I don't know. I would see anyone who participated in a formal tournament (supposedly representing the US) in a sanctioned country as supporting that country's actions. This is especially true when that person has been told that the US would not like to be represented. If China actually holds the Olympics, I would hope that the U.S. would boycott in protest of China's massive human rights violations. If they do not, I will see the US teams, and by extension the US government, as condoning that country's actions. If you allow countries that are human rights abusers to have the appearance of legitimacy, you give their actions that appearance. Thing is, he could have just gone over there and played however much chess he wanted to with the people. He could have declared his support of that government's actions. That was not forbidden to him. It was only playing in a sanctioned tournament, where he would be representing the US, that was off-limits. Appearance is key here, as he would not actually represent the US's official stance, but would have that appearance to the rest of the world. This is quite simply because he is an American, and the tournament sanctioned. I think that US citizens should be allowed to travel to Cuba legally, for example, however I would not support the US putting a team in a sanctioned event there. I realize it's a fine distinction, but it is there.
Heheheheh. Nice troll. Forbidden to have an innocent play? Of course he wasn't. He wasn't told that he couldn't play chess in that country, merely that he could not play in a sanctioned tournament in that country. It's a bit of a distinction. It sends a message, and please make no mistake: Bobby Fischer knew exactly what he was doing. He sent the message he wanted to send, and while you may think that the reaction was too harsh, please do not make it like all he wanted to do was play a friendly game of chess.
It always amuses me to find people who don't trust 'the media' but place absolute faith in michael moore. (not picking on him, exactly, but he was mentioned specifically. you could read 'any single source' instead of 'michael moore' if you wish) www.bowlingfortruth.com now, you shouldn't trust that site blindly either, but watching a copy of bowling for columbine while reading that site is extremely instructive. don't trust media, don't trust michael moore...why does anyone have to tell you this anymore? how about doing a little thinking for yourself, people?
No problem, I've received the same criticism in the past, and while I wasn't offended either, it seems that many on/. have tissue-paper skin. I get flamed all the time for trying to help people, even though I try very hard not to be rude about it. That's why I put the caveat at the end. I don't always appreciate criticism myself, but I do try to always at least consider it. I think part of it has to do with the negative connotation of criticism online. Most people who have criticised me have done so while denigrating me at the same time. I try not to do that, but it seems that some people equate any criticism with derision, perhaps because of prevalent attitudes. Thank you for your response. As I mentioned before, you were spot on.
I believe it is. You see, all you must do is examine the number closely. 2559 2 + 5 = 7 9 -2 = 7 take the 2 we subtracted from the 9, add it to the other 5, you get 7. that means His real id is 777. it all makes sense now.
Of course, he did bet against the theory he wanted to prove. This makes him very similar to Kerry in my mind, as Kerry seems to want to be on both sides of every issue. Bush may be an idiot, but that doesn't explain why he's PotUS and all these people that are soooooo much smarter than him work at starbucks or the mall. I mean, I'm a Libertarian and I support Michael Badnarik for President, but I just don't think Bush can be dumber than most of the people who think he is and still be PotUS. that's just my opinion, though. Smart or dumb, I'll not be voting for him or that wishy-washy tree stump Kerry.
umm. Your post would have made a greater impact had you chosen a different method of setting the word 'taught' apart. You see, the connotation when one puts quotation marks around a word spelled incorrectly in a previous post is that one is making fun of the previous poster by quoting the misspelled word. You have placed the corrected word in quotes, which is confusing since the word 'taught' does not appear in the post you are replying to. You should either have used "tought" or taught to make a better impact. The way you did it makes you appear to believe 'taught' to be incorrect. Your message is spot on but your delivery was a bit off. I'm not intending any offense by this, but you may, of course, feel free to take some.
Shame on you, basing your opinions on anecdotal hearsay evidence from your SO! What kind of dumbass are you? Don't you know that on/. it's proper to formulate your opinions based on Internet-posted hearsay and anecdotal evidence! Tsk, tsk!
I can't believe all you tin-hats out there still believe that a "nuclear weapon" exists. If humanity ever did detonate a "nuclear weapon" we'd all be dead now. We're not dead, so there aren't any nuclear weapons. You idiots probably believe people have walked on the moon, too. Morons.
That sign isn't indicating the danger to people from cigarettes, except indirectly. You see, smoking in certain areas which contain flammable gases or liquids can cause combustion where it would be dangerous and could hurt people. However, it would be the combustion that hurt you, or the lack of oxygen following combustion, not the cigarette itself.
