I predict a conflict between the Grammar Police and the Spelling Nazis on such a scale as to make World War II look like two toddlers fighting over Lego.
What we're talking about here is minor revisions, akin to the auto-updates that Miscrosoft provides. Every time they send one of those I don't have to reinstall any drivers at all.
The crux of my comment, however, is the difference between getting paid by cheque and getting paid direct, both of which you might notice are 'cashless'.
I'm sure you can find a job which pays you directly in dollar bills or pound notes or whatever, I even used to have one, but they're generally menial work for family businesses which pays pittance. Strangely enough I like my house and my clothes so I might stick to getting paid direct with more money, if it's all the same to you.
What's even more groundbreaking is your work on actively avoiding the point, which is that the software actively and contextually retrieves the contents of your 'book' without you thinking about it, which in your case is good because you seem to do no thinking whatsoever.
You're quite right! It hasn't, because what you put up is:
a) A book, not a computer system, and b) Not a system for automatically conjugating a verb, but a merely a list of all possible conjugations of verbs that the user... sorry, reader has to work out for themselves.
If you can find a program that, while you're writing a sentence, automatically corrects or inserts the correct conjugation of the verb for you so you don't have to stretch your precious brain, saving it for finding entirely spurious evidence on the internet to support your arguments, then you'll have prior art.
Let's be honest, these 300 guys who are boycotting got so fired up at this not all of them could be bothered to turn up and vote. They'd rather sit in their offices and hold the definition ransom than get up and walk to a ballot box.
You didn't respond to any of my comments other than to point out their similarity to someone else's opinion without actually denying the truth, and you have still failed to back up what you said about Isrealis targetting civilians.
I guess dismissing information because somebody you hate wrote it is easier then actually reading and learning.
I don't hate you. I have never met you. I don't even hate the things that you have said. Hate is a strong word, and I don't agree with it. However, you irritate me because you haven't read anything I've said. I will also read and learn when you provide a factual explicit source for what you're saying, rather than "Well they said this, so you can assume they meant that".
Nobody expects much from hezbollah and hamas
Except to stop killing people, something they are singularly failing to manage and that they have no right to continue to do. Also, please note that Hamas is supposed to be the democratically elected government of Palestine, so yes, they are expected to be civilised.
Were you the one saying "Israel does not target civllians"?
Nope. I said you don't have facts to prove it. Again, read what I wrote rather than what you think I wrote.
I have not once, in any of my posts, disputed any of the facts that you have raised about Israel, other than to request a factual source. You haven't managed to do this yet, so I can't in good conscience believe what you have to say. You have not produced a single sentence from any minister of Isreali government or anybody connected to Isreali government that says "We are targetting civilians". Until you do that this debate is not even an issue, it's just you shouting to make your wildly opinionated viewpoint heard over the general level of dissension present here.
And by the way, I don't watch Fox, I watch BBC News and I read the newspaper, I look all over the internet and it's fairly plain to me that nobody, and I mean nobody, not Isreal, not Lebanon, not Hamas, not Hezbollah, not Syria, not Iran, NOBODY is working towards peace in the middle east. It is all self-serving bullshit. The quicker you, and others like you, realise that taking sides is the problem not the solution will anything be resolved.
Don't bother responding because I actually know what you're going to write before you write it. Trust me.
Why don't you read what I wrote? This is what disgusts me about these discussions - no matter what position you adopt, if you argue for Israel you're an apologist, and if you argue against them you're in bed with terrorists.
I bolded it for you but you're obviously too stupid to notice: I am not taking sides. What I take issue is the fact that you refuse to notice that BOTH Hezbollah and Israel, and to a certain extent Lebanon and Syria and plenty of other countries in the area are not exactly acting in the best interests of peace in the Middle East.
Because you didn't do me the courtesy of reading my post properly I am not going to read the links you posted, and seeing as the source is Pat Buchanan, a man I find to be an abhorrent waste of oxygen, I don't feel too bad about it.
Really? Equal? Exactly 50/50? Does the fact that hezbollah killed more soldiers then civillians and israel killed more civillians then soldiers make a difference at all?
