Inescapable? Homonyms do not share each other's meanings, dumbass. Good spelling is vital. If we can't agree on what words mean and how to spell them, if there's no consensus, eventually you have hundreds or thousands of local language variations that would make it hard if not impossible to communicate. It's already a problem. If more people believed the tripe you do, the problem would be much, much greater. Of course, you're too shortsighted and stupid to see that.
But, as always, once they had the ability to decide who was and wasn't allowed to buy a broadcast license, they started using that to insist upon certain content restrictions as part of the agreement, and that goes outside their original charter.
Yes, precisely. I sort of meant that question rhetorically, but then I didn't have the specific knowledge you brought to bear. I did know that the FCC was originally set up only to regulate the spectrum, and that it graduated to regulating the content, but I didn't have as much info as you provided. I hope you get modded to +5 insightful.
I *would* have used oceanfront (note that it's a compound word), if I hadn't wanted to prove a point. You castigated me for pointing out your use of the wrong word. Then, when I gave you an easy opportunity to do the same, you jumped on it with both feet. I was just giving you the opportunity to show your hypocrisy, and you did. Good job.
What are you talking about? Why does regulating access to the spectrum have anything to do with what is conveyed over the airwaves? You have to have money to to broadcast, anyhow. I'm just saying that while it's okay to regulate distribution of the spectrum, in order to insure that everyone has equal access, it's not okay for the government to censor what is actually broadcast. Money *always* comes in to play, no matter what you're talking about. That's a red herring.
It is/not/ freedom of speech to use a/shared/ forum any way you see fit. Other people get to have a say.
The airwaves are a shared forum. The government administrates it because someone needs to, and no one else can.
It certainly *is* freedom of speech for me to use a public forum however I wish. I cannot use private forums that way, if the owner of those forums does not wish it. With television and radio, if I determine that something being broadcast isn't suitable for me to watch or hear, I have the freedom to turn the channel. Why is that so difficult for people to grasp? Other people get the same right to their say that I have to mine. Why is it okay for some government employee to decide what is suitable for me to hear and see? Yes. The airwaves are a shared forum. That means everyone should have equal opportunity to access those airwaves. As I previously stated, I do not object to regulating the distribution of the spectrum, if it is fair and equitable. I *do* object to government employees determining what is okay to broadcast on those airwaves. I'm truly sorry if you can't understand that distinction.
What you are saying makes no sense. If some guy puts up a transmitter...I can turn the channel. If he hijacks part of the spectrum, then sure, get the government involved. That has nothing to do with the content of his broadcast. If I am in a public park, to use your analogy, and I am talking with a group of friends, and I say 'oh shit' and a government employee fines me, that is censorship. It has absolutely nothing to do with who is broadcasting and everything to do with what they are broadcasting. I stated previously that I don't object to their regulating the distribution of the airwaves...only to their regulating content on those airwaves. (I also object to some of the favoritism they show in who they allow to use the airwaves, but that's another issue. I don't object in theory to a government agency regulating the fair distribution of the spectrum)
Maybe by your definition. However, M-w.com disagrees with you:
Main Entry: censor Function: transitive verb Inflected Form(s): censored; censoring/'sen(t)-s&-ri[ng], 'sen(t)s-ri[ng]/ : to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable
Of course, many of their policies on other issues are horrible and too anti-consumer, but you can't fault them for doing what the public wants on censorship.
On the contrary, I can and do. 'What the public wants' is not what's guaranteed in our Constitution. Freedom of speech is. Again, freedom of speech does *not* apply only when you own the forum. It applies to government meddling in *any* public forum. There is a major difference between controlling speech in a forum you own and the government controlling speech in a public forum.
