The one who presented the messy CV. That is, if he/she did not proofread his/her own CV. Otherwise, go to the one with the better CV. This is where the old, barber-related puzzler surpasses yours. It's much more difficult to cut and style one's hair than it is to proofread one's CV.
I never said there was only one specific correct usage, only that the use to which you put it was incorrect. (note: I didn't end that sentance with a preposition because I prefer not to, not because it's wrong to do so).
You could indeed use 'begs the question' correctly in relation to misuse of 'begging the question'. For example, you did in fact beg the question of your correctness in using 'begs the question' because you asserted it correct with no basis in fact and with no supporting evidence. Now my head is starting to hurt, so I've to quickly go take some aspirin.
Actors will always be around. I always laugh when people say that CG will replace all actors... which begs the question... why on earth would I try to replicate human expression... when I could just film it!
This is what you said, above.
I hate to have to correct you again, but you don't say 'begs the question' while you are doing it. That's an incorrect use of the term, again. If you had said 'CG will replace actors because actors are dumb', you would be begging the question. When you say something 'begs the question' and then ask a question, you're using it wrong. *shrug* I provided you a very helpful link which would have sorted all that out for you, if you had read and understood it. Yes, language changes, blah blah blah. That's why split infinitives are off my 'list of corrections'. However, 'begs the question' still doesn't mean what you want it to mean. 'Raises the question' does. I appreciate that you took the time to rationalize your mistake, but it was and is still a mistake. I really am not trying to diss you. Here's the link again. Don't feel you must take my word for it, or Mr. Brians'. Research it for yourself, if you like.
Yes, 'someone else other than you' notices it. I wouldn't say it pisses me off, though. It's just not the correct use of the word. I also don't know how you would refer to someone else not other than you, but perhaps you've Multiple Personality Disorder, and so have you. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt on this one, and assuming that you did that on purpose, perhaps as a more subtle version of your(?) previous post.
Erm. Please learn critical thinking skills. Of course I think I responded to a spoof. Did you read how I responded? Responding seriously to 'spoofs' is half the fun. I mean, you did it, so you know that. As to whether the author went and read my previous posts...yes, I think he did. The errors he made were all ones I have corrected in the past month. Perhaps he did not, as I've never said I had explicit knowledge that he did. I just said it appears that way. Unlike almost everyone else on slashdot, I concede the possibility that I am wrong. I *did* think I was wrong once, but it turned out I was mistaken.
Yes, I read the comment. That's precisely why I did not respond to the numerous errors in it. My previous sig (updated since that post) had to do with 'for all intensive purposes', which was used in that post. Also, I have many times corrected people using apostrophes incorrectly. Apparently the AC went back, read some of my previous posts, and tried to craft a response which would upset me. However, since they was so obvioulsy intentional, why should I bother correcting them? I'm not trying to correct every mistake on slashdot, which wouldn't be possible even were I paid to do nothing else. I respond to some errors I see. I don't respond to others. It all depends. Also, as I mentioned in my post (dude, did you even read the post you responded to?), it doesn't upset me. I don't 'care'. I just try to help people. Sometimes they take my comments to heart and stop making the mistake(s) I pointed out, other times they get incredibly bothered and try to bust my balls (as in this case). Either way, responding to posts on slashdot is something I do for fun, when I feel like it. There has *never* been a post that actually affected me in a negative way. Why should I care what ACs and other people I don't know and will never meet think about me? The only thing most diatribes against me do is make me happy. I get a constant stream of amusement or I get to help people use the English language properly. It's win/win.
No it doesn't. If it did, it would prove without evidence that you shouldn't kick me in the nuts. However, it's patently obvious that I should be kicked in the nuts. Fortunately for me, there's no one on slashdot with both the opportunity and the intestinal fortitude to do so.
The fact that people would even care enough about the original usage is literally mind-exploding.
