There's a massive difference between 'non-standard' English and grammar that obfuscates the message.
I talk with a lot of non-native English speakers and many of them use their local language grammatical constructs, or choose a slightly inappropriate synonym or just get the case wrong. It doesn't matter: I can understand the sentence, I can understand what they're saying.
When someone mixes up there/their/they're or its/it's or your/you're I have to stop and think about the sentence, try and understand their intent and try and parse it. When it's then/than being messed up it genuinely can change the meaning of a sentence and it can become very hard to interpret.
Clarity matters, and ease of reading also matters. Naive English from a foreigner can still be easy to read, and I'd much rather have that than just crap English from a native speaker.
(Now imagine I'd used 'then' rather than 'than' in that previous sentence...)
I was just scanning down the page in full admiration that he'd managed to get half of Slashdot to spell 'totally' wrong (via reply) including all the pedants.
That's not how private businesses, at least, work. They get whatever's left of profits after costs. Do you dumb shits know anything about the real world?
Oh dear, irony overload.
In the real world have you seen the tax disadvantages to the model you're suggesting which discourage almost everybody from adopting it?
Yes, owners pay themselves. No, owners do not rely purely on dividend income.
The productivity gains have translated into an improvement in the standard of living.
You now have ubiquitous aircon, mobile phones, flatscreen TVs, high speed Internet access.
Those just weren't available a hundred years ago. They're new, they're expensive, they're required billions in research. Yet people haven't had to start working longer hours to pay for all that.
The problem is that unless you're Notch there's always an additional level of luxury to aspire to. I could easily afford to retire before I'm 45 if I was willing to live a subsistence lifestyle but I enjoy the things that make my life more comfortable and easier. Still trying to determine the right balance so that I don't keep working until I die..
But even now I could drop to 4 hour days, take the pay cut and enjoy a quality of life my grandparents would have envied.
When the guy flipping burgers works his ass to make 500 times less than a CEO, and at the same time he has easy access to firearms, bad things happen.
Bullshit. Utter fucking bollocks.
If the guy flipping burgers has a nice car, his own home, a loving family and regular vacations, bad things don't happen. If the guy flipping burgers has his wife leave him, loses his home, never sees his kids and can't afford to repair his car, bad things may happen.
What the fuck does CEO salary have to do with either of those statements?
While there are undoubtably 'threatened someone innocent' incidents there are also undoubtably 'defended themselves through show of lethal force' incidents too.
That you can't easily determine which are which doesn't negate their existence, or their validity when discussing use of firearms for self-defence.
Blasphemy! Clearly the mountains of Ararat are in Snowdonia and the ark grounded on Mount Snowdon, thus confirming the sanctity of the Welsh forefathers.
You misinterpret the article. The 1200000 events were collected by Microsoft and returned to the author of the article in response to a data access request.
You think a man carrying a firearm that's just physically watched someone shoot his wife isn't going to draw his weapon, you're insane.
If he draws it the person that shot his wife has a 50/50 chance of being shot at whether they put down their weapon or not. Since they just shot two people they're not likely to be putting down their weapon anyway.
Escalation will ensue.
You should refrain from speaking about things you do not know about.
So someone pulls a gun and shoots. Someone else shoots them and possibly a bystander then stops shooting. At this point no one else is legally allowed to shoot.
Someone hears a shot, turns and sees someone else shoot a gun, hit their spouse.
Surely it's basic self defense at this point to draw a weapon and neutralise the evident and immediate threat?
They don't know who shot first, they just know who shot an innocent bystander. Escalation ensues.
Same penalty for jaywalkers, as in a law that cops would never enforce
In California a few weeks back work colleagues kept dragging me back to stop me crossing empty roads in case the police stopped me for jaywalking.
It really is an asinine and pointless law. It also slowed down drivers as I had to wait on an empty road for a light to turn red, by which time a car had arrived and had to stop for me to cross. If I'd just walked over when I reached the road I'd have been across and gone with no delay to myself or the car.
Just how close are you passing this van? Six foot gap, 3 foot gap, 4 inches? If you're passing vans at 20mph with less than a six foot gap you're going too fast.
