That's the problem, though. The entire point of writing (well, at least this form of writing; obviously, things like novels and poetry are a different story) is to express what you mean clearly and precisely so that people can understand you. The more you throw words that are sort of the ones you wanted out, with botched grammar that may be a little confusing but doesn't obfuscate everything, and rely on your reader to "know exactly what you mean," the more you're inviting frustrating and misinterpretation. Your reader shouldn't have to spend his or her time trying to figure out what you're saying; that time could be better spent *thinking* about what you're saying instead.
That's not what they're saying, though. They're saying that your car's engine might stop working, but if it does they'll replace it immediately, at no cost to you, with practically no effort on your end, with an engine that is guaranteed to not suffer the same problems. That doesn't seem so bad, especially when the original engine's dying is the fault of a stupid patent system.
So really we should be bringing about harsher conditions so that we help this process along? I'm getting the impression that you think that this sort of selection is a good thing, which suggests to me that we should be promoting it when possible.
You're right, except that the verb to be doesn't actually take an object like that. This is why "I am he" is correct and "I am him" is incorrect. It is also why "of who your English teacher was" is correct. If that were almost any other verb, "whom" would be correct, but as it is, "who" is correct.
What I find interesting is how many of the problems and costs he's talkiing about seem like they would disappear if Linux were to ever really get off the ground.
I haven't bothered to install any extensions. I don't find it useless. I don't think that most people are going to go looking for extensions. I don't even think that most people know what an extension is. (I do, but I'm too lazy to wade through a bunch of crap that I don't need to see if there's something out there that I'd like to have.)
Slashdot Mirror
s/frustrating/frustration. Preview doesn't mean I see things, apparently.
So what, you know exactly what I meant anyway.
That's the problem, though. The entire point of writing (well, at least this form of writing; obviously, things like novels and poetry are a different story) is to express what you mean clearly and precisely so that people can understand you. The more you throw words that are sort of the ones you wanted out, with botched grammar that may be a little confusing but doesn't obfuscate everything, and rely on your reader to "know exactly what you mean," the more you're inviting frustrating and misinterpretation. Your reader shouldn't have to spend his or her time trying to figure out what you're saying; that time could be better spent *thinking* about what you're saying instead.
That's not what they're saying, though. They're saying that your car's engine might stop working, but if it does they'll replace it immediately, at no cost to you, with practically no effort on your end, with an engine that is guaranteed to not suffer the same problems. That doesn't seem so bad, especially when the original engine's dying is the fault of a stupid patent system.
So really we should be bringing about harsher conditions so that we help this process along? I'm getting the impression that you think that this sort of selection is a good thing, which suggests to me that we should be promoting it when possible.
Well, first you have to define "people"...
Since when did hacking necessarily involve ripping someone off?
You're right, except that the verb to be doesn't actually take an object like that. This is why "I am he" is correct and "I am him" is incorrect. It is also why "of who your English teacher was" is correct. If that were almost any other verb, "whom" would be correct, but as it is, "who" is correct.
It does when "who" is not the object of "of." Hence, "I know nothing of who you are" but "I know nothing of whom you saw."
What I find interesting is how many of the problems and costs he's talkiing about seem like they would disappear if Linux were to ever really get off the ground.
I haven't bothered to install any extensions. I don't find it useless. I don't think that most people are going to go looking for extensions. I don't even think that most people know what an extension is. (I do, but I'm too lazy to wade through a bunch of crap that I don't need to see if there's something out there that I'd like to have.)
No, he is bad.
Except for "one's," because it's screwed up.