Why does the FCC have any jurisdiction over speech in the first place? "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech..." Apparently, however, it's okay for Congress to make an agency to do it... Of course, we accept it as though it's the most natural thing in the world for someone else to be responsible for our speech. Now, I realize that the FCC does more than censor free speech. However, a lot of what they do is not un-Constitutional. Did they simply regulate access to the airwaves (not based on content of speech), I wouldn't have a problem with them. I do, however, have a large problem with some bureaucrat passing judgement on my words. Note: I am not opposed to censorship, only government-backed censorship. Network owners should be free to censor whatever they wish. I should be able to censor my own publications. However, the government has no right to do so.
Erm. I didn't say 'lakefront property'. I thought the whole point of your argument was that common usage or context trumped technical definition. Apparently you don't even believe that yourself. Nice job catching the 'error', though.
Like I said, I'm not saying you're a liar. I'm not saying you aren't. It would be stupid of me to declare either, since I have no clue who you are or if you're credible. I expect the same skepticism in return. My point was that video game 'addiction' can be controlled easily...and real addiction not so easily. You apparently still have a computer, but you choose not to use it for playing games. Most former alcoholics don't keep a liquor cabinet. (Sure, maybe a few do. The vast majority don't.) Most former crack addicts don't keep a few rocks on the table. It isn't just that you can not play video games...it's that you can not play video games while using the means to do so for something else. And sure, I'll come drinking with you, just send me the ticket and I'm there.
Alcohol creates physical symptoms of withdrawal on its own. Video games do not. I have only your unsubstantiated word for your habits. I'm not saying that you are lying, merely that I put more trust in my experiences working with real addicts than in your anecdotal evidence. Should you put more stock in my experience than your own? Of course not. You aren't going to change my mind, however. I am *not* diminishing true addicts. I have seen what real addiction can do. I *highly* doubt that there are people robbing homes, mugging people, and sucking dick to get everquest money. You say that you were 'addicted' to video games, yet you control your use of them....thank you for proving my point for me. *You* are the one diminishing true addicts by lumping them in with weak-willed people who just can't seem to turn off the computer. Why don't you go to to a drug addiction support group sometime? Then go hang out with some video game 'addicts'. Compare and contrast your experiences and then get back to me.
Sure....of course. Make any excuse you need to. Tell yourself whatever you must to make yourself correct....no matter the truth. I hope your self-denial works out for you. So you're saying that apathy prevented you from taking 5 seconds to fix a few errors that an intelligent person wouldn't have made? I believe you. No, really. Got some very nice beachfront property in Montana, if you're interested.
What the fuck are you talking about? What.sig are you referring to? Your response to me was 'well the President's an idiot so I can be too'. I don't give a damn whether Bush is an idiot or not. That doesn't mean I'll ignore your idiocy. Out of curiosity, what the fuck made you think I was referring to someone else's sig? Also, what makes you think that 1) I'm bent out of shape, and 2) I feel venom toward you? I couldn't care less if you exist or not. I simply read slashdot, put up with errors until one as glaring as yours pops up, correct the poster, and then (assuming I don't get a response) go about my business. I respond to you because it's fun for me to do so. I criticise other people's misuse of the language because it gives me amusement to do so. I post with a giant smile on my face and I assure you that although I am busting your chops, it's nothing personal. Also, you really should capitalise 'English'. It is only proper, you know. Believe me, I'm not the one who is hurt by your misuse of the language in which you attempt to communicate. If you choose not to learn from your mistakes, it hurts me not at all. I find it terribly hilarious that so many people on this site cannot simply say 'Yes, I used the wrong word.' Still you defend your stupidity. I will continue to ridicule you until you show yourself worthy of better treatment....but not because I'm angry. I do it out of generosity, not that I expect to be thanked by the likes of you. I just want to know how you talked to a man that's been dead since 1962. Does his family know that you're consorting with his corpse? It actually is funny to me that you chose a figure to 'converse with' who is so beloved by young people...all to show your maturity. You'll grow out of cummings soon, and discover that your body is changing. It will be a scary time for you, so make sure you speak to an adult about it.
ehehehe. I never thought I'd see Zero Wing again....and then that damn internet craze hit.... My phone still says 'Main screen turn on.' when it powers up, though.
