I know, I've heard those jokes before. I used to find them funny, too, when I was 15. However, as my grasp of the English language improved, they started to seem more and more annoying with every iteration.
If you really think that "English is somewhat backwards compared to most of the world", I'm guessing you don't speak any other languages. ANY language can be made to seem ridiculous if you're willing to intentionally misinterpret / misrepresent certain words, and many don't need you to do even that much.
You're right, I didn't mean to come across so harsh. Actually, I originally had another paragraph in there that was intended as a joke, but took it out because I didn't think it was funny enough. Seems that the rest of it came across a lot more asshole-ish once all the humor was removed.
Hell no! I mean, yeah, they'd do it, but they wouldn't be happy about it:) Remember all the bitching when Vista first started asking them to allow or deny? I can just imagine the whining that would happen if they had to type in a password each time!
That's why I'd like to see Microsoft forced to assume product liability so long as they market their software to the general public on the basis of "ease of use". Either market it to "technically knowledgable users only" or pay monetary damages to anyone and everyone who suffers in any way due to security issues.
I agree. Likewise, Volkswagen should be sued into bankruptcy for marketing their vehicles as "people cars". They should either be forced to change the name to Technischversiertenwagen, or pay monetary damages to anyone and everyone who suffers in an way due to car accidents.
No, you drive on a driveway. Try parking on the driveway in front of your office buildings, and see what happens. Also, a parkway is named after parks (you know, trees, butterflies, all that "nature" crap). And the words "shipment" and "cargo" have distinctly different meanings, but both can be sent via whatever form of transport you chose. If you send a shipment via a ship it's still a shipment, and a truck can carry cargo (as can a car).
It's not English that's weird - it's your intentional misrepresentation of common words and concepts that's rather strange.
If you're the kind of douche who likes to make shit up in order to impress people - or just an idiot who confuses ignorance for knowledge - no, you probably won't have a very good time when I'm around. But I guarantee that everyone else will deeply enjoy laughing at you. So "fun" is a relative term.
VLC can *display* Flash videos, it can't *run* Flash videos. That's still handled by Adobe software, much in the same way that Media Player Classic (the original, anyhow) doesn't decode XviD videos
I'd never heard such a claim before, so I went and checked - VLC running on a brand new installation of Linux plays.flv files without difficulty, without needing to have flash installed. Ergo, I would say that you are misinformed.
How exactly do you do that? I've tried turning on and off every god damn setting in the preferences pages, and the only thing that doesn't seem to change at all is how the comments are displayed.
Ain't the English language a funny thing? Tugboats push instead of tug/pull. People park in driveways. And so on.
Not really, no. Tugboats primarily pull, although they can also push. And a driveway is a path which you drive on in order to reach the house. You could park your car on a driving-range, too, but that wouldn't make the name inappropriate.
He looks like Golum, with a worse haircut. Although apparently he did manage to knock-up a chick when he was 18, so I guess he wasn't always so weird looking.
Well, you probably don't know how to butcher a goat, either - "gullibility" and "stupidity" are largely contextual.
Butchering a goat isn't exactly rocket science - if I picked a random person off the street and gave them a knife, they'd at least achieve the desired result even if they displayed poor technique. Getting tricked into letting a prisoner contact the outside world, on the other hand, is both gullible and stupid. In the extreme.
On the other hand, since they apparently released the guy the next day, they may simply not have cared who he contacted. The summary only seemed interesting at first because I assumed that he had been rescued as a result of the tweeting - once I RTFA (I know, sacrilege) it became apparent that there's really no interesting news here.
There are coincidences, and then there are things that are *very* unlikely coincidences.
Yes, I know - the 9/11 twits tell me the same thing, all the time. The thing you fail to grasp is that "very unlikely coincidences" happen all the time.
If you take out a huge insurance policy in your wife's name and a day later you turn up dead under mysterious circumstances, that could just be a coincidence too. But you would be pretty foolish if you were a cop investigating that death not to strongly suspect a connection there.
It would also be extremely foolish if the cop immediately decided that you must be guilty. Of course, that happens too - this inability of most people to understand statistics (and their tendency to make judgments based on no real evidence) is the reason why we have so many innocent people getting convicted.
In other words: come back when you have some evidence.
A guy goes 39 years without a criminal record with anything more significant than a hacking charge on it.
How many times did he go to Sweden in those 39 years?
Also, given his looks, how often do you think he managed to get laid, prior to his newfound fame?
Do you REALLY think that's just a coincidence? Come on. Even I knew [slashdot.org] this was coming. Or maybe you think I'm just psychic.
No, I just think that, like all conspiracy theorists, you're confusing coincidence for conspiracy. The 9/11 twits base pretty much their entire argument on the same logical fallacy.
I never quoted ANY statistics, nice try at a strawman though-FAIL.
