The people who wrote the Second Amendment probably feared that it would be easy. Thank goodness it's difficult to get TSA employees to body scan Americans, or get law-enforcement officers to strip search their fellow citizens. Also, how morally difficult is it to kill people using Predator drones?
but I am a blac belt in all five major martial arts so I can protect you from him and from all the rightwing racist vijilantes that creep all over the horrible racist capitalistic hellhole that is the U.S.A.
The fact of the matter is, words are combinations of morphemes or syllables used to convey meaning.
And how does a double negative ("ir" and "less") convey meaning? When people treat "irregardless" as a synonym for "regardless, they are trampling on the meaning of "ir".
When I said "what definition of the word 'word' do you prefer?"
If we were discussing words as such, you would have a point, but English has rules about forming words. The string "irregardless" has two negative morphemes, and people treat it as though it only had one. That is my objection.
Begging the question. If I would argue over MW's use of "irregardless", why would I meekly accept their use of "word"? Does this make me anal retentivest?
You say that big-city hotels have higher costs, and that they charge more for wifi because of those higher costs (maybe not of bandwidth, but other stuff). You then criticize the GP for expecting prices to be higher based on costs? Hmm. . .
And that depends upon aaron.aaronson being a LEGITIMATE USERNAME ON THAT SYSTEM. Once the sysadmin sees that attack in the logs then the logins to that should be changed (ssh.aaron.aaronson or such) to break that attack if they were not already such. Or change them AGAIN (aaron.aaronson.ssh) and be aware that something leaked somewhere.
But you are being reactive. Wouldn't it be better to have the ssh user name different from the email name, and really different, so that it is difficult to deduce one from the other?
That's the reason that they're not going to get in. They're using usernames that don't exist (unless the sysadmin is an idiot in which case you have the regular idiot problems and it's probably been cracked already through one of those).
Do you have your system set up so that email names are not user names?
If you have six trials and one works, then you can publish that. And it's not dishonest - 1 trial did work. And you're free to speculate about why that should be. And at no point have you actually falsified any results.
So you are saying that failing to report negative results is not falsifying them? When you report the p value of the one trial that did succeed, did you take into consideration the trials that didn't?
Do you know a way to sort out the science faster? Or were you criticizing the GP for not considering the possibility of having people sort out the science?
As the 911 call mentioned in the article might not have come from Zimmerman, who else could have made it but Martin? And do you have a sample of Martin's voice with which to compare it? As for Martin "coming back" and confronting Zimmerman, couldn't Zimmerman have simply locked his van?
I.O.W., if Martin had any reasonable reason to think that Zimmerman had anything against him, he should have called 911 instead of starting an altercation.
He might well have called 911, and how do you know that he started the altercation?
Slashdot Mirror
The people who wrote the Second Amendment probably feared that it would be easy. Thank goodness it's difficult to get TSA employees to body scan Americans, or get law-enforcement officers to strip search their fellow citizens. Also, how morally difficult is it to kill people using Predator drones?
Do the people have sufficient firepower to take on the army?
I believe comp.os.linux.advocacy preceded you.
but I am a blac belt in all five major martial arts so I can protect you from him and from all the rightwing racist vijilantes that creep all over the horrible racist capitalistic hellhole that is the U.S.A.
Can your blac[k] belt stop a 9mm?
The fact of the matter is, words are combinations of morphemes or syllables used to convey meaning.
And how does a double negative ("ir" and "less") convey meaning? When people treat "irregardless" as a synonym for "regardless, they are trampling on the meaning of "ir".
When I said "what definition of the word 'word' do you prefer?"
If we were discussing words as such, you would have a point, but English has rules about forming words. The string "irregardless" has two negative morphemes, and people treat it as though it only had one. That is my objection.
easy, for every single good open source thing, you have to wade though a 40 mile wide pile of shit open source things.
And how is this different from closed-source software?
Any dictionary that allowed "irregardless" as a word wouldn't be my favorite. What does "irregardless" give you that "regardless" doesn't?
And you might not want to get me started on treating "antisemitic" as a synonym for "anti-Jewish". Hello! Arabs are Semites, too!
Begging the question. If I would argue over MW's use of "irregardless", why would I meekly accept their use of "word"? Does this make me anal retentivest?
No, clearly it was the Facebook document that robbed two women and murdered a third.
Hint: Usage defines what is a word.
Whose usage?
Simply because Merriam-Webster chooses to accept it doesn't make it a word.
Dictionaries that act as though "ir" is not a negating prefix are wrong.
You say that big-city hotels have higher costs, and that they charge more for wifi because of those higher costs (maybe not of bandwidth, but other stuff). You then criticize the GP for expecting prices to be higher based on costs? Hmm. . .
While it's a cute idea, they're still trapped in a binary, aristotelian model of the world that isn't adequate at all.
Very few things in the real world really are clearly distinguishable as "success" or "failure"
That would be success or not success.
Adaptive Aerial Antipirate Robotically Generated Holography!
And that depends upon aaron.aaronson being a LEGITIMATE USERNAME ON THAT SYSTEM. Once the sysadmin sees that attack in the logs then the logins to that should be changed (ssh.aaron.aaronson or such) to break that attack if they were not already such. Or change them AGAIN (aaron.aaronson.ssh) and be aware that something leaked somewhere.
But you are being reactive. Wouldn't it be better to have the ssh user name different from the email name, and really different, so that it is difficult to deduce one from the other?
That's the reason that they're not going to get in. They're using usernames that don't exist (unless the sysadmin is an idiot in which case you have the regular idiot problems and it's probably been cracked already through one of those).
Do you have your system set up so that email names are not user names?
If you have six trials and one works, then you can publish that. And it's not dishonest - 1 trial did work. And you're free to speculate about why that should be. And at no point have you actually falsified any results.
So you are saying that failing to report negative results is not falsifying them? When you report the p value of the one trial that did succeed, did you take into consideration the trials that didn't?
Do you know a way to sort out the science faster? Or were you criticizing the GP for not considering the possibility of having people sort out the science?
That's like asking why we use Excel instead of paper spreadsheets. I'm not sure how the answer isn't immediately and painfully obvious to anyone.
Because it's difficult to get Excel to run on Linux?
What about the Lorentz contractions of wavelengths? Couldn't wavelengths be irrational?
Then who made the call?
As the 911 call mentioned in the article might not have come from Zimmerman, who else could have made it but Martin? And do you have a sample of Martin's voice with which to compare it? As for Martin "coming back" and confronting Zimmerman, couldn't Zimmerman have simply locked his van?
I.O.W., if Martin had any reasonable reason to think that Zimmerman had anything against him, he should have called 911 instead of starting an altercation.
He might well have called 911, and how do you know that he started the altercation?