Wow, a grammatical error in a sentence that starts off with a non-word in a discussion about incorrect grammar. I am sure there is no way that could have been intentional. I am also sure there is no way I am being sarcastic right now.
The phrase has obviously already been muddled, as 9 times out of 10 when I see this phrase being used it is in the context of "to raise the question" and not "to dodge the question". It has already been "unofficially" accepted with that meaning by the general public. So the question is how hard do you want to fight an uphill and most likely pointless battle? Hard to put the toothpaste back into the tube once it has already been squeezed out.
"More recently, "to beg the question" has been used as a synonym for "to raise the question": for example, "This year's budget deficit is half a trillion dollars. This begs the question, How are we ever going to balance the budget?"
Using the term in this way, although common, is considered incorrect by some usage commentators. Arguments over whether this newer usage should be considered correct or incorrect are an example of debate over linguistic description and prescription of a living language."
So I guess it really boils down to - are you an absolute stickler for old grammatical rules, or is language constantly evolving to the point where old expressions can take on new meanings?
Irregardless of your beliefs, the phrase was used in a perfectly crommulent way.
Because some people actually use social networking sites for real social networking. Some people actually want accurate information about them shared with others. Now i don't happen to be one of those people, but I know quite a few of them.
If they hadn't done it this way, AT&T would have downplayed it, or covered it up. When a list of 100,000+ of your customers is posted online, it is kind of hard to deny a security breach. Do you honestly think AT&T would have disclosed this if not forced to?
It isn't pain that brings you down. it is a massive jolt of electricity to your central nervous system. It scrambles the electrical signals to your muscles and no amount of drugs or rage can prevent that from happening. Try it on yourself sometime, then get back to me about how it wouldn't stop you if you were mad enough. I guarantee you will change your mind. I thought the same exact thing before experiencing it firsthand. If a Taser fails to immobilize someone, all that means is that both contacts were not firmly attached.
Sure, just asked Mr. Hopped Up On PCP to hold still for a second while you selectively target his joints. Good luck with all that. Cops just swing those things hoping to hit anything on you that is solid. Sure they may be trained to hit certain areas, but training goes out the windows when "it's on" and the adrenalin starts pumping. And have you ever been shocked by a taser before? I have and it instantly immobilizes you for more that "a few moments". I couldn't even stand up by myself until about 5 minutes had past. Electrical shock is no joke. If I had a taser and a baton and someone was coming at me, I would use the taser every time.
And for the record, I don't side with the police in this. So don't go into a huff. I'm just pointing out the logical flaw.
As was I. You see, this was the argument used by law enforcement to put up surveillance cameras in public in the first place. Wasn't a good argument for them either. Apparently what is good for the goose is not good for the gander.
Whether or not the police intend to behave illegally is irrelevant. Whether or not they follow the law is.
"I mean, I didn't intend to rob that old lady, but when I came around the corner she was just standing there with her purse half-open." Would you excuse this person from robbery? Same laws apply to the police as to average citizens.
Do you know how many suspects are arrested each year that are on PCP? Very few. Do you know how many times the police uses questionable force to detain/arrest a subject? Me neither, but I would suspect it is much higher than the percentage of suspects on PCP at the time of their arrest. This is a scenario where a taser should and would be used. Batons do not subdue an enraged subject anyway.
Well since you know the entire population of the country, I will take your flimsy anecdotal evidence as real data and accept it as a fact with no further thought.
But I thought that people with nothing to hide had no reason to worry about surveillance? Does that mean that this statement is wrong, or does it mean the police have something to hide?
Why should it matter? Robbery is robbery whether or not you planned it out ahead of time or not. This bill is just going to encourage MORE crimes of opportunity.
Where did I do that? I pointed out that Apple did it in reference to their switching chips, and said nothing else. Any implication was made by you, and not me. If you want to, how about I just give you my password and you can just speak for me since you seem to know what I am saying better than I do??
Slashdot Mirror
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1685758&cid=32579722
Double WHOOSH!
I think it is your "truthiness" he pities.
But does it run Flash?
Wow, a grammatical error in a sentence that starts off with a non-word in a discussion about incorrect grammar. I am sure there is no way that could have been intentional. I am also sure there is no way I am being sarcastic right now.
WHOOSH!
I will go with - I am a civilized fucking gorilla communicating with intelligent grunts.
