Indeed, which is why your post was wrong if you meant it to be in the past tense. I read it as the present tense because that's the way you wrote it.
What you said: "Really I don't hate on Nvidia, being [present participle] second to AMD in the desktop gaming market has caught [present perfect] them a bit of flak, but they still perform great."
What you should have said was: "Really I don't hate on Nvidia. Having been second to AMD in the desktop gaming market caught them a bit of flak, but they still perform great."
Or something else that wouldn't have been so misleading. And while I'm sure somebody could nitpick the grammar in my post, (like the previous sentence fragment), the gist is correct.
The people I run into saying "Android isn't real Linux" are anti Linux people trying to continue their claims that Linux is a total failure.
It really depends on what you mean by "Linux". The average Linux desktop user, for example, cares about all the "Linux" software that is available to them regardless of the distro. If that same software can't be run on an Android device, then the fact that there's Linux under the hood doesn't carry much merit.
Why not? If you want to indiscriminately murder people for lobbying the government (though presumably not when they're lobbying for your issue or job), I think you've made yourself fair game.
That's the problem with would-be tyrants like you. You only think about your own issues and don't consider the greater picture of living in a world where anybody who's got a chip on their soldier starts murdering people to get their way.
I made that same argument, and someone came back and said it is still technically limited as written currently.
That would be the Supreme Court. It's a debatable argument, as most are that make it there. I agree that the current copyright terms are a joke and a travesty, but the Constitutional angle is dead, and any legal reform needs to go through Congress.
And the only ad that you can't disable is some text scrolling in the top right corner (and it's oftentimes actually useful information related to sales or game launches in the PSN Store).
I hated this ad for the PS3, and it pissed me off that you couldn't disable it on what was otherwise a superbly configurable device. I ended up using a hack and setting the console system date a year into the future (or the past, I forget).
There is no outrage on cable/dish because 90% of the users have DVR's with add skipping remotes.
As you note yourself in a later post, ads on cable have been around for a very long time, well before DVR and ad-skipping. There was some grumbling, but it didn't last very long and didn't keep cable from being popular.
There is no logic that you can use to prove that God doesn't exist and you therefor don't believe.
There is no logic to prove that dragons and fairies don't exist, either, or that Zeus isn't a god that actually exists, or any number of ridiculous beliefs born from primitive people making up shit as they went along. What is true, however, is:
1) There's a distinct lack of evidence. 2) There's plenty of evidence which contradicts claims. 3) There's evidence for alternative theories based on reasoning and verification. 4) We've progressed immensely by discarding the superstitious and proceeding on reasoning and verification.
As for Christianity, there is differentiation on specific points, but the broad, core positions correlate very highly across denominations.
As a moral foundation for humanity, one that is "absolute", Christianity is a complete and utter failure. The biggest problem is the lack of getting the same message to all people. If these morals are so important, then why does an all-powerful god depend on a human "prophet" to get the message out, instead of unambiguously delivering the message in a divine way to all people of all cultures and all times?
In reality, there's nothing special about the Jesus mythology over many of the other prophet mythologies like Muhammad, Joseph Smith, or countless others that aren't offshoots of Hebrew mythology. It all looks like a bunch of people making up bullshit, and as a thinking, rational person, it makes more sense to me to not take any of it as Truth.
Other problems include the changing morality (old testament versus new), the problems of how the New Testament was generated (by committee, picking from a pool of texts), the problems of translations and loss of context as important details are lost to history, or just a complete lack of answers to problematic moral questions, or as you have tried to sweep under the rug, the problems of differing interpretations on a host of issues, including whether some things are just parables or should be taken literally.
Don't tell me they can't, because the Linux and GNU and FLOSS (in general) community has proven over and over again that they can ["released an Operating System that WORKED, was rock-solid, had bullet-proof security, was small, tight, and fast, was highly customizable, configurable, did it's job quietly and kept the hell out of your way... and never needed to be patched because it had been designed to be secure and uncrashable from the ground up"]
Delusional much? Could you provide a link to this magical, Linux/GNU/FLOSS software so that I may run it? Or alternatively, I could take a few seconds and point out the many flaws, patches, upgrades, and missing features.
But you made the choice out to be between Romney and Obama, and called Obama a "tyrant" (not stated why, presumably over health care). I'm just pointing out that Romney will be a "tyrant", too.
Many of them, sure, they didn't take school seriously. I knew a lot like that when I went to school. And the fact remains, school is about education, not your silly "least common denominator" view. If you want "least common denominator", then taking your advice about striving to do shit poorly like read manga is the way to go.
A libertarian vote is a vote for Obama and tyranny.