Wait, so you're proud of the fact that you completely failed to support your argument? Wow. At least the other fool had the decency to try and provide some evidence for his assertions.
Fact is no matter how you disemble, having more guns around makes a place more dangerous-only an overcompensating fool would claim otherwise.
[citation needed]
You can call something a fact all you like, but until you provide some evidence it's still just an assertion which you pulled out of your ass. Here's a little thought experiment for you: how many mass-shootings happen at gun-shows? What's the murder-rate among active duty soldier? How often do police officers kill each other?
Most amusingly you call the reality FUD, A gun death is a gun death regardless of who pulls the trigger. No matter how the facts contradict youyou try and defend the indefensible.
You're an idiot, and the fact that you're still trying to defend such a completely asinine argument tells me all I need to know about your idea of "reality". Get some treatment for your dyslexia, see a psychologist about your fear of firearms, and take some statistical analysis courses. Maybe then you'll stop trying to make unsupportable poorly worded arguments based on irrelevant factors, and we can have a real discussion. Until then, go away.
Seriously? Are you a complete twit, or just a dishonest jackass?
First off, mixing suicide and homicide statistics is idiotic in and of itself. You may as well throw in car accidents and airplane crashes, and lump them all together under "kinetic energy death". Maybe you can try and ban physics.
To make matters worse, suicides are completely irrelevant when discussing the banning of firearms. It might be relevant if you could show that greater gun availability leads to higher suicide rates, but since the US clocks in at number 41 on the suicide chart - below peace-loving gun-free zones such as France, Norway, Canada, Finland, and New Zealand - you'd have a hell of a struggle to try and show such a link.
Of course, gun-control proponents like to pick and chose their statistics to try and justify their irrational fears. Why would you want to be honest and say that the US has the 24th highest murder rate in the world, when you can say "OMFG DERE NUMBER 1 IN GUN DETHS!!!", right? In light of such tactics, how can there be any doubt that the majority of gun-laws are based on FUD?
P.S: love the appeal to popularity! What's your next move - organize a lynching party?
Slashdot Mirror
I know, I've heard those jokes before. I used to find them funny, too, when I was 15. However, as my grasp of the English language improved, they started to seem more and more annoying with every iteration.
If you really think that "English is somewhat backwards compared to most of the world", I'm guessing you don't speak any other languages. ANY language can be made to seem ridiculous if you're willing to intentionally misinterpret / misrepresent certain words, and many don't need you to do even that much.
I did. I don't think you read my comment.
"It's a motion picture in technicolor. With sound!"
You're right, I didn't mean to come across so harsh. Actually, I originally had another paragraph in there that was intended as a joke, but took it out because I didn't think it was funny enough. Seems that the rest of it came across a lot more asshole-ish once all the humor was removed.
Hell no! I mean, yeah, they'd do it, but they wouldn't be happy about it :) Remember all the bitching when Vista first started asking them to allow or deny? I can just imagine the whining that would happen if they had to type in a password each time!
That's why I'd like to see Microsoft forced to assume product liability so long as they market their software to the general public on the basis of "ease of use". Either market it to "technically knowledgable users only" or pay monetary damages to anyone and everyone who suffers in any way due to security issues.
I agree. Likewise, Volkswagen should be sued into bankruptcy for marketing their vehicles as "people cars". They should either be forced to change the name to Technischversiertenwagen, or pay monetary damages to anyone and everyone who suffers in an way due to car accidents.
Neat. Thanks!
No, you drive on a driveway. Try parking on the driveway in front of your office buildings, and see what happens. Also, a parkway is named after parks (you know, trees, butterflies, all that "nature" crap). And the words "shipment" and "cargo" have distinctly different meanings, but both can be sent via whatever form of transport you chose. If you send a shipment via a ship it's still a shipment, and a truck can carry cargo (as can a car).
It's not English that's weird - it's your intentional misrepresentation of common words and concepts that's rather strange.
If you're the kind of douche who likes to make shit up in order to impress people - or just an idiot who confuses ignorance for knowledge - no, you probably won't have a very good time when I'm around. But I guarantee that everyone else will deeply enjoy laughing at you. So "fun" is a relative term.
VLC can *display* Flash videos, it can't *run* Flash videos. That's still handled by Adobe software, much in the same way that Media Player Classic (the original, anyhow) doesn't decode XviD videos
I'd never heard such a claim before, so I went and checked - VLC running on a brand new installation of Linux plays .flv files without difficulty, without needing to have flash installed. Ergo, I would say that you are misinformed.
Switch to old-style comments viewing system...
How exactly do you do that? I've tried turning on and off every god damn setting in the preferences pages, and the only thing that doesn't seem to change at all is how the comments are displayed.
Ain't the English language a funny thing? Tugboats push instead of tug/pull. People park in driveways. And so on.