Yes, but when you think that Israel don't use civilian areas to disguise their military operations then it comes into focus. It's pretty fucking hard to blow up launch sites in civilian areas without killing civilians. If Hezbollah moved their military operations to deserted areas, then we'd be able to see how deliberate these civilan strikes are. Until that point, again you're working on conjecture.
Yes lets to do that. You want to start with the 15,000 kidnapped and imprisoned arabs rotting in israeli dungeons without trials, juries, charges or lawyers? You want to start with the regime of torture? Or perhaps you want to start with these stats?
And then shall we continue with the 50+ terrorist attacks by Hezbollah on the IDF since they withdrew from Lebanese terrority? That Hezbollah use civilians as shields to conduct their operations? That no matter how bad Israel are terrorism is never and will never be a proportional response to anything? That you note how Israel subtly attacks civilians, something that may be true and may be complete bullshit but fail to notice that pretty much every single rocket that Hezbollah fired was fired at a civilian target?
Try some objectivity, your frothing anti-Israel rhetoric is frankly pathetic.
Your first quote doesn't even exist, you seem to be paraphrasing an Olmert quote that mentioned nothing about towns but did mention military installations and Hezbollah staging points.
"We will search every compound, target every terrorist who assists in attacking the citizens of Israel, and destroy every terrorist infrastructure, everywhere. We will persist until Hezbollah and Hamas comply with those basic and decent things required of them by every civilized person. Israel will not agree to live in the shadow of missiles or rockets against its residents."
Your second quote does exist but doesn't mention civilians at any point, so I don't see the relevance.
If you could provide a factual source for Isreali government admitting they target civilians that isn't bogged down in rhetoric and bullshit we would all probably be grateful.
I think there is an equal amount of culpability to be shared by all sides in this. I just think that we are better served in discussion if we stick to things that actually happened.
Yes, just like we 'knew' that this was a geo-centric solar system, and we 'knew' that the world was flat, and that we 'knew' that this was all created by a loving all-knowing God.
Definitions change because humans as a species learn about their surroundings, and the old definitions just do not fit any more.
Not to mention that a sentence like "Is Pluto more different from Mars than Mars is from Jupiter?" just proves you don't have a damn clue what you're arguing about, and you just don't want to change what you already 'know'.
UK broadband is sold and run by companies but regulated by the government, and we aren't doing too badly because of all the, you know, accountability that having a government-run communications regulator provides.
I mean, America has the Better Business Bureau... but they're as ineffectual as a pack of yapping poodles against several hundred rabid rottweilers, let's be honest, because business has no obligation to even work with them.
The difference between those systems and this one is that this seems to actively rate down bad users. Where as regular use in the schemes you noted above gives you perks, there's no punishment inherent in there if you don't use it properly like we are seeing here.
The only other system I can think of that actively rates down bad users is torrent-like applications that limit download bandwidth if you limit upload bandwidth.
...but I did find the part where bandwidth is mentioned as an asset that can be controlled via this system.
While you can look at it one way and say this is just a logical extension of rewarding 'good' users, the fact that the system can be used to punish 'bad' users and explains nothing about how this definition of 'good' and 'bad' will be determined makes me more concerned for the people using such a service.
Many apologies, I must have missed it. Even saying that, it's still not clear whether he's saying they would have had to pay more in an eventual settlement, or they would have had to pay more in legal costs to fight the case, so I still think it bears more than just a passing glance.
Slashdot Mirror
I predict a conflict between the Grammar Police and the Spelling Nazis on such a scale as to make World War II look like two toddlers fighting over Lego.
WMP-DRM is enabled by default
No it isn't.
Kind of derails the rest of your argument, doesn't it? Sorry!
Oh, no, I'm not sorry at all. Never mind.
Bad example.
What we're talking about here is minor revisions, akin to the auto-updates that Miscrosoft provides. Every time they send one of those I don't have to reinstall any drivers at all.
No, you're quite right, I haven't.
The crux of my comment, however, is the difference between getting paid by cheque and getting paid direct, both of which you might notice are 'cashless'.