Yes, I have heard the theory you espouse. I just do not agree with it. Yes, there are some people who do not become addicted to alcohol. These are usually people who do not drink heavily to begin with. There are people who do not get addicted to crack, but they are few and far between. Video games DO NOT cause physical addiction. So-called 'psychological addiction' is what we used to call 'lack of willpower'. Empowering obsessive people by giving them victim status serves to reinforce their belief that their actions are the result of outside influences. It is not video games, per se, that are addictive. If Mr. X did not like MMORPGs, then whatever obsession took its place would then become 'addictive'. If you've ever worked with real addicts, you would know the difference. If all addiction requires is 'the consequences outweighing the benefits' then I suppose crime is addictive, as well as infidelity, hell, most lying, driving impaired (including tired), fighting...I guess we might as well just call everything addictive and get it over with. Also, I highly doubt that *anyone* is genetically predisposed to like or not like video games. AFAIK, they haven't been around long enough to have been incorporated into our genes.
This is insightful? People have been clamied to be 'addicted' to many activities such as woodworking, jogging, car restoration, robot building, stamp collecting, bird watching....are those activities truly 'addictive'? Of course not. A person may become obsessed with almost anything, and that is different than addiction. If something is truly addictive, anyone who is exposed to it will become addicted (okay, some things are more addictive and some less so, but you get the point). It doesn't matter whether you like crack or not, if you are exposed to it you will become addicted. Same with alcohol, caffeine, heroin...even chocolate to a measurable degree. Many, many people play MMORPGs. Many, many people have no problems stemming from MMORPGs. Was the game truly at fault, as you have implied, or were you at fault, lacking the discipline needed to log off? 'Addictive' is an overused word in our society. People use it to explain their own lack of will. Why don't you just grow a pair and admit that you make your own decisions, not a computer game?
It's like these tiny women on harley-davidson motorcycles, how the fuck are they going to pick those things up if they drop them?
The same way tiny men do: straddle the bike, and use leverage to shift the bike on the natural fulcrum provided until both handlebars can be grasped. I've seen 4-foot sub-100-pound women manage this easily with extremely heavy bikes. It isn't about how strong your arm is in this situation, it's about your understanding of physics. If you only lift bikes while standing off to one side of them, you are doing it wrong.
Just ignorant.
Yes, that sums the first portion of your comment up nicely. You'd fail the buyer test in my local Harley dealership. They take you out back where they have a rusted-out chopper. The owner tells you he won't sell you a bike you can't pick up, so you must demonstrate that you can pick up that old rusted bike. Standing to one side and pulling, unless you are extremely strong, will not help you. If you don't straddle the bike, you probably aren't going to move it. He'll show you the trick, though, if he likes you.
Everyone wonders why more people don't cycle and I think one of the main reasons is that it is outright dangerous.
You sound like a responsible cyclist. Here in the States, cyclists are supposed to follow the rules of the road and also be protected by them. However, many cyclists here seem to want to be superior to auto traffic: they want the same rights accorded to them as cars, but they wish to ride right through traffic lights and to proceed at whatever speed they can, weaving through cars if necessary. I have been putting off the purchase of a good bicycle, both because of the expense of a good one and because of the contempt bike riders and auto drivers appear to hold for each other. I don't live in an area with a lot of bike trails or safe places to ride, unfortunately. I'm thinking I'll just get a cheap BMX-ripoff and make like an idiot trying to emulate X-gamers. At least it looks like fun, and I probably won't get creamed on my cul-de-sac. Hopefully.
Slashdot Mirror
I know you said that, I was just tweaking you a bit. Apologies if I offended.
"But we're French, we don't even have a word for victory!"
Outside of the developing/third/non-industrialized world. people with HIV don't go around trying to pass it on.
What about:
Darnell "Boss Man" McGee
Nushawn Williams
Pamela Wiser
Roy Cornes
and, of course, "patient zero" Gaetan Dugas
Plus, there was an episode of Law and Order where this was going on, so it *must* be true.
