If you have 1 brand new, shiny bike and it's worth $1000 now, but after a month of use, it's only worth $500, you didn't have $1000 and you didn't have $500, you had 1 bike. If I steal your brand new, shiny bike now, while it's worth $1000, but its value decreases to $500, I didn't steal $1000 from you; nor did I steal $500 from you. I stole one brand new, shiny bike.
Let's try some substitution:
If you have 1 brand new, shiny bitcoin and it's worth $370 now, but after a month of speculation, it's only worth $350, you didn't have $370 and you didn't have $350, you had 1 bitcoin. If I steal your brand new, shiny bitcoin now, while it's worth $370, but its value decreases to $350, I didn't steal $370 from you; nor did I steal $350 from you. I stole one brand new, shiny bitcoin.
Following the same logic as for the bike, it would make sense that they would simply replace the bitcoins that were stolen.
Thank you for that information, I had been lead to believe otherwise. That still doesn't negate my point, which was that there are several definitions of the word, not all of which are vulgar or indicate a specific gender.
First of all, I linked not just to one website, but to four. Second, yes, I know some people are offended by it; in fact, pick something, anything, doesn't matter what, and I bet I can find at least a handful of people who are offended by that thing. If we all go out of our way not to offend, we literally accomplish nothing, because we have to literally do nothing in order to not offend anyone, which, of course, someone is going to find offensive. Follow?
Where was the gender implication in bazmail's use of the word? There was none; in fact, while bazmail may not have been using it in the playful and friendly way it is often used in Ireland (no gender implied, there, either), there was also no vulgarity behind its use. One of three commonly accepted (American) english definitions for the word is "a term used to refer to a contemptible person" (note the late of gender); there is nothing vulgar implied there, and that is the definition which best fits the context of this usage. In some cultures, it's actually used as a slang term for addressing a friend, or group thereof.
Yes, if you want to be a cunt (e.g. "a mean or obnoxious person") and pretend it's nothing more than a vulgar reference to a woman's reproductive organs, I agree, it's quite offensive. Personally, I'd much rather meet you and the rest of that bunch of cunts (e.g. "the kind of people one might go have a beer with") for a beer, though, so I can better explain how your narrow world view and lack of understanding lead you to observe grievous offenses where, in fact, there are none. Then, I can be done using that word for a while.
Laurie Penny, Ev`Yan Whitney, Gillian Schutte, and the writers at cherishthecunt.com all appear, to me at least, to be women, and they all appear to be more than comfortable with the word. Perhaps you shouldn't speak for an entire gender?
Haha no worries. You are absolutely correct that it is required for XHTML, you just had the placement wrong. I've boned simpler stuff than that, much much worse; fairly recently, as well.
I do that all the time, I was just bein' snarky. It's gotten me far on this site and, since I'm not sure how much longer I'm gonna stick around, I'm trying to get a few more jabs in.
Also, I was forced to use non-compliant markup (<br> rather than </br>)
Ahem, what? The first two lines of HTML in/.'s template:
<!DOCTYPE html>
<html lang="en">
In HTML5, the slash is not only optional for void element, such as <br>, it belongs at the end (e.g. <br/>)of the opening (and only) tag, not at the beginning (as it would be placed in a closing tag). While SlashCode is, as you so eloquently put it, shit, your HTML could probably use a bit of spit-shine, as well.
It can be much, MUCH worse when your boss DOES know about your job, but doesn't take the time to see whether it's actually being done before declaring that it is not.
Where did I say it was automatic? All it takes is one cop having a bad day to decide it looks like you were on your phone or maybe you ran that stop sign (maybe a "witness" -- really a family member of the victim who wasn't even present at the time - "saw" you run the sign) and you're facing charges. Can't afford a good lawyer? Your public defender isn't gonna lift a finger to prove you were in the right, he wants to believe you're guilty so he can get on to a better, career-building, case.
What do you need a citation on? That it could happen, or that it has happened? I ask because I never said it *has* happened, so if that's what you're after, do your own research (I'm sure it's out there).