I'm sure you can find a job which pays you directly in dollar bills or pound notes or whatever, I even used to have one, but they're generally menial work for family businesses which pays pittance. Strangely enough I like my house and my clothes so I might stick to getting paid direct with more money, if it's all the same to you.
He means that barely anybody in Europe gets paid by cheque.
Most of us have the money put directly into our bank accounts.
Not quite.
They roll over and take it up the ass from anyone except the people who voted for them.
That's a freaking spell-check. This is actually grammar, which as you are fully aware is a completely different kettle of fish.
And if it's so obvious, why isn't it patented already?
What's even more groundbreaking is your work on actively avoiding the point, which is that the software actively and contextually retrieves the contents of your 'book' without you thinking about it, which in your case is good because you seem to do no thinking whatsoever.
You're quite right! It hasn't, because what you put up is:
a) A book, not a computer system, and
b) Not a system for automatically conjugating a verb, but a merely a list of all possible conjugations of verbs that the user... sorry, reader has to work out for themselves.
If you can find a program that, while you're writing a sentence, automatically corrects or inserts the correct conjugation of the verb for you so you don't have to stretch your precious brain, saving it for finding entirely spurious evidence on the internet to support your arguments, then you'll have prior art.
It's a good thing you weren't marked funny, because you forgot to bring your sense of humour.
And just because you have, doesn't mean it's widespread.
Am I the only one who thinks this isn't news?
I agree.
Let's be honest, these 300 guys who are boycotting got so fired up at this not all of them could be bothered to turn up and vote. They'd rather sit in their offices and hold the definition ransom than get up and walk to a ballot box.
Yeah, that was pretty much word for word.
Your post is absolute nonsense.
You didn't respond to any of my comments other than to point out their similarity to someone else's opinion without actually denying the truth, and you have still failed to back up what you said about Isrealis targetting civilians.
I guess dismissing information because somebody you hate wrote it is easier then actually reading and learning.
I don't hate you. I have never met you. I don't even hate the things that you have said. Hate is a strong word, and I don't agree with it. However, you irritate me because you haven't read anything I've said. I will also read and learn when you provide a factual explicit source for what you're saying, rather than "Well they said this, so you can assume they meant that".
Nobody expects much from hezbollah and hamas
Except to stop killing people, something they are singularly failing to manage and that they have no right to continue to do. Also, please note that Hamas is supposed to be the democratically elected government of Palestine, so yes, they are expected to be civilised.
Were you the one saying "Israel does not target civllians"?
Nope. I said you don't have facts to prove it. Again, read what I wrote rather than what you think I wrote.
I have not once, in any of my posts, disputed any of the facts that you have raised about Israel, other than to request a factual source. You haven't managed to do this yet, so I can't in good conscience believe what you have to say. You have not produced a single sentence from any minister of Isreali government or anybody connected to Isreali government that says "We are targetting civilians". Until you do that this debate is not even an issue, it's just you shouting to make your wildly opinionated viewpoint heard over the general level of dissension present here.
And by the way, I don't watch Fox, I watch BBC News and I read the newspaper, I look all over the internet and it's fairly plain to me that nobody, and I mean nobody, not Isreal, not Lebanon, not Hamas, not Hezbollah, not Syria, not Iran, NOBODY is working towards peace in the middle east. It is all self-serving bullshit. The quicker you, and others like you, realise that taking sides is the problem not the solution will anything be resolved.
Don't bother responding because I actually know what you're going to write before you write it. Trust me.
because you are an apologist for israel
Why don't you read what I wrote? This is what disgusts me about these discussions - no matter what position you adopt, if you argue for Israel you're an apologist, and if you argue against them you're in bed with terrorists.
I bolded it for you but you're obviously too stupid to notice: I am not taking sides. What I take issue is the fact that you refuse to notice that BOTH Hezbollah and Israel, and to a certain extent Lebanon and Syria and plenty of other countries in the area are not exactly acting in the best interests of peace in the Middle East.
Because you didn't do me the courtesy of reading my post properly I am not going to read the links you posted, and seeing as the source is Pat Buchanan, a man I find to be an abhorrent waste of oxygen, I don't feel too bad about it.
