I don't remember ever being at a party where someone trying to make a pseudo- academic point about mythology use air quotes and deliberately tried to convey to me that the term "alot" was one word, and being used that way so that I'd take him seriously on the mythology thing. Are your parties like that?
It's probably modded up because when someone makes an assertive post that categorizes other people and comments on the state of humanity and research and mythology in an authoritative tone while using extra keystrokes to emphasize the badly used non-word, it undermines the credibility of whatever point was rattling around in there somewhere. It's like lecturing a group of people about what they should be thinking about, but having walked into the room trailing toilet paper.
No, but "allot" does exist, which probably fans the confusion.
It might... though the verb "allot" and its noun-form variation ("allotment") aren't seen in very common usage. People type "alot" because they're typing sounds they hear in conversation without actually thinking about the words they're using. Like "their/there/they're." Many people utter sounds from familiar phrases, lazily drop a syllable or so, and say they opposite of what they mean. The classic, of course, is "I could care less" - when they mean the exact opposite ("I couldn't care less"). This is a sign that that someone isn't thinking about what they're typing - it's like a mockingbird imitating another bird. Just making sounds.
The more interesting thing is the number of people who think "alot" is a word, perhaps being the opposite of "alittle."
"A little of people"? Doesn't make sense to me.
You're missing the point. The GP used a non-existent word ("alot") but probably wouldn't use a similarly constructed non-existent word ("alittle"). The fake word "alittle" was presented to cause that person to stop for a second and think about the word they're typing. A "lot" is a measure of quantity, usually used to imply a non-small number of something. Like, "I suppose I could take just the one, but since they're a bargain, I'll take the whole lot." A follow up would be, "Did you see what he bought? He went shopping for one, but bought a lot." Not "alot," but "a lot"... where "a" is singular a refers to quantity one lot. Like saying he bought "..a bunch of bananas, not just one." But if someone asks how many bananas you bought, would you say, "abunch" or "a bunch"? A bushel of corn, or "abushel?" A pair of socks or "apair?"
In what way did the Republicans have anything, whatsoever, to do with how the web site was built? What influence did they have over the technical decision making, the choice of contractors? In which way did the Republicans influence the decision by Sebelius to hide from the president the fact that the site couldn't possibly work in the manner he's been promising?
How does the decision by some states to not take on the risk of an unfunded Medicare mandate expansion cause the site's architecture to fail? And... "grandstanding?" You mean like telling people they'll have to vote the law in so they can see what's in it and how wonderful it is? Like saying over and over again during an election that what's happening right now to millions of people wasn't going to happen? That sort of grandstanding? Grandstanding like telling voters that the people who pointed out what a trainwreck the ACA is by its very design really just want to throw little old ladies off of cliffs? That sort of grandstanding?
Ooops, I get it. You're pathetically deflecting, just like the president. Pressed on exactly the same details (on how it is that the Republicans interfered with the development of the site's code and infrastructure)... crickets chirping.
Of course they've told us. They told us they're doing a "tech surge," and bringing in the "best and brightest," and that the web site will be working smoothly for the "vast majority" of users nine days from now. That's all pretty cut and dry, and there's no way that anyone in the administration would be foolish enough to promise something like that if it weren't plainly true. If it weren't true, that would be due to either staggering incompetence, or a willingness to baldly lie about it, and of course neither of those can be the case with this much scrutiny. So, I don't know what the OP is implying.
Same guy here. Guess you forgot to go fuck yourself. No wait, you only like to fuck minorities the lower income families.
What a shock! Not even a tiny urge to admit that the law you say is a "win" is actually destroying the jobs that lower income people need, and is piling on taxes and debt service - both of which drag down the economy and hurt the people you pretend you're worried about. The law you say is a "win" is causing doctors to run away from subsidized care (impacting the people you pretend to care about), and will subject millions of the people you pretend to care about to new IRS-enforced fines.
But you just keep on avoiding any actual discussion of the facts, and keep harping on like the grade schooler, pretending that anyone who points out reality is a racist because you think that playing that card somehow makes reality go away. How embarassing.
OP here of that response. I didn't know/. was full of either 1) dick ass republicans or 2) farmed out shills posting as dick ass republicans. If you don't think the ACA is a win for America then argo fuck yourselves.
