Sure, but you didn't traverse the chain. It's a recursive problem. What happened before the big bang? Who created God/god/gods/Gods?
Why did his boss want him to install it? Why did the company who contracted them want them and, by proxy, his boss to have him install it? And why did the government who funded that company want them to compete for a contract with leading corporations to have them, and, by proxy, his boss to install it?
Assuming you're speaking the truth, the more pertinent question is, then: Why do you have this culture?
I am pretty sure we don't have this in the United States.
You're introducing more legislature to combat a problem that is probably a result of legislature.
'Cultural' problems don't just come out of the blue. I am more than willing to bet that these kids act up the way they do because of something that is very wrong with your country already.
I really don't understand why more people aren't capable of rationalizing the logic behind systems of true or truer freedom.
What makes you so damn confident that people are ruthless, insanely violent beings hellbent on killing anyone and everything in their sight, looting and pillaging every store known to man, and defacing or destroying property when there aren't strict laws in place to tell them not to?
actually, it's like holding a tractor which functions as an umbrella over your head, but, one day, you're at a tractor factory and you are confused about which tractor belongs to you. having picked up the wrong tractor, the umbrella functionality is no longer functioning-ality, and you get wet (assuming rain is falling at this time).
it also requires a pretty light tractor.
I don't understand why anyone would assume that an 'Entry Level PC Tech' (or whatever) would have no qualifications or abilities. It is very demeaning to me--an all around computer expert, by any means, who has been working with computers on an advanced level, at home, since age ten or eleven, and, with computers in general, since age four or five.
Where are these guys supposed to go? You have to start somewhere. Just because I don't have any silly certifications or an "education" does not mean I do not know what I am doing. It does mean I don't have any experience in a work setting, but that isn't necessarily saying much.
If someone like that needs money to support their family, then they don't have time or the luxury to get Microsoft, ComPTIA, Cisco, or Red Hat certified, and I'm sure they probably don't appreciate being talked down to in an interview.
Computers are really, really, really simple. It's not like you actually have to know _anything_ unless you're designing, creating, or programming the actual hardware.
For some reason, computers are seen as some sort of a magical box, even to those who should know better. Almost any retard can 'learn the computer' given a couple hours of assisted or unassisted (if they're persistent and don't 'fear' the computer) exploration.
A basic understanding of UNIX/Linux, networking, and programming could be had in a matter of a couple of weeks.
It's not rocket science, guys. Why do you have to be so insulting to prospective employees? Not all of them grew up in a rich family, and not all of them were weened off of socializing and the educational (scholastic) expectations that come with it.
why would an attack from a single host look like a distributed denial of service attack?
and, more importantly, why the hell would you use an "upstream DNS provider," unless your ISP transparently proxied everything 53/udp outbound to its local server?
I certainly don't eat it every day - most days, I deep fry my chicken or beef roasting flank my own way. (Note that I also chain smoke, drink six to twelve 355mL bottles of beer a day and bike *eight miles each way* to work except when the weather is crappy - I'm thin, svelte, and my cholesterol is good... but I must be some sort of heretofore unknown medical time bomb.)
uhh.. so what the hell are you saying? people should smoke cigarettes, drink beer, and eat disgusting fried foods if they want to?
okay, sure, but, just so you know, one exception doesn't make the rule. I'm not saying what you do is somehow 'unhealthy,' though it sure is fucking disgusting.
however, I find it odd that you assume you're healthy when I make the assumption that your knowledge of proper 'health' practices is low.
for instance, you may have a 'good cholesterol' (whatever that even means; I think maybe you watch too much TV to have come to the conclusion that "cholesterol" level is some sort of testament to bodily health), and you may be skinny as an anorexic cheerleader.
more importantly, though, do you have an overly active metabolism? there are plenty of people who do, and there are plenty of people who have a slow metabolism; people come with different characteristics -- strange, I know.
