"When two things you support conflict and you support the one with a higher priority, that's flip-flopping. When I sign a bill allowing destitute brain dead people to be terminated, but a few years later organize a national hypocrites convention to attack the hell out of a non-poor person doing the same thing, that's just being a servant of God. Cause God wants poor people to die."
People who can't use the term "flip-flop" correctly should be flogged any time they use it. It's a really simple term.
Before conviction, you use "allegedly" to protect yourself from claims of slander or libel. After conviction, you are allowed to say he is guilty because the courts have "proven" it.
It has NOTHING to do with respect. What a silly notion.
You sure do know how to fuck up simple communication. Maybe that's an apropriate name, after all.
"Allegedly is not appropriate. That word is not used to denote that someone has been accused of a crime but not convicted. There is a widespread acceptance of its usage in that context."
So the word that is inappropriate because it is NOT used that way is accepted to be used in that way? I'm pretty sure that you meant to type something different (because hopefully you aren't trying to shoot yourself in the foot).
But the fact is that you typed something retarded when wrongfully trying to correct someone else, and being an utter ass about it. Way to go! That's a double bogey.
By the way, one perfectly acceptable definition of "alleged" is "Questionably true or asserted to be true."
And since courts of law are fallible, there may often remain questions as to the veracity of their proof of guilt. Therefore, Mr. F. Dickhead, his usage was apropos.
And in your zeal to defend your profession...
on
Nanotech Gone Awry?
·
· Score: 0
You completely missed the idea of the question. The "nanotech" of our fancy is tiny computers, preferably self-replicating and/or interoperating with other nanotech devices, being capable of DOING things.
This is just being nano-particles whose natural properties are being exploited, but not being programmed to do things deliberately.
Thinking the question hyperbole is missing the point.
you have to cite BOTH numbers in order to make a guess at efficiency. But it still lacks surety, as there are other factors involved as well, such as how much they pay.
Oh, sorry, it was you. So when you posted that, you failed to explain even the tiniest hint about why "non-trivial" is a bad word. Just asserting that it's bad does not equal proving it.
Based on your logic (that non-trivial is stupid simply because important is a similar word), explain why we have "trivial" and "unimportant" and which of those two you declare to be obviously retarded.
While you're at it, go ahead and explain the pruning of these terms, too: bootless, bush-league, diddly, dinky, dispensable, disposable, entry level, exiguous, expendable, extraneous, foolish, frivolous, immaterial, inappreciable, inconsequent, inconsequential, inconsiderable, ineffective, ineffectual, inessential, insignificant, insufficient, irrelative, irrelevant, lesser, lightweight, little, low-ranking, meager, meaningless, measly, Mickey Mouse, minim, minimal, minor, minor-league, minuscule, minute, needless, negligible, niggling, nonessential, nonserious, not germane, nothing, nugatory, otiose, paltry, peripheral, petty, picayune, piddling, pointless, profitless, puny, purportless, secondary, senseless, shallow, silly, slight, small, small potatoes, small-fry, small-time, superficial, superfluous, trifling, two bit, unnecessary, unneeded, unproductive, unprofitable, unprofound, unsubstantial, useless, vain, valueless, and worthless.
It's called "Don't vote Republican". Sadly, what with the stupidity of almost half the voters and the voting fraud that tipped the balance, my efforts were in vain.
I bought all of his books while living in Japan 15 years ago. I learned a few English words, despite that being my native language. He is bloody awesome.
but it's clear that hearts are not necessary for that group. Hell, Cheney has been rejecting his own for years now and still keeps on vigorously sucking money out of taxpayers' wallets.
I suspect the breathing they do is just for show. Little known fact: George really did choke to death on that pretzel a few years ago, but since he didn't need to breathe, no harm done.
The people who wrote that thought long and hard about it, based it on thousands of years of precedent, and definitely considered the possibility that they might be wrong, which is why they made it amendable.
The people who follow it, on the other hand, don't seem to exist that much today.
"Well, of course not...there are laws requiring it."
