"Announced last year during the Queen’s Speech, the update to the UK Computer Misuse Act via the Serious Crime Act 2015 has caused consternation for two reasons. First, it’s terms are broad. For someone to have deserved a life in prison, they must have committed an “unauthorised act” and known that it was unauthorised, and will have either intended to have caused “serious damage” to “human welfare or to national security” or had been “reckless as to whether such harm was caused”"
Gee, it seems he's eligible for life in prison in the UK too.
A) Whose to say what was sent over to British courts. We're just looking at the public stuff.
B) This is all stupid drivel. The court rulings do not make a single mention of the US not providing enough evidence. This tangent is irrelevant to the discussion.
Oh heavens! A single US police officer does something that when summarized and taken out of any type of context seems completely stupid. THE WHOLE SYSTEM IS CORRUPT!
""Unnamed co-conspirators?" Evidence seems strong in this case."
There are all sorts of legitimate reasons certain parties aren't named publicly in lawsuits. Your sarcastic cause for doubt is flimsy at best.
Also, I used Babar as an example of what might happen to Lauri Love if he were tried in the US. Whether Babar should have been extradited is completely irrelevant to this discussion.
A) After an initial arrest the UK chose to not prosecute him at all for his crimes. Perhaps if the UK had sought to send him through their own legal system initally things would have been different.
B) He was facing a possible 99 year sentence in the US. If his crimes were as harmless as you state then it certainly would have been less. Take the case of Babar Ahmad ( https://www.theguardian.com/uk... ). He was extradited, sentenced to 12 years, and was released to the UK after only one year because of his cooperation with the authorities.
C) He's being accused of crimes far more serious than you make out. "...but the US government, which accused him of helping to orchestrate and wage cyber-attacks on official websites including those belonging to the Federal Reserve, Nasa and the US army between 2012 and 2013. Love, they claim, along with three other unnamed co-conspirators in Australia and Sweden, stole sensitive military data and personal information belonging to more than 100,000 government employees. He is wanted for crimes including conspiracy, fraud and identity theft in no fewer than three judicial US districts – the Southern District of New York, New Jersey, and the Eastern District of Virginia – a record unmatched by any foreign or domestic terrorist (but by at least one other hacker)."
"He can do the time in Britain where he lives and was located when he committed the crime. That sounds much more fair..."
No it doesn't. While what the person did was illegal in both countries the parties harmed were in America. This is literally why we have extradition treaties. Furthermore, the basis for the rationale for not sending him to the US seems to be that if he's convicted he'll find US prison unpleasant. Not that he will be turtured, not that he will be excecuted, not that he would even face an unfair trial, but that he would not be happy in prison.
Also, some one please explain to me what "antibiotic-resistant eczema" is. I get eczema myself; it's very itchy, dry skin and I treat it with special moisturizers when it gets bad. The first deffinition i find on a search includes this, "The exact cause of eczema is unknown, but it's thought to be linked to an overactive response by the body's immune system to an irritant". As far as I've ever understood eczema it is not caused by bacterial infection so how can it be antibiotic resistant? On a (admittedly quick) search I could find no reference of this disorder.
Hurrah, the Trump administration does something I support!
I would call my self a liberal who is highly sympathetic to fiscal conservatism (the later being how I was raised). My dream of a 100% Republican controlled government would be that they would run the numbers and cull less productive government programs. Sadly, Republican's have abandoned the one platform I've always respected them for, the debt. It bothers me that this is the very best our "conservative" government has been able to bring us.
American social conservatives empower these people who just shovel more and more wealth towards out affluent, all the while they bankrupt our government.
Now I'm not saying that one necessarily has to do with the other directly but the rise in youth gaming culture directly parallels a long term decline in youth violence. At the very least, violent video games can't be hurting things too much, if not at all.
Sound's like Trump is just scape-goating to appease his base.
I definitely make typos in the context of internet forum debates and probably have in the context of this conversation; these are hardly scholarly papers. With that said, some one advocating against the use of commas in certain contexts and then using a a colon in place of one seems awfully silly.
Hey look, you've found yet another way to talk around my point.