Are you counting the votes of overseas military/civvies? because that's the biggest fallacy I have seen come from this whole 2000 election thing. People want to pretend like early returns are the only votes and totally ignore many senior citizens as well as service(insert whatever pronoun is politically correct today)s' votes. Also, the dems brought out the 'hanging chad' and 'voters are too fucking stupid to read candidates' names' ploys. I found it totally freaking hilarious that it was only Al Gore supporters who claimed to have been 'confused' by the voting slips. says a lot, if you ask me.
ehehehe. and you, of course, decided to correct my purportedly incorrect pedantry with your purportedly correct pedantry...then call me elitist and ask if *I* feel special... do you not know the meaning of hypocrisy or do you just like being a hypocrite? To answer your question, yes. I do, in fact, feel special. I am sure you would like know how it feels, and I hope that one day you will manage it.
I also like how you assert that "(Any English speaker would find "About what are you talking?" to sound stilted.)" I do not. Please remember, the post to which you replied was written in English. I label myself an "English speaker." I am perfectly comfortable with many modes of diction and do not find proper English stilted if it is uttered in a natural tone and rhythm. Proper English (and here I am using the term in a way to which you undoubtedly object; please do not bother telling me so) can, of course, be *made* to sound stilted, which many lazy comedians have proved over the years. (The scene(s) in Beavis and Butt-head do America are classic, and are excepted from the previous statement.)
unfortunately, as you may have missed, this isn't my personal website. this is the website for my company, the president of which has a very personal interest in the site. this means that developmental and content control is not at all up to me. my boss says 'make it look thusly' and that is what i attempt to do. it's less work for me to iron out incompatibilities than to try to explain why what he wants isn't a good idea. mostly, he wants to look at it in IE and so do a lot of his customers, while i want to make sure mozilla/firefox/netscape/opera work as well and that even lynx isn't totally useless. I'm not even close to being a web designer, and i can't claim to want to learn everything there is to know about it for a one-of project that i'm at least muddling through currently. once it's done, i have no desire to design a website ever again:) this may not be the 'proper learn everything about everything attitude' or whatever, but until someone else is paying my bills, i couldn't care less. i do appreciate your responses, however.
um. no. there's no reason why it should present a normal picture in IE and a jumbled mess of text in firefox or vice versa. you are wrong. pdfs suck ass for web content. a site made entirely of pdfs would blow chunks. no. no. html should display at least similarly on any browser. Not exactly the same, fine, but it shouldn't totally not work in one browser just as you get it to totally work in another. That's ridiculous.
or you can right click on the taskbar part and uncheck the quick lauch bar from even appearing. That's not what I usually do, but I have done it on workstations where it would never be used. I personally use it only for one-click browser launching and the ability to immediately minimize everything (view desktop button) and I lock it so it stays that way.
Perhaps Mozilla can leverage their quality vector above the 60,000 foot level and ramp up their ownership of the browser market whilst operationalizing their solutioning mindshare of the disintermediate, multidisciplinary, proactive, synergistic process.
wow. on skim-through, that looked like 'tossing off Kevin Smith,' which, while indubitably a geekly aspiration, is not one I have. Luckily, I read it right the second time.
Applause. I'd mod you up except I rarely get mod points. If I had them, though, you'd get one. I'm trying to redesign our company's site and IANAWD so it's freaking annoying. Half the time it looks bad in IE, the other half it looks bad in firefox/mozilla/opera. sigh. Standards? What are those? (note: 'bad' above does not refer to the content itself, only how it's displayed. I'm not an artist or anything so I'm sure it doesn't look all that great even displayed properly...however it's much worse when it won't display consistently across browsers.)
Wait a minute! I will NOT stand here and let people say microsoft has never innovated! It's an outrage! What about Microsoft BOB? What about Clippie?!? What about DRM so restrictive even legal purchasers can't use it? Microsoft is all ABOUT innovation, man.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know. I would see anyone who participated in a formal tournament (supposedly representing the US) in a sanctioned country as supporting that country's actions. This is especially true when that person has been told that the US would not like to be represented. If China actually holds the Olympics, I would hope that the U.S. would boycott in protest of China's massive human rights violations. If they do not, I will see the US teams, and by extension the US government, as condoning that country's actions. If you allow countries that are human rights abusers to have the appearance of legitimacy, you give their actions that appearance. Thing is, he could have just gone over there and played however much chess he wanted to with the people. He could have declared his support of that government's actions. That was not forbidden to him. It was only playing in a sanctioned tournament, where he would be representing the US, that was off-limits. Appearance is key here, as he would not actually represent the US's official stance, but would have that appearance to the rest of the world. This is quite simply because he is an American, and the tournament sanctioned. I think that US citizens should be allowed to travel to Cuba legally, for example, however I would not support the US putting a team in a sanctioned event there. I realize it's a fine distinction, but it is there.