Not really, no. Tugboats primarily pull, although they can also push. And a driveway is a path which you drive on in order to reach the house. You could park your car on a driving-range, too, but that wouldn't make the name inappropriate.
Those cocksuckers don't allow Canadians to view their clips.
Easy: 50%. Either it'll happen or it won't. Pretty good odds, I'd say.
*facepalm*
This is why most people should never gamble.
So I'm betting Apple will approve VLC too. - If they do reject it the reason will be something else - like ...
... the ability to play Flash?
He looks like Golum, with a worse haircut. Although apparently he did manage to knock-up a chick when he was 18, so I guess he wasn't always so weird looking.
I had no idea who she was, but after your comment I had to go look.
Dude.
She looks like Jabba the Hutt's infant daughter.
Except that the ransom demand was received from the Taliban. You think they've given up the jihad and started a courier business?
Well, you probably don't know how to butcher a goat, either - "gullibility" and "stupidity" are largely contextual.
Butchering a goat isn't exactly rocket science - if I picked a random person off the street and gave them a knife, they'd at least achieve the desired result even if they displayed poor technique. Getting tricked into letting a prisoner contact the outside world, on the other hand, is both gullible and stupid. In the extreme.
On the other hand, since they apparently released the guy the next day, they may simply not have cared who he contacted. The summary only seemed interesting at first because I assumed that he had been rescued as a result of the tweeting - once I RTFA (I know, sacrilege) it became apparent that there's really no interesting news here.
So Japanese journalists are evil, and Taliban soldiers are good?
I don't think you thought this one through .....
There are coincidences, and then there are things that are *very* unlikely coincidences.
Yes, I know - the 9/11 twits tell me the same thing, all the time. The thing you fail to grasp is that "very unlikely coincidences" happen all the time.
If you take out a huge insurance policy in your wife's name and a day later you turn up dead under mysterious circumstances, that could just be a coincidence too. But you would be pretty foolish if you were a cop investigating that death not to strongly suspect a connection there.
It would also be extremely foolish if the cop immediately decided that you must be guilty. Of course, that happens too - this inability of most people to understand statistics (and their tendency to make judgments based on no real evidence) is the reason why we have so many innocent people getting convicted.
In other words: come back when you have some evidence.
Dishonest Jackass WIN!
A guy goes 39 years without a criminal record with anything more significant than a hacking charge on it.
How many times did he go to Sweden in those 39 years?
Also, given his looks, how often do you think he managed to get laid, prior to his newfound fame?
Do you REALLY think that's just a coincidence? Come on. Even I knew [slashdot.org] this was coming. Or maybe you think I'm just psychic.
No, I just think that, like all conspiracy theorists, you're confusing coincidence for conspiracy. The 9/11 twits base pretty much their entire argument on the same logical fallacy.
I never quoted ANY statistics, nice try at a strawman though-FAIL.
Wait, so you're proud of the fact that you completely failed to support your argument? Wow. At least the other fool had the decency to try and provide some evidence for his assertions.
Fact is no matter how you disemble, having more guns around makes a place more dangerous-only an overcompensating fool would claim otherwise.
[citation needed]
You can call something a fact all you like, but until you provide some evidence it's still just an assertion which you pulled out of your ass. Here's a little thought experiment for you: how many mass-shootings happen at gun-shows? What's the murder-rate among active duty soldier? How often do police officers kill each other?
Most amusingly you call the reality FUD, A gun death is a gun death regardless of who pulls the trigger. No matter how the facts contradict youyou try and defend the indefensible.
You're an idiot, and the fact that you're still trying to defend such a completely asinine argument tells me all I need to know about your idea of "reality". Get some treatment for your dyslexia, see a psychologist about your fear of firearms, and take some statistical analysis courses. Maybe then you'll stop trying to make unsupportable poorly worded arguments based on irrelevant factors, and we can have a real discussion. Until then, go away.
Seriously? Are you a complete twit, or just a dishonest jackass?
First off, mixing suicide and homicide statistics is idiotic in and of itself. You may as well throw in car accidents and airplane crashes, and lump them all together under "kinetic energy death". Maybe you can try and ban physics.
To make matters worse, suicides are completely irrelevant when discussing the banning of firearms. It might be relevant if you could show that greater gun availability leads to higher suicide rates, but since the US clocks in at number 41 on the suicide chart - below peace-loving gun-free zones such as France, Norway, Canada, Finland, and New Zealand - you'd have a hell of a struggle to try and show such a link.
Of course, gun-control proponents like to pick and chose their statistics to try and justify their irrational fears. Why would you want to be honest and say that the US has the 24th highest murder rate in the world, when you can say "OMFG DERE NUMBER 1 IN GUN DETHS!!!", right? In light of such tactics, how can there be any doubt that the majority of gun-laws are based on FUD?
P.S: love the appeal to popularity! What's your next move - organize a lynching party?