Ah, of course. The classic lefty response: no idea what to say about the reality of the situation, so avoid the substance at all costs, and act like a shrill, shrieking idiot and attack the messenger, instead. So typical.
But good to see that, no matter how angry you are that your party has totally been caught in broad daylight with a legislative mess that everyone else said was coming, that you actually agree about the points above. Which you have to, since they're real. You can now resume your ad hominem denial attack, like the child you are.
Where the people on the other end of the phone write everything down, and then will wait until the web site is working, because they themselves will have to use that same system to interact with the system. And that doesn't get you a paid-for insurance policy. You still have to wait for a bill from the insurer. Regardless, you're not going to get off the phone with an accurate quote telling you what you, personally, will actually have to pay. Just age-related bracket prices.
the real win is in the law itself
You're confused. The law itself is an insane train wreck that is destroying people's current insurance, will jack up prices for everyone who actually pays, and will insure only a small number of the people it was theoretically supposed to cover. It kills jobs, raises the national debt, doesn't do anything to address the reasons that it's expensive to interact with a doctor's practice or hospital, and now introduces massive new vectors for fraud, identity theft, and worse. Plus it has all sorts of nice new features like taxes on your house when you go to sell it, or shiny new taxes on medical devices that will end up doing things like making a trip with your dog to the vet more expensive.
This, to you, is a "win?"
You must be one of those people who's going to be on the subsidized side of the equation, expecting someone else to work part of each day to pay for your visit to the podiatrist for that sore toe you got rock climbing.
You "know for a fact" that the planet's going to do better once it warms up, do you? You know for a fact that we can indeed deal with this disruption, do you?
You sound like you know for a fact that it won't/can't. Woo-woo indeed.
bring in there second coming... You're link is a horrible article
What's wrong with the article? Does its author think so little of the value of clear communication that he can't be burdened with the task of learning the differences between "your"/"you're" and "there"/"their?"
Well it's good to know that you're more interested in rhetorical scorekeeping and thinking you look especially sophisticated by saying "teabagger" than you are addressing the actual substance of the matter.
News for teabaggers, stuff that keeps you angry and afraid.
No, it's news for snarky statists who see the headline and immediately think of a sex act. Funny how that pops into some people's heads no matter what the issue is.
"We'll pay you to stop being a bookstore and start being a Licensed Kindle Kiosk".
As opposed to simply watching that business go away anyway, and closing up shop entirely? So, sell nothing and go out of business, or recognize that your customers' expectations and habits have changed, and be a part of it. The problem isn't the e-reader, the problem is printed books.
Watch as devices sold slowly render your main business dead
Which is going to happen to that retail store whether or not the devices are bought through them. Why not get a piece of the action while your business is failing anyway? Sell e-readers, and use the proceeds to tune up your coffee lounge area.
That way, just like the letter I just got from my health insurance company, I can enjoy "more choice" and see my rates triple. ObamaCare is enough. I don't want ObamaISP, too.
Since it was not a part of the released film, it could be argued that it was never copyrighted. Of course the argument would cost millions...
Er... what? The act of creating something - no matter what you do with it - assigns copyrights to the person who or group that creates it. If you run out with your smartphone, right now, and shoot some never-plan-to-"release it" footage, you own the copyright on what you create. Period.
You're probably confusing that basic fact with the question of whether or not the person who creates the work registers that work with the US Copyright Office. Registering the work allows you to go after an infringer in federal court, and to seek damages beyond the normal value of the work. If you don't register the work, you still own the copyright, and can use the courts to stop someone else from infringing on it, and you can sue them for what you'd normally have charged them for that use, if they'd asked you first. No punitive damages.
Federal venue for infringement or not, you make something, you own the copyrights. If you assign those rights to someone else, they own the copyrights. But someone who finds some media that contains the work? That doesn't convey copyrights.
Sigh. Boring right-wing nutjob pretends he's above all this. Precious little cutie pie. You are soooooo adorable.
Hey, look! Another pretentious-sounding adolescent lefty thinking that he's sounding condescending (when he really just comes across like a typical juvenile who mistakes ad hominem for scoring points on substance). You know what would really be persuasive? A comment that in any way actually addresses the matter at hand, which you're too craven to do. What are you, 11?
This would seem to be the weirdness referred to. That the government can be trusted to kill but not to heal.