Heheheheh. Nice troll. Forbidden to have an innocent play? Of course he wasn't. He wasn't told that he couldn't play chess in that country, merely that he could not play in a sanctioned tournament in that country. It's a bit of a distinction. It sends a message, and please make no mistake: Bobby Fischer knew exactly what he was doing. He sent the message he wanted to send, and while you may think that the reaction was too harsh, please do not make it like all he wanted to do was play a friendly game of chess.
Heaven forbid! at lest let's hope He has at worst an @yahoo.com addy.
It always amuses me to find people who don't trust 'the media' but place absolute faith in michael moore. (not picking on him, exactly, but he was mentioned specifically. you could read 'any single source' instead of 'michael moore' if you wish)
www.bowlingfortruth.com
now, you shouldn't trust that site blindly either, but watching a copy of bowling for columbine while reading that site is extremely instructive. don't trust media, don't trust michael moore...why does anyone have to tell you this anymore? how about doing a little thinking for yourself, people?
No problem, I've received the same criticism in the past, and while I wasn't offended either, it seems that many on /. have tissue-paper skin. I get flamed all the time for trying to help people, even though I try very hard not to be rude about it. That's why I put the caveat at the end. I don't always appreciate criticism myself, but I do try to always at least consider it. I think part of it has to do with the negative connotation of criticism online. Most people who have criticised me have done so while denigrating me at the same time. I try not to do that, but it seems that some people equate any criticism with derision, perhaps because of prevalent attitudes. Thank you for your response. As I mentioned before, you were spot on.
I believe it is. You see, all you must do is examine the number closely.
2559
2 + 5 = 7
9 -2 = 7
take the 2 we subtracted from the 9, add it to the other 5, you get 7.
that means His real id is 777.
it all makes sense now.
Of course, he did bet against the theory he wanted to prove. This makes him very similar to Kerry in my mind, as Kerry seems to want to be on both sides of every issue. Bush may be an idiot, but that doesn't explain why he's PotUS and all these people that are soooooo much smarter than him work at starbucks or the mall. I mean, I'm a Libertarian and I support Michael Badnarik for President, but I just don't think Bush can be dumber than most of the people who think he is and still be PotUS. that's just my opinion, though. Smart or dumb, I'll not be voting for him or that wishy-washy tree stump Kerry.
umm. Your post would have made a greater impact had you chosen a different method of setting the word 'taught' apart. You see, the connotation when one puts quotation marks around a word spelled incorrectly in a previous post is that one is making fun of the previous poster by quoting the misspelled word. You have placed the corrected word in quotes, which is confusing since the word 'taught' does not appear in the post you are replying to. You should either have used "tought" or taught to make a better impact. The way you did it makes you appear to believe 'taught' to be incorrect. Your message is spot on but your delivery was a bit off. I'm not intending any offense by this, but you may, of course, feel free to take some.
Shame on you, basing your opinions on anecdotal hearsay evidence from your SO! What kind of dumbass are you? Don't you know that on /. it's proper to formulate your opinions based on Internet-posted hearsay and anecdotal evidence! Tsk, tsk!
Jesus, who uses those nowadays anyway?
/. id is? I have some questions for Him too...if you get His email addy, that'd work too.
Wow. If He answers your question, could you tell me what His
I can't believe all you tin-hats out there still believe that a "nuclear weapon" exists. If humanity ever did detonate a "nuclear weapon" we'd all be dead now. We're not dead, so there aren't any nuclear weapons. You idiots probably believe people have walked on the moon, too. Morons.
That sign isn't indicating the danger to people from cigarettes, except indirectly. You see, smoking in certain areas which contain flammable gases or liquids can cause combustion where it would be dangerous and could hurt people. However, it would be the combustion that hurt you, or the lack of oxygen following combustion, not the cigarette itself.