Which says what, exactly? Is it illegal, or is it illegal to do so without meeting certain arbitrary restrictions unConstitutionally imposed for no good reason (i.e., NOT free speech)?
I'm pretty sure you can understand the difference there.
"I wasn't saying that they have a protected right to throw trash in my yard."
Really? Then did somebody hijack your account earlier and post the following?
"I guess these people just go through neighborhoods and litter crap like this...but its still protected as free speach."
Nevermind, we'll pretend you didn't imply they have the right to harrass people with their publications.
The point is, the current US administration is all about quashing free speech any time it works against their interests. If you haven't been paying attention to THAT, you are part of the problem.
Blindly parroting the "it's a free country" redneck patriot line isn't going to score you any points in debate class. Think about what speech is actually free in the US. Don't rely on the Constitution to back you up, since the people who can put you in jail don't have to worry about it being enforced against them.
attention lately. No, you cannot post anything you like in America.
Go ahead and post pictures of naked adult people having sex and don't keep personal records on the people in the pictures. See how well that goes over.
People throwing hate speech newspapers into your yard without your permission violates laws on different levels. Harrassment, littering, etc. Just because you and/or the police haven't done anything about it doesn't mean it's legal.
Sure, they can print it. But they don't have the right to force it onto private property. Nor to litter.
Dan, please think about this kind of crap a little bit more. Tolerance of difference is a great thing, but tolerance of violence is a bad thing. You are doing a bad thing.
Beg is one of those intransitive transitive verbs, like ask. Do you beg money? Sure, I begged 5 bucks from a guy. Do you beg people? Sure, I begged him for 5 bucks.
What's missing is an understood preposition. Otherwise, the exact same action is being done to two entirely different direct objects, which really blows the mind.
With begging a question there is also a pretty big omission that is nevertheless understood: "to be asked".
English is a changing language. Whereas programming expects one and only one definition for a particular word, English expects 1 or more, with others to be added later. And deprecation may or may not stick.
While the debate club is the only place where the formal definition of "beg the question" will ever be used unpretentiously, the commonly understood meaning can be used any time "raises a question" needs a little bit more urgency.
So Bush backing known terrorist sympathizers in taking control of US ports may raise a few questions. But Angelina Jolie birthing Brad Pitt's baby just begs the question of whether she will continue to do nude scenes. We have to know!
Your attitude seems unnecessarily hostile to that other person. They were IGNORANT, not necessarily unreasoning. (If they were, then your comment doesn't indicate such.)
You have to maintain a positive attitude if you wish to encourage those positive changes. Good luck with that.
Apparently it hasn't occurred to you that the Bush Regime IS a terrorist organization. They gain and retain power by terrorizing their constituency. Unlike most terrorist organizations, however, they don't have the lofty goals of driving out some oppressor. They are merely in it for the money, of which there seems to be a neverending supply (what with all the social programs being gutted).
Someone who kisses the ring of government and sees Big Brother as a blessing simply enables those terrorists. They also work actively to prevent sane, freedom loving people from disabling the terrorists.
So, no, I don't think anyone in their right mind would confuse me with Der Bush. And that term was specifically chosen for this situation. I don't have a generic term for "anyone that I disagree with", because at one point or another that includes everyone. Even myself.
I've seen people who were entirely new to computers, several hundred by now, who were quickly able to do simple tasks in all the various flavors of Windows.
The significance of me knowing Windows was more in that I should be able to apply that knowledge to learning Linux. But the help files are less than helpful, the information online is disorganized by comparison, and installing new programs is a PITA of epic proportions.
Despite what the anonymous coward below said (Bill loves ya, babe), I am pretty good at learning new things, especially when they are similar to things I already know. Linux GUIs are similar to Windows (for obvious reasons), and I am expecting them to work in a similar fashion. Aside from handling accelerator keys differently and a few other annoyances, they mostly do.
Young farts like you (I can't believe you left edlin and Wordstar off that list, though "copy con>" would have been a bit much) have grown up using both. Slightly less young farts like myself have not. Though why age should even be a factor is beyond my comprehension, as there are plenty of people my age and older who have used *nix and Windows platforms equally.