It's a jury of one's peers, not the government, that finds a person guilty of a capital crime. And, complaining about ObamaCare? That's not complaining about the government "healing." It's complaining about a strictly partisan law (rammed through without anything like a proper vote, and with nobody knowing the full consequences) that results in massive new debts, new and higher taxes, huge growth in bureaucracy, new ways to be guilty for doing nothing, hundreds of thousands of people a month getting insurance cancellation letters because the policies they've held for years are suddenly no longer good according to the administration, employers cutting back on full time jobs, doctors refusing to take on new patients and running away from people using existing programs like Medicare, people getting their monthly rates doubled or tripled (ours more than tripled, and we went from a $1000 deductible to a $6000 deductible), and a host of other things that have exactly NOTHING to do with anyone being "healed."
The government is chartered, in the constitution, to provide law enforcement. Not to force post-menopausal women to buy insurance that covers infant care. Not to send the IRS in to garnish your wages if you don't like the plan, or to send the new bill for all the people that will be subsidized along to middle-class and above taxpayers (once those poor people cough up hard cash for their brand new multi-thousand-dollar deductible).
If you think it's suddenly the government's job to make sure that everyone has health insurance (though the estimate is that even if they get all of the sign-ups they're wishing for by young people who at the moment are unable to even get a person on the phone, let alone use total failure of a web site that the administration put together), there will still be thirty million people who won't have insurance.
The complaint is that the entire concept was a deliberate, bald-faced lie. And that every promise made about people being able to keep their insurance, their doctors, their privacy, and more of their money was a purposeful deception. Deliberate falsehood. Fraud. Willful deceit.
Nobody (in this country, the US, which is where we're talking about the death penalty) is executed for stealing some food. Maybe for deciding to kill someone while committing a robbery.
Slashdot Mirror
It sounds like you are alot of fun at parties...
I don't remember ever being at a party where someone trying to make a pseudo- academic point about mythology use air quotes and deliberately tried to convey to me that the term "alot" was one word, and being used that way so that I'd take him seriously on the mythology thing. Are your parties like that?
It's probably modded up because when someone makes an assertive post that categorizes other people and comments on the state of humanity and research and mythology in an authoritative tone while using extra keystrokes to emphasize the badly used non-word, it undermines the credibility of whatever point was rattling around in there somewhere. It's like lecturing a group of people about what they should be thinking about, but having walked into the room trailing toilet paper.
No, but "allot" does exist, which probably fans the confusion.
It might ... though the verb "allot" and its noun-form variation ("allotment") aren't seen in very common usage. People type "alot" because they're typing sounds they hear in conversation without actually thinking about the words they're using. Like "their/there/they're." Many people utter sounds from familiar phrases, lazily drop a syllable or so, and say they opposite of what they mean. The classic, of course, is "I could care less" - when they mean the exact opposite ("I couldn't care less"). This is a sign that that someone isn't thinking about what they're typing - it's like a mockingbird imitating another bird. Just making sounds.
Excellent! I love corrections that bring some special bitterness to the conversation in ironically self-referential ways.
The more interesting thing is the number of people who think "alot" is a word, perhaps being the opposite of "alittle." "A little of people"? Doesn't make sense to me.
You're missing the point. The GP used a non-existent word ("alot") but probably wouldn't use a similarly constructed non-existent word ("alittle"). The fake word "alittle" was presented to cause that person to stop for a second and think about the word they're typing. A "lot" is a measure of quantity, usually used to imply a non-small number of something. Like, "I suppose I could take just the one, but since they're a bargain, I'll take the whole lot." A follow up would be, "Did you see what he bought? He went shopping for one, but bought a lot." Not "alot," but "a lot" ... where "a" is singular a refers to quantity one lot. Like saying he bought "..a bunch of bananas, not just one." But if someone asks how many bananas you bought, would you say, "abunch" or "a bunch"? A bushel of corn, or "abushel?" A pair of socks or "apair?"
The more interesting thing is the number of people who think "alot" is a word, perhaps being the opposite of "alittle."