Ahhh, if only it were. Though in your case, I doubt the person next to you would notice. I'm always amused when people think I 'care' whether they use words or phrases correctly. I don't. I know that when I make mistakes, I prefer that people point them out. That way, I don't make them again. You see, it isn't I who looks bad when you make a mistake. If you want to look like an ignorant idiot, that's your business. However, if you don't, don't use 'begs the question' when you mean 'raises the question'. They don't mean the same thing. If I said the sky is neon yellow, that would be an incorrect use of the term 'neon yellow', and would make me look dumb. Of course, I'm just insisting on using the 'original meaning' of neon yellow. Shouldn't people understand from context that what I actually mean is 'blue'? Nice try on baiting me, but again, if you wish to look ignorant that's your business. Pointing out to you that you do is mine. Don't like it? Don't read my posts. It's simple. The fact that someone would care enough that I pointed out their mistake to bother trying to structure a reply which they hope will upset me is hilarious. As an aside, it's true that 'begs the question' is an outdated phrase. Therefore, why use it at all, whether correctly or not? It seems to be used mainly by pretentious prigs to make themselves look smarter, usually unsuccessfully as it's rarely used correctly. Sorry I bruised your ego, or whatever.
Here, follow this link to learn what 'begs the question' means. Hopefully, once you understand what it means, you will not use it again as you have here.
What you meant to say is 'raises the question'. Just say that next time you want to say 'begs the question'.
Perhaps what I should have said is: For my playstyle and enjoyment of games, many highly-rated games blow fucking nuts. Halo, Prince of Persia, Colin Mcrae, Fable...these are all highly rated games which I feel blow fucking nuts. You might disagree. Therefore, review sites might be great for you. However, just because some or even many people enjoy a title does not mean I am automatically going to. That's why I prefer to try before I buy. Now, GTA games, ESPN NFLxK games, Madden, Burnout, Zelda...these are games I'll buy with no trying or review reading necessary. This is because of the past enjoyment I've had from games in these series. If all publishers put out such consistently fun-to-play games, I wouldn't need to try their titles out either. I'm truly sorry that you don't understand how one person's favorite game can, in the eyes of another, blow fucking nuts. The titles I mentioned above are the only ones I purchase on launch day. If I were buying all my games on launch day, how would I try them before I bought them? Also, I don't know how to revide. I could revise, or revile, or revive....
My aologies to you, kind sir, for not explaining my presumtions prior to my previous post. Got alliteration?
Quite all right. You assumption was unwarranted, however. He simply stated that he is a tech. Assuming that he is acting contrary to the license seems rather harsh. This is especially true since his post did not give any details which lead to that assumption, save one: that he is a tech. You might want to examine why you assume techs are automatically going to act contrary to license agreements. It doesn't logically follow for me that tech installing ad-aware = best buy charging for it (again, if best buy is not selling the software, per se, but their time to install and run it on non-commercial machines, they aren't breaking the agreement) or that tech installing ad-aware = tech installing ad-aware on a commercial-use machine. Please remember: techs can install ad-aware on non-commercial machines all day long, including charging for their time, so long as they don't charge for the actual software nor install said software on commercial-use machines. Thus the impression that a professional consultant installing ad-aware is automatically breaking the license agreement is false.
Parenthetically, I pump out preposterous portions of probably pointless alliteration. Thank you for asking.
Only if he charges for the product or installs it in a commercial environment. If he charges for his time to install ad-aware, that isn't breaking its license agreement, especially considering that the agreement is with the *user*, not the tech who installed it. Also, I don't understand how someone could 'violate it is liscense agreement' in the first place. Did you perhaps mean "...its license..."?
Explore all the above before even thinking about "Trying" out the game, which would be a fourth and least desirable option.