Uh huh, like Romney is some kind of Libertarian freedom fighter that will respect the Constitution. So people have to pay for medical insurance now, and coverage has been improved. Boo fucking hoo.
And somebody that hacks into a website is merely asking to be let in. Google specifically worked around the Safari policy and technical measures that were put in place to prevent what they did. It's really pathetic that you're even taking this angle.
It's ok, though. I know the cognitive dissonance is too much for you.
Does it hurt when you hold double standards? What's your explanation for why when Google exploits software on a user's computer for commercial gain that it isn't hacking? First you claim that a browser isn't a website, showing your predisposition to discount what happens on consumer computers. So what's your argument now that Google is allowed to do this legally?
Sure it did. A security mechanism was in place to prevent unwanted cookies. Google hacked around it to gain commercially. That's abuse. There's even fraud, because Google made a positive claim that Safari's cookie policy protected their privacy.
The only difference between a hacker and Google is that Google is a corporation, and corporations in cases like this usually aren't treated as people when it comes to enforcing the law. It's a complete double standard, and people like you are part of the problem.
The browser runs on my computer. If I hosted a site that hacked into your computer when you browsed it, by all accounts, legally and ethically, I should be held liable for computer fraud and abuse.
That said, this is not a term paper, a newspaper piece or a scholarly article. It's a post on a news aggregation and discussion site.
Even if you're just writing a comment on a discussion site, if you copy and paste some text, you should quote it. It only takes a second, aids to clear communication, and is respectful.
It's really, honestly as simple as adding "Muriel Kane of Raw story writes:" at the start of the paragraph.
It used to be common to see: 'From the article: "blah blah." ' Slashdot got lazy and now the vast majority of articles are pure copy and paste without any separation between the submitter's words and quotes from the article.
I wouldn't start with "author writes" in submissions, because then it looks silly when you have "submitter writes, 'author writes,..."
Slashdot Mirror
Another reason why grammar is important.
Indeed, which is why your post was wrong if you meant it to be in the past tense. I read it as the present tense because that's the way you wrote it.
What you said: "Really I don't hate on Nvidia, being [present participle] second to AMD in the desktop gaming market has caught [present perfect] them a bit of flak, but they still perform great."
What you should have said was: "Really I don't hate on Nvidia. Having been second to AMD in the desktop gaming market caught them a bit of flak, but they still perform great."
Or something else that wouldn't have been so misleading. And while I'm sure somebody could nitpick the grammar in my post, (like the previous sentence fragment), the gist is correct.
The people I run into saying "Android isn't real Linux" are anti Linux people trying to continue their claims that Linux is a total failure.
It really depends on what you mean by "Linux". The average Linux desktop user, for example, cares about all the "Linux" software that is available to them regardless of the distro. If that same software can't be run on an Android device, then the fact that there's Linux under the hood doesn't carry much merit.
Why not? If you want to indiscriminately murder people for lobbying the government (though presumably not when they're lobbying for your issue or job), I think you've made yourself fair game.
That's the problem with would-be tyrants like you. You only think about your own issues and don't consider the greater picture of living in a world where anybody who's got a chip on their soldier starts murdering people to get their way.
I made that same argument, and someone came back and said it is still technically limited as written currently.
That would be the Supreme Court. It's a debatable argument, as most are that make it there. I agree that the current copyright terms are a joke and a travesty, but the Constitutional angle is dead, and any legal reform needs to go through Congress.
Simple, we have to thin the herd.
Should we start with you? I'm sure there's some label worthy of attachment that would justify your "thinning" -- terrorist sounds about right.
And the only ad that you can't disable is some text scrolling in the top right corner (and it's oftentimes actually useful information related to sales or game launches in the PSN Store).
I hated this ad for the PS3, and it pissed me off that you couldn't disable it on what was otherwise a superbly configurable device. I ended up using a hack and setting the console system date a year into the future (or the past, I forget).
There is no outrage on cable/dish because 90% of the users have DVR's with add skipping remotes.
As you note yourself in a later post, ads on cable have been around for a very long time, well before DVR and ad-skipping. There was some grumbling, but it didn't last very long and didn't keep cable from being popular.
Just saying.
Can we please bury this hackneyed and utterly useless expression?
Do females have any idea how incredibly shallow and stupid "grrl" is?
About as much as guys do calling each other "bro", or the, *shudder*, "bra".
There is no logic that you can use to prove that God doesn't exist and you therefor don't believe.
There is no logic to prove that dragons and fairies don't exist, either, or that Zeus isn't a god that actually exists, or any number of ridiculous beliefs born from primitive people making up shit as they went along. What is true, however, is:
1) There's a distinct lack of evidence.
2) There's plenty of evidence which contradicts claims.
