I actually saw that one before I hit 'submit', but left it in intentionally. I was feeling a bit lonely today and that's a sure fire way of getting a response!
Well, then consider this your hu8man contact for the day. I aim to please.
I'm sure it won't surprise you to know how poorly tuned to grammar and spelling most people's brains are these days, and how little they care. I'm pretty much content to let most such errors slide unless there is obvious ambiguity, or unless I'm bored:)
Same here. (I'm at work; which do you think my reply to you was?:)
And for the most part, such a converter would be more useful as a plug in for a web browser, not on the part of the poster but on the part of the viewer, so that they need not be offended by the carelessness of others.
Right. This would flop dismally. You do realize that most grammar-nazis don't actually WANT everyone to speak and write properly, don't you? Then they would have no external validation of their intrinsic worth as human beings. At least, that is why I am one. I would say I cannot speak for them all, but then I realized that of course I can; I am far superior to the vast majority of them. They should be HONORED, HONORED I say, that I would deign to speak for them.
Can you tell I'm still at work? I wonder how many people will think I am serious with this post.
especially the ones for which i seem to have a 'blind spot' for.
Maybe you should pre-type your slashdot posts in MS Word.
Only when someone invents a 'what I said' to 'what I meant' converter will all these problems be solved. And that will be a said day indeed - no more Engrish to laugh at.
Oh, they have these. It's just that very few people use them anymore. They're called "brains".
Another good one is, in a conversation, when someone is being pedantic call them pedantic but pronounce it wrong (eg call them pedontic or peedarntic), then watch them squirm:)
Technically, what you suggested would not be pronouncing "pedantic" incorrectly. It would be using a word that is almost the word pedantic but is not quite that word. If you said "pedanTIC" or "PEEdantic" or "pedAHNtic" you would be pronouncing pedantic wrong. Hope this helps!
only accepted work in plain old "dead tree" format.
but the teacher wouldn't except work in that format
Ok, I can understand someone making this mistake...accept, except...some morons find it tough to distinguish between them. However, to get it both right and wrong in the same post? Baffling.
Well, since you capitalized it, "Social Security", that indicates a proper noun. The only proper noun Social Security I know of is in the US. Now, that might be a hole in my knowledge. I'll certainly accept that. However, capitalizing Social Security on a US-based website is bound to cause confusion. If you mean social security as in the Communist Manifesto, no need to capitalize.
While I agree with you in general, I have a few caveats: I DO NOT wish to support those who simply don't want to take care of themselves. I don't want to go to work either, but I'm responsible so I do. It isn't fair that I have to go to work, but someone else can live off my hard work without doing any of their own. That makes me very angry. Now, the problem is distinguishing those who are incapable of supporting themselves from those who simply don't wish to. If you can figure out how to do that, I'll give you 50% of my post-tax income to support your work.
Pretty soon, over 50% of the US population will be over 50. Currently, it takes between 11 and 15 workers to pay one receiver's SS benefits. What happens when there aren't 11-15 workers for every receiver? Do people have to start paying 40% of their salary to SS? But that wouldn't be fair...the receivers didn't have to do that...you say the system is fine, but I can't see how that is true. I'm not paying into my own social security, I'm paying for someone else's. Who's going to pay for mine? Or do you believe there will be 11-15 workers in 30 years for every current worker now? I don't.
Nice troll. For the edification of anyone who isn't you, because I've found that most trolls don't want to be edified:
First: municipalities cannot impose income taxes. So, they use things like sales taxes (which hurt the poor more than the rich) and user fees, which only apply to people wanting to use the service for which they are charged. Of the two, I vastly prefer user fees. This is because if I don't like the beach, I don't have to pay taxes to support keeping it free. Lots of people go camping. When they do so, they can choose to find a free campsite, which will have no amenities whatsoever and which may be difficult to find, or they can go to a campsite for which they must pay. This will usually include things like toilets and showers on property, and some sort of minimal security. It is the same thing with beaches. If you want the easy, safe route, you go to a municipal beach (and pay for the privilege), if you want to get risky, you go outside town and find some (probably private) beach and swim for free. If you have a lovely beach, that attracts people, they are going to make a mess, require lifeguarding, and parking, and security. Are those things free? Of course not. So why burden taxpayers, many of whom may never even see that beach, to pay for it?
Well, I already replied to the person with the.sig, so I'll keep this one short: I agree with your sentiment, but the particular program is seriously flawed and will cause a TON of damage when it collapses. Hope your friends (and you) have a backup plan.
How would I stop being "and Adollar sign dollar signhole"? That doesn't even make sense. Also, I did not tell you how cool I am. You just intuited it. You tell me to get a grip on life, but you have provided no evidence that I don't already have one. You insinuated it, sure, but it's really easy to insinuate things without providing evidence. I'm sure all those male prostitutes of yours would agree.