In what way did the Republicans have anything, whatsoever, to do with how the web site was built? What influence did they have over the technical decision making, the choice of contractors? In which way did the Republicans influence the decision by Sebelius to hide from the president the fact that the site couldn't possibly work in the manner he's been promising? How does the decision by some states to not take on the risk of an unfunded Medicare mandate expansion cause the site's architecture to fail? And ... "grandstanding?" You mean like telling people they'll have to vote the law in so they can see what's in it and how wonderful it is? Like saying over and over again during an election that what's happening right now to millions of people wasn't going to happen? That sort of grandstanding? Grandstanding like telling voters that the people who pointed out what a trainwreck the ACA is by its very design really just want to throw little old ladies off of cliffs? That sort of grandstanding?
Ooops, I get it. You're pathetically deflecting, just like the president. Pressed on exactly the same details (on how it is that the Republicans interfered with the development of the site's code and infrastructure) ... crickets chirping.
Of course they've told us. They told us they're doing a "tech surge," and bringing in the "best and brightest," and that the web site will be working smoothly for the "vast majority" of users nine days from now. That's all pretty cut and dry, and there's no way that anyone in the administration would be foolish enough to promise something like that if it weren't plainly true. If it weren't true, that would be due to either staggering incompetence, or a willingness to baldly lie about it, and of course neither of those can be the case with this much scrutiny. So, I don't know what the OP is implying.
Same guy here. Guess you forgot to go fuck yourself. No wait, you only like to fuck minorities the lower income families.
What a shock! Not even a tiny urge to admit that the law you say is a "win" is actually destroying the jobs that lower income people need, and is piling on taxes and debt service - both of which drag down the economy and hurt the people you pretend you're worried about. The law you say is a "win" is causing doctors to run away from subsidized care (impacting the people you pretend to care about), and will subject millions of the people you pretend to care about to new IRS-enforced fines.
But you just keep on avoiding any actual discussion of the facts, and keep harping on like the grade schooler, pretending that anyone who points out reality is a racist because you think that playing that card somehow makes reality go away. How embarassing.
OP here of that response. I didn't know /. was full of either 1) dick ass republicans or 2) farmed out shills posting as dick ass republicans. If you don't think the ACA is a win for America then argo fuck yourselves.
Ah, of course. The classic lefty response: no idea what to say about the reality of the situation, so avoid the substance at all costs, and act like a shrill, shrieking idiot and attack the messenger, instead. So typical.
But good to see that, no matter how angry you are that your party has totally been caught in broad daylight with a legislative mess that everyone else said was coming, that you actually agree about the points above. Which you have to, since they're real. You can now resume your ad hominem denial attack, like the child you are.
you can sign up over the damn phone if you want
Where the people on the other end of the phone write everything down, and then will wait until the web site is working, because they themselves will have to use that same system to interact with the system. And that doesn't get you a paid-for insurance policy. You still have to wait for a bill from the insurer. Regardless, you're not going to get off the phone with an accurate quote telling you what you, personally, will actually have to pay. Just age-related bracket prices.
the real win is in the law itself
You're confused. The law itself is an insane train wreck that is destroying people's current insurance, will jack up prices for everyone who actually pays, and will insure only a small number of the people it was theoretically supposed to cover. It kills jobs, raises the national debt, doesn't do anything to address the reasons that it's expensive to interact with a doctor's practice or hospital, and now introduces massive new vectors for fraud, identity theft, and worse. Plus it has all sorts of nice new features like taxes on your house when you go to sell it, or shiny new taxes on medical devices that will end up doing things like making a trip with your dog to the vet more expensive.
This, to you, is a "win?"
You must be one of those people who's going to be on the subsidized side of the equation, expecting someone else to work part of each day to pay for your visit to the podiatrist for that sore toe you got rock climbing.
You "know for a fact" that the planet's going to do better once it warms up, do you? You know for a fact that we can indeed deal with this disruption, do you?
You sound like you know for a fact that it won't/can't. Woo-woo indeed.
bring in there second coming ... You're link is a horrible article
What's wrong with the article? Does its author think so little of the value of clear communication that he can't be burdened with the task of learning the differences between "your"/"you're" and "there"/"their?"
Yeah, that's frustrating.
Well it's good to know that you're more interested in rhetorical scorekeeping and thinking you look especially sophisticated by saying "teabagger" than you are addressing the actual substance of the matter.
News for teabaggers, stuff that keeps you angry and afraid.
No, it's news for snarky statists who see the headline and immediately think of a sex act. Funny how that pops into some people's heads no matter what the issue is.