Read the law and realize all it takes is for a cop to think you maybe, possibly, might have been doing something else wrong when you hit the pedestrian and from there it's up to the prosecutor or DA whether or not charges are filed. If the victim's family pushes hard enough, they get a say, as well. From there, all it takes is for the prosecution and any "witnesses" (e.g. family members who weren't actually there) to convince the jury that you may well have been committing some other minor civil infraction at the time of the accident and, if you can't afford a decent lawyer and are stuck with a public defender, you're most likely being found guilty of involuntary manslaughter.
I never said it's happened, though I'm sure it has. The facts of the scenario really only matter when your lawyer is better than the prosecutor, so if you can't afford one, all it takes is for the public defender assigned to your case to not point out clearly to the jury that you were paying attention, were not speeding, intoxicated, or texting, and that you didn't run a stop sign or red light, or commit any other non-felony offense, because if they decide you may have been doing something else wrong when you hit and killed the pedestrian, that's involuntary manslaughter right there.
If you want to know whether it's happened or not, do your own research; I was stating that it could, hypothetically, happen, and you've made no argument to the contrary.
Probably won't do what again the next time? Obey traffic laws while driving? Be unable to stop my vehicle in less time than it takes me to react (barring physics and reality from the equation, of course)? Or do you mean next time I won't leave witnesses? Because that's what would have prevented the unjust conviction in my hypothetical scenario; murdering anyone and everyone who saw the moron run out in front of me.
If that's what you're advocating, then it is you, my anonymous friend, who shouldn't be allowed to vote.
Honestly, that's how it should be. And if YouTube puts ads on their video, they're the ones commercializing it, let them work out the licensing and pay royalties on it.
Slashdot Mirror
Or, considering the value of C... "Two long, didn't check" may be just as appropriate.
If you have 1 brand new, shiny bike and it's worth $1000 now, but after a month of use, it's only worth $500, you didn't have $1000 and you didn't have $500, you had 1 bike. If I steal your brand new, shiny bike now, while it's worth $1000, but its value decreases to $500, I didn't steal $1000 from you; nor did I steal $500 from you. I stole one brand new, shiny bike.
Let's try some substitution:
If you have 1 brand new, shiny bitcoin and it's worth $370 now, but after a month of speculation, it's only worth $350, you didn't have $370 and you didn't have $350, you had 1 bitcoin. If I steal your brand new, shiny bitcoin now, while it's worth $370, but its value decreases to $350, I didn't steal $370 from you; nor did I steal $350 from you. I stole one brand new, shiny bitcoin.
Following the same logic as for the bike, it would make sense that they would simply replace the bitcoins that were stolen.
Gaming rig for gaming, general purpose rig for porn, finding hacks and cheats, and everything else. Duh.
Thank you for that information, I had been lead to believe otherwise. That still doesn't negate my point, which was that there are several definitions of the word, not all of which are vulgar or indicate a specific gender.
Why, oh why do I keep coming here?
:)
That's right, shit like this.
Thanks
Typo... The parenthetical "note the late of gender" in paragraph 2 should actually read "note the lack of gender".
First of all, I linked not just to one website, but to four. Second, yes, I know some people are offended by it; in fact, pick something, anything, doesn't matter what, and I bet I can find at least a handful of people who are offended by that thing. If we all go out of our way not to offend, we literally accomplish nothing, because we have to literally do nothing in order to not offend anyone, which, of course, someone is going to find offensive. Follow?
Where was the gender implication in bazmail's use of the word? There was none; in fact, while bazmail may not have been using it in the playful and friendly way it is often used in Ireland (no gender implied, there, either), there was also no vulgarity behind its use. One of three commonly accepted (American) english definitions for the word is "a term used to refer to a contemptible person" (note the late of gender); there is nothing vulgar implied there, and that is the definition which best fits the context of this usage. In some cultures, it's actually used as a slang term for addressing a friend, or group thereof.
Yes, if you want to be a cunt (e.g. "a mean or obnoxious person") and pretend it's nothing more than a vulgar reference to a woman's reproductive organs, I agree, it's quite offensive. Personally, I'd much rather meet you and the rest of that bunch of cunts (e.g. "the kind of people one might go have a beer with") for a beer, though, so I can better explain how your narrow world view and lack of understanding lead you to observe grievous offenses where, in fact, there are none. Then, I can be done using that word for a while.