I don't pretend to know anything about it, but isn't it somewhat common knowledge (and maybe it's misinformation -- again, I don't know) that smoking cigarettes will cause 'weight loss?'
the more relevant thing to look at when it comes to physical fitness is body fat percentage, and not just body weight.
I'm also wondering whether you've taken into account anything other than what's puppeted daily on television and the common attitude toward what constitutes physical fitness.
physical fitness certainly doesn't constitute [good] health, and cholesterol level certainly doesn't, either.
what is your resting heart rate? blood pressure? do you have chronic pain? any diseae, illness, or other affliction? are you more prone to permanent injury than others? do you heal more slowly than others? is your immune system working properly? what are your enzyme levels? your hormone levels? do you lose muscle mass more rapidly than others? will you when you age?
I'm not trying to answer these questions for you; I don't know the answers to them, and I don't think anyone can predict what will happen to someone in the future based upon their activities -- that is a copout. I am just wondering whether you're actually as healthy as you seem to assume yourself to be. many people don't really understand the many things that health encompasses. I'm not sure it necessarily pays to be so cynical, though. we accept many things science tells us as truth, because it benefits us to do so. it may also benefit us to be more accepting to what the medical field tells us about nutrition, exercise, and health, no matter how much we don't want to hear it. personally, I would refrain from KFC, fried foods, alcohol, and cigarettes -- if not for health, then just because they're completely nasty.
your mileage may vary.
I don't know why people constantly try to correct me when I fix people's grammatical errors, because I'm usually not wrong, or, if I am, it's subjective that I am.
You did not even make mention of the switching tenses:
Proper spelling and grammar are unnatural constructs foisted upon the world by upper class tits that needed another way to make themselves feel special.
The important part is the tense, really. Without 'were,' the sentence simply does not jive--you are essentially stating 'are foisted.. needed.'
Finally, I know all about essential versus non-essential clauses, and I do not believe that "that" is necessarily correct in this particular context.
You can tell that the latter part of the offending sentence is non-essential, because it can be reworded with a pause (everything else left unchanged):
Proper spelling and grammar are unnatural constructs foisted upon the world (by upper class tits that needed another way to make themselves feel special).
Proper spelling and grammar are unnatural constructs foisted upon the world--by upper class tits that needed another way to make themselves feel special.
More importantly, when the sentence is reconstructed, we get this:
Proper spelling and grammar are unnatural constructs [that|which] were foisted upon the world by upper class tits who needed another way to make themselves feel special.
From this view, you can see that the sentence can be perceived as both necessitating a pause and not necessitating a pause.
Thus, it may be left up to an excercise of taste how the sentence is rendered grammatically.
However, this view also demonstrates that the qualifying statement is not essential to the initial object.
As a general rule of thumb, then, it is unnecessary to make use of 'that' to conjoin a non-essential clause.
Proper spelling and grammar are unnatural constructs foisted upon the world by upper class tits that needed another way to make themselves feel special.
Proper spelling and grammar are unnatural constructs which were foisted upon the world by upper class tits who needed another way to make themselves feel special.
uh, ok, so compromise 12 Linux machines, 36 SunOS machines, and a (obscure!) BeOS 4 machine, then run squid and SOCKS5 alternately on each machine.
daisy chan your connection through all of them and run Tor on the edge of the chain.
well, apparently you are too old to know that Phantasy Star Online was not the first online console RPG, too, moron.
show off your stupid gaming knowledge somewhere else.
Diet alone doesn't work, and moreover it causes your weight to rebound when you stop dieting.
That's because you were (for the sake of speculation) doing what is known as 'crash dieting.'
This type of dieting is not healthy, and will, almost always, result in fat gain once "dieting" ceases.
The fact of the matter is that "dieting" doesn't work. You're right. To lose fat, you need a lifestyle change (something that is permanent).
"Diet" implies a temporary alteration in what you consume, to the end that you will achieve some sort of superficial goal.
In fact, you are more likely to _gain_ fat than you are to lose it, if you drop your caloric intake dramatically.