This whole thread, from start to finish, has been strictly about the utility of the Oxford Comma and not about the article's legal issues. Up until now you had been addressing me in the context of this conversation and you've only now brought up the legal issues in the main article (that this conversation thread was never about and I have never been talking about) as yet another dodge.
"Sorry, as I tried to point out, except for the "american Oxford comma" no one is hearing such pauses..."
You're being willfully naive. When speaking a sequential list there are subtle spoken pauses between items. They are literally how we enunciate that each item is separate from the other in a list. It's unconsciously done because it's a linguistic pattern we all learn from an early age but it's there. The strippers sentence is most definitely spoken differently depending on whether the following names are the strippers or are separate parties attending the party. Or in another way, if the two following names are subcategories of "stripper" then the sentence is spoken very differently then if they are individual categories on a list the same as "stripper". I really feel like you're telling me "red is blue" here with your denial of this.
"Perhaps the examples are to stupid, too."
So let's make them less stupid. Even in the written word, "The party had some strippers, Name1 and Name2" would create confusion as to whether the two name variables were the strippers or not. Now let's take it to an extreme and assign the values, Name1 = "Candy" and Name2 = "Sparkles". Any reasonable person would read the resulting sentence as that they are subcategories of "stripper" and not part of a sequential list. Adding the Oxford Comma clearly illustrates that both names are part of a sequential list and are not a subcategory of "stripper". The names "Bill Clinton" and "Al Franken" are assigned to the two name variables in the example because the author (the parent is actually cut and pasting from an easily found example elsewhere online) because it's funny to see it clearly implied that Bill Clinton and Al Franken are strippers. I'm sorry you don't get the joke.
Consistency in language creates ease of understanding. Why use silent letters? Why divide every part of a list with a comma except the last part? Why not accurately write what is clearly being said?
You haven't even come close to answering those last two questions.
The very safe statistic is why you get out of bed every morning. Some one out there has died doing just about anything you will doing over the course of any day you live.
Actors have been shooting blanks at each other for a century very safely. A single freak accident doesnt imply any measurable amount of hazard for an actor.
"Why would: "Something about A, B and C" have a different meaning than"Something about A, B, and C" ?? In most languages the seccond example would be a typing error."
I literally explained that above, don't question my ability to comprehend the conversation when you seem to be having a very poor grasp on it. Consistency is why the Oxford Comma just simply makes perfect sense. There is a literal pause in spoken speech for every comma in a list, why have a non-illustrated pause when you could have an illustrated one before the "and"? That's as stupid as silent letters in words. But then all I'm doing is pointing out what I've already pointed out in that the comma illustrates something that is literally there. You just keep dodging your way around any rational reason to not have the comma there.
If there's an "r" sound then an "r" should present. If there's a pause then there should be punctuation to illustrate that. Silent letters, assumed punctuation, words that mean multiple things; it's all a bunch of nonsense we accept because it's what we're used to.
Well off the top of my head the Spanish election of 1936 saw a communist party along with similarly aligned party's come to power in a coalition. They didn't get very far at governing though as Franco decided that he should start the Spanish Civil War.
You're spot on with your Marx and your generalities are generally true so I'm not really saying your point is incorrect though.
You really have done nothing to address my point. I've clearly explained already how the Oxford Comma works, you're just being an ingrate and ignoring everything I've said and telling me "Dur, it makes no sense cause I say it don't!". You have not refuted a single thing I've said while maintaining that I am wrong. Please reread my very clear explanation and properly address it and I will explain things to you if you are confused.
You even caste doubt on my point by suggesting that because Slashdot has only mentioned this point recently that it is some how illegitimate? Since when has slashdot been a grammar study site? Since when did a given subject only spring into existence when covered by slashdot? Were you kicked in the head by a horse as a child?
"Commas and periods are the most frequently used punctuation marks. Commas customarily indicate a brief pause; they're not as final as periods."
A comma is typically read as a brief pause in a sentence. Even if it's grammatically correct to only have the one comma, the single pause very much implies that Bill and Al are the strippers as it reads like they are grouped together. A pause between Bill and Al's names very nicely breaks them up making it very clear that we are reading a sequential list.