(thanks to snopes.com for doing the research)
Hear, all ye good people, hear what this brilliant and eloquent speaker has to say.
Inescapable? Homonyms do not share each other's meanings, dumbass. Good spelling is vital. If we can't agree on what words mean and how to spell them, if there's no consensus, eventually you have hundreds or thousands of local language variations that would make it hard if not impossible to communicate. It's already a problem. If more people believed the tripe you do, the problem would be much, much greater. Of course, you're too shortsighted and stupid to see that.
But, as always, once they had the ability to decide who was and wasn't allowed to buy a broadcast license, they started using that to insist upon certain content restrictions as part of the agreement, and that goes outside their original charter.
Yes, precisely. I sort of meant that question rhetorically, but then I didn't have the specific knowledge you brought to bear. I did know that the FCC was originally set up only to regulate the spectrum, and that it graduated to regulating the content, but I didn't have as much info as you provided. I hope you get modded to +5 insightful.
I *would* have used oceanfront (note that it's a compound word), if I hadn't wanted to prove a point. You castigated me for pointing out your use of the wrong word. Then, when I gave you an easy opportunity to do the same, you jumped on it with both feet. I was just giving you the opportunity to show your hypocrisy, and you did. Good job.
What are you talking about? Why does regulating access to the spectrum have anything to do with what is conveyed over the airwaves? You have to have money to to broadcast, anyhow. I'm just saying that while it's okay to regulate distribution of the spectrum, in order to insure that everyone has equal access, it's not okay for the government to censor what is actually broadcast. Money *always* comes in to play, no matter what you're talking about. That's a red herring.
It is /not/ freedom of speech to use a /shared/ forum any way you see fit. Other people get to have a say.
The airwaves are a shared forum. The government administrates it because someone needs to, and no one else can.
It certainly *is* freedom of speech for me to use a public forum however I wish. I cannot use private forums that way, if the owner of those forums does not wish it. With television and radio, if I determine that something being broadcast isn't suitable for me to watch or hear, I have the freedom to turn the channel. Why is that so difficult for people to grasp?
Other people get the same right to their say that I have to mine. Why is it okay for some government employee to decide what is suitable for me to hear and see?
Yes. The airwaves are a shared forum. That means everyone should have equal opportunity to access those airwaves. As I previously stated, I do not object to regulating the distribution of the spectrum, if it is fair and equitable. I *do* object to government employees determining what is okay to broadcast on those airwaves. I'm truly sorry if you can't understand that distinction.
What you are saying makes no sense. If some guy puts up a transmitter...I can turn the channel. If he hijacks part of the spectrum, then sure, get the government involved. That has nothing to do with the content of his broadcast. If I am in a public park, to use your analogy, and I am talking with a group of friends, and I say 'oh shit' and a government employee fines me, that is censorship. It has absolutely nothing to do with who is broadcasting and everything to do with what they are broadcasting. I stated previously that I don't object to their regulating the distribution of the airwaves...only to their regulating content on those airwaves.
(I also object to some of the favoritism they show in who they allow to use the airwaves, but that's another issue. I don't object in theory to a government agency regulating the fair distribution of the spectrum)
Maybe by your definition. However, M-w.com disagrees with you:
/'sen(t)-s&-ri[ng], 'sen(t)s-ri[ng]/
Main Entry: censor
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): censored; censoring
: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable
Of course, many of their policies on other issues are horrible and too anti-consumer, but you can't fault them for doing what the public wants on censorship.
On the contrary, I can and do. 'What the public wants' is not what's guaranteed in our Constitution. Freedom of speech is. Again, freedom of speech does *not* apply only when you own the forum. It applies to government meddling in *any* public forum. There is a major difference between controlling speech in a forum you own and the government controlling speech in a public forum.
Why does the FCC have any jurisdiction over speech in the first place? "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech..."