The key to successfully losing fat mass (note that I don't say 'weight') is to gradually reduce your caloric intake by small amounts, and, most importantly, to regulate your intake at that amount indefinitely.
The fact that you are lazy and lacking knowledge does not constitute an argument against the execution of proper eating.
The only diet I was on was high protein, high fat, and high fiber. This was NOT BY DESIGN, this was simply so I could actually stop being hungry, as carbs didn't fill me up.
Fats will make you less full than any other source of kilocalories. While they are more dense in energy, fats afford your body the ability to consume more, physically -- increasing your overall caloric consumption.
There are two kinds of carbohydrates: simple and complex. Carbohydrates are the body's main source of energy, and _will_ fill you up.
Since simple carbohydrates have a.. simple.. molecular structure, they are easy to digest, and disperse most of their energy in an immediate fashion.
Complex carbohydrates, on the other hand, have a.. complex.. molecular structure, and their absorption will be much less rapid, resulting in the sustenance of energy over a longer period of time.
I didn't eat sugars because sugar is worthless (FYI: Starch changes into sugar on contact with saliva).
Just so that you know, sugars are also known as simple carbohydrates; perhaps this has resulted in some confusion for you and your stance on carbohydrates.
No, I think the UK is much worse than the US.
It's socially acceptable to criticize the British government? That's the best example you could come up with? I was expecting a list. A one item list is sure impressive, not to mention that what you're talking about is a SOCIAL issue (you even said it yourself!?), and NOT a governmental one.
It's clear, though, that you're likely biased (criticiSe?).
Slashdot Mirror
why?
Sure, but you didn't traverse the chain. It's a recursive problem. What happened before the big bang? Who created God/god/gods/Gods? Why did his boss want him to install it? Why did the company who contracted them want them and, by proxy, his boss to have him install it? And why did the government who funded that company want them to compete for a contract with leading corporations to have them, and, by proxy, his boss to install it?
Assuming you're speaking the truth, the more pertinent question is, then: Why do you have this culture? I am pretty sure we don't have this in the United States. You're introducing more legislature to combat a problem that is probably a result of legislature. 'Cultural' problems don't just come out of the blue. I am more than willing to bet that these kids act up the way they do because of something that is very wrong with your country already. I really don't understand why more people aren't capable of rationalizing the logic behind systems of true or truer freedom. What makes you so damn confident that people are ruthless, insanely violent beings hellbent on killing anyone and everything in their sight, looting and pillaging every store known to man, and defacing or destroying property when there aren't strict laws in place to tell them not to?
actually, it's like holding a tractor which functions as an umbrella over your head, but, one day, you're at a tractor factory and you are confused about which tractor belongs to you. having picked up the wrong tractor, the umbrella functionality is no longer functioning-ality, and you get wet (assuming rain is falling at this time). it also requires a pretty light tractor.
I don't understand why anyone would assume that an 'Entry Level PC Tech' (or whatever) would have no qualifications or abilities. It is very demeaning to me--an all around computer expert, by any means, who has been working with computers on an advanced level, at home, since age ten or eleven, and, with computers in general, since age four or five.
Where are these guys supposed to go? You have to start somewhere. Just because I don't have any silly certifications or an "education" does not mean I do not know what I am doing. It does mean I don't have any experience in a work setting, but that isn't necessarily saying much.
If someone like that needs money to support their family, then they don't have time or the luxury to get Microsoft, ComPTIA, Cisco, or Red Hat certified, and I'm sure they probably don't appreciate being talked down to in an interview. Computers are really, really, really simple. It's not like you actually have to know _anything_ unless you're designing, creating, or programming the actual hardware.