Last I checked, Skynet wasn't yet operational.
What about WOPR?
Laurie Penny, Ev`Yan Whitney, Gillian Schutte, and the writers at cherishthecunt.com all appear, to me at least, to be women, and they all appear to be more than comfortable with the word. Perhaps you shouldn't speak for an entire gender?
What's wrong with "cunt"? I wouldn't use it in a professional setting; but let's face it, Slashdot is not that.
Haha no worries. You are absolutely correct that it is required for XHTML, you just had the placement wrong. I've boned simpler stuff than that, much much worse; fairly recently, as well.
Yeah, I realized that after I hit submit.
I do that all the time, I was just bein' snarky. It's gotten me far on this site and, since I'm not sure how much longer I'm gonna stick around, I'm trying to get a few more jabs in.
Also, I was forced to use non-compliant markup (<br> rather than </br>)
Ahem, what? The first two lines of HTML in /.'s template:
<!DOCTYPE html>
<html lang="en">
In HTML5, the slash is not only optional for void element, such as <br>, it belongs at the end (e.g. <br/>)of the opening (and only) tag, not at the beginning (as it would be placed in a closing tag). While SlashCode is, as you so eloquently put it, shit, your HTML could probably use a bit of spit-shine, as well.
It can be much, MUCH worse when your boss DOES know about your job, but doesn't take the time to see whether it's actually being done before declaring that it is not.
If you were a carpenter, you'd probably mix about as much paint as a painter would build cabinets. Just sayin'.
You missed "Hoy".
Rather, it blows.
I'll be out.
You're absolutely correct, two completely different things, until you realize that, in order to get to Point B, you must start at Point A.
Where did I say it was automatic? All it takes is one cop having a bad day to decide it looks like you were on your phone or maybe you ran that stop sign (maybe a "witness" -- really a family member of the victim who wasn't even present at the time - "saw" you run the sign) and you're facing charges. Can't afford a good lawyer? Your public defender isn't gonna lift a finger to prove you were in the right, he wants to believe you're guilty so he can get on to a better, career-building, case.
What do you need a citation on? That it could happen, or that it has happened? I ask because I never said it *has* happened, so if that's what you're after, do your own research (I'm sure it's out there).
Read the law and realize all it takes is for a cop to think you maybe, possibly, might have been doing something else wrong when you hit the pedestrian and from there it's up to the prosecutor or DA whether or not charges are filed. If the victim's family pushes hard enough, they get a say, as well. From there, all it takes is for the prosecution and any "witnesses" (e.g. family members who weren't actually there) to convince the jury that you may well have been committing some other minor civil infraction at the time of the accident and, if you can't afford a decent lawyer and are stuck with a public defender, you're most likely being found guilty of involuntary manslaughter.
I never said it's happened, though I'm sure it has. The facts of the scenario really only matter when your lawyer is better than the prosecutor, so if you can't afford one, all it takes is for the public defender assigned to your case to not point out clearly to the jury that you were paying attention, were not speeding, intoxicated, or texting, and that you didn't run a stop sign or red light, or commit any other non-felony offense, because if they decide you may have been doing something else wrong when you hit and killed the pedestrian, that's involuntary manslaughter right there.
If you want to know whether it's happened or not, do your own research; I was stating that it could, hypothetically, happen, and you've made no argument to the contrary.
Hypothetical; could happen. I may have the charge wrong, but the fact is the scenario I laid out does align with at least one on-the-books felony.
Probably won't do what again the next time? Obey traffic laws while driving? Be unable to stop my vehicle in less time than it takes me to react (barring physics and reality from the equation, of course)? Or do you mean next time I won't leave witnesses? Because that's what would have prevented the unjust conviction in my hypothetical scenario; murdering anyone and everyone who saw the moron run out in front of me.
If that's what you're advocating, then it is you, my anonymous friend, who shouldn't be allowed to vote.
Honestly, that's how it should be. And if YouTube puts ads on their video, they're the ones commercializing it, let them work out the licensing and pay royalties on it.