Nothing can "ruin" a marriage except the participants.
I don't think your state of denial is improving your understanding of what happened. Maybe using intellectually honest language would help you move on? Citing imaginary causes (that are physically impossible) is very unlikely to improve your understanding, or your mental health. It is just garbage data that you're chewing on like cud. If you do too much of that sort of damage, you'll just end up being a bitter old ruined annoyance.
And of course you left out the burning question, "What makes running Call of Duty" important to people who care about open file formats?
I'll give you a hint: it isn't. It is just off-topic to what you were responding to. You presumed that playing commercial games is important to me, or somehow is implicated in my needs. It isn't.
And if I was into spending my time that way, I'd probably get a console game machine long, long before changing what my general purpose computer setup is. I do work on my computer, in addition to a bunch of hobbies. Even if I included "commercial game-playing" as an activity, it seems far-fetched that it would be such an important one that it would control my software choices.
Don't derp all over your chin while calling somebody else "ignorant." It is disgusting.
All you did is pretend you didn't comprehend his argument, and call him names.
You mentioned photosynthesis, but all you managed was some hand-waving that presumes plant respiration can (somehow, against all scientific knowledge) cause the rapid sequestration of large amounts of carbon.
Did you consider that to even have a net effect, you'd have to reverse deforestation? And re-forestation is going to be working just to get back the former capacity of the forests, and start to recapture some of the carbon released by destruction of forests. You would have to also create new forests somewhere to actually start to offset something else, like burning coal and oil. There simply isn't the land and sea volume available to do that. It is just magical thinking.
Wipe your chin and try to comprehend what is being said first next time.
No Trek fans are genuinely excited about Beyond. It looks like gatbage.
Makes me glad not to be a trekkie, trekker, Trek Fan, or whatever they're called this week. I'm just a science fiction fan, who watches each Star Trek product one time.
That said, they shouldn't hate on their fans. Seems pretty absurd. If they're really worried about the competition, they should offer a contract that gives them rights to productize the derivative work in exchange for a use license. Just cross-licensing without any money changing hands would solve the whole problem including all the related problems, and not antagonize their best customers.
I'll believe that when me shit turns purple and smells like rainbow sherbet.
My shit turns purple whenever I drink fresh beet juice! A nice magenta color. Colors the whole bowl, too. First time it happened I thought I was gonna die, until I woke the rest of the way up and thought about it more carefully. Carrot juice produces a nice light orange color that sticks to the paper. The cheap juicers produce less color than the good "slow masticating" types, which crush the cell walls and release more goodies.
I understand the Japanese have various products to add fresh scent.
I'm quite sure purple sherbet shit is gonna happen first. It might be happening already.
No, the people screaming are just internet trolls that you confused with being the "open source community." Most of them are posting from windows, which they "must" run because they mostly use their computer to play games.
Actual FLOSS users don't care what you're running, or if you consider what they're already doing to be "mainstream" or not. What value would that bring me? More lame users in forums? That benefits who, how?
True that! And indeed, if it isn't FOSS is already self-segregated because I won't even know it exists. Or care.
They not only could never sell me software, it is unlikely they can even reach me with advertising or word of mouth knowledge of their product. The only way I'll know about a closed source offering is if I end up with their data file and am asking what it is. Which doesn't happen this decade, or the last, because of open formats.
Well thankfully, you doing so doesn't cause it to end up on my computer.
A counter-example isn't even an example, in this case. You missed the point of what you replied to.
Also, you probably "were" happy running it because you're "not" an open source user, and "are" running a closed OS. But you "did" try it for awhile, but not all the way.
If you're intentionally advocating ignorance of history out of the irrational fear that ignorant people will misunderstand... you're not being nearly as sciencey as you think.
See, I would have thought instead that it was "food for forage" and that it was a traditional human activity going back, oh, millions and millions of years before our genus even differentiated.
But then, I'm just some crazy mushroom forager from a country that was never Communist.
Wrong, people DID notice, but without a whistleblower to provide evidence that it was not an accident, nobody could be reliably prosecuted for it so no charges would ever be brought.
Indeed, if new discoveries regarding historical revelations were somehow not news, then nerd-dome would be dead.
Luckily though, it is just in your mind. Nerds still exist, and historical discoveries are still news. Heck, recent history is even news to some non-nerds!
All the same reasons that a person might care about things smaller than the eye can see, or that remain out of view.
By your logic, nobody should be interested in Mars unless they're an astronaut at an early stage of their career with a chance to personally make the trip. And nobody at all should care about nuclear anything in the first place, because you can't discover the technology by only caring about things that immediately benefit you. Any knowledge that doesn't immediately benefit you is bad, right? You have to be affected personally not only to do the work, but even to care!
You may or may not have some sort of radiology education, but your joke is left un-funny by the fact that the most famous case of intentional polonium poisoning was done using tea.
I've been stopped by the cops about 100 times, including multiple arrests and I've never even paid a ticket, much less been convicted of a crime. It should be no wonder that they have failed to gain my respect.