For some reason, computers are seen as some sort of a magical box, even to those who should know better. Almost any retard can 'learn the computer' given a couple hours of assisted or unassisted (if they're persistent and don't 'fear' the computer) exploration. A basic understanding of UNIX/Linux, networking, and programming could be had in a matter of a couple of weeks. It's not rocket science, guys. Why do you have to be so insulting to prospective employees? Not all of them grew up in a rich family, and not all of them were weened off of socializing and the educational (scholastic) expectations that come with it.
why would an attack from a single host look like a distributed denial of service attack? and, more importantly, why the hell would you use an "upstream DNS provider," unless your ISP transparently proxied everything 53/udp outbound to its local server?
You did not even make mention of the switching tenses:
The important part is the tense, really. Without 'were,' the sentence simply does not jive--you are essentially stating 'are foisted
Finally, I know all about essential versus non-essential clauses, and I do not believe that "that" is necessarily correct in this particular context.
You can tell that the latter part of the offending sentence is non-essential, because it can be reworded with a pause (everything else left unchanged):
Proper spelling and grammar are unnatural constructs foisted upon the world (by upper class tits that needed another way to make themselves feel special).
Proper spelling and grammar are unnatural constructs foisted upon the world--by upper class tits that needed another way to make themselves feel special.
More importantly, when the sentence is reconstructed, we get this:
Proper spelling and grammar are unnatural constructs [that|which] were foisted upon the world by upper class tits who needed another way to make themselves feel special.
From this view, you can see that the sentence can be perceived as both necessitating a pause and not necessitating a pause.
Thus, it may be left up to an excercise of taste how the sentence is rendered grammatically.
However, this view also demonstrates that the qualifying statement is not essential to the initial object.
As a general rule of thumb, then, it is unnecessary to make use of 'that' to conjoin a non-essential clause.
I fixed it for you guys.
$699? Their plan is clear to me now! They are bundling Linux with the Wii!!!1112
uh, ok, so compromise 12 Linux machines, 36 SunOS machines, and a (obscure!) BeOS 4 machine, then run squid and SOCKS5 alternately on each machine. daisy chan your connection through all of them and run Tor on the edge of the chain.
as the memory of*
similarly, my Athlon 64 has 4x the L1 cache of my first computer (C16!).
well, apparently you are too old to know that Phantasy Star Online was not the first online console RPG, too, moron. show off your stupid gaming knowledge somewhere else.
why is that so obvious to you?
I really don't think CBT is the best solution for depression.
That's because you were (for the sake of speculation) doing what is known as 'crash dieting.' This type of dieting is not healthy, and will, almost always, result in fat gain once "dieting" ceases.
The fact of the matter is that "dieting" doesn't work. You're right. To lose fat, you need a lifestyle change (something that is permanent).
"Diet" implies a temporary alteration in what you consume, to the end that you will achieve some sort of superficial goal.
In fact, you are more likely to _gain_ fat than you are to lose it, if you drop your caloric intake dramatically.
The key to successfully losing fat mass (note that I don't say 'weight') is to gradually reduce your caloric intake by small amounts, and, most importantly, to regulate your intake at that amount indefinitely.
The fact that you are lazy and lacking knowledge does not constitute an argument against the execution of proper eating.
Fats will make you less full than any other source of kilocalories. While they are more dense in energy, fats afford your body the ability to consume more, physically -- increasing your overall caloric consumption.
There are two kinds of carbohydrates: simple and complex. Carbohydrates are the body's main source of energy, and _will_ fill you up.
Since simple carbohydrates have a
Complex carbohydrates, on the other hand, have a
Just so that you know, sugars are also known as simple carbohydrates; perhaps this has resulted in some confusion for you and your stance on carbohydrates.
who's look?
there's no apostrophe in A. Wbeelsoi.
that's a lot of pointing.
you're only off by about 1 * 10^3.
No, I think the UK is much worse than the US. It's socially acceptable to criticize the British government? That's the best example you could come up with? I was expecting a list. A one item list is sure impressive, not to mention that what you're talking about is a SOCIAL issue (you even said it yourself!?), and NOT a governmental one. It's clear, though, that you're likely biased (criticiSe?).