Incorrect: should of Still incorrect: should've correct: should have
Firstly, 'right' is a moral judgement. The word you are looking for is either correct or proper. Incorrect is the opposite. Secondly, the phrase is 'should ought to have' as in, 'you should ought to have told the authorities ma'am.' As well, in correct spelling and technical writing one should never cntract spellings.
I defer in this to Janet Whitcut, senior Research Editor to the Longman Dictionary.
This has made me not want to become a super hero. It's not cost effective. For example, faor all the expense he goes to, he just doesn't make up for natural ability. Like, think about Batman Vs. Darth Vader. Come on, who do you think would win. Or look at a cost comaprison between Batman and Neo. Sure they needed that once off cost of the brain teaching thingy (being the technical term), but apart from that, it was predominantly reliant on Neo's inate ability.
lets suppose for a moment that superman decided to go evil. Is that bodyarmour going to protect you now? No.
Batman is only good at fighting intellectual criminals. Lets face it, X million dollars is a big expense for beating up nerds - any preschooler could do it.
Here is a cheaper option. Batman, go for a holiday at Chernobyl. I hear it on good authority that radiation will give you superpowers, a la The Hulk. At the moment you are blowing you money on crap that isn't going to help when they up the ante. Also, get a gun, like a sniper rifle. Think how much time you could save if you'd just picked off the Penguin from the top of a post office. Instead, you're into all this hand to hand kung-fu bullshit. Neo, you could get a gun to. Darth Vader, you do that chokey thing and can do it over visi-phone - you're cool.
Well, how about this for an idea. Microsoft releases their own version of Linux. They incorporate their own technology to make their work flawlessly in heterogenous windows environments. They sell this at a small profit and because the additions are not covered by the GNU noone else reaps the benefits. When everyone in using their Linux to the exclusion of the others (who are now bankrupt) they pull their support from the product.
Samba, lpd, CUPS, Ghostscript, and the like have all by now fallen by the wayside of obsolescence. Windows dominates the world.
Because it was a primary school. They have email internally - regulated. In Australia, we can't get the weather. Whilst they have a good childrens section (Yahooligans I think) it is simpler to block the whole thing. Children go for media rich content which chokes our bandwidth and is often times inappropriate. Also, whilst searching is a valuable skill, it is more important for the children to focus on other educational areas. We tell teh teachers to find the URLs ahead of time and tell the children to type them in (or create shortcuts).
I'm not knocking the usefullness of Yahoo. It is the very usefullness of Yahoo that means we had to block it.
Yahoo is about much more than a search engine. I don't use yahoo personally. I provide network services and recently blocked all access to the Yahoo network on a clients network.
That network was a primary school.
For a number of weeks now, whenever I visit that school I get asked about ten times, "Why aren't we able to access Yahoo?" "Why did you block it?"
It seems that for people like you and I who remember when Yahoo was a search engine, that's all it is. However, once people left for google, the fans and evangelist of Yahoo were more concerned with the content side. Yes, it is about choosing the correct smiley, but no, its not about search engines. I think that extra content that Yahoo seems to be providing, without anyone important realising they're doing it, is what google needs to, and is, catching up on.
As an asided, more and more people seem to be taking Yahoo seriously again as a search engine. I notice now they've got all the extras (images, advanced options, etc...) bu many claim they return more relevant results. Might be time for a personal experiment...
I don't agree that LFS is overkill. It has its place. In terms of the learning curve, its about halfway. For newbs it is out of the question. When I did it though I'd been using Linux for about 2 years and that was right for me.
In a bid to definatively find the truth I propose a experiment. I will immediately set out, find me a skanky bitch and infest myself with Hepititis A, B, C...
Soon my body will be a fighting ring from which only one will emerge.
I set off immediately - wish me luck. May the force be with you.
In light of my feeble attempts at college level logic courses I find your post very amusing. You appeal to the flaw in my arguement by way of reference to modern positivist emiricism. And yet on the other hand, you sig is a postmodern, postpositivist appeal to something along the lines of structural relativism. Whoa, I'm freakin' out man...
Firstly, I did apologise for xalling you a dickhead - read the full discussion if you don't believe me. I was posted about thirty seconds after the first. Not once have you apologised for your juvenilie behaviour; what does that say about you. And once again I assert, I wasn't trying to raise the level of the discussion by using 'big words.' Those 'big words' are actually what I use and deal with every day.