I have mostly been isolated from that side of things until recently, and I am curious to see if Linux is worth switching to full time. The zealots who talk down to me, besides being social idiots, are also hurting the cause of Linux.
That big chunk of people you mentioned can't tell IE from OS, and not just because Microsoft wants it that way. Many people still think the monitor is their computer. From our perspective, they seem really dumb.
But they can learn to use Windows without anyone standing there helping them.
And most of them cannot do that with Linux. Linux is improving, but it's not there yet. I would like it to get there, but the alienating zealots not only interfere with that process, they also actively discourage people from wanting to look into it at all.
Sometimes I think Bill's crew makes those outrageous OSS==terrorism claims simply to rile up the zealots so they will fling poo and discredit Linux by association.
is assuming for no good reason that the Distinguished Gentleman from Utah, Mr. Buttars, had any intention of opening a debate. He is one of the religious fundies who merely wants to get the American Theocracy in place as quickly as possible.
To the odious folks like him, there is no "debating" such an obvious issue. There is only taking the clear-cut right side or disagreeing with him and going, in due time, straight to hell.
He probably knows from experience that debates will occur, but they are merely what he considers a necessary evil due to the large presence of evil people in places they shouldn't be (like government, the private sector, and generally anywhere on Earth). But it is his fondest desire that in some glorious future day that nobody even thinks to question his wisdom, let alone dares to actually oppose him.
The impact of debates in Congress depends on which POV wins. After all, the legalization of blacks' and women's rights to vote were just such issues once, and they turned out pretty well, IMO.
Slashdot Mirror
Not a common thing, but when it happens... Pixpls.
Based on his sense of humor, you'd probably better invest in a bigger brain.
Which is to say:
"When two things you support conflict and you support the one with a higher priority, that's flip-flopping. When I sign a bill allowing destitute brain dead people to be terminated, but a few years later organize a national hypocrites convention to attack the hell out of a non-poor person doing the same thing, that's just being a servant of God. Cause God wants poor people to die."
People who can't use the term "flip-flop" correctly should be flogged any time they use it. It's a really simple term.
The rest of that list was redundant.
Before conviction, you use "allegedly" to protect yourself from claims of slander or libel. After conviction, you are allowed to say he is guilty because the courts have "proven" it.
It has NOTHING to do with respect. What a silly notion.
You sure do know how to fuck up simple communication. Maybe that's an apropriate name, after all.
"Allegedly is not appropriate. That word is not used to denote that someone has been accused of a crime but not convicted. There is a widespread acceptance of its usage in that context."
So the word that is inappropriate because it is NOT used that way is accepted to be used in that way? I'm pretty sure that you meant to type something different (because hopefully you aren't trying to shoot yourself in the foot).
But the fact is that you typed something retarded when wrongfully trying to correct someone else, and being an utter ass about it. Way to go! That's a double bogey.
By the way, one perfectly acceptable definition of "alleged" is "Questionably true or asserted to be true."
And since courts of law are fallible, there may often remain questions as to the veracity of their proof of guilt. Therefore, Mr. F. Dickhead, his usage was apropos.
They're waffer thin.
You completely missed the idea of the question. The "nanotech" of our fancy is tiny computers, preferably self-replicating and/or interoperating with other nanotech devices, being capable of DOING things.
This is just being nano-particles whose natural properties are being exploited, but not being programmed to do things deliberately.
Thinking the question hyperbole is missing the point.
you have to cite BOTH numbers in order to make a guess at efficiency. But it still lacks surety, as there are other factors involved as well, such as how much they pay.
Oh, sorry, it was you. So when you posted that, you failed to explain even the tiniest hint about why "non-trivial" is a bad word. Just asserting that it's bad does not equal proving it.
Based on your logic (that non-trivial is stupid simply because important is a similar word), explain why we have "trivial" and "unimportant" and which of those two you declare to be obviously retarded.
