all the hardware was allegedly compatible with OS/2
Your English is poor. Your statement ambiguously means "someone, somewhere says it may work". Then you go on before and after, implying it was on an official IBM HCL. The implication wasn't explicit, and the wording that would clarify was deliberately weakened.
So the question is, were the devices 100% verified to be 100% supported by IBM?
THe complaint that OS/2's HCL was inaccurate is different than "it's hard to use". I've seen thousands of machines running OS/2. Those that were zealots would search long and hard for the right components/combinations, and it would work as advertised. I never paid attention to whether they were using the official HCL, or making up their own. I was never interested in the OS wars.
Did you run OS/2 and NT 3.1 side by side? Obviously not. OS/2 was not as bad as you claim. NT was almost unusable as a desktop environment, at least until NT4SP3 and later. I worked plenty of places where people would have two computers on their desk. An NT machine to access the server shares, and second computer to do work on. Floppy to move stuff back and forth. But NT was unusable for many people. You could pay MS $1,000,000 and they still wouldn't get your CAD program to work with the cutting edge card you wanted. But with OS/2, you could.
But your memory is bad, so you parrot what you've heard others complain about.
OS/2 was only as bad as you complain about because so few used it. When IBM made the hardware, and built the OS to run on it (owning both the hardware and software, it was trivial to build drivers and make it work), it worked great. IBM hardware ATMs exclusively ran OS/2, for at least some time. And I saw OS/2 used as microcomuters (in mainframe-like applications). As well as servers for those who wanted NT-like environments but didn't want MS or Novell.
Though I don't know many that ran OS/2 in a corporate environment without paying someone like EDS lots of money for support.
Well, given the choice between OS/2 and NT, OS/2 won the ATM battle. I used to see OS/2 ATMs all the time. It wasn't until MS made an embedded version of XP that I began to see MS on ATMs.
School vouchers aren't about "choice" but taxes. Both sides agree that you have the choice to school your children as you see fit (to some minimum standard), but the pro-voucher groups are fighting for taxes to be spent on schools that reject science/logic and tech superstition and indoctrinate into a cult.
How does it sound if I say, "People who support a broad second amendment interpretation are actually ANTI-GUN because increasing legal carriers deters criminal gun use"?
Sounds better than the pro-life side which is pro-death (penalty) and anti support for the child once born, and against any mechanisms that prevent abortion (except perhaps for the forced sterilization of women, but only if they fit an undesirable category). They aren't pro-life in any definition, other than their propaganda on abortion.
anti-life misanthropes are unrelated to choice. You must not know any either? The truly pro-extinction environmentalists wouldn't be "pro-choice" but are pro-abortion, pro sterilization, pro euthanasia. They'll claim the opposite side of "pro life", regardless of the stance. That it coincides with pro-choice at a glance is coincidental.
Not that's not true. The pro-right-to-life side doesn't care about embryos, just punishment of women with embryos inside them. Go on, check me on that. What's the pro-life stance on IVF clinics? It's a lot less clear, and you'd be able to find people on both sides of it. The right to life of the embryo is orthogonal to whether someone is pro-choice or anti-choice.
Nope. Pro-choice people take actions to reduce abortions. Pro-life people take actions that result in higher abortions. Pro-abortion is the stance of the pro-life people. Because of that, pro-life are not anti-abortion, but instead anti-choice.
Why do you not want to use the most accurate terms?
I saw your mother blowing dealers for a hit of Oxy.
Your argument is that the validity of the statement must be taken as true, and the argument made about the logic and subject. The most likely answer is that the statement is a lie. That makes the speaker a liar. One can't evaluate the statement without making some conclusion about the speaker.
The statement made was opinion without logic, so how can one evaluate the logic?
Pro-life is more likely to be pro-death (penalty). So the moniker doesn't appear accurate. It's not about "life". It's about control. When you are seeing a doctor that performs abortions, one side wants you to have two choices. The other, only one. So one is pro-choice. And the other is anti-choice.
Pro-choice is also anti-abortion. A pro-choice person is more likely to support condom distribution and use, which decreases abortions. So pro-choice is more anti-abortion than anti-choice people. Anti-choice is about power and control (and punishment), not the baby.
Like they didn't publish an article about Target pushing diaper ads? http://weblogs.pbspaces.com/mr... I remember reading that one on Slashdot, but couldn't find it, and had to go to a broader search.
My beliefs are irrelevant to the point I made. Which you would not refute.
No, they are quite relevant to the point you made. You represented one perspective. Identifying the bias in the speaker is required to evaluate the statements made. That you claim otherwise indicates you are an idiot that gets robbed every time you go to buy a car or negotiate for anything.