"We'll pay you to stop being a bookstore and start being a Licensed Kindle Kiosk".
As opposed to simply watching that business go away anyway, and closing up shop entirely? So, sell nothing and go out of business, or recognize that your customers' expectations and habits have changed, and be a part of it. The problem isn't the e-reader, the problem is printed books.
Watch as devices sold slowly render your main business dead
Which is going to happen to that retail store whether or not the devices are bought through them. Why not get a piece of the action while your business is failing anyway? Sell e-readers, and use the proceeds to tune up your coffee lounge area.
Is that like working with a team of Canadians and also some North Americans?
That way, just like the letter I just got from my health insurance company, I can enjoy "more choice" and see my rates triple. ObamaCare is enough. I don't want ObamaISP, too.
Since it was not a part of the released film, it could be argued that it was never copyrighted. Of course the argument would cost millions...
Er... what? The act of creating something - no matter what you do with it - assigns copyrights to the person who or group that creates it. If you run out with your smartphone, right now, and shoot some never-plan-to-"release it" footage, you own the copyright on what you create. Period.
You're probably confusing that basic fact with the question of whether or not the person who creates the work registers that work with the US Copyright Office. Registering the work allows you to go after an infringer in federal court, and to seek damages beyond the normal value of the work. If you don't register the work, you still own the copyright, and can use the courts to stop someone else from infringing on it, and you can sue them for what you'd normally have charged them for that use, if they'd asked you first. No punitive damages.
Federal venue for infringement or not, you make something, you own the copyrights. If you assign those rights to someone else, they own the copyrights. But someone who finds some media that contains the work? That doesn't convey copyrights.
Sigh. Boring right-wing nutjob pretends he's above all this. Precious little cutie pie. You are soooooo adorable.
Hey, look! Another pretentious-sounding adolescent lefty thinking that he's sounding condescending (when he really just comes across like a typical juvenile who mistakes ad hominem for scoring points on substance). You know what would really be persuasive? A comment that in any way actually addresses the matter at hand, which you're too craven to do. What are you, 11?
I tried to read your post, but I just see "Blah, blah, blah, debunked-right-wing-talking points, blah, blah, blah . . .
A sure sign that you have no ability to point out any substance to the contrary. Thanks for pointing out I'm right.
This would seem to be the weirdness referred to. That the government can be trusted to kill but not to heal.
It's a jury of one's peers, not the government, that finds a person guilty of a capital crime. And, complaining about ObamaCare? That's not complaining about the government "healing." It's complaining about a strictly partisan law (rammed through without anything like a proper vote, and with nobody knowing the full consequences) that results in massive new debts, new and higher taxes, huge growth in bureaucracy, new ways to be guilty for doing nothing, hundreds of thousands of people a month getting insurance cancellation letters because the policies they've held for years are suddenly no longer good according to the administration, employers cutting back on full time jobs, doctors refusing to take on new patients and running away from people using existing programs like Medicare, people getting their monthly rates doubled or tripled (ours more than tripled, and we went from a $1000 deductible to a $6000 deductible), and a host of other things that have exactly NOTHING to do with anyone being "healed."
The government is chartered, in the constitution, to provide law enforcement. Not to force post-menopausal women to buy insurance that covers infant care. Not to send the IRS in to garnish your wages if you don't like the plan, or to send the new bill for all the people that will be subsidized along to middle-class and above taxpayers (once those poor people cough up hard cash for their brand new multi-thousand-dollar deductible).
If you think it's suddenly the government's job to make sure that everyone has health insurance (though the estimate is that even if they get all of the sign-ups they're wishing for by young people who at the moment are unable to even get a person on the phone, let alone use total failure of a web site that the administration put together), there will still be thirty million people who won't have insurance.
The complaint is that the entire concept was a deliberate, bald-faced lie. And that every promise made about people being able to keep their insurance, their doctors, their privacy, and more of their money was a purposeful deception. Deliberate falsehood. Fraud. Willful deceit.
Nobody (in this country, the US, which is where we're talking about the death penalty) is executed for stealing some food. Maybe for deciding to kill someone while committing a robbery.
I think this has to do with either patents or copyright.
Citation? You won't find one. Because it has to do with federal regulations making it nearly impossible to set up production for it in the US.