They're better than the other armed gangs; by a small margin. But they certainly haven't earned respect. Send them all to a 6-week legal training program at the community college before giving them a badge and gun and they might even understand why I feel that way. As it is now, they're out of control and don't even know what the rules they break are. Even if you go to Court and the Court finds that the cops violated your rights, the cops will never receive any sort of training in what they did wrong, what people's rights are; the City or State pays the legal judgment, and that is all. Nobody even gets training in most cases; they don't even have the case explained to them by their supervisor. They simply keep doing the same things unless the Department of Justice sues them and is able to force changes. And then the changes are grudging and minimal.
If you were, for example, to go to college and seek an English degree, they'd spend 3 years teaching a bunch of "rules," and then your senior year they'd explain, oh, those are just style elements and you were told those are rules so you'd be convinced to practice doing things that way. Because usually that makes your words more clear. That's all it does; gives you a system that helps you make sense. Great writers don't follow those rules, their writing merely coincides with the style guide most of the time.
It gets a bit more complicated to claim those are "rules" once you discover where they came from, and if there are (spoiler: there are) other contradictory style guides. Nerds who often look up the history of a word, (called etymology) will rapidly discover that most of the language has changed in just a couple hundred years. People who mistake style for rules might ask themselves: how do those rules change? Who changes them? Once you find out the answer to that (nobody changes anything, style just drifts around from generation to generation) then you can start to understand the nature of the language.
There are other languages where at some point in history, some sort of consensus was achieved to establish an Authority to make those decisions. Those languages then have rules. Many, many attempts have been made to do that with English, but the consensus has consistently been, "no, we actually can't agree on what style to force on people, so if it is known then it is correct."
Words. Sometimes they mean things. Usually, people aren't educated enough to have any idea what they mean, though. And yet, they can read each word and will claim to have understood.
Remember, people; the dictionary is only a list of known uses of words. It isn't an exclusive list, just a list of stuff that is known.
So even if the dictionary agreed with you, you'd be wrong. But it doesn't.
In English we have lists of known words, and style guides. There aren't any rules, other than that if it isn't clear what the meaning is, then that is non-optimal. It is easy to write something that sucks, or is meaningless, but much harder to write something that is "wrong." But a false pedanticism is a sure a good try.
Are car companies liable for someone who leaves their car in neutral on an incline?
Is "parking on an incline" listed as a beta feature? Is the neutral gear listed as a beta feature?
If so, then potentially yes. If one of those is beta and the user interface was confusing, then certainly yes.
The car I drive doesn't have any "beta" features at all; every feature it has is well-tested, or purported to be. So that leaves most of the liability on me to use those features in the standard (correct) way. If pressing a button on the key fob could cause the car to go from "park" to "neutral," they'd probably be liable even if they designed it that way and told me about it, unless the car was specially made as a "stunt" or "exhibition" car. Tesla doesn't make stunt cars, they make passenger cars.
Slashdot Mirror
Nothing can "ruin" a marriage except the participants.
I don't think your state of denial is improving your understanding of what happened. Maybe using intellectually honest language would help you move on? Citing imaginary causes (that are physically impossible) is very unlikely to improve your understanding, or your mental health. It is just garbage data that you're chewing on like cud. If you do too much of that sort of damage, you'll just end up being a bitter old ruined annoyance.
And of course you left out the burning question, "What makes running Call of Duty" important to people who care about open file formats?
I'll give you a hint: it isn't. It is just off-topic to what you were responding to. You presumed that playing commercial games is important to me, or somehow is implicated in my needs. It isn't.
And if I was into spending my time that way, I'd probably get a console game machine long, long before changing what my general purpose computer setup is. I do work on my computer, in addition to a bunch of hobbies. Even if I included "commercial game-playing" as an activity, it seems far-fetched that it would be such an important one that it would control my software choices.
Don't derp all over your chin while calling somebody else "ignorant." It is disgusting.
All you did is pretend you didn't comprehend his argument, and call him names.
You mentioned photosynthesis, but all you managed was some hand-waving that presumes plant respiration can (somehow, against all scientific knowledge) cause the rapid sequestration of large amounts of carbon.
Did you consider that to even have a net effect, you'd have to reverse deforestation? And re-forestation is going to be working just to get back the former capacity of the forests, and start to recapture some of the carbon released by destruction of forests. You would have to also create new forests somewhere to actually start to offset something else, like burning coal and oil. There simply isn't the land and sea volume available to do that. It is just magical thinking.
Wipe your chin and try to comprehend what is being said first next time.
How many Cowboyneals per hour is it?
Every chess program.
I believe Go uses open formats too.
No Trek fans are genuinely excited about Beyond. It looks like gatbage.
Makes me glad not to be a trekkie, trekker, Trek Fan, or whatever they're called this week. I'm just a science fiction fan, who watches each Star Trek product one time.
That said, they shouldn't hate on their fans. Seems pretty absurd. If they're really worried about the competition, they should offer a contract that gives them rights to productize the derivative work in exchange for a use license. Just cross-licensing without any money changing hands would solve the whole problem including all the related problems, and not antagonize their best customers.
I'm trying to figure out this word you used. It sounds like a tightly-knit troupe of fire dancers with a gay demeanor. Am I close?