Or as another way of approaching this, think of how the sentence would be read out loud. The brief pause you would use between "strippers" and "Bill" is the same you would use between "Clinton" and "and Al". Try saying the sentence out loud with out that suttle pause between Bill and Al and the sentence takes on a very different meaning. The Oxford Comma simply reflects this pause both verbally, and in the reader's head.
As for your German interpretation of the Oxford Comma, that's irrelevant. If German were shaped to "make sense" to English speakers I'm sure all sorts of rules would go out the window. Likewise with any language relative to any other.
None of that changes the fact that I've never met a Switch owner who uses their Switch outside the house. The only time I've heard actual users tout the usefulness of the system's mobility is in the context of the wife wanting to watch TV. That's not a strong demographic.
No one does the first four you mention like Nintendo.
As a singular example, there have been a ton of wanna-be Mario Karts. None of them have come close to the title's success despite that title being only available on a platform that has been very much in the minority of the console market for a decade now.
No one buys a Nintendo for Skyrim, Doom, or its portability. No one would buy an under powered PlayStation that they could use in a mobile context. For the last decade game design is what has kept Nintendo's under powered systems head above water. Take away their original titles and their systems are nothing.
On the other hand though, gamers might be looking for some originality. The AAA market for video games seems to be drifting towards AAA movie risk aversion. Likewise, No one does Nintendo's staple's better. For instance, there have been plenty of Mario Kart wanna-be's and none of them have held up.
"Nintendo has tons of cash in the bank. They're not getting out of the hardware business for a long time. There are plenty of people willing to buy Nintendo hardware just to play their 1st party games."
Yeah, that's why I said what I said.
As for the portability, the people I know who own the system regard the mobile option as a novelty.
Via mass transit? I'll admit, I live in the burbs and don't have to commute out of them but I don't think trains and buses have outlets for one to plug their consoles into.
I know a few people with switches and I've never heard of any of them using the mobile option to any significant respect and none of them site that option as to why they bought theirs.
Slashdot Mirror
You've clearly never heard of California
http://www.slate.com/articles/...
From: https://www.forbes.com/sites/t...
"Announced last year during the Queen’s Speech, the update to the UK Computer Misuse Act via the Serious Crime Act 2015 has caused consternation for two reasons. First, it’s terms are broad. For someone to have deserved a life in prison, they must have committed an “unauthorised act” and known that it was unauthorised, and will have either intended to have caused “serious damage” to “human welfare or to national security” or had been “reckless as to whether such harm was caused”"
Gee, it seems he's eligible for life in prison in the UK too.
A) Whose to say what was sent over to British courts. We're just looking at the public stuff.
B) This is all stupid drivel. The court rulings do not make a single mention of the US not providing enough evidence. This tangent is irrelevant to the discussion.
Oh heavens! A single US police officer does something that when summarized and taken out of any type of context seems completely stupid. THE WHOLE SYSTEM IS CORRUPT!
""Unnamed co-conspirators?" Evidence seems strong in this case."
There are all sorts of legitimate reasons certain parties aren't named publicly in lawsuits. Your sarcastic cause for doubt is flimsy at best.
Also, I used Babar as an example of what might happen to Lauri Love if he were tried in the US. Whether Babar should have been extradited is completely irrelevant to this discussion.
On one hand that's bullshit. A court if law should not function in such a way.
On the other hand, that sounds terribly reasonable until you actually look into things
From: https://www.theguardian.com/ne...
A) After an initial arrest the UK chose to not prosecute him at all for his crimes. Perhaps if the UK had sought to send him through their own legal system initally things would have been different.
B) He was facing a possible 99 year sentence in the US. If his crimes were as harmless as you state then it certainly would have been less. Take the case of Babar Ahmad ( https://www.theguardian.com/uk... ). He was extradited, sentenced to 12 years, and was released to the UK after only one year because of his cooperation with the authorities.
C) He's being accused of crimes far more serious than you make out. "...but the US government, which accused him of helping to orchestrate and wage cyber-attacks on official websites including those belonging to the Federal Reserve, Nasa and the US army between 2012 and 2013. Love, they claim, along with three other unnamed co-conspirators in Australia and Sweden, stole sensitive military data and personal information belonging to more than 100,000 government employees. He is wanted for crimes including conspiracy, fraud and identity theft in no fewer than three judicial US districts – the Southern District of New York, New Jersey, and the Eastern District of Virginia – a record unmatched by any foreign or domestic terrorist (but by at least one other hacker)."
