If a hard g is the way it is commonly pronounced, that's the correct way.
That is incorrect. Both pronunciations are correct. Both are in common use, and every dictionary I sampled showed both ways as "the" way to pronounce it.
The "correct" way is whichever of the two you choose. Any other way would be wrong, of course, since only the two being discussed are in common usage. Say it in some other way and people won't even recognize the word.
In summary, the correct way is with a soft "g". Or a hard "g". But really, it's a soft "g".
Ya, whatever. It's his acronym, he can choose how it's pronounced. There are no English acronym pronunciation rules. Is it ok to pronounce POTUS like everyone else, or do you insist on it being pronounced putt-yoos (ptyoos).
Dammit, I knew I should have skimmed the comments first. The only reason I read the summary was to see if it was a monopole lol.
Re:What about reStructuredText?
on
DocBook 5
·
· Score: 1
Thanks for the tip, AsciiDoc looks really good, too.
I don't need all the features of DocBook, as my writing is internal documentation of software operation, api docs and various processes, and usually viewed onscreen. Not books or anything significantly complex.
What about reStructuredText?
on
DocBook 5
·
· Score: 1
How does reStructuredText stack up against DocBook? It's on my "look into later" list for technical documentation. My first impression of it was pretty good, especially combined with the Sphinx document generator.
Firefox rarely crashes on me, but, it does have quite the appetite for memory (though, to be fair, I rarely notice or care).
I'm running a fairly fresh instance of FF 3.6.6 on Win7, only one other tab open, and it's averaging about 145MB (it keeps fluctuating from 143 to 148, but spends most of its time at 144MB).
What I find amusing is that I'm also running Ubuntu 10.4 in a VirtualBox VM, running a couple terminals, hi-res wallpaper, compiz enabled with 3d cube rotation, and Chrome with the same two tabs open, and the entire VM w/the OS + Chrome is only consuming 114MB.
I'd bet VirtualBox is using using some more memory that isn't showing up in task manager, such as drivers and the like, but I still find it amusing.
But seriously, 70-80K sound about right, depending on what branch of IT you're in and where you are located. For a helpdesk worker, ya, probably not. But, for a sysadmin, experienced programmer, DBA, or network admin, 70-80K is common, with many earning more. Even in the midwest that number sounds about right.
In the majority of states it's perfectly legal to be in the intersection when the light turns red, as long as you entered the intersection beforehand, with a reasonable expectation of being able to clear the intersection.
With the most common example being a left hand turn. Most states teach their drivers that when making a left hand turn at a light, when the light turns green you should pull forward into the intersection and await a safe gap in through-traffic before turning. If the light turns red while you are still waiting for the last straggler to go by, you still haven't "run the red". You complete your turn as soon as possible. In fact, if the drivers to your left and right enter the intersection before you complete your turn, they are typically guilty of a moving violation for entering an uncleared intersection. As I read from someone else, in every state it's illegal to accelerate into a stationary object:)
Oh, poor baby. Maybe you suffer alone because no one wants to be around someone whom obviously has a significant chip on his shoulder.
Ya, it sucks that you have diabetes. And, I see no reason why you or I shouldn't have to pay higher insurance premiums when our cost of care is going to be higher than average. That's life, it doesn't have to be fair.
lol, nope, you weren't the only one. I seriously thought it said "Herpes without capes" and just assumed I didn't "get" something, but it was still amusing because it made so little sense. Never occurred to me that it might have said something else until I read your comment and re-watched the video. "Heroes without capes" makes SOO much more sense.
I actually agree with most of what you're saying. Regarding the home appreciation (if any), I'm just saying that if the value goes up, it's not free money that other people should get dibs on.
I very much agree with you on the getting rich through government appropriations, since that tab is actually being picked up by the people, one way or another. Though I don't think there's anything intrinsically wrong or immoral with inheritance. In most cases, that wealth was earned somewhere along the line. No reason to respect it, but again, there's no reason for other people or the government to think they have a right to any of it, either.