Really? Equal? Exactly 50/50? Does the fact that hezbollah killed more soldiers then civillians and israel killed more civillians then soldiers make a difference at all?
Yes, but when you think that Israel don't use civilian areas to disguise their military operations then it comes into focus. It's pretty fucking hard to blow up launch sites in civilian areas without killing civilians. If Hezbollah moved their military operations to deserted areas, then we'd be able to see how deliberate these civilan strikes are. Until that point, again you're working on conjecture.
Yes lets to do that. You want to start with the 15,000 kidnapped and imprisoned arabs rotting in israeli dungeons without trials, juries, charges or lawyers? You want to start with the regime of torture? Or perhaps you want to start with these stats?
And then shall we continue with the 50+ terrorist attacks by Hezbollah on the IDF since they withdrew from Lebanese terrority? That Hezbollah use civilians as shields to conduct their operations? That no matter how bad Israel are terrorism is never and will never be a proportional response to anything? That you note how Israel subtly attacks civilians, something that may be true and may be complete bullshit but fail to notice that pretty much every single rocket that Hezbollah fired was fired at a civilian target?
Try some objectivity, your frothing anti-Israel rhetoric is frankly pathetic.
Your first quote doesn't even exist, you seem to be paraphrasing an Olmert quote that mentioned nothing about towns but did mention military installations and Hezbollah staging points.
"We will search every compound, target every terrorist who assists in attacking the citizens of Israel, and destroy every terrorist infrastructure, everywhere. We will persist until Hezbollah and Hamas comply with those basic and decent things required of them by every civilized person. Israel will not agree to live in the shadow of missiles or rockets against its residents."
Your second quote does exist but doesn't mention civilians at any point, so I don't see the relevance.
If you could provide a factual source for Isreali government admitting they target civilians that isn't bogged down in rhetoric and bullshit we would all probably be grateful.
I think there is an equal amount of culpability to be shared by all sides in this. I just think that we are better served in discussion if we stick to things that actually happened.
Damnit, that'll teach me not to preview things.
Windows-R - Run
Windows-M - Minimise all windows
Windows-L - Lock computer
Windows-F - Find files
These are the 4 that I use on a daily basis. There are others I use less often and yet more I'm sure that people find just as useful.
And holding down one key for an OS-specific shortcut saves hassle when other software wants to use the same shortcut.
So, no, it isn't completely useless. You find it completely useless, but some people like myself like doing things quickly.
Yes, just like we 'knew' that this was a geo-centric solar system, and we 'knew' that the world was flat, and that we 'knew' that this was all created by a loving all-knowing God.
Definitions change because humans as a species learn about their surroundings, and the old definitions just do not fit any more.
Not to mention that a sentence like "Is Pluto more different from Mars than Mars is from Jupiter?" just proves you don't have a damn clue what you're arguing about, and you just don't want to change what you already 'know'.
And the best way to look intelligent is to refute people's unproven statements by making generalisations and unproven statements!
RAWK!
+1 Damn Straight.
UK broadband is sold and run by companies but regulated by the government, and we aren't doing too badly because of all the, you know, accountability that having a government-run communications regulator provides.
I mean, America has the Better Business Bureau... but they're as ineffectual as a pack of yapping poodles against several hundred rabid rottweilers, let's be honest, because business has no obligation to even work with them.
The difference between those systems and this one is that this seems to actively rate down bad users. Where as regular use in the schemes you noted above gives you perks, there's no punishment inherent in there if you don't use it properly like we are seeing here.
The only other system I can think of that actively rates down bad users is torrent-like applications that limit download bandwidth if you limit upload bandwidth.
...but I did find the part where bandwidth is mentioned as an asset that can be controlled via this system.
While you can look at it one way and say this is just a logical extension of rewarding 'good' users, the fact that the system can be used to punish 'bad' users and explains nothing about how this definition of 'good' and 'bad' will be determined makes me more concerned for the people using such a service.
I bloody well wouldn't.
Many apologies, I must have missed it. Even saying that, it's still not clear whether he's saying they would have had to pay more in an eventual settlement, or they would have had to pay more in legal costs to fight the case, so I still think it bears more than just a passing glance.