I doubt they'll shut up any sooner than the rest of us, though. Seriously.
I'll believe that when me shit turns purple and smells like rainbow sherbet.
My shit turns purple whenever I drink fresh beet juice! A nice magenta color. Colors the whole bowl, too. First time it happened I thought I was gonna die, until I woke the rest of the way up and thought about it more carefully. Carrot juice produces a nice light orange color that sticks to the paper. The cheap juicers produce less color than the good "slow masticating" types, which crush the cell walls and release more goodies.
I understand the Japanese have various products to add fresh scent.
I'm quite sure purple sherbet shit is gonna happen first. It might be happening already.
No, the people screaming are just internet trolls that you confused with being the "open source community." Most of them are posting from windows, which they "must" run because they mostly use their computer to play games.
Actual FLOSS users don't care what you're running, or if you consider what they're already doing to be "mainstream" or not. What value would that bring me? More lame users in forums? That benefits who, how?
some people
True that! And indeed, if it isn't FOSS is already self-segregated because I won't even know it exists. Or care.
They not only could never sell me software, it is unlikely they can even reach me with advertising or word of mouth knowledge of their product. The only way I'll know about a closed source offering is if I end up with their data file and am asking what it is. Which doesn't happen this decade, or the last, because of open formats.
I want more open source stuff, not more free stuff.
I don't. I just want the devs to stop making changes other than fixing what is broken. I've had the software I need for years.
you're not your
Well thankfully, you doing so doesn't cause it to end up on my computer.
A counter-example isn't even an example, in this case. You missed the point of what you replied to.
Also, you probably "were" happy running it because you're "not" an open source user, and "are" running a closed OS. But you "did" try it for awhile, but not all the way.
If you're intentionally advocating ignorance of history out of the irrational fear that ignorant people will misunderstand... you're not being nearly as sciencey as you think.
See, I would have thought instead that it was "food for forage" and that it was a traditional human activity going back, oh, millions and millions of years before our genus even differentiated.
But then, I'm just some crazy mushroom forager from a country that was never Communist.
Wrong, people DID notice, but without a whistleblower to provide evidence that it was not an accident, nobody could be reliably prosecuted for it so no charges would ever be brought.
And probably, even still.
Indeed, if new discoveries regarding historical revelations were somehow not news, then nerd-dome would be dead.
Luckily though, it is just in your mind. Nerds still exist, and historical discoveries are still news. Heck, recent history is even news to some non-nerds!
All the same reasons that a person might care about things smaller than the eye can see, or that remain out of view.
By your logic, nobody should be interested in Mars unless they're an astronaut at an early stage of their career with a chance to personally make the trip. And nobody at all should care about nuclear anything in the first place, because you can't discover the technology by only caring about things that immediately benefit you. Any knowledge that doesn't immediately benefit you is bad, right? You have to be affected personally not only to do the work, but even to care!
You may or may not have some sort of radiology education, but your joke is left un-funny by the fact that the most famous case of intentional polonium poisoning was done using tea.
I've been stopped by the cops about 100 times, including multiple arrests and I've never even paid a ticket, much less been convicted of a crime. It should be no wonder that they have failed to gain my respect.
They're better than the other armed gangs; by a small margin. But they certainly haven't earned respect. Send them all to a 6-week legal training program at the community college before giving them a badge and gun and they might even understand why I feel that way. As it is now, they're out of control and don't even know what the rules they break are. Even if you go to Court and the Court finds that the cops violated your rights, the cops will never receive any sort of training in what they did wrong, what people's rights are; the City or State pays the legal judgment, and that is all. Nobody even gets training in most cases; they don't even have the case explained to them by their supervisor. They simply keep doing the same things unless the Department of Justice sues them and is able to force changes. And then the changes are grudging and minimal.
Name-calling doesn't make it truthy.
If you were, for example, to go to college and seek an English degree, they'd spend 3 years teaching a bunch of "rules," and then your senior year they'd explain, oh, those are just style elements and you were told those are rules so you'd be convinced to practice doing things that way. Because usually that makes your words more clear. That's all it does; gives you a system that helps you make sense. Great writers don't follow those rules, their writing merely coincides with the style guide most of the time.
It gets a bit more complicated to claim those are "rules" once you discover where they came from, and if there are (spoiler: there are) other contradictory style guides. Nerds who often look up the history of a word, (called etymology) will rapidly discover that most of the language has changed in just a couple hundred years. People who mistake style for rules might ask themselves: how do those rules change? Who changes them? Once you find out the answer to that (nobody changes anything, style just drifts around from generation to generation) then you can start to understand the nature of the language.
There are other languages where at some point in history, some sort of consensus was achieved to establish an Authority to make those decisions. Those languages then have rules. Many, many attempts have been made to do that with English, but the consensus has consistently been, "no, we actually can't agree on what style to force on people, so if it is known then it is correct."
Words. Sometimes they mean things. Usually, people aren't educated enough to have any idea what they mean, though. And yet, they can read each word and will claim to have understood.
Those are all style guide elements, not rules. Your teachers may have misinformed you. Be less credulous.
Because "nobody ever got fired