Yes. The reason is that I don't want to worry starving to death if I ever lose my ability to work due to an illness, injury or something
Well, considering that the Social Security system is running paycheck to paycheck with 11 or more currently working people needed to provide for one person receiving benefits, so if you're going to lose your ability to work, you better do it soon. Look, I agree with you that there's no reason for anyone to starve in this day and age, but the Social Security program is deeply flawed at best and on the verge of collapse at worst, so I don't really see any reason to champion it. If it worked like it was intended to work, I'd agree with you. As it is, though, I can't.
Never, EVER, underestimate the stupidity of juries. They did award millions to a lady who spilled hot coffee in her own lap and the guy who set the cruise control in his Winnebago and then proceeded to take a nap. However, a judge may or may not be smart and a Supreme Court justice with even mediocre knowledge of the Constitution would just laugh at a law like that and strike it down.
You must be a troll. That coffee was intentionally served at 180-190 degrees Fahrenheit, with the reason cited by McDonald's that people often wanted to take their coffee a long way, and thus it must start the journey very hot. So, although we expect coffee to be hot, we do NOT expect it to be hot enough to cause third degree burns severe enough to require TWO YEARS of skin grafts and therapy for. McDonald's had settled over 700 similar cases in the decade leading up to this case. I do think the judgement awarded (~640k, not millions as the jury wanted and you are claiming, the judge reduced it) was a bit high, but not that far over the top. As for the winnebago thing...that was completely made-up. So you're 0 for 2.
Yes, it sure is. Please note that I do not believe *all* doctors or *all* companies are this way. However, to say that none are is naive and stupid. The evidence is all around you: companies DO NOT as a general rule give one shit about you. I'm not saying they *should*, either, I'm just saying that most of them don't. If you find one that does, you're lucky.
I checked Tylenol at the store - $6.98 for 50 pills. I know, I shoulda checked Beyer, but I get stomach interactions with real aspirin. I am not at all anti-corporate. I am certainly against a lot of business practices used by many corporations, but that really isn't the same thing at all. I work for a corporation. I chose one which I believe has better business practices than most, but hey, I could be wrong. Besides, I didn't notice any 'supporting evidence' for you disagreeing with me...so I can't agree with you, either. Oh, and I'm kinda curious as to why I should care if you agree with me or not. Is it because you're so cool?
Well, I hate to be all grown up and use logic on you, but... your retardedness is completely seperate from and independant of my fact-checking. Furthermore, I specifically stated that I should have researched better. How childish of me to admit mistakes! I should be an adult and pretend that I never make any, like you.
Well, I wouldn't want to go against type, and I *am* up in the middle of the night every night...but that's for work, though. You may feel free to picture me quaking while at work, because I actually have done that quite often. (O.K., it was Quake-ing, but close enough, right?)
I put forth several possibilities, only one of which was passing it up. I agree that it isn't the most likely, but I still think it's a possibility. I agree with one point, though, if the company manufacturing the vaccine is not one of the ones selling treatments, of course they would do everything they could to put it out there. If that is indeed the case, then the question would be: does that company have the power to go toe-to-toe with Pfizer et al?
It is in the pharmaco's interest to keep patients alive, as dead customers are not repeat customers. If the pharmaco sells a single shot that can cure or prevent an STD, then it can continue to sell Cialis and other "lifestyle drugs" to the couples who are now free of STDs.
I doubt they can realize the same amount of cash from a 'cured' person, even one who lives 4 times as long, as from one receiving treatment for 5-10 years. I am making these numbers up to illustate the point: Would you rather get $1000 a year from someone for 5-10 years, or $100 a year for 20 years?
That's pretty good, but it's still not even close. 2000% markup = selling an item for 20 times what it cost to make. Apsirin sells for about 167 times what it costs to make. Still, ice cream's better by far than the average, if your information is sound. (I have no specific reason to doubt it, so please don't get angry. I just don't like to speak in absolutes unless I'm reasonably certain.)
Ideals are terrific....in theory. In practice, people are ALWAYS about profit. If you think that a large system exists for any other reason, you're missing something. Now, they might start out with the best intentions in the world...but we all know where that road leads. In practice, any bureaucratic system always devolves into fiefdoms, internal power struggles and politics are rampant, and people try to game the system so as to get ahead. I wish that weren't true, but it is.
Slashdot Mirror
"IT" happens.
I actually saw that one before I hit 'submit', but left it in intentionally. I was feeling a bit lonely today and that's a sure fire way of getting a response!
:)
:)
Well, then consider this your hu8man contact for the day. I aim to please.