Apparently, however, it's okay for Congress to make an agency to do it...
Of course, we accept it as though it's the most natural thing in the world for someone else to be responsible for our speech.
Now, I realize that the FCC does more than censor free speech. However, a lot of what they do is not un-Constitutional. Did they simply regulate access to the airwaves (not based on content of speech), I wouldn't have a problem with them. I do, however, have a large problem with some bureaucrat passing judgement on my words.
Note: I am not opposed to censorship, only government-backed censorship. Network owners should be free to censor whatever they wish. I should be able to censor my own publications. However, the government has no right to do so.
Erm. I didn't say 'lakefront property'. I thought the whole point of your argument was that common usage or context trumped technical definition. Apparently you don't even believe that yourself. Nice job catching the 'error', though.
Easier than pulling trout off the line.
Like I said, I'm not saying you're a liar. I'm not saying you aren't. It would be stupid of me to declare either, since I have no clue who you are or if you're credible. I expect the same skepticism in return. My point was that video game 'addiction' can be controlled easily...and real addiction not so easily. You apparently still have a computer, but you choose not to use it for playing games. Most former alcoholics don't keep a liquor cabinet. (Sure, maybe a few do. The vast majority don't.) Most former crack addicts don't keep a few rocks on the table. It isn't just that you can not play video games...it's that you can not play video games while using the means to do so for something else. And sure, I'll come drinking with you, just send me the ticket and I'm there.
Alcohol creates physical symptoms of withdrawal on its own. Video games do not. I have only your unsubstantiated word for your habits. I'm not saying that you are lying, merely that I put more trust in my experiences working with real addicts than in your anecdotal evidence. Should you put more stock in my experience than your own? Of course not. You aren't going to change my mind, however. I am *not* diminishing true addicts. I have seen what real addiction can do. I *highly* doubt that there are people robbing homes, mugging people, and sucking dick to get everquest money. You say that you were 'addicted' to video games, yet you control your use of them....thank you for proving my point for me. *You* are the one diminishing true addicts by lumping them in with weak-willed people who just can't seem to turn off the computer. Why don't you go to to a drug addiction support group sometime? Then go hang out with some video game 'addicts'. Compare and contrast your experiences and then get back to me.
Sure....of course. Make any excuse you need to. Tell yourself whatever you must to make yourself correct....no matter the truth. I hope your self-denial works out for you. So you're saying that apathy prevented you from taking 5 seconds to fix a few errors that an intelligent person wouldn't have made?
I believe you. No, really. Got some very nice beachfront property in Montana, if you're interested.
What the fuck are you talking about? What .sig are you referring to? Your response to me was 'well the President's an idiot so I can be too'. I don't give a damn whether Bush is an idiot or not. That doesn't mean I'll ignore your idiocy. Out of curiosity, what the fuck made you think I was referring to someone else's sig? Also, what makes you think that 1) I'm bent out of shape, and 2) I feel venom toward you?
I couldn't care less if you exist or not. I simply read slashdot, put up with errors until one as glaring as yours pops up, correct the poster, and then (assuming I don't get a response) go about my business. I respond to you because it's fun for me to do so. I criticise other people's misuse of the language because it gives me amusement to do so. I post with a giant smile on my face and I assure you that although I am busting your chops, it's nothing personal. Also, you really should capitalise 'English'. It is only proper, you know. Believe me, I'm not the one who is hurt by your misuse of the language in which you attempt to communicate. If you choose not to learn from your mistakes, it hurts me not at all. I find it terribly hilarious that so many people on this site cannot simply say 'Yes, I used the wrong word.' Still you defend your stupidity. I will continue to ridicule you until you show yourself worthy of better treatment....but not because I'm angry. I do it out of generosity, not that I expect to be thanked by the likes of you. I just want to know how you talked to a man that's been dead since 1962. Does his family know that you're consorting with his corpse? It actually is funny to me that you chose a figure to 'converse with' who is so beloved by young people...all to show your maturity. You'll grow out of cummings soon, and discover that your body is changing. It will be a scary time for you, so make sure you speak to an adult about it.
ehehehe. I never thought I'd see Zero Wing again....and then that damn internet craze hit....