I am glad someone finally caught that.
The phrase has obviously already been muddled, as 9 times out of 10 when I see this phrase being used it is in the context of "to raise the question" and not "to dodge the question". It has already been "unofficially" accepted with that meaning by the general public. So the question is how hard do you want to fight an uphill and most likely pointless battle? Hard to put the toothpaste back into the tube once it has already been squeezed out.
Probably becasue the Cold War is over, and the threat of "Mutually Assured Destruction" was nothing more than an expensive deterrent.
"More recently, "to beg the question" has been used as a synonym for "to raise the question": for example, "This year's budget deficit is half a trillion dollars. This begs the question, How are we ever going to balance the budget?"
Using the term in this way, although common, is considered incorrect by some usage commentators. Arguments over whether this newer usage should be considered correct or incorrect are an example of debate over linguistic description and prescription of a living language."
So I guess it really boils down to - are you an absolute stickler for old grammatical rules, or is language constantly evolving to the point where old expressions can take on new meanings?
Irregardless of your beliefs, the phrase was used in a perfectly crommulent way.
Because some people actually use social networking sites for real social networking. Some people actually want accurate information about them shared with others. Now i don't happen to be one of those people, but I know quite a few of them.
If they hadn't done it this way, AT&T would have downplayed it, or covered it up. When a list of 100,000+ of your customers is posted online, it is kind of hard to deny a security breach. Do you honestly think AT&T would have disclosed this if not forced to?
It isn't pain that brings you down. it is a massive jolt of electricity to your central nervous system. It scrambles the electrical signals to your muscles and no amount of drugs or rage can prevent that from happening. Try it on yourself sometime, then get back to me about how it wouldn't stop you if you were mad enough. I guarantee you will change your mind. I thought the same exact thing before experiencing it firsthand. If a Taser fails to immobilize someone, all that means is that both contacts were not firmly attached.
Sure, just asked Mr. Hopped Up On PCP to hold still for a second while you selectively target his joints. Good luck with all that. Cops just swing those things hoping to hit anything on you that is solid. Sure they may be trained to hit certain areas, but training goes out the windows when "it's on" and the adrenalin starts pumping. And have you ever been shocked by a taser before? I have and it instantly immobilizes you for more that "a few moments". I couldn't even stand up by myself until about 5 minutes had past. Electrical shock is no joke. If I had a taser and a baton and someone was coming at me, I would use the taser every time.
My G1 works great for that already. Suck it all you other smartphone users that only have a touch keyboard!
Coupled with the fact that good cops will often turn a blind eye to the bad cops, and refuse to report or testify against them.
And for the record, I don't side with the police in this. So don't go into a huff. I'm just pointing out the logical flaw.
As was I. You see, this was the argument used by law enforcement to put up surveillance cameras in public in the first place. Wasn't a good argument for them either. Apparently what is good for the goose is not good for the gander.
Whether or not the police intend to behave illegally is irrelevant. Whether or not they follow the law is.
"I mean, I didn't intend to rob that old lady, but when I came around the corner she was just standing there with her purse half-open." Would you excuse this person from robbery? Same laws apply to the police as to average citizens.
Do you know how many suspects are arrested each year that are on PCP? Very few. Do you know how many times the police uses questionable force to detain/arrest a subject? Me neither, but I would suspect it is much higher than the percentage of suspects on PCP at the time of their arrest. This is a scenario where a taser should and would be used. Batons do not subdue an enraged subject anyway.
Well since you know the entire population of the country, I will take your flimsy anecdotal evidence as real data and accept it as a fact with no further thought.
Thanks!
As long as the revolution isn't filmed...
But I thought that people with nothing to hide had no reason to worry about surveillance? Does that mean that this statement is wrong, or does it mean the police have something to hide?
Depends on whether or not the taste of smoke and peat moss is appealing to you. Some people seem to really enjoy it.
I know. I watched it for a minute and now I am a retarded shit myself. Stay away.
Why should it matter? Robbery is robbery whether or not you planned it out ahead of time or not. This bill is just going to encourage MORE crimes of opportunity.
Where did I do that? I pointed out that Apple did it in reference to their switching chips, and said nothing else. Any implication was made by you, and not me. If you want to, how about I just give you my password and you can just speak for me since you seem to know what I am saying better than I do??