I'm sure it won't surprise you to know how poorly tuned to grammar and spelling most people's brains are these days, and how little they care. I'm pretty much content to let most such errors slide unless there is obvious ambiguity, or unless I'm bored
Same here. (I'm at work; which do you think my reply to you was?
And for the most part, such a converter would be more useful as a plug in for a web browser, not on the part of the poster but on the part of the viewer, so that they need not be offended by the carelessness of others.
Right. This would flop dismally. You do realize that most grammar-nazis don't actually WANT everyone to speak and write properly, don't you? Then they would have no external validation of their intrinsic worth as human beings. At least, that is why I am one. I would say I cannot speak for them all, but then I realized that of course I can; I am far superior to the vast majority of them. They should be HONORED, HONORED I say, that I would deign to speak for them.
Can you tell I'm still at work? I wonder how many people will think I am serious with this post.
especially the ones for which i seem to have a 'blind spot' for.
Maybe you should pre-type your slashdot posts in MS Word.
Only when someone invents a 'what I said' to 'what I meant' converter will all these problems be solved. And that will be a said day indeed - no more Engrish to laugh at.
Oh, they have these. It's just that very few people use them anymore. They're called "brains".
Another good one is, in a conversation, when someone is being pedantic call them pedantic but pronounce it wrong (eg call them pedontic or peedarntic), then watch them squirm :)
Technically, what you suggested would not be pronouncing "pedantic" incorrectly. It would be using a word that is almost the word pedantic but is not quite that word. If you said "pedanTIC" or "PEEdantic" or "pedAHNtic" you would be pronouncing pedantic wrong. Hope this helps!
I'm all for correct spelling and grammar, but man, hypocrisy pisses me off more than anything....
You are apparently not "all for" correct punctuation. Oh, well. Maybe one day you will come around.
only accepted work in plain old "dead tree" format.
but the teacher wouldn't except work in that format
Ok, I can understand someone making this mistake...accept, except...some morons find it tough to distinguish between them. However, to get it both right and wrong in the same post? Baffling.
Well, since you capitalized it, "Social Security", that indicates a proper noun. The only proper noun Social Security I know of is in the US. Now, that might be a hole in my knowledge. I'll certainly accept that. However, capitalizing Social Security on a US-based website is bound to cause confusion. If you mean social security as in the Communist Manifesto, no need to capitalize.
While I agree with you in general, I have a few caveats: I DO NOT wish to support those who simply don't want to take care of themselves. I don't want to go to work either, but I'm responsible so I do. It isn't fair that I have to go to work, but someone else can live off my hard work without doing any of their own. That makes me very angry. Now, the problem is distinguishing those who are incapable of supporting themselves from those who simply don't wish to. If you can figure out how to do that, I'll give you 50% of my post-tax income to support your work.
Pretty soon, over 50% of the US population will be over 50. Currently, it takes between 11 and 15 workers to pay one receiver's SS benefits. What happens when there aren't 11-15 workers for every receiver? Do people have to start paying 40% of their salary to SS? But that wouldn't be fair...the receivers didn't have to do that...you say the system is fine, but I can't see how that is true. I'm not paying into my own social security, I'm paying for someone else's. Who's going to pay for mine? Or do you believe there will be 11-15 workers in 30 years for every current worker now? I don't.
Nice troll. For the edification of anyone who isn't you, because I've found that most trolls don't want to be edified:
First: municipalities cannot impose income taxes. So, they use things like sales taxes (which hurt the poor more than the rich) and user fees, which only apply to people wanting to use the service for which they are charged. Of the two, I vastly prefer user fees. This is because if I don't like the beach, I don't have to pay taxes to support keeping it free. Lots of people go camping. When they do so, they can choose to find a free campsite, which will have no amenities whatsoever and which may be difficult to find, or they can go to a campsite for which they must pay. This will usually include things like toilets and showers on property, and some sort of minimal security. It is the same thing with beaches. If you want the easy, safe route, you go to a municipal beach (and pay for the privilege), if you want to get risky, you go outside town and find some (probably private) beach and swim for free.
If you have a lovely beach, that attracts people, they are going to make a mess, require lifeguarding, and parking, and security. Are those things free? Of course not. So why burden taxpayers, many of whom may never even see that beach, to pay for it?
Well, I already replied to the person with the .sig, so I'll keep this one short: I agree with your sentiment, but the particular program is seriously flawed and will cause a TON of damage when it collapses. Hope your friends (and you) have a backup plan.
How would I stop being "and Adollar sign dollar signhole"? That doesn't even make sense. Also, I did not tell you how cool I am. You just intuited it. You tell me to get a grip on life, but you have provided no evidence that I don't already have one. You insinuated it, sure, but it's really easy to insinuate things without providing evidence. I'm sure all those male prostitutes of yours would agree.