Are you counting the votes of overseas military/civvies? because that's the biggest fallacy I have seen come from this whole 2000 election thing. People want to pretend like early returns are the only votes and totally ignore many senior citizens as well as service(insert whatever pronoun is politically correct today)s' votes. Also, the dems brought out the 'hanging chad' and 'voters are too fucking stupid to read candidates' names' ploys. I found it totally freaking hilarious that it was only Al Gore supporters who claimed to have been 'confused' by the voting slips. says a lot, if you ask me.
believes in the tenants of the religion they are studying.
You meant 'tenets.' The distinction is important.
Right-o! Pray tell me, up with which types of impertinence do you put?
ehehehe. and you, of course, decided to correct my purportedly incorrect pedantry with your purportedly correct pedantry...then call me elitist and ask if *I* feel special... do you not know the meaning of hypocrisy or do you just like being a hypocrite?
To answer your question, yes. I do, in fact, feel special. I am sure you would like know how it feels, and I hope that one day you will manage it.
I also like how you assert that "(Any English speaker would find "About what are you talking?" to sound stilted.)" I do not. Please remember, the post to which you replied was written in English. I label myself an "English speaker." I am perfectly comfortable with many modes of diction and do not find proper English stilted if it is uttered in a natural tone and rhythm. Proper English (and here I am using the term in a way to which you undoubtedly object; please do not bother telling me so) can, of course, be *made* to sound stilted, which many lazy comedians have proved over the years. (The scene(s) in Beavis and Butt-head do America are classic, and are excepted from the previous statement.)
I grew up in the United States.
It's apparent.
What is this "real news" you speak of?
Corrected:
"What is this 'real news' of which you speak?"
Perhaps your primary statement excuses your poor grammar. (no, I'm not referring to an indigent ancestor)
unfortunately, as you may have missed, this isn't my personal website. this is the website for my company, the president of which has a very personal interest in the site. this means that developmental and content control is not at all up to me. my boss says 'make it look thusly' and that is what i attempt to do. it's less work for me to iron out incompatibilities than to try to explain why what he wants isn't a good idea. mostly, he wants to look at it in IE and so do a lot of his customers, while i want to make sure mozilla/firefox/netscape/opera work as well and that even lynx isn't totally useless. :) this may not be the 'proper learn everything about everything attitude' or whatever, but until someone else is paying my bills, i couldn't care less. i do appreciate your responses, however.
I'm not even close to being a web designer, and i can't claim to want to learn everything there is to know about it for a one-of project that i'm at least muddling through currently. once it's done, i have no desire to design a website ever again
um. no. there's no reason why it should present a normal picture in IE and a jumbled mess of text in firefox or vice versa. you are wrong. pdfs suck ass for web content. a site made entirely of pdfs would blow chunks. no. no. html should display at least similarly on any browser. Not exactly the same, fine, but it shouldn't totally not work in one browser just as you get it to totally work in another. That's ridiculous.
or you can right click on the taskbar part and uncheck the quick lauch bar from even appearing. That's not what I usually do, but I have done it on workstations where it would never be used. I personally use it only for one-click browser launching and the ability to immediately minimize everything (view desktop button) and I lock it so it stays that way.
It's a whole new paradigm in browsing.
Perhaps Mozilla can leverage their quality vector above the 60,000 foot level and ramp up their ownership of the browser market whilst operationalizing their solutioning mindshare of the disintermediate, multidisciplinary, proactive, synergistic process.
What's that? Bingo?
wow. on skim-through, that looked like 'tossing off Kevin Smith,' which, while indubitably a geekly aspiration, is not one I have. Luckily, I read it right the second time.
Applause. I'd mod you up except I rarely get mod points. If I had them, though, you'd get one. I'm trying to redesign our company's site and IANAWD so it's freaking annoying. Half the time it looks bad in IE, the other half it looks bad in firefox/mozilla/opera. sigh. Standards? What are those?
(note: 'bad' above does not refer to the content itself, only how it's displayed. I'm not an artist or anything so I'm sure it doesn't look all that great even displayed properly...however it's much worse when it won't display consistently across browsers.)
And that ain't the only whole they haven't plugged in months...
The only whole what?!? I'm dying to know...
How about partials? Have they plugged any partials lately?
Wait a minute! I will NOT stand here and let people say microsoft has never innovated! It's an outrage! What about Microsoft BOB? What about Clippie?!? What about DRM so restrictive even legal purchasers can't use it? Microsoft is all ABOUT innovation, man.