPL, it would not be tantamount to forbidding open-source development. Which, you may recall, is what we were discussing in the first place, not whether Microsoft is generally hostile toward OSS (any idiot could tell you that without reference to SCO's legal escapades). The GP's comment, while accurate in itself, fails to in any way demonstrate the validity of the GGP's (still poor) analogy.
(As to the second, even if you wished, for the sake of argument, to imagine that MS's attempts to sow FUD vis a vis the GPL through SCO had been largely successful, it still wouldn't be equivalent to MS telling you that you can't use the GPL -- you'd just have a hard(er) time enforcing the license in court. That's a semantic quibble, though, relative to the main thrust of my argument.)
The GPL is an open source license; one among many. The GPL is not synonymous with open source software. Even if it were, arguing against the validity of the license in court is several steps removed from telling you that you can't use it, let alone that you can't produce free/open-source software. You fail as badly at logic as the GP does at analogy.
Billy-boy's bizarrely-postulated objections to open source notwithstanding, when did Microsoft ever tell you that you CAN'T produce open-source software?
You fail at analogies.
Your objection is fundamentally incorrect.
So that's a yes.
You claimed that, "Dems just argue that signing statements and torture should only take place for their causes." I asked you to provide a citation for your assertion. You promptly attempted to change the subject by asking me to provide a citation on a point that I didn't argue one way or the other.
You still haven't verified your claim. Can we take this as an admission that you're full of shit?