Yes. It's stupid to think you should actually try something before you spend $50 bucks or more on it. I mean, it's not like they let you actually drive cars before you buy them. If you don't like it, tough luck, should have read internet reviews first. Cause we all know how reliable the internet is. Do you really think it's better to have people waste money? I mean, either you're rewarding poor effort (like people that paid for BMX XXX) or you're 'supporting piracy' even if you buy games that you try and like. I'll make you the same deal I offered the MPAA (not that I ever heard from them about it): Start making 50% ormore of the games released worth buying and I'll stop trying games before I buy them. However, I'm not going to shell out $50 a pop for highly rated reviewed games that blow fucking nuts. If you think that every game which comes out is *worth* buying, you're wrong. All I'm saying is that for years I wasted money using the first options you gave. Demos are not always even representative of final gameplay, or they're very short and don't represent the game well. I don't have time to find a store which 1.)has some game I'd like to play loaded up and ready to play and 2.) doesn't have a crowd of people already playing it. Checking forum reviews is analogous to guessing. Also, if I decide within the first 5 minutes or so of a movie or meal that I can't stand it, I can get a refund. Games offer no such option. Further, your way allows unscrupulous executives to release horrid product and then get all bitchy about 'piracy' if the game fails. My way allows unscrupulous gamers to play free games. No matter what you do, some people will always either try to make you pay for inferior product or try to get product for free. Instead of punishing people who actually delete games we try and don't like and buy games we try and *do* like, maybe companies should 1.) produce a higher percentage of quality products or 2.) make it easier to try games before they are paid for. I have a very large number of paid-for games in my house, and very few of them do I hate. Those few were invariably purchased before I had a chance to try them out. So to you, the last option is the least desirable. To me, it's the most desirable. I never buy a game I won't play anymore, and I don't play games I'm not going to buy more than once or twice. If I had unlimited money, I wouldn't need to worry about this. If developers mostly made good games, I wouldn't have to worry about it either. Too bad that I don't and they don't so I do.
Looks more like some blog to me. However, a link is provided there to Maltz Auctions. I don't know if that's the actual auction site or not, as the site has been "temporarily disabled". Good job getting hits to Kotaku, though, even if it isn't the "official auction site".
Yep. I'm extremely anti-mistress. If you don't want to honor your commitments, don't make them. Seems easy enough to me. Of course, I believe that every person makes their own decisions so if you're a cheater, that's fine. Just don't bring it around me.
Yes, yes. When people are burgled, it's obviously their fault because they didn't own attack dogs or motion-sensitive blaster arrays. You are completely forgetting that one person is in no way responsible for the unethical actions of another. You can say that someone is more likely to be affected by them. For example, if I don't have a burglar alarm, I *might* be more likely to be burgled. However, the decision to break the law and enter my house is not my decision, it's the decision of the person who commits the act. Windows users should not need to worry about their pc being taken over, because people shouldn't take over other people's computers. See, the spammers *chose* to use an exploit and gain control of what is not theirs. That is the only relevant choice. It may be a good idea for people to keep their virus scanners/spyware removers up to date. However, that doesn't make them responsible for the actions of others if they do not. I'm sure muggers aren't 'forcing' things on people either. I mean, the muggee *chose* to walk down the street, *chose* to have money in his/her pocket, *chose* not to wear a bulletproof vest and/or full set of medieval armour. Whatever. I love the irony: you want people to 'JUST TAKE SOME FUCKING RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR OWN ACTIONS,' unless, of course, they're spammers.
Market share may not be the only, or primary, reason Macs aren't vulnerable to much malware. However, I think that if Apple had 80% or more market share, while Microsoft managed 2-10%, there would be many fewer Windows exploits. So, you are correct that the smaller market share for Apple is not the primary reason Macs aren't affected by this kind of malware. However, the reason for the proliferation of malware *is* Microsoft's market share. Would there be a proliferation of Mac-targeted malware if Apple held MS's market share? I don't know. I *do* know, however, that no consumer OS is totally secure, and that what people create, other people can exploit. There just isn't the same return on investment for Mac exploits.
