Which is not a statement of limited scope. Even if it were his claim would still be bullshit. Life is unfair, not a meritocracy. Whether it should be made fair is another question, but it is undoubtedly not fair and not a meritocracy.
There's no way to tell whether our ancestors had "teeth" or other condom-breaking protrusions on their penises. They may or may not have, since boners don't fossilize as well as bones. Maybe we merely lost our vestigial cock-teeth. Or maybe this is where myths of vagina dentata come from--it was the women who had the condom-breaking apparatus.
Yes, I'm sure all the papers showing otherwise in the last twenty years are nonsense. You're talking about skeletal/morphological changes which are a tiny, tiny subset of possible genetic changes.
Perhaps you should try reading the second line of my post too. 500 years is evolutationarily significant. Saying otherwise is nonsense. No, that doesn't mean we'll grow penis spears in 500 years (but one can dream).
How insightful of you. I bet you knew that right out of your ass: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_condoms (yes, five hundred years IS evolutionarily significant, although perhaps not enough so for us to all grow teeth on our penises)
That's also NOT what happened. Judge found for the DOJ. Judge recommended MS be broken up. Judge went on camera calling MS something to the tune of "lying assholes" (imagine the judge being pissed after they were caught committing perjury multiple times, I know). MS appealed penalty and won.
Don't blame Bush. Blame Thomas Penfield Jackson and his inability to keep his damn mouth shut in front of the press.
Closed source otoh. often has loopholes attached to it. Even embedded in law. If I buy software and that software suddenly decides to erase my hard drive and I can prove this behavior then there's nothing stopping me to file a complaint at the nearest police station and have the author of said malware picked up for (for starters) destruction of my property. I can even file a suit for damages.
No you can't. All software, closed or open is provided "as is" with no guarantee of functioning properly. If what you said were anything other than laughable fantasy Microsoft wouldn't exist anymore.
Did you even watch the same movie as I did? The martians came in peace, and then they were viciously attacked by that dove. How were they supposed to respond?
I used to know (at least nodding acquaintances) all the people who lived within a mile of my home (about 400 people)
Horseshit. Maybe you knew their names, but you didn't know them. How many of them did you know were sex offenders? Drug dealers? Abusive spouses? Abusive parents? Kleptomaniacs? Knowing their names/recognizing their faces doesn't mean you knew them, and it didn't make you any safer.
It doesn't ask that because it is an established fact that average IQs are getting higher. It is not an established fact that high IQs are getting higher.
term used in linguistics when discussing exactly this issue.
To quote one of my parent posters
The fact that so many are uneducated and ignorant does not invalidate the use of the term.
The irony of your effort to cast my using a technical term with a technical, specific, and appropriate meaning as somehow not being useful in a post claiming that artificial, technical, specific language is superior to natural language is not lost on me. It'd be amusing if I thought you'd done it on purpose.
I differ on this. The fact that so many are uneducated and ignorant does not invalidate the use of the term.
Of course not, but it does place it in a different register or dialect (depending on the remoteness from the reader's idiolect). The phrase "technically correct" is meaningless in linguistics. A phrase is either understood or not. If it is not, then it is either incorrect in the speaker & listener's shared dialect (I are fast) or it is not part of their shared dialect (Marunong ka bang mag-Tagalog?). There is no such thing as "technically correct" because languages are not constructed in anything resembling a technical fashion.
Slashdot Mirror
Horseshit. He clearly said
Life is a meritocracy
Which is not a statement of limited scope. Even if it were his claim would still be bullshit. Life is unfair, not a meritocracy. Whether it should be made fair is another question, but it is undoubtedly not fair and not a meritocracy.
There's no way to tell whether our ancestors had "teeth" or other condom-breaking protrusions on their penises. They may or may not have, since boners don't fossilize as well as bones. Maybe we merely lost our vestigial cock-teeth. Or maybe this is where myths of vagina dentata come from--it was the women who had the condom-breaking apparatus.
I remember when I didn't know how to count to four. Then I turned 4.
By the Flying Spaghetti Monster, NO!