"He can do the time in Britain where he lives and was located when he committed the crime. That sounds much more fair..."
No it doesn't. While what the person did was illegal in both countries the parties harmed were in America. This is literally why we have extradition treaties. Furthermore, the basis for the rationale for not sending him to the US seems to be that if he's convicted he'll find US prison unpleasant. Not that he will be turtured, not that he will be excecuted, not that he would even face an unfair trial, but that he would not be happy in prison.
Also, some one please explain to me what "antibiotic-resistant eczema" is. I get eczema myself; it's very itchy, dry skin and I treat it with special moisturizers when it gets bad. The first deffinition i find on a search includes this, "The exact cause of eczema is unknown, but it's thought to be linked to an overactive response by the body's immune system to an irritant". As far as I've ever understood eczema it is not caused by bacterial infection so how can it be antibiotic resistant? On a (admittedly quick) search I could find no reference of this disorder.
Well maybe (and really quite likely) they wouldn't quiz on those
Hurrah, the Trump administration does something I support!
I would call my self a liberal who is highly sympathetic to fiscal conservatism (the later being how I was raised). My dream of a 100% Republican controlled government would be that they would run the numbers and cull less productive government programs. Sadly, Republican's have abandoned the one platform I've always respected them for, the debt. It bothers me that this is the very best our "conservative" government has been able to bring us.
American social conservatives empower these people who just shovel more and more wealth towards out affluent, all the while they bankrupt our government.
Now I'm not saying that one necessarily has to do with the other directly but the rise in youth gaming culture directly parallels a long term decline in youth violence. At the very least, violent video games can't be hurting things too much, if not at all.
Sound's like Trump is just scape-goating to appease his base.
By the way, "So: you don't comprehend my point."?
I definitely make typos in the context of internet forum debates and probably have in the context of this conversation; these are hardly scholarly papers. With that said, some one advocating against the use of commas in certain contexts and then using a a colon in place of one seems awfully silly.
Hey look, you've found yet another way to talk around my point.
This whole thread, from start to finish, has been strictly about the utility of the Oxford Comma and not about the article's legal issues. Up until now you had been addressing me in the context of this conversation and you've only now brought up the legal issues in the main article (that this conversation thread was never about and I have never been talking about) as yet another dodge.
"Sorry, as I tried to point out, except for the "american Oxford comma" no one is hearing such pauses..."
You're being willfully naive. When speaking a sequential list there are subtle spoken pauses between items. They are literally how we enunciate that each item is separate from the other in a list. It's unconsciously done because it's a linguistic pattern we all learn from an early age but it's there. The strippers sentence is most definitely spoken differently depending on whether the following names are the strippers or are separate parties attending the party. Or in another way, if the two following names are subcategories of "stripper" then the sentence is spoken very differently then if they are individual categories on a list the same as "stripper". I really feel like you're telling me "red is blue" here with your denial of this.
"Perhaps the examples are to stupid, too."
So let's make them less stupid. Even in the written word, "The party had some strippers, Name1 and Name2" would create confusion as to whether the two name variables were the strippers or not. Now let's take it to an extreme and assign the values, Name1 = "Candy" and Name2 = "Sparkles". Any reasonable person would read the resulting sentence as that they are subcategories of "stripper" and not part of a sequential list. Adding the Oxford Comma clearly illustrates that both names are part of a sequential list and are not a subcategory of "stripper". The names "Bill Clinton" and "Al Franken" are assigned to the two name variables in the example because the author (the parent is actually cut and pasting from an easily found example elsewhere online) because it's funny to see it clearly implied that Bill Clinton and Al Franken are strippers. I'm sorry you don't get the joke.
Consistency in language creates ease of understanding. Why use silent letters? Why divide every part of a list with a comma except the last part? Why not accurately write what is clearly being said?
You haven't even come close to answering those last two questions.
The very safe statistic is why you get out of bed every morning. Some one out there has died doing just about anything you will doing over the course of any day you live.
Actors have been shooting blanks at each other for a century very safely. A single freak accident doesnt imply any measurable amount of hazard for an actor.