It never seemed far-fetched. It just never seemed like any big deal, either. So what if he's promoting his site? Isn't that what people with sites do? If he does it by posting a warning for fans of D&D which saves them $50, so much the better.
yeah, man. Aeon totally like...sold out. Like, I thought he was all totally underground, but look how mainstream he is, posting to TWO SITES! I mean, he really should have just written an entirely different review for each site, as we all know that hardcore uh...whatevers...do. Aeon, you sellout, or something.
Note for the dumb: This post contains toxic amounts of sarcasm.
Quick, somoene sue SCO over their version of UNIX! Then we can file a truth in advertising complaint against them! On a serious note, it must be very nice to be able to pour money down the lawyer sinkhole just so you can claim your product is 'legally unencumbered'. Never mind that if not for SCO itself, Linux would be 'legally unencumbered' as well, nor that a filed lawsuit does not equal a favorable outcome....Reminds me of one of the best Mr. Show skits ever...the dueling grocery store commercials. "Come in with your kids, leave with your kids... that's the Fairsley difference!"
I wasn't saying that doctors never know what they're talking about. I was saying that the trend is to not even pay any attention whatsoever to what a patient says. As I said, it's as though a person came to me with a non-working computer and said 'I think the MB is dead' and instead of checking to see if the MB really is dead, I start testing the RAM, CPU, hard disk, and totally ignore the MB. It isn't even self-diagnosis I'm talking about. It's valid medical information such as how recently I've taken certain antibiotics and how many times I've taken certain antibiotics and in what dosages. I'm not saying that I know more than most doctors about tonsilitis, I'm saying that I've dealt with it enough, done enough research, and talked to enough doctors over the years to at least know *something* about it. It's when my opinion is not only not heeded but totally blown off entirely that I get mad. I tell doctors "I've had penicillin tons in my life, it doesn't seem to work anymore," and still they give me penicillin. I take it, it doesn't work...and they seem surprised. It's a well-known fact that taking the same antibiotic multiple times in successive years lessens its effectiveness. Yet still they give me penicillin. Sigh. I'm not saying they should amputate on my orders, but at least they could pretend to listen to what I'm saying. Since it is my body, I am ultimately responsible, not them. I understand that not everyone gives good info to their doctors, but part of their job should be to listen and investigate. Just because I don't have a medical degree doesn't mean that I am completely ignorant and useless. An accountant might not have a CS degree, but assuming that he/she therefore has absolutely no programming knowledge is foolish. Even when my clients tell me that they think they 'clicked too hard' or 'every time I hit g, q, and x at the same time, the system locks' or whatever...I may privately think they are stupid or ignorant, but I'll listen to what they say. Every now and then, the customer is correct. Even if they're wrong, it's better for me to explain to them how they are wrong, and show them. Doctors should provide at least that courtesy, as my health is quite a bit more important to me than a computer is to most people.
There's a major difference between listening to what a patient has to say (and checking it out) and 'taking advice and diagnoses from persons with no medical training'. Sorry. Your argument does not wash. I am not complaining that doctors don't unquestioningly treat me exactly as I tell them to. I'm complaining that they don't listen to me even when I *do* know what I'm talking about, and don't even bother to attempt to verify it. For example, I have taken antibiotics in varying doses since I was 5 years old. Penicillin, for example, doesn't seem to help me anymore. Yet I am still given penicillin the first time I go to a doctor for this condition. (As a contractor, I move a lot, which makes it impossible to find a single doctor and stick with him or her.) It isn't that doctors don't treat me exactly as I want them to, it's that they don't even listen at all, then when the penicillin doesn't work as I've told them it won't, they always act surprised. It gets really old. I may not have medical training but I know that if penicillin doesn't work for me four or five times, it isn't likely to work the sixth. Yet I am still given penicillin. That's the kind of thing I'm talking about.
Slashdot Mirror
The one who presented the messy CV. That is, if he/she did not proofread his/her own CV. Otherwise, go to the one with the better CV. This is where the old, barber-related puzzler surpasses yours. It's much more difficult to cut and style one's hair than it is to proofread one's CV.