As to the arguement at hand, that was on a completely different issue. You digressed and chose to focus on my use of the word 'metonymical' rather that follow the arguement.
Actually, there is a signifigant difference between fewer and less. Fewer is used in a quantitative sense whilst less is used in a qualitative. For exmple, countable items should use 'fewer' (antonym greater) whilst for non-countable one would use 'less' (antonym more). Therefore, there are probably more stupid words than 'fewer' (single inverted commas), but also many which can replace it in comptemporary English. For an interesting subnote see the etymological falacy.
The possessive, 'its', has no apostrophe you damned person with an intellectual impairment. How many visitors per day and you idiots still cannot hire an editor?
Hightlights
It added the direct atricle and two commas for the sake of clarity. Also there is the use of single inverted commas for illustrative purposes, that is how to indicate the relevent subject material. I replaced the profanity with something more acceptable and the non PC 'retard' became a 'person with an intellectual impairment. Remember, they are not disabled people, but people with disabilities. Unless of course you meant muscle retardation, but that would become spasticity or increased tone. The final change was "can't" (double inverted commas for "can't" contains an apostrophe) to cannot. This is proper english.
Why do all this? This gentlemen or woman obviously has an appreciation for correct English usage. I hope this was educational.
again, use a dictionaryyour not a noun either either, but you can be used in many contexts as a subset of the noun group. Really, you are wrong, just live with it.
Your second reply at this level is most pompous. So glad you are here trying to elevate the discussion to your own lofty level. I really appreciate your shining example.
you may have missed the gentle (read obvious) use of dramatic irony in my last post. The reason I went through corecting your grammar and such was to point out the childish nature of your arguement. Instead of picking on my rhetoric, and critiquing my arguments, you instead take potshots at my spelling. grow up, dickhead.
I'm not some jackass computer nerd. First I've a business in IT, providing WAN services to differing government departments. My second (and more recent professionalism) is law. Computer nerds I find to be anally retentive due to some deep seated insecurities. Law folk you will find appreciate language as a tools. Words caontain and construct subtley and meaning. The use of 'big words' (polysyllabilic) is not for the sake of being pompous, but for the purpose of conveying correct and true meaning. Perhaps you don't like it because slashdot is used to nerd jargon and vernacular.
I think it would be more true to say that when an individual brings a new way of thinking and speaking to an institution the community protects itself. They are naturally warey and overtly hostile towards intruders. For example, most computer nerds would have no fare with post-modernism nor any other form of post-positivist thought (critical theory/gender studies/social contructivism). They therefore would hold no truck with these. To you it seems belittleing and offensive, like using unknown words to intellectually intimidate the arguee. For people from those fields of study, this is standard fare. The value of humanities is just that - to bring a range of methodologies and paradigms to any arguement. I'm sorry if you don't like what I say, but I am not going to reduce it to the terms which you want it in. To do so would be to strip my arguements of meaning. In turn, I don't care if your brain cannot deal, or is unfamiliar, with what I say.
Metonymy is, broadly defined, a trope in which one entity is used to stand for another associated entity.
So in summary: 1. Yes you really are dumb due to: your small vocabulary (large part of IQ tests); your inability to use a search engine; your insular upbringing which did not introduce to key literary concepts such as metonyms; your tendency to assert your opinion even though it is wrong. 2. Yes I am smart - but that may be only when compared to you. 3. I don't think you try to look smart at all. 4. If you had the patience to correct my spelling, the smart thing to do would be to read three words ahead for the definition. Who is the real idiot then?
And finally as you corrected my spelleing I shall correct your grammar, it is deplorable.
Maybe I -really am- dumb, and you -- smart. -Use of colloquialism (incorrectly used)-However/Yet/Adversely/Many, I don't try to look -intelligent- by using big words -without means outside the scope of- knowing -not- how they are -spelt-, or --what they mean. Unless, of course, you can explain how it is -even never belongs before possible- possible for a person to be metonymical(which should be obvious after redaing the definition). Unless of course you -mean (due to the current nature of the debate, until it is considered settled whence one changes to past tense )-"metronymical", in which case I don't understand the -pertainence-. -Unrelated Concept-In any case, I assure you I have poor rhythm.