While you're at it, go ahead and explain the pruning of these terms, too:
bootless, bush-league, diddly, dinky, dispensable, disposable, entry level, exiguous, expendable, extraneous, foolish, frivolous, immaterial, inappreciable, inconsequent, inconsequential, inconsiderable, ineffective, ineffectual, inessential, insignificant, insufficient, irrelative, irrelevant, lesser, lightweight, little, low-ranking, meager, meaningless, measly, Mickey Mouse, minim, minimal, minor, minor-league, minuscule, minute, needless, negligible, niggling, nonessential, nonserious, not germane, nothing, nugatory, otiose, paltry, peripheral, petty, picayune, piddling, pointless, profitless, puny, purportless, secondary, senseless, shallow, silly, slight, small, small potatoes, small-fry, small-time, superficial, superfluous, trifling, two bit, unnecessary, unneeded, unproductive, unprofitable, unprofound, unsubstantial, useless, vain, valueless, and worthless.
It's called "Don't vote Republican". Sadly, what with the stupidity of almost half the voters and the voting fraud that tipped the balance, my efforts were in vain.
Because he IS a pederast. I got the pictures right here from Freenet...
I bought all of his books while living in Japan 15 years ago. I learned a few English words, despite that being my native language. He is bloody awesome.
Or were you just making it sound that way for the sake of those few who don't understand that it's already happening?
I can't believe some idiots actually thought that was serious.
Well, after the first couple of lines, of course, Before that, it sounded like a typical neo-con diatribe.
but it's clear that hearts are not necessary for that group. Hell, Cheney has been rejecting his own for years now and still keeps on vigorously sucking money out of taxpayers' wallets.
I suspect the breathing they do is just for show. Little known fact: George really did choke to death on that pretzel a few years ago, but since he didn't need to breathe, no harm done.
What democracy? Is China a democracy now?
For that matter, the US is only a democratic (as in, not a real democracy, but plays one on TV) republic.
But Google isn't censoring a democracy. They are working inside a dictatorship.
Dammit, now I don't know which country I am describing again.
The people who wrote that thought long and hard about it, based it on thousands of years of precedent, and definitely considered the possibility that they might be wrong, which is why they made it amendable.
The people who follow it, on the other hand, don't seem to exist that much today.
So you failed on both charges. HTH
"Well, of course not...there are laws requiring it." Which says what, exactly? Is it illegal, or is it illegal to do so without meeting certain arbitrary restrictions unConstitutionally imposed for no good reason (i.e., NOT free speech)? I'm pretty sure you can understand the difference there. "I wasn't saying that they have a protected right to throw trash in my yard." Really? Then did somebody hijack your account earlier and post the following? "I guess these people just go through neighborhoods and litter crap like this...but its still protected as free speach." Nevermind, we'll pretend you didn't imply they have the right to harrass people with their publications. The point is, the current US administration is all about quashing free speech any time it works against their interests. If you haven't been paying attention to THAT, you are part of the problem. Blindly parroting the "it's a free country" redneck patriot line isn't going to score you any points in debate class. Think about what speech is actually free in the US. Don't rely on the Constitution to back you up, since the people who can put you in jail don't have to worry about it being enforced against them.
attention lately. No, you cannot post anything you like in America.
Go ahead and post pictures of naked adult people having sex and don't keep personal records on the people in the pictures. See how well that goes over.
People throwing hate speech newspapers into your yard without your permission violates laws on different levels. Harrassment, littering, etc. Just because you and/or the police haven't done anything about it doesn't mean it's legal.
Sure, they can print it. But they don't have the right to force it onto private property. Nor to litter.
Dan, please think about this kind of crap a little bit more. Tolerance of difference is a great thing, but tolerance of violence is a bad thing. You are doing a bad thing.
Beg is one of those intransitive transitive verbs, like ask. Do you beg money? Sure, I begged 5 bucks from a guy. Do you beg people? Sure, I begged him for 5 bucks.