I never said there was only one specific correct usage, only that the use to which you put it was incorrect. (note: I didn't end that sentance with a preposition because I prefer not to, not because it's wrong to do so).
You could indeed use 'begs the question' correctly in relation to misuse of 'begging the question'. For example, you did in fact beg the question of your correctness in using 'begs the question' because you asserted it correct with no basis in fact and with no supporting evidence. Now my head is starting to hurt, so I've to quickly go take some aspirin.
Actors will always be around. I always laugh when people say that CG will replace all actors... which begs the question... why on earth would I try to replicate human expression... when I could just film it!
This is what you said, above.
I hate to have to correct you again, but you don't say 'begs the question' while you are doing it. That's an incorrect use of the term, again. If you had said 'CG will replace actors because actors are dumb', you would be begging the question. When you say something 'begs the question' and then ask a question, you're using it wrong. *shrug* I provided you a very helpful link which would have sorted all that out for you, if you had read and understood it. Yes, language changes, blah blah blah. That's why split infinitives are off my 'list of corrections'. However, 'begs the question' still doesn't mean what you want it to mean. 'Raises the question' does. I appreciate that you took the time to rationalize your mistake, but it was and is still a mistake. I really am not trying to diss you. Here's the link again. Don't feel you must take my word for it, or Mr. Brians'. Research it for yourself, if you like.
Yes, 'someone else other than you' notices it. I wouldn't say it pisses me off, though. It's just not the correct use of the word. I also don't know how you would refer to someone else not other than you, but perhaps you've Multiple Personality Disorder, and so have you. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt on this one, and assuming that you did that on purpose, perhaps as a more subtle version of your(?) previous post.
Erm. Please learn critical thinking skills. Of course I think I responded to a spoof. Did you read how I responded? Responding seriously to 'spoofs' is half the fun. I mean, you did it, so you know that. As to whether the author went and read my previous posts...yes, I think he did. The errors he made were all ones I have corrected in the past month. Perhaps he did not, as I've never said I had explicit knowledge that he did. I just said it appears that way. Unlike almost everyone else on slashdot, I concede the possibility that I am wrong. I *did* think I was wrong once, but it turned out I was mistaken.
Yes, I read the comment. That's precisely why I did not respond to the numerous errors in it. My previous sig (updated since that post) had to do with 'for all intensive purposes', which was used in that post. Also, I have many times corrected people using apostrophes incorrectly. Apparently the AC went back, read some of my previous posts, and tried to craft a response which would upset me. However, since they was so obvioulsy intentional, why should I bother correcting them? I'm not trying to correct every mistake on slashdot, which wouldn't be possible even were I paid to do nothing else. I respond to some errors I see. I don't respond to others. It all depends. Also, as I mentioned in my post (dude, did you even read the post you responded to?), it doesn't upset me. I don't 'care'. I just try to help people. Sometimes they take my comments to heart and stop making the mistake(s) I pointed out, other times they get incredibly bothered and try to bust my balls (as in this case). Either way, responding to posts on slashdot is something I do for fun, when I feel like it. There has *never* been a post that actually affected me in a negative way. Why should I care what ACs and other people I don't know and will never meet think about me? The only thing most diatribes against me do is make me happy. I get a constant stream of amusement or I get to help people use the English language properly. It's win/win.
OMG. WTF? LOL!
No it doesn't. If it did, it would prove without evidence that you shouldn't kick me in the nuts. However, it's patently obvious that I should be kicked in the nuts. Fortunately for me, there's no one on slashdot with both the opportunity and the intestinal fortitude to do so.
The fact that people would even care enough about the original usage is literally mind-exploding.