AND THE END RESULT (FUNNIER) Maybe I really am dumb, and you smart. I though, do not try to look intelligent by using big words, knowing not how they are spelt or what they mean. Unless, of course, you can explain how it is possible for a person to be metonymical. Unless of course you mean "metronymical", in which case I don't understand the pertainence. In any case, I assure you I have poor rhythm.
And in other news, the reason the world is headed into a terminal depression is because it sucks. You see a friend of mine invested in a company and it sucked. This is how the stock exchange works and from this sigle experience, I can assure you - investing in the stock exchange is a bad idea. To cut a long story short - no thanks stock market, i'll stick with my savings account.
Slashdot Mirror
Incorrect: should of
Still incorrect: should've
correct: should have
Firstly, 'right' is a moral judgement. The word you are looking for is either correct or proper. Incorrect is the opposite. Secondly, the phrase is 'should ought to have' as in, 'you should ought to have told the authorities ma'am.' As well, in correct spelling and technical writing one should never cntract spellings.
I defer in this to Janet Whitcut, senior Research Editor to the Longman Dictionary.
Regardless of what Stallman would have you believe, there is more to open source than the GNU.
lets suppose for a moment that superman decided to go evil. Is that bodyarmour going to protect you now? No.
Batman is only good at fighting intellectual criminals. Lets face it, X million dollars is a big expense for beating up nerds - any preschooler could do it.
Here is a cheaper option. Batman, go for a holiday at Chernobyl. I hear it on good authority that radiation will give you superpowers, a la The Hulk. At the moment you are blowing you money on crap that isn't going to help when they up the ante. Also, get a gun, like a sniper rifle. Think how much time you could save if you'd just picked off the Penguin from the top of a post office. Instead, you're into all this hand to hand kung-fu bullshit. Neo, you could get a gun to. Darth Vader, you do that chokey thing and can do it over visi-phone - you're cool.
He saw his parents die apparently. Don't forget the psychologist/scientologist bill. Otherwise he might cease up everytime a crook enters the room.
Samba, lpd, CUPS, Ghostscript, and the like have all by now fallen by the wayside of obsolescence. Windows dominates the world.
I'm not knocking the usefullness of Yahoo. It is the very usefullness of Yahoo that means we had to block it.
That network was a primary school.
For a number of weeks now, whenever I visit that school I get asked about ten times, "Why aren't we able to access Yahoo?" "Why did you block it?"
It seems that for people like you and I who remember when Yahoo was a search engine, that's all it is. However, once people left for google, the fans and evangelist of Yahoo were more concerned with the content side. Yes, it is about choosing the correct smiley, but no, its not about search engines. I think that extra content that Yahoo seems to be providing, without anyone important realising they're doing it, is what google needs to, and is, catching up on.
As an asided, more and more people seem to be taking Yahoo seriously again as a search engine. I notice now they've got all the extras (images, advanced options, etc...) bu many claim they return more relevant results. Might be time for a personal experiment...
There are space pens.
They weren't created by the American government
The Aremicans originally used pencils as well.
Bits of the pencil can break of.
Info Here
Summary:
LFS brilliant for learning Linux
LFS definately not for newbs.
Man, if we could convince to install linux on it...
Soon my body will be a fighting ring from which only one will emerge.
I set off immediately - wish me luck. May the force be with you.
I meant to be amusing too. Apparently we both aren't. ;)
Slashdot - News for Nerds, And Stuff that's Totally Irrelevant.
In light of my feeble attempts at college level logic courses I find your post very amusing. You appeal to the flaw in my arguement by way of reference to modern positivist emiricism. And yet on the other hand, you sig is a postmodern, postpositivist appeal to something along the lines of structural relativism. Whoa, I'm freakin' out man...
Trojans infect my system
Therefore Windows = Cancer
As to the arguement at hand, that was on a completely different issue. You digressed and chose to focus on my use of the word 'metonymical' rather that follow the arguement.
For the sake of clarification to AC - the modern equivilant of a gentleman is a gentlewoman, and I was right. Yes I am anal retentive.
hah, no - I meant women, as in addressing an audience
Actually, there is a signifigant difference between fewer and less. Fewer is used in a quantitative sense whilst less is used in a qualitative. For exmple, countable items should use 'fewer' (antonym greater) whilst for non-countable one would use 'less' (antonym more). Therefore, there are probably more stupid words than 'fewer' (single inverted commas), but also many which can replace it in comptemporary English. For an interesting subnote see the etymological falacy.