Yeah, your guess is way off. According to the IRS, the top 1% pay 34.27% of all income taxes, while they earn only 16.77% of the income.
So, they're not lying. Why do you think it's ok to admittedly make up a statistic (that the top 1% of tax payers earn 98.8% of the income) and use that as the basis for your morally superior tone?
I agree, as well. Though I would suggest a slight modification: for those earning less than the threshold, rather than pay no taxes, they should still pay taxes, but, perhaps at a rate of maybe 2% (or whatever, I made that number up).
That way, everyone feels they have a vested interest in how the taxes are spent. Maybe even make the lower tax rate a percentage of the higher one, so that plans to increase the higher one will also result in a net increase in the lower rate. That way you don't have voter apathy or people wanting to "go after" the rich since it will hit their wallets, as well. These days a lot of people don't care about tax hikes, because they know that after "rebates", credits, and standard deductions, they won't be paying any taxes anyway.
Yeah, I think I like that. Let's go with a rate of 15% on all income above the poverty level, and all income below the poverty would be taxed at the rate of 10% of the top rate, which, with a top rate of 15%, would be 1.5%.
I think it should be taxed the same as so-called "actual work." That's a pretty loaded phrase, anyway. For example, let's say that someone's house is now worth $50,000 more than when they bought it. That is a $50,000 capital gain. Sounds like you don't consider that income from "actual work."
However, that's not taking into account that maybe that homeowner busted their balls working 60-hour weeks, or had the discipline to spend wisely and save enough to own a home rather than blowing it all on booze and boats.
Using a phrase an ambiguous as "actual work" strikes me as coming from someone with class envy. How do you even define "actual work?" Physical work? Mental work? Smart work? Should someone that works in a physically demanding job receive better tax benefits than someone that "only" had to work behind a desk all day?
I presume that my retirement income will be considered "capital gains", and I can assure you that the effort involved in creating those future gains is the direct result of "actual work."
I understand that no where in your comment did you imply that capital gains should be taxed at a higher rate than income tax. I'm of the belief that if you're going to have an income tax, ALL income should be taxed at the same rate, regardless of source. Now, whether or not an income tax is the best form of taxation, that's a whole 'nother topic!
I must be more tired than I thought. After reading the above in "Preview", it's kind of a rambling mess. Oh well, I'll let it stand as is:)
I don't see it as dishonest at all. I tend to agree with RightSaidFred99 above. I'd be willing to bet that their charitable contributions are more effective because they aren't being managed by the federal government. Everyone knows that government has a horrible record when it comes to efficiency and effectiveness.
And I think you should contribute 100% of your wages to me! In other words, it really doesn't matter what you think they should do with their money. It's theirs, not yours.
But seriously, they aren't exactly getting a free ride in regards to public services such as police and fire departments. You have to keep in mind that Google employs tens of thousands of people. People that are earning high wages and paying lots of taxes. So, the founders are paying lots of taxes indirectly by employing thousands of people.
Besides, they may only be taking $1 annual salaries, but that doesn't mean they have no income. I'm sure they have very high incomes, from sale of stock, from investments, etc. And on those items they have to pay income or capital gains taxes. And, I'm sure that whatever taxes they have paid, plus the taxes they will end up paying on the upcoming stock sales, will completely dwarf any that you or I will pay over the course of our entire lifetimes.
Just because he's an alleged drug dealer doesn't mean he isn't one. What is historically factual does not depend on the future ruling of a court.
And, he's presumed innocent. If he did the crime, he's guilty, regardless of what any court has or has not said. And the reverse is true if he didn't do the crime.
Slashdot Mirror
If a hard g is the way it is commonly pronounced, that's the correct way.
That is incorrect. Both pronunciations are correct. Both are in common use, and every dictionary I sampled showed both ways as "the" way to pronounce it.
The "correct" way is whichever of the two you choose. Any other way would be wrong, of course, since only the two being discussed are in common usage. Say it in some other way and people won't even recognize the word.
In summary, the correct way is with a soft "g". Or a hard "g". But really, it's a soft "g".