Ahhh, if only it were. Though in your case, I doubt the person next to you would notice. I'm always amused when people think I 'care' whether they use words or phrases correctly. I don't. I know that when I make mistakes, I prefer that people point them out. That way, I don't make them again. You see, it isn't I who looks bad when you make a mistake. If you want to look like an ignorant idiot, that's your business. However, if you don't, don't use 'begs the question' when you mean 'raises the question'. They don't mean the same thing. If I said the sky is neon yellow, that would be an incorrect use of the term 'neon yellow', and would make me look dumb. Of course, I'm just insisting on using the 'original meaning' of neon yellow. Shouldn't people understand from context that what I actually mean is 'blue'? Nice try on baiting me, but again, if you wish to look ignorant that's your business. Pointing out to you that you do is mine. Don't like it? Don't read my posts. It's simple. The fact that someone would care enough that I pointed out their mistake to bother trying to structure a reply which they hope will upset me is hilarious. As an aside, it's true that 'begs the question' is an outdated phrase. Therefore, why use it at all, whether correctly or not? It seems to be used mainly by pretentious prigs to make themselves look smarter, usually unsuccessfully as it's rarely used correctly. Sorry I bruised your ego, or whatever.
That reminds me of my favorite tagline ever:
Studies show marriage is the leading cause of divorce in the United States.
Let me suggest a few, AP.
Many Roadway Users Drive Automobiles
Sleepers Using Beds Now More Than Ever
Old People Not as Young as They Used to Be
Study Reveals Phone Usage Common Among Americans
Here, follow this link to learn what 'begs the question' means. Hopefully, once you understand what it means, you will not use it again as you have here.
What you meant to say is 'raises the question'. Just say that next time you want to say 'begs the question'.
Perhaps what I should have said is: For my playstyle and enjoyment of games, many highly-rated games blow fucking nuts. Halo, Prince of Persia, Colin Mcrae, Fable...these are all highly rated games which I feel blow fucking nuts. You might disagree. Therefore, review sites might be great for you. However, just because some or even many people enjoy a title does not mean I am automatically going to. That's why I prefer to try before I buy. Now, GTA games, ESPN NFLxK games, Madden, Burnout, Zelda...these are games I'll buy with no trying or review reading necessary. This is because of the past enjoyment I've had from games in these series. If all publishers put out such consistently fun-to-play games, I wouldn't need to try their titles out either. I'm truly sorry that you don't understand how one person's favorite game can, in the eyes of another, blow fucking nuts. The titles I mentioned above are the only ones I purchase on launch day. If I were buying all my games on launch day, how would I try them before I bought them? Also, I don't know how to revide. I could revise, or revile, or revive....
My aologies to you, kind sir, for not explaining my presumtions prior to my previous post. Got alliteration?
Quite all right. You assumption was unwarranted, however. He simply stated that he is a tech. Assuming that he is acting contrary to the license seems rather harsh. This is especially true since his post did not give any details which lead to that assumption, save one: that he is a tech. You might want to examine why you assume techs are automatically going to act contrary to license agreements. It doesn't logically follow for me that tech installing ad-aware = best buy charging for it (again, if best buy is not selling the software, per se, but their time to install and run it on non-commercial machines, they aren't breaking the agreement) or that tech installing ad-aware = tech installing ad-aware on a commercial-use machine. Please remember: techs can install ad-aware on non-commercial machines all day long, including charging for their time, so long as they don't charge for the actual software nor install said software on commercial-use machines. Thus the impression that a professional consultant installing ad-aware is automatically breaking the license agreement is false.
Parenthetically, I pump out preposterous portions of probably pointless alliteration. Thank you for asking.
Only if he charges for the product or installs it in a commercial environment. If he charges for his time to install ad-aware, that isn't breaking its license agreement, especially considering that the agreement is with the *user*, not the tech who installed it. Also, I don't understand how someone could 'violate it is liscense agreement' in the first place.
Did you perhaps mean "...its license..."?
Explore all the above before even thinking about "Trying" out the game, which would be a fourth and least desirable option.
Yes. It's stupid to think you should actually try something before you spend $50 bucks or more on it. I mean, it's not like they let you actually drive cars before you buy them. If you don't like it, tough luck, should have read internet reviews first. Cause we all know how reliable the internet is.