Hightlights
It added the direct atricle and two commas for the sake of clarity. Also there is the use of single inverted commas for illustrative purposes, that is how to indicate the relevent subject material. I replaced the profanity with something more acceptable and the non PC 'retard' became a 'person with an intellectual impairment. Remember, they are not disabled people, but people with disabilities. Unless of course you meant muscle retardation, but that would become spasticity or increased tone. The final change was "can't" (double inverted commas for "can't" contains an apostrophe) to cannot. This is proper english.
Why do all this? This gentlemen or woman obviously has an appreciation for correct English usage. I hope this was educational.
again, use a dictionaryyour not a noun either either, but you can be used in many contexts as a subset of the noun group. Really, you are wrong, just live with it.
Your second reply at this level is most pompous. So glad you are here trying to elevate the discussion to your own lofty level. I really appreciate your shining example.
you may have missed the gentle (read obvious) use of dramatic irony in my last post. The reason I went through corecting your grammar and such was to point out the childish nature of your arguement. Instead of picking on my rhetoric, and critiquing my arguments, you instead take potshots at my spelling. grow up, dickhead.
I think it would be more true to say that when an individual brings a new way of thinking and speaking to an institution the community protects itself. They are naturally warey and overtly hostile towards intruders. For example, most computer nerds would have no fare with post-modernism nor any other form of post-positivist thought (critical theory/gender studies/social contructivism). They therefore would hold no truck with these. To you it seems belittleing and offensive, like using unknown words to intellectually intimidate the arguee. For people from those fields of study, this is standard fare. The value of humanities is just that - to bring a range of methodologies and paradigms to any arguement. I'm sorry if you don't like what I say, but I am not going to reduce it to the terms which you want it in. To do so would be to strip my arguements of meaning. In turn, I don't care if your brain cannot deal, or is unfamiliar, with what I say.
Yes, you apparently try to look dumb by admitting you have a small vocabulary. :
3 syllables
7 letters
From
www.sil.org/linguistics/ GlossaryOfLinguisticTerms/WhatIsMetonymy.htm
Metonymy is, broadly defined, a trope in
which one entity is used to stand for another associated entity.
So in summary:
1. Yes you really are dumb due to: your small vocabulary (large part of IQ tests); your inability to use a search engine; your insular upbringing which did not introduce to key literary concepts such as metonyms; your tendency to assert your opinion even though it is wrong.
2. Yes I am smart - but that may be only when compared to you.
3. I don't think you try to look smart at all.
4. If you had the patience to correct my spelling, the smart thing to do would be to read three words ahead for the definition. Who is the real idiot then?
And finally as you corrected my spelleing I shall correct your grammar, it is deplorable.
Maybe I -really am- dumb, and you -- smart. -Use of colloquialism (incorrectly used)-However/Yet/Adversely/Many, I don't try to look -intelligent- by using big words -without means outside the scope of- knowing -not- how they are -spelt-, or --what they mean. Unless, of course, you can explain how it is -even never belongs before possible- possible for a person to be metonymical(which should be obvious after redaing the definition). Unless of course you -mean (due to the current nature of the debate, until it is considered settled whence one changes to past tense )-"metronymical", in which case I don't understand the -pertainence-. -Unrelated Concept-In any case, I assure you I have poor rhythm.
AND THE END RESULT (FUNNIER)
Maybe I really am dumb, and you smart. I though, do not try to look intelligent by using big words, knowing not how they are spelt or what they mean. Unless, of course, you can explain how it is possible for a person to be metonymical. Unless of course you mean "metronymical", in which case I don't understand the pertainence. In any case, I assure you I have poor rhythm.
Security Flaw is discovered Someone else finds Security Flaw Flaw is patched
And in other news, the reason the world is headed into a terminal depression is because it sucks. You see a friend of mine invested in a company and it sucked. This is how the stock exchange works and from this sigle experience, I can assure you - investing in the stock exchange is a bad idea. To cut a long story short - no thanks stock market, i'll stick with my savings account.