Jesus christ does no one read the past the first line of posts any more?!?!
Yes, I'm sure all the papers showing otherwise in the last twenty years are nonsense. You're talking about skeletal/morphological changes which are a tiny, tiny subset of possible genetic changes.
Perhaps you should try reading the second line of my post too. 500 years is evolutationarily significant. Saying otherwise is nonsense. No, that doesn't mean we'll grow penis spears in 500 years (but one can dream).
That was a sad day for kerbals everywhere.
How insightful of you. I bet you knew that right out of your ass: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_condoms (yes, five hundred years IS evolutionarily significant, although perhaps not enough so for us to all grow teeth on our penises)
That's also NOT what happened. Judge found for the DOJ. Judge recommended MS be broken up. Judge went on camera calling MS something to the tune of "lying assholes" (imagine the judge being pissed after they were caught committing perjury multiple times, I know). MS appealed penalty and won.
Don't blame Bush. Blame Thomas Penfield Jackson and his inability to keep his damn mouth shut in front of the press.
The next version, e17, has gone stable
I don't believe you. Neither does enlightenment.org, as far as I can tell.
Closed source otoh. often has loopholes attached to it. Even embedded in law. If I buy software and that software suddenly decides to erase my hard drive and I can prove this behavior then there's nothing stopping me to file a complaint at the nearest police station and have the author of said malware picked up for (for starters) destruction of my property. I can even file a suit for damages.
No you can't. All software, closed or open is provided "as is" with no guarantee of functioning properly. If what you said were anything other than laughable fantasy Microsoft wouldn't exist anymore.
And why we suddenly accidentally some verbs from our sentences?
The key is 256 characters long, and looks like a ROT13-encoded Perl scrip
Oh, so it's just a regular sentence? That doesn't seem so bad...
Did you even watch the same movie as I did? The martians came in peace, and then they were viciously attacked by that dove. How were they supposed to respond?
That's da bomb!
An unfortunate choice of words you may regret having chosen when the black vans park in your driveway.
Were it not for limited liability laws, companies making long term losses would be worth negative money.
It is not the law that you are fair game for audio recording, however (depending on your state).
I've got this bridge in Pacoima, the vacation capital of California, that I think you might be interested in...
I used to know (at least nodding acquaintances) all the people who lived within a mile of my home (about 400 people)
Horseshit. Maybe you knew their names, but you didn't know them. How many of them did you know were sex offenders? Drug dealers? Abusive spouses? Abusive parents? Kleptomaniacs? Knowing their names/recognizing their faces doesn't mean you knew them, and it didn't make you any safer.
For example you can have a 1% majority
I think that word does not mean what you think it means.
Fair point, bad choice of words on my part. The average RAW scores on the same IQ test are rising over time.
It doesn't ask that because it is an established fact that average IQs are getting higher. It is not an established fact that high IQs are getting higher.
Ah, but proper, intelligent communication, both written and spoken, are.
No they're not. That is the delusion of conceited assholes who like to pretend they're better than other people.
Did your calendar list "idiolect" as your word for the day and made it so that you had to find any way at all to inject it into a conversation?
The term idiolect is a well-known, well established
term used in linguistics when discussing exactly this issue.
To quote one of my parent posters
The fact that so many are uneducated and ignorant does not invalidate the use of the term.
The irony of your effort to cast my using a technical term with a technical, specific, and appropriate meaning as somehow not being useful in a post claiming that artificial, technical, specific language is superior to natural language is not lost on me. It'd be amusing if I thought you'd done it on purpose.
Nice try though.
I differ on this. The fact that so many are uneducated and ignorant does not invalidate the use of the term.
Of course not, but it does place it in a different register or dialect (depending on the remoteness from the reader's idiolect). The phrase "technically correct" is meaningless in linguistics. A phrase is either understood or not. If it is not, then it is either incorrect in the speaker & listener's shared dialect (I are fast) or it is not part of their shared dialect (Marunong ka bang mag-Tagalog?). There is no such thing as "technically correct" because languages are not constructed in anything resembling a technical fashion.