"Why would:
"Something about A, B and C" have a different meaning than"Something about A, B, and C" ??
In most languages the seccond example would be a typing error."
I literally explained that above, don't question my ability to comprehend the conversation when you seem to be having a very poor grasp on it. Consistency is why the Oxford Comma just simply makes perfect sense. There is a literal pause in spoken speech for every comma in a list, why have a non-illustrated pause when you could have an illustrated one before the "and"? That's as stupid as silent letters in words. But then all I'm doing is pointing out what I've already pointed out in that the comma illustrates something that is literally there. You just keep dodging your way around any rational reason to not have the comma there.
If there's an "r" sound then an "r" should present. If there's a pause then there should be punctuation to illustrate that. Silent letters, assumed punctuation, words that mean multiple things; it's all a bunch of nonsense we accept because it's what we're used to.
Well off the top of my head the Spanish election of 1936 saw a communist party along with similarly aligned party's come to power in a coalition. They didn't get very far at governing though as Franco decided that he should start the Spanish Civil War.
You're spot on with your Marx and your generalities are generally true so I'm not really saying your point is incorrect though.
You really have done nothing to address my point. I've clearly explained already how the Oxford Comma works, you're just being an ingrate and ignoring everything I've said and telling me "Dur, it makes no sense cause I say it don't!". You have not refuted a single thing I've said while maintaining that I am wrong. Please reread my very clear explanation and properly address it and I will explain things to you if you are confused.
You even caste doubt on my point by suggesting that because Slashdot has only mentioned this point recently that it is some how illegitimate? Since when has slashdot been a grammar study site? Since when did a given subject only spring into existence when covered by slashdot? Were you kicked in the head by a horse as a child?
https://m.youtube.com/watch%3F... ?
Yes it does.
From the opening of: https://www.grammarbook.com/pu...
"Commas and periods are the most frequently used punctuation marks. Commas customarily indicate a brief pause; they're not as final as periods."
A comma is typically read as a brief pause in a sentence. Even if it's grammatically correct to only have the one comma, the single pause very much implies that Bill and Al are the strippers as it reads like they are grouped together. A pause between Bill and Al's names very nicely breaks them up making it very clear that we are reading a sequential list.
Or as another way of approaching this, think of how the sentence would be read out loud. The brief pause you would use between "strippers" and "Bill" is the same you would use between "Clinton" and "and Al". Try saying the sentence out loud with out that suttle pause between Bill and Al and the sentence takes on a very different meaning. The Oxford Comma simply reflects this pause both verbally, and in the reader's head.
As for your German interpretation of the Oxford Comma, that's irrelevant. If German were shaped to "make sense" to English speakers I'm sure all sorts of rules would go out the window. Likewise with any language relative to any other.
Stupid is as stupid does
None of that changes the fact that I've never met a Switch owner who uses their Switch outside the house. The only time I've heard actual users tout the usefulness of the system's mobility is in the context of the wife wanting to watch TV. That's not a strong demographic.
No one does the first four you mention like Nintendo.
As a singular example, there have been a ton of wanna-be Mario Karts. None of them have come close to the title's success despite that title being only available on a platform that has been very much in the minority of the console market for a decade now.
No one buys a Nintendo for Skyrim, Doom, or its portability. No one would buy an under powered PlayStation that they could use in a mobile context. For the last decade game design is what has kept Nintendo's under powered systems head above water. Take away their original titles and their systems are nothing.
I would guess the same.
On the other hand though, gamers might be looking for some originality. The AAA market for video games seems to be drifting towards AAA movie risk aversion. Likewise, No one does Nintendo's staple's better. For instance, there have been plenty of Mario Kart wanna-be's and none of them have held up.
"Nintendo has tons of cash in the bank. They're not getting out of the hardware business for a long time. There are plenty of people willing to buy Nintendo hardware just to play their 1st party games."
Yeah, that's why I said what I said.
As for the portability, the people I know who own the system regard the mobile option as a novelty.
Via mass transit? I'll admit, I live in the burbs and don't have to commute out of them but I don't think trains and buses have outlets for one to plug their consoles into.
I know a few people with switches and I've never heard of any of them using the mobile option to any significant respect and none of them site that option as to why they bought theirs.