Ya, whatever. It's his acronym, he can choose how it's pronounced. There are no English acronym pronunciation rules. Is it ok to pronounce POTUS like everyone else, or do you insist on it being pronounced putt-yoos (ptyoos).
Lighten up, dude.
Dammit, I knew I should have skimmed the comments first. The only reason I read the summary was to see if it was a monopole lol.
Thanks for the tip, AsciiDoc looks really good, too.
I don't need all the features of DocBook, as my writing is internal documentation of software operation, api docs and various processes, and usually viewed onscreen. Not books or anything significantly complex.
How does reStructuredText stack up against DocBook? It's on my "look into later" list for technical documentation. My first impression of it was pretty good, especially combined with the Sphinx document generator.
I thought that was pretty funny. I don't have any mod points, so I'll just leave this reply, instead.
Firefox rarely crashes on me, but, it does have quite the appetite for memory (though, to be fair, I rarely notice or care).
I'm running a fairly fresh instance of FF 3.6.6 on Win7, only one other tab open, and it's averaging about 145MB (it keeps fluctuating from 143 to 148, but spends most of its time at 144MB).
What I find amusing is that I'm also running Ubuntu 10.4 in a VirtualBox VM, running a couple terminals, hi-res wallpaper, compiz enabled with 3d cube rotation, and Chrome with the same two tabs open, and the entire VM w/the OS + Chrome is only consuming 114MB.
I'd bet VirtualBox is using using some more memory that isn't showing up in task manager, such as drivers and the like, but I still find it amusing.
I have no idea what you are billing for, but, you might be selling yourself short. Try upping your rate for a new customer and see what will fly!
Nope, it's just you ;)
But seriously, 70-80K sound about right, depending on what branch of IT you're in and where you are located. For a helpdesk worker, ya, probably not. But, for a sysadmin, experienced programmer, DBA, or network admin, 70-80K is common, with many earning more. Even in the midwest that number sounds about right.
We have a winner! This has got to be the most concise and accurate response to the question. Thank you, sir!
In the majority of states it's perfectly legal to be in the intersection when the light turns red, as long as you entered the intersection beforehand, with a reasonable expectation of being able to clear the intersection.
With the most common example being a left hand turn. Most states teach their drivers that when making a left hand turn at a light, when the light turns green you should pull forward into the intersection and await a safe gap in through-traffic before turning. If the light turns red while you are still waiting for the last straggler to go by, you still haven't "run the red". You complete your turn as soon as possible. In fact, if the drivers to your left and right enter the intersection before you complete your turn, they are typically guilty of a moving violation for entering an uncleared intersection. As I read from someone else, in every state it's illegal to accelerate into a stationary object :)
Oh, poor baby. Maybe you suffer alone because no one wants to be around someone whom obviously has a significant chip on his shoulder.
Ya, it sucks that you have diabetes. And, I see no reason why you or I shouldn't have to pay higher insurance premiums when our cost of care is going to be higher than average. That's life, it doesn't have to be fair.
Why should we care about international agreements that we aren't a part of?
lol, nope, you weren't the only one. I seriously thought it said "Herpes without capes" and just assumed I didn't "get" something, but it was still amusing because it made so little sense. Never occurred to me that it might have said something else until I read your comment and re-watched the video. "Heroes without capes" makes SOO much more sense.
I'm surprised I haven't seen any references to http://play.typeracer.com/. It's pretty cool, you can play alone or race other live players.
In a nutshell, if you want to get faster, challenge yourself and practice, practice, practice.
I don't have any mod points, so I'll just post an agreement, instead.
The one set is free, the other set involves taking my money and giving it to someone else.
If the "someone else" then gets the notion that he has a "right" to my money, problems come up.
Exactly, that's what most people don't seem to get.
I actually agree with most of what you're saying. Regarding the home appreciation (if any), I'm just saying that if the value goes up, it's not free money that other people should get dibs on.