If you're six foot or more away from the van then any pedestrian has to step out and cover six foot before you can hit them. That gives you time to see them and time to react.
If you're so close to the end of the van that you wont have time to react anyway, you'll be past it before they can cover those six feet. They may walk into the side of your vehicle but you wont hit them.
This is one reason you'll have had zero accidents - you're driving responsibly. But it's also why so many of these "pedestrian appears from nowhere" worries are baseless, if the driver is driving at a sensible speed for the conditions.
Needless to say, if a pedestrian strolls out from behind a van or SUV without peeking around the edge for traffic first, yes they will get flattened, no matter how attentive the driver or how hard they stand on the brake.
Then the driver is at fault for driving too fast. Shit, you've just described a congested highly pedestrianised area; driving at any speed needing more than a car length's worth of stopping distance sounds pretty fucking stupid to me.
In the UK many residential streets are like that, with whole districts that way. People drive slowly and accidents are rare.
Doing that in the UK would break the law. You're clearly discriminating against people with specific learning disabilities - including ones that wouldn't preclude them from being a lawyer.
But go right ahead, be clever and feel good about your own superiority.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, if you want to commit fraud in a detectable and prosecutable form.
Well, being fair those barely slow me down - but other errors can seriously impact readability, reading speed and understandability.
There's a massive difference between 'non-standard' English and grammar that obfuscates the message.
I talk with a lot of non-native English speakers and many of them use their local language grammatical constructs, or choose a slightly inappropriate synonym or just get the case wrong. It doesn't matter: I can understand the sentence, I can understand what they're saying.
When someone mixes up there/their/they're or its/it's or your/you're I have to stop and think about the sentence, try and understand their intent and try and parse it. When it's then/than being messed up it genuinely can change the meaning of a sentence and it can become very hard to interpret.
Clarity matters, and ease of reading also matters. Naive English from a foreigner can still be easy to read, and I'd much rather have that than just crap English from a native speaker.
(Now imagine I'd used 'then' rather than 'than' in that previous sentence...)
I was just scanning down the page in full admiration that he'd managed to get half of Slashdot to spell 'totally' wrong (via reply) including all the pedants.
From a safe distance it's terribly impressive.
That's not how private businesses, at least, work. They get whatever's left of profits after costs. Do you dumb shits know anything about the real world?
Oh dear, irony overload.
In the real world have you seen the tax disadvantages to the model you're suggesting which discourage almost everybody from adopting it?
Yes, owners pay themselves. No, owners do not rely purely on dividend income.
The productivity gains have translated into an improvement in the standard of living.
You now have ubiquitous aircon, mobile phones, flatscreen TVs, high speed Internet access.
Those just weren't available a hundred years ago. They're new, they're expensive, they're required billions in research. Yet people haven't had to start working longer hours to pay for all that.
The problem is that unless you're Notch there's always an additional level of luxury to aspire to. I could easily afford to retire before I'm 45 if I was willing to live a subsistence lifestyle but I enjoy the things that make my life more comfortable and easier. Still trying to determine the right balance so that I don't keep working until I die..
But even now I could drop to 4 hour days, take the pay cut and enjoy a quality of life my grandparents would have envied.
When the guy flipping burgers works his ass to make 500 times less than a CEO, and at the same time he has easy access to firearms, bad things happen.
Bullshit. Utter fucking bollocks.
If the guy flipping burgers has a nice car, his own home, a loving family and regular vacations, bad things don't happen.
If the guy flipping burgers has his wife leave him, loses his home, never sees his kids and can't afford to repair his car, bad things may happen.
What the fuck does CEO salary have to do with either of those statements?
Hint: Somewhere in the region of 'fuck all'.
perhaps he should figure out a better way to conceal his lethal weapons. If he absolutely must carry them.
What, you mean something like disguising them as a commonly carried non-lethal object. Genius, why didn't he think of that.
While there are undoubtably 'threatened someone innocent' incidents there are also undoubtably 'defended themselves through show of lethal force' incidents too.
That you can't easily determine which are which doesn't negate their existence, or their validity when discussing use of firearms for self-defence.