Do you really think it's better to have people waste money? I mean, either you're rewarding poor effort (like people that paid for BMX XXX) or you're 'supporting piracy' even if you buy games that you try and like. I'll make you the same deal I offered the MPAA (not that I ever heard from them about it): Start making 50% ormore of the games released worth buying and I'll stop trying games before I buy them. However, I'm not going to shell out $50 a pop for highly rated reviewed games that blow fucking nuts. If you think that every game which comes out is *worth* buying, you're wrong. All I'm saying is that for years I wasted money using the first options you gave. Demos are not always even representative of final gameplay, or they're very short and don't represent the game well. I don't have time to find a store which 1.)has some game I'd like to play loaded up and ready to play and 2.) doesn't have a crowd of people already playing it. Checking forum reviews is analogous to guessing.
Also, if I decide within the first 5 minutes or so of a movie or meal that I can't stand it, I can get a refund. Games offer no such option. Further, your way allows unscrupulous executives to release horrid product and then get all bitchy about 'piracy' if the game fails. My way allows unscrupulous gamers to play free games. No matter what you do, some people will always either try to make you pay for inferior product or try to get product for free. Instead of punishing people who actually delete games we try and don't like and buy games we try and *do* like, maybe companies should 1.) produce a higher percentage of quality products or 2.) make it easier to try games before they are paid for. I have a very large number of paid-for games in my house, and very few of them do I hate. Those few were invariably purchased before I had a chance to try them out. So to you, the last option is the least desirable. To me, it's the most desirable. I never buy a game I won't play anymore, and I don't play games I'm not going to buy more than once or twice. If I had unlimited money, I wouldn't need to worry about this. If developers mostly made good games, I wouldn't have to worry about it either. Too bad that I don't and they don't so I do.
Looks more like some blog to me. However, a link is provided there to Maltz Auctions. I don't know if that's the actual auction site or not, as the site has been "temporarily disabled". Good job getting hits to Kotaku, though, even if it isn't the "official auction site".
Yep. I'm extremely anti-mistress. If you don't want to honor your commitments, don't make them. Seems easy enough to me. Of course, I believe that every person makes their own decisions so if you're a cheater, that's fine. Just don't bring it around me.
Yes, yes. When people are burgled, it's obviously their fault because they didn't own attack dogs or motion-sensitive blaster arrays. You are completely forgetting that one person is in no way responsible for the unethical actions of another. You can say that someone is more likely to be affected by them. For example, if I don't have a burglar alarm, I *might* be more likely to be burgled. However, the decision to break the law and enter my house is not my decision, it's the decision of the person who commits the act. Windows users should not need to worry about their pc being taken over, because people shouldn't take over other people's computers. See, the spammers *chose* to use an exploit and gain control of what is not theirs. That is the only relevant choice. It may be a good idea for people to keep their virus scanners/spyware removers up to date. However, that doesn't make them responsible for the actions of others if they do not. I'm sure muggers aren't 'forcing' things on people either. I mean, the muggee *chose* to walk down the street, *chose* to have money in his/her pocket, *chose* not to wear a bulletproof vest and/or full set of medieval armour. Whatever. I love the irony: you want people to 'JUST TAKE SOME FUCKING RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR OWN ACTIONS,' unless, of course, they're spammers.
Market share may not be the only, or primary, reason Macs aren't vulnerable to much malware. However, I think that if Apple had 80% or more market share, while Microsoft managed 2-10%, there would be many fewer Windows exploits. So, you are correct that the smaller market share for Apple is not the primary reason Macs aren't affected by this kind of malware. However, the reason for the proliferation of malware *is* Microsoft's market share. Would there be a proliferation of Mac-targeted malware if Apple held MS's market share? I don't know. I *do* know, however, that no consumer OS is totally secure, and that what people create, other people can exploit. There just isn't the same return on investment for Mac exploits.