I very much agree with you on the getting rich through government appropriations, since that tab is actually being picked up by the people, one way or another. Though I don't think there's anything intrinsically wrong or immoral with inheritance. In most cases, that wealth was earned somewhere along the line. No reason to respect it, but again, there's no reason for other people or the government to think they have a right to any of it, either.
Yeah, your guess is way off. According to the IRS, the top 1% pay 34.27% of all income taxes, while they earn only 16.77% of the income.
So, they're not lying. Why do you think it's ok to admittedly make up a statistic (that the top 1% of tax payers earn 98.8% of the income) and use that as the basis for your morally superior tone?
I agree, as well. Though I would suggest a slight modification: for those earning less than the threshold, rather than pay no taxes, they should still pay taxes, but, perhaps at a rate of maybe 2% (or whatever, I made that number up).
That way, everyone feels they have a vested interest in how the taxes are spent. Maybe even make the lower tax rate a percentage of the higher one, so that plans to increase the higher one will also result in a net increase in the lower rate. That way you don't have voter apathy or people wanting to "go after" the rich since it will hit their wallets, as well. These days a lot of people don't care about tax hikes, because they know that after "rebates", credits, and standard deductions, they won't be paying any taxes anyway.
Yeah, I think I like that. Let's go with a rate of 15% on all income above the poverty level, and all income below the poverty would be taxed at the rate of 10% of the top rate, which, with a top rate of 15%, would be 1.5%.
Alight, make it so!
I think it should be taxed the same as so-called "actual work." That's a pretty loaded phrase, anyway. For example, let's say that someone's house is now worth $50,000 more than when they bought it. That is a $50,000 capital gain. Sounds like you don't consider that income from "actual work."
However, that's not taking into account that maybe that homeowner busted their balls working 60-hour weeks, or had the discipline to spend wisely and save enough to own a home rather than blowing it all on booze and boats.
Using a phrase an ambiguous as "actual work" strikes me as coming from someone with class envy. How do you even define "actual work?" Physical work? Mental work? Smart work? Should someone that works in a physically demanding job receive better tax benefits than someone that "only" had to work behind a desk all day?
I presume that my retirement income will be considered "capital gains", and I can assure you that the effort involved in creating those future gains is the direct result of "actual work."
I understand that no where in your comment did you imply that capital gains should be taxed at a higher rate than income tax. I'm of the belief that if you're going to have an income tax, ALL income should be taxed at the same rate, regardless of source. Now, whether or not an income tax is the best form of taxation, that's a whole 'nother topic!
I must be more tired than I thought. After reading the above in "Preview", it's kind of a rambling mess. Oh well, I'll let it stand as is :)
I don't see it as dishonest at all. I tend to agree with RightSaidFred99 above. I'd be willing to bet that their charitable contributions are more effective because they aren't being managed by the federal government. Everyone knows that government has a horrible record when it comes to efficiency and effectiveness.
And I think you should contribute 100% of your wages to me! In other words, it really doesn't matter what you think they should do with their money. It's theirs, not yours.
But seriously, they aren't exactly getting a free ride in regards to public services such as police and fire departments. You have to keep in mind that Google employs tens of thousands of people. People that are earning high wages and paying lots of taxes. So, the founders are paying lots of taxes indirectly by employing thousands of people.
Besides, they may only be taking $1 annual salaries, but that doesn't mean they have no income. I'm sure they have very high incomes, from sale of stock, from investments, etc. And on those items they have to pay income or capital gains taxes. And, I'm sure that whatever taxes they have paid, plus the taxes they will end up paying on the upcoming stock sales, will completely dwarf any that you or I will pay over the course of our entire lifetimes.
Good, I'm not the only one! The search result is still sitting in another tab waiting for me to get bored reading these comments.
Just because he's an alleged drug dealer doesn't mean he isn't one. What is historically factual does not depend on the future ruling of a court.
And, he's presumed innocent. If he did the crime, he's guilty, regardless of what any court has or has not said. And the reverse is true if he didn't do the crime.
Heh, just when you think you know how bad it is, someone lets you know it's actually worse!