My phone still says 'Main screen turn on.' when it powers up, though.
Yes, I have heard the theory you espouse. I just do not agree with it. Yes, there are some people who do not become addicted to alcohol. These are usually people who do not drink heavily to begin with. There are people who do not get addicted to crack, but they are few and far between. Video games DO NOT cause physical addiction. So-called 'psychological addiction' is what we used to call 'lack of willpower'. Empowering obsessive people by giving them victim status serves to reinforce their belief that their actions are the result of outside influences. It is not video games, per se, that are addictive. If Mr. X did not like MMORPGs, then whatever obsession took its place would then become 'addictive'. If you've ever worked with real addicts, you would know the difference. If all addiction requires is 'the consequences outweighing the benefits' then I suppose crime is addictive, as well as infidelity, hell, most lying, driving impaired (including tired), fighting...I guess we might as well just call everything addictive and get it over with. Also, I highly doubt that *anyone* is genetically predisposed to like or not like video games. AFAIK, they haven't been around long enough to have been incorporated into our genes.
This is insightful? People have been clamied to be 'addicted' to many activities such as woodworking, jogging, car restoration, robot building, stamp collecting, bird watching....are those activities truly 'addictive'? Of course not. A person may become obsessed with almost anything, and that is different than addiction. If something is truly addictive, anyone who is exposed to it will become addicted (okay, some things are more addictive and some less so, but you get the point). It doesn't matter whether you like crack or not, if you are exposed to it you will become addicted. Same with alcohol, caffeine, heroin...even chocolate to a measurable degree. Many, many people play MMORPGs. Many, many people have no problems stemming from MMORPGs. Was the game truly at fault, as you have implied, or were you at fault, lacking the discipline needed to log off? 'Addictive' is an overused word in our society. People use it to explain their own lack of will. Why don't you just grow a pair and admit that you make your own decisions, not a computer game?
I stand corrected. :)
OMFG. How could you misquote the single most widespread line of this horrible game?
It should be:
Car: All your brakes are belong to us.
Sheesh.
It's like these tiny women on harley-davidson motorcycles, how the fuck are they going to pick those things up if they drop them?
The same way tiny men do: straddle the bike, and use leverage to shift the bike on the natural fulcrum provided until both handlebars can be grasped. I've seen 4-foot sub-100-pound women manage this easily with extremely heavy bikes. It isn't about how strong your arm is in this situation, it's about your understanding of physics.
If you only lift bikes while standing off to one side of them, you are doing it wrong.
Just ignorant.
Yes, that sums the first portion of your comment up nicely. You'd fail the buyer test in my local Harley dealership. They take you out back where they have a rusted-out chopper. The owner tells you he won't sell you a bike you can't pick up, so you must demonstrate that you can pick up that old rusted bike. Standing to one side and pulling, unless you are extremely strong, will not help you. If you don't straddle the bike, you probably aren't going to move it. He'll show you the trick, though, if he likes you.
Everyone wonders why more people don't cycle and I think one of the main reasons is that it is outright dangerous.
You sound like a responsible cyclist. Here in the States, cyclists are supposed to follow the rules of the road and also be protected by them. However, many cyclists here seem to want to be superior to auto traffic: they want the same rights accorded to them as cars, but they wish to ride right through traffic lights and to proceed at whatever speed they can, weaving through cars if necessary. I have been putting off the purchase of a good bicycle, both because of the expense of a good one and because of the contempt bike riders and auto drivers appear to hold for each other. I don't live in an area with a lot of bike trails or safe places to ride, unfortunately. I'm thinking I'll just get a cheap BMX-ripoff and make like an idiot trying to emulate X-gamers. At least it looks like fun, and I probably won't get creamed on my cul-de-sac. Hopefully.