3) There's evidence for alternative theories based on reasoning and verification.
4) We've progressed immensely by discarding the superstitious and proceeding on reasoning and verification.
As for Christianity, there is differentiation on specific points, but the broad, core positions correlate very highly across denominations.
As a moral foundation for humanity, one that is "absolute", Christianity is a complete and utter failure. The biggest problem is the lack of getting the same message to all people. If these morals are so important, then why does an all-powerful god depend on a human "prophet" to get the message out, instead of unambiguously delivering the message in a divine way to all people of all cultures and all times?
In reality, there's nothing special about the Jesus mythology over many of the other prophet mythologies like Muhammad, Joseph Smith, or countless others that aren't offshoots of Hebrew mythology. It all looks like a bunch of people making up bullshit, and as a thinking, rational person, it makes more sense to me to not take any of it as Truth.
Other problems include the changing morality (old testament versus new), the problems of how the New Testament was generated (by committee, picking from a pool of texts), the problems of translations and loss of context as important details are lost to history, or just a complete lack of answers to problematic moral questions, or as you have tried to sweep under the rug, the problems of differing interpretations on a host of issues, including whether some things are just parables or should be taken literally.
Don't tell me they can't, because the Linux and GNU and FLOSS (in general) community has proven over and over again that they can ["released an Operating System that WORKED, was rock-solid, had bullet-proof security, was small, tight, and fast, was highly customizable, configurable, did it's job quietly and kept the hell out of your way... and never needed to be patched because it had been designed to be secure and uncrashable from the ground up"]
Delusional much? Could you provide a link to this magical, Linux/GNU/FLOSS software so that I may run it? Or alternatively, I could take a few seconds and point out the many flaws, patches, upgrades, and missing features.
I've got a few hundreds megs of perl code.
Is this one of your bugs?
But you made the choice out to be between Romney and Obama, and called Obama a "tyrant" (not stated why, presumably over health care). I'm just pointing out that Romney will be a "tyrant", too.
I'm saying that as a person who served in the US military, and love America, despite the despicable garbage that runs the country now..
Then you were a stupid pawn. What was so great about the government you served versus the one now? It's all the same shit, just different times.
As for this "Dotcom" character, he's a no-class parasite.
There is no cancer. Video games aren't dead. Your nostalgic view of the world, however, is.
Many of them, sure, they didn't take school seriously. I knew a lot like that when I went to school. And the fact remains, school is about education, not your silly "least common denominator" view. If you want "least common denominator", then taking your advice about striving to do shit poorly like read manga is the way to go.
A libertarian vote is a vote for Obama and tyranny.
Uh huh, like Romney is some kind of Libertarian freedom fighter that will respect the Constitution. So people have to pay for medical insurance now, and coverage has been improved. Boo fucking hoo.
That's what 12+ years of education is about, paring you down to the least common denominator, until you match a wine-drinker's normal model.
Umm, what? It's about teaching you something in the hopes you can be a useful part of society instead of a Walmart greeter.
And somebody that hacks into a website is merely asking to be let in. Google specifically worked around the Safari policy and technical measures that were put in place to prevent what they did. It's really pathetic that you're even taking this angle.
It's ok, though. I know the cognitive dissonance is too much for you.
Does it hurt when you hold double standards? What's your explanation for why when Google exploits software on a user's computer for commercial gain that it isn't hacking? First you claim that a browser isn't a website, showing your predisposition to discount what happens on consumer computers. So what's your argument now that Google is allowed to do this legally?
Sure it did. A security mechanism was in place to prevent unwanted cookies. Google hacked around it to gain commercially. That's abuse. There's even fraud, because Google made a positive claim that Safari's cookie policy protected their privacy.
The only difference between a hacker and Google is that Google is a corporation, and corporations in cases like this usually aren't treated as people when it comes to enforcing the law. It's a complete double standard, and people like you are part of the problem.
The browser runs on my computer. If I hosted a site that hacked into your computer when you browsed it, by all accounts, legally and ethically, I should be held liable for computer fraud and abuse.
That said, this is not a term paper, a newspaper piece or a scholarly article. It's a post on a news aggregation and discussion site.
Even if you're just writing a comment on a discussion site, if you copy and paste some text, you should quote it. It only takes a second, aids to clear communication, and is respectful.
It's really, honestly as simple as adding "Muriel Kane of Raw story writes:" at the start of the paragraph.
It used to be common to see: 'From the article: "blah blah." ' Slashdot got lazy and now the vast majority of articles are pure copy and paste without any separation between the submitter's words and quotes from the article.
I wouldn't start with "author writes" in submissions, because then it looks silly when you have "submitter writes, 'author writes, ..."