What's missing is an understood preposition. Otherwise, the exact same action is being done to two entirely different direct objects, which really blows the mind.
With begging a question there is also a pretty big omission that is nevertheless understood: "to be asked".
English is a changing language. Whereas programming expects one and only one definition for a particular word, English expects 1 or more, with others to be added later. And deprecation may or may not stick.
While the debate club is the only place where the formal definition of "beg the question" will ever be used unpretentiously, the commonly understood meaning can be used any time "raises a question" needs a little bit more urgency.
So Bush backing known terrorist sympathizers in taking control of US ports may raise a few questions. But Angelina Jolie birthing Brad Pitt's baby just begs the question of whether she will continue to do nude scenes. We have to know!
Your attitude seems unnecessarily hostile to that other person. They were IGNORANT, not necessarily unreasoning. (If they were, then your comment doesn't indicate such.)
You have to maintain a positive attitude if you wish to encourage those positive changes. Good luck with that.
Apparently it hasn't occurred to you that the Bush Regime IS a terrorist organization. They gain and retain power by terrorizing their constituency. Unlike most terrorist organizations, however, they don't have the lofty goals of driving out some oppressor. They are merely in it for the money, of which there seems to be a neverending supply (what with all the social programs being gutted).
Someone who kisses the ring of government and sees Big Brother as a blessing simply enables those terrorists. They also work actively to prevent sane, freedom loving people from disabling the terrorists.
So, no, I don't think anyone in their right mind would confuse me with Der Bush. And that term was specifically chosen for this situation. I don't have a generic term for "anyone that I disagree with", because at one point or another that includes everyone. Even myself.
I've seen people who were entirely new to computers, several hundred by now, who were quickly able to do simple tasks in all the various flavors of Windows.
The significance of me knowing Windows was more in that I should be able to apply that knowledge to learning Linux. But the help files are less than helpful, the information online is disorganized by comparison, and installing new programs is a PITA of epic proportions.
Despite what the anonymous coward below said (Bill loves ya, babe), I am pretty good at learning new things, especially when they are similar to things I already know. Linux GUIs are similar to Windows (for obvious reasons), and I am expecting them to work in a similar fashion. Aside from handling accelerator keys differently and a few other annoyances, they mostly do.
Young farts like you (I can't believe you left edlin and Wordstar off that list, though "copy con>" would have been a bit much) have grown up using both. Slightly less young farts like myself have not. Though why age should even be a factor is beyond my comprehension, as there are plenty of people my age and older who have used *nix and Windows platforms equally.
I have mostly been isolated from that side of things until recently, and I am curious to see if Linux is worth switching to full time. The zealots who talk down to me, besides being social idiots, are also hurting the cause of Linux.
That big chunk of people you mentioned can't tell IE from OS, and not just because Microsoft wants it that way. Many people still think the monitor is their computer. From our perspective, they seem really dumb.
But they can learn to use Windows without anyone standing there helping them.
And most of them cannot do that with Linux. Linux is improving, but it's not there yet. I would like it to get there, but the alienating zealots not only interfere with that process, they also actively discourage people from wanting to look into it at all.
Sometimes I think Bill's crew makes those outrageous OSS==terrorism claims simply to rile up the zealots so they will fling poo and discredit Linux by association.
is assuming for no good reason that the Distinguished Gentleman from Utah, Mr. Buttars, had any intention of opening a debate. He is one of the religious fundies who merely wants to get the American Theocracy in place as quickly as possible.
To the odious folks like him, there is no "debating" such an obvious issue. There is only taking the clear-cut right side or disagreeing with him and going, in due time, straight to hell.
He probably knows from experience that debates will occur, but they are merely what he considers a necessary evil due to the large presence of evil people in places they shouldn't be (like government, the private sector, and generally anywhere on Earth). But it is his fondest desire that in some glorious future day that nobody even thinks to question his wisdom, let alone dares to actually oppose him.
The impact of debates in Congress depends on which POV wins. After all, the legalization of blacks' and women's rights to vote were just such issues once, and they turned out pretty well, IMO.