It never seemed far-fetched. It just never seemed like any big deal, either. So what if he's promoting his site? Isn't that what people with sites do? If he does it by posting a warning for fans of D&D which saves them $50, so much the better.
yeah, man. Aeon totally like...sold out. Like, I thought he was all totally underground, but look how mainstream he is, posting to TWO SITES! I mean, he really should have just written an entirely different review for each site, as we all know that hardcore uh...whatevers...do. Aeon, you sellout, or something.
Note for the dumb: This post contains toxic amounts of sarcasm.
5. SCO UNIX is Legally Unencumbered
Quick, somoene sue SCO over their version of UNIX! Then we can file a truth in advertising complaint against them! On a serious note, it must be very nice to be able to pour money down the lawyer sinkhole just so you can claim your product is 'legally unencumbered'. Never mind that if not for SCO itself, Linux would be 'legally unencumbered' as well, nor that a filed lawsuit does not equal a favorable outcome....Reminds me of one of the best Mr. Show skits ever...the dueling grocery store commercials.
"Come in with your kids, leave with your kids... that's the Fairsley difference!"
I wasn't saying that doctors never know what they're talking about. I was saying that the trend is to not even pay any attention whatsoever to what a patient says. As I said, it's as though a person came to me with a non-working computer and said 'I think the MB is dead' and instead of checking to see if the MB really is dead, I start testing the RAM, CPU, hard disk, and totally ignore the MB. It isn't even self-diagnosis I'm talking about. It's valid medical information such as how recently I've taken certain antibiotics and how many times I've taken certain antibiotics and in what dosages. I'm not saying that I know more than most doctors about tonsilitis, I'm saying that I've dealt with it enough, done enough research, and talked to enough doctors over the years to at least know *something* about it. It's when my opinion is not only not heeded but totally blown off entirely that I get mad. I tell doctors "I've had penicillin tons in my life, it doesn't seem to work anymore," and still they give me penicillin. I take it, it doesn't work...and they seem surprised. It's a well-known fact that taking the same antibiotic multiple times in successive years lessens its effectiveness. Yet still they give me penicillin. Sigh. I'm not saying they should amputate on my orders, but at least they could pretend to listen to what I'm saying. Since it is my body, I am ultimately responsible, not them. I understand that not everyone gives good info to their doctors, but part of their job should be to listen and investigate. Just because I don't have a medical degree doesn't mean that I am completely ignorant and useless. An accountant might not have a CS degree, but assuming that he/she therefore has absolutely no programming knowledge is foolish. Even when my clients tell me that they think they 'clicked too hard' or 'every time I hit g, q, and x at the same time, the system locks' or whatever...I may privately think they are stupid or ignorant, but I'll listen to what they say. Every now and then, the customer is correct. Even if they're wrong, it's better for me to explain to them how they are wrong, and show them. Doctors should provide at least that courtesy, as my health is quite a bit more important to me than a computer is to most people.
There's a major difference between listening to what a patient has to say (and checking it out) and 'taking advice and diagnoses from persons with no medical training'. Sorry. Your argument does not wash. I am not complaining that doctors don't unquestioningly treat me exactly as I tell them to. I'm complaining that they don't listen to me even when I *do* know what I'm talking about, and don't even bother to attempt to verify it. For example, I have taken antibiotics in varying doses since I was 5 years old. Penicillin, for example, doesn't seem to help me anymore. Yet I am still given penicillin the first time I go to a doctor for this condition. (As a contractor, I move a lot, which makes it impossible to find a single doctor and stick with him or her.) It isn't that doctors don't treat me exactly as I want them to, it's that they don't even listen at all, then when the penicillin doesn't work as I've told them it won't, they always act surprised. It gets really old. I may not have medical training but I know that if penicillin doesn't work for me four or five times, it isn't likely to work the sixth. Yet I am still given penicillin. That's the kind of thing I'm talking about.