Perhaps Slashdot admin could change your name to a more accurate Some Dumb Cunt.
Really, you have to be one to keep pushing this stupidity. Please go away.
I love your naivety. You're so sweet. It's like talking to a small child. Do you need a nappy change?
Blasphemy! Clearly the mountains of Ararat are in Snowdonia and the ark grounded on Mount Snowdon, thus confirming the sanctity of the Welsh forefathers.
You misinterpret the article. The 1200000 events were collected by Microsoft and returned to the author of the article in response to a data access request.
people who don't read or understand
*cough*
Yet again, you prove your name.
You think a man carrying a firearm that's just physically watched someone shoot his wife isn't going to draw his weapon, you're insane.
If he draws it the person that shot his wife has a 50/50 chance of being shot at whether they put down their weapon or not. Since they just shot two people they're not likely to be putting down their weapon anyway.
Escalation will ensue.
You should refrain from speaking about things you do not know about.
Ironic.
So someone pulls a gun and shoots. Someone else shoots them and possibly a bystander then stops shooting. At this point no one else is legally allowed to shoot.
Someone hears a shot, turns and sees someone else shoot a gun, hit their spouse.
Surely it's basic self defense at this point to draw a weapon and neutralise the evident and immediate threat?
They don't know who shot first, they just know who shot an innocent bystander. Escalation ensues.
Hmm. I found it very erudite and accurate, as I did the description of Clinton to which he replied.
Is it so terrible that someone can objectively describe the man that may become President of the USA?
Same penalty for jaywalkers, as in a law that cops would never enforce
In California a few weeks back work colleagues kept dragging me back to stop me crossing empty roads in case the police stopped me for jaywalking.
It really is an asinine and pointless law. It also slowed down drivers as I had to wait on an empty road for a light to turn red, by which time a car had arrived and had to stop for me to cross. If I'd just walked over when I reached the road I'd have been across and gone with no delay to myself or the car.
Just how close are you passing this van? Six foot gap, 3 foot gap, 4 inches? If you're passing vans at 20mph with less than a six foot gap you're going too fast.
If you're six foot or more away from the van then any pedestrian has to step out and cover six foot before you can hit them. That gives you time to see them and time to react.
If you're so close to the end of the van that you wont have time to react anyway, you'll be past it before they can cover those six feet. They may walk into the side of your vehicle but you wont hit them.
This is one reason you'll have had zero accidents - you're driving responsibly. But it's also why so many of these "pedestrian appears from nowhere" worries are baseless, if the driver is driving at a sensible speed for the conditions.
Needless to say, if a pedestrian strolls out from behind a van or SUV without peeking around the edge for traffic first, yes they will get flattened, no matter how attentive the driver or how hard they stand on the brake.
Then the driver is at fault for driving too fast. Shit, you've just described a congested highly pedestrianised area; driving at any speed needing more than a car length's worth of stopping distance sounds pretty fucking stupid to me.
In the UK many residential streets are like that, with whole districts that way. People drive slowly and accidents are rare.
Serves you right for not changing your name. Stop being subservient to your egotist parent and be your own person.
No you fuckwit. Just avoid discriminating against them.
1 - tell her to stop. If she doesn't, leave her.
2 - leave him
3 - leave them
Domestic abuse should not be tolerated.
Doing that in the UK would break the law. You're clearly discriminating against people with specific learning disabilities - including ones that wouldn't preclude them from being a lawyer.
But go right ahead, be clever and feel good about your own superiority.
The standard conversation is literally
irrelevant. I'm continuing a line of enquiry from laxguy that you're trying to twist and turn into a different conversation. I refuse to accept that.
"All lives matter". Yes or no?
Be more honest.
Your lack of self awareness makes me laugh.
The only people saying the word 'no' are you and the 'black lives matter' supporters referenced by laxguy.
So I'm not skipping the word 'no', you're misusing it and framing your entire argument on that misuse.
you have to address head on the fact that he says "no" in response to an inclusive statement, "foo lives matter."
I don't, because HE DOES NOT FUCKING SAY IT.
Do I need to drop to words of one syllable? Can you cope with the word syllable?