Yes. The reason is that I don't want to worry starving to death if I ever lose my ability to work due to an illness, injury or something
Well, considering that the Social Security system is running paycheck to paycheck with 11 or more currently working people needed to provide for one person receiving benefits, so if you're going to lose your ability to work, you better do it soon. Look, I agree with you that there's no reason for anyone to starve in this day and age, but the Social Security program is deeply flawed at best and on the verge of collapse at worst, so I don't really see any reason to champion it. If it worked like it was intended to work, I'd agree with you. As it is, though, I can't.
Here in America, our national government is ostensibly seperate from local municipalities. I don't know how it works in your country.
Never, EVER, underestimate the stupidity of juries. They did award millions to a lady who spilled hot coffee in her own lap and the guy who set the cruise control in his Winnebago and then proceeded to take a nap. However, a judge may or may not be smart and a Supreme Court justice with even mediocre knowledge of the Constitution would just laugh at a law like that and strike it down.
You must be a troll. That coffee was intentionally served at 180-190 degrees Fahrenheit, with the reason cited by McDonald's that people often wanted to take their coffee a long way, and thus it must start the journey very hot. So, although we expect coffee to be hot, we do NOT expect it to be hot enough to cause third degree burns severe enough to require TWO YEARS of skin grafts and therapy for. McDonald's had settled over 700 similar cases in the decade leading up to this case. I do think the judgement awarded (~640k, not millions as the jury wanted and you are claiming, the judge reduced it) was a bit high, but not that far over the top. As for the winnebago thing...that was completely made-up. So you're 0 for 2.
Suggesting governmental fiscal responsibility *and* taxes that don't come from wages? YMBNH.
Social Security - it's better than Social Darwinism.
How? I guess what I am asking is, do you really believe this? If so, why?
Although this does beg an entertaining question:
No, it doesn't.
Yes, it sure is. Please note that I do not believe *all* doctors or *all* companies are this way. However, to say that none are is naive and stupid. The evidence is all around you: companies DO NOT as a general rule give one shit about you. I'm not saying they *should*, either, I'm just saying that most of them don't. If you find one that does, you're lucky.
I checked Tylenol at the store - $6.98 for 50 pills. I know, I shoulda checked Beyer, but I get stomach interactions with real aspirin. I am not at all anti-corporate. I am certainly against a lot of business practices used by many corporations, but that really isn't the same thing at all. I work for a corporation. I chose one which I believe has better business practices than most, but hey, I could be wrong. Besides, I didn't notice any 'supporting evidence' for you disagreeing with me...so I can't agree with you, either. Oh, and I'm kinda curious as to why I should care if you agree with me or not. Is it because you're so cool?
Well, I hate to be all grown up and use logic on you, but... your retardedness is completely seperate from and independant of my fact-checking. Furthermore, I specifically stated that I should have researched better. How childish of me to admit mistakes! I should be an adult and pretend that I never make any, like you.
Well, I wouldn't want to go against type, and I *am* up in the middle of the night every night...but that's for work, though. You may feel free to picture me quaking while at work, because I actually have done that quite often. (O.K., it was Quake-ing, but close enough, right?)
I put forth several possibilities, only one of which was passing it up. I agree that it isn't the most likely, but I still think it's a possibility. I agree with one point, though, if the company manufacturing the vaccine is not one of the ones selling treatments, of course they would do everything they could to put it out there. If that is indeed the case, then the question would be: does that company have the power to go toe-to-toe with Pfizer et al?
It is in the pharmaco's interest to keep patients alive, as dead customers are not repeat customers. If the pharmaco sells a single shot that can cure or prevent an STD, then it can continue to sell Cialis and other "lifestyle drugs" to the couples who are now free of STDs.
I doubt they can realize the same amount of cash from a 'cured' person, even one who lives 4 times as long, as from one receiving treatment for 5-10 years. I am making these numbers up to illustate the point: Would you rather get $1000 a year from someone for 5-10 years, or $100 a year for 20 years?
That's pretty good, but it's still not even close. 2000% markup = selling an item for 20 times what it cost to make. Apsirin sells for about 167 times what it costs to make. Still, ice cream's better by far than the average, if your information is sound. (I have no specific reason to doubt it, so please don't get angry. I just don't like to speak in absolutes unless I'm reasonably certain.)
Ideals are terrific....in theory. In practice, people are ALWAYS about profit. If you think that a large system exists for any other reason, you're missing something. Now, they might start out with the best intentions in the world...but we all know where that road leads. In practice, any bureaucratic system always devolves into fiefdoms, internal power struggles and politics are rampant, and people try to game the system so as to get ahead. I wish that weren't true, but it is.