Your posting is your opinion, to claim it isn't effectively makes it a lie. If you have an opinion (and from your obvious bias, it seems obvious), then me a man and stand by it.
Because nobody I know who is pro-choice is pro-abortion. Every one of them would prefer there be fewer abortions. Note, it's the pro-choice people that are involved in reporoductive rights issues that lead to lower pregnancy rates. The fewer unwanted pregnancies, the fewer the abortions. So many (almost all I know) pro-choice people are anti-abortion.
Pro-choice and anti-choice seems to sum up the sides more accurately. One side wants to allow a legal choice. The other doesn't. The rest is emotional smokescreen.
But at this point, there's no link between over-prescription of antibiotics and resistant strains. People like to blame the over-prescription, but take a person with a viral infection, and no bacterial infection. But the studies are sufficiently split on the topic that one can only say there's no clear link either way.
Every grid tie system I've seen (though I don't look at the unlicensed "illegal" DIY-only systems) has an automatic disconnect on grid failure. It's pretty simple, when you are running a small unit.
That's simply not true. If 50% of passwords are "password", and you ban "password" you will not have 50% of passwords be replaced with the same password. Banning the most common password will result in more diverse and unique passwords.
Then, when you get hacked, you'll take to the Internets to whine about how MS allowed you to have an insecure password that made you get hacked. I've seen it happen before.
And they could have more surreptitiously have put it in place with obfuscation. The minimum wage would be indexed at the 1968 level (inflation adjusted) and adjusted by inflation to not drop below that level. If the change in a year is greater than 10% of the previous minimum wage, and more than inflation, then the change will be capped at 10% per year.
The effect would be the same (or better, for workers), but wouldn't have annoyed the poor-haters as much. There'd be no jump, just a small inflation adjustment each year. And it'd be as locked in as the current law. But the intent of the law wasn't just to raise the minimum wage, but to look like they raised it a lot. It is a battle in class warfare, not an attempt to improve the lives of the poor.
"Don't blame the reader" is rich, coming from someone that doesn't even read what was written. You saw that I disagreed with some portion of some post you agreed with, and attacked me, based on who I disagreed with, not what I said.
When confronted, you take it all back and blame me for your inability to read any of the posts, and just responding to the emotions you felt glancing over them.
Slashdot Mirror
SJW means "someone I don't like". Same as "liberal".
all the hardware was allegedly compatible with OS/2
Your English is poor. Your statement ambiguously means "someone, somewhere says it may work". Then you go on before and after, implying it was on an official IBM HCL. The implication wasn't explicit, and the wording that would clarify was deliberately weakened.
So the question is, were the devices 100% verified to be 100% supported by IBM?
THe complaint that OS/2's HCL was inaccurate is different than "it's hard to use". I've seen thousands of machines running OS/2. Those that were zealots would search long and hard for the right components/combinations, and it would work as advertised. I never paid attention to whether they were using the official HCL, or making up their own. I was never interested in the OS wars.
Did you run OS/2 and NT 3.1 side by side? Obviously not. OS/2 was not as bad as you claim. NT was almost unusable as a desktop environment, at least until NT4SP3 and later. I worked plenty of places where people would have two computers on their desk. An NT machine to access the server shares, and second computer to do work on. Floppy to move stuff back and forth. But NT was unusable for many people. You could pay MS $1,000,000 and they still wouldn't get your CAD program to work with the cutting edge card you wanted. But with OS/2, you could.
But your memory is bad, so you parrot what you've heard others complain about.
OS/2 was only as bad as you complain about because so few used it. When IBM made the hardware, and built the OS to run on it (owning both the hardware and software, it was trivial to build drivers and make it work), it worked great. IBM hardware ATMs exclusively ran OS/2, for at least some time. And I saw OS/2 used as microcomuters (in mainframe-like applications). As well as servers for those who wanted NT-like environments but didn't want MS or Novell.
Though I don't know many that ran OS/2 in a corporate environment without paying someone like EDS lots of money for support.
Well, given the choice between OS/2 and NT, OS/2 won the ATM battle. I used to see OS/2 ATMs all the time. It wasn't until MS made an embedded version of XP that I began to see MS on ATMs.
It's so simple and powerful that TFA, TFS, and self-righteous pricks can't even mention what it does.
How does it sound if I say, "People who support a broad second amendment interpretation are actually ANTI-GUN because increasing legal carriers deters criminal gun use"?
Sounds better than the pro-life side which is pro-death (penalty) and anti support for the child once born, and against any mechanisms that prevent abortion (except perhaps for the forced sterilization of women, but only if they fit an undesirable category). They aren't pro-life in any definition, other than their propaganda on abortion.
anti-life misanthropes are unrelated to choice. You must not know any either? The truly pro-extinction environmentalists wouldn't be "pro-choice" but are pro-abortion, pro sterilization, pro euthanasia. They'll claim the opposite side of "pro life", regardless of the stance. That it coincides with pro-choice at a glance is coincidental.
Not that's not true. The pro-right-to-life side doesn't care about embryos, just punishment of women with embryos inside them. Go on, check me on that. What's the pro-life stance on IVF clinics? It's a lot less clear, and you'd be able to find people on both sides of it. The right to life of the embryo is orthogonal to whether someone is pro-choice or anti-choice.
Nope. Pro-choice people take actions to reduce abortions. Pro-life people take actions that result in higher abortions. Pro-abortion is the stance of the pro-life people. Because of that, pro-life are not anti-abortion, but instead anti-choice.
Why do you not want to use the most accurate terms?
I saw your mother blowing dealers for a hit of Oxy.
Your argument is that the validity of the statement must be taken as true, and the argument made about the logic and subject. The most likely answer is that the statement is a lie. That makes the speaker a liar. One can't evaluate the statement without making some conclusion about the speaker.
The statement made was opinion without logic, so how can one evaluate the logic?
Pro-life is more likely to be pro-death (penalty). So the moniker doesn't appear accurate. It's not about "life". It's about control. When you are seeing a doctor that performs abortions, one side wants you to have two choices. The other, only one. So one is pro-choice. And the other is anti-choice.
Pro-choice is also anti-abortion. A pro-choice person is more likely to support condom distribution and use, which decreases abortions. So pro-choice is more anti-abortion than anti-choice people. Anti-choice is about power and control (and punishment), not the baby.
White males in the top 10%? Probably.
Like they didn't publish an article about Target pushing diaper ads? http://weblogs.pbspaces.com/mr... I remember reading that one on Slashdot, but couldn't find it, and had to go to a broader search.
My beliefs are irrelevant to the point I made. Which you would not refute.
No, they are quite relevant to the point you made. You represented one perspective. Identifying the bias in the speaker is required to evaluate the statements made. That you claim otherwise indicates you are an idiot that gets robbed every time you go to buy a car or negotiate for anything.
Your posting is your opinion, to claim it isn't effectively makes it a lie. If you have an opinion (and from your obvious bias, it seems obvious), then me a man and stand by it.
How about account by dollars allocated to each service.
Those numbers are available. That you don't quote them indicates you'd rather push your agenda than the truth.
Because nobody I know who is pro-choice is pro-abortion. Every one of them would prefer there be fewer abortions. Note, it's the pro-choice people that are involved in reporoductive rights issues that lead to lower pregnancy rates. The fewer unwanted pregnancies, the fewer the abortions. So many (almost all I know) pro-choice people are anti-abortion.
Pro-choice and anti-choice seems to sum up the sides more accurately. One side wants to allow a legal choice. The other doesn't. The rest is emotional smokescreen.
But at this point, there's no link between over-prescription of antibiotics and resistant strains. People like to blame the over-prescription, but take a person with a viral infection, and no bacterial infection. But the studies are sufficiently split on the topic that one can only say there's no clear link either way.
And, from their logic (or the reports interpretation of it), Nigger isn't a racist word, since the use of it is more common by Blacks than others.
Every grid tie system I've seen (though I don't look at the unlicensed "illegal" DIY-only systems) has an automatic disconnect on grid failure. It's pretty simple, when you are running a small unit.
That's simply not true. If 50% of passwords are "password", and you ban "password" you will not have 50% of passwords be replaced with the same password. Banning the most common password will result in more diverse and unique passwords.
Then, when you get hacked, you'll take to the Internets to whine about how MS allowed you to have an insecure password that made you get hacked. I've seen it happen before.
And they could have more surreptitiously have put it in place with obfuscation. The minimum wage would be indexed at the 1968 level (inflation adjusted) and adjusted by inflation to not drop below that level. If the change in a year is greater than 10% of the previous minimum wage, and more than inflation, then the change will be capped at 10% per year.
The effect would be the same (or better, for workers), but wouldn't have annoyed the poor-haters as much. There'd be no jump, just a small inflation adjustment each year. And it'd be as locked in as the current law. But the intent of the law wasn't just to raise the minimum wage, but to look like they raised it a lot. It is a battle in class warfare, not an attempt to improve the lives of the poor.
"Don't blame the reader" is rich, coming from someone that doesn't even read what was written. You saw that I disagreed with some portion of some post you agreed with, and attacked me, based on who I disagreed with, not what I said.
When confronted, you take it all back and blame me for your inability to read any of the posts, and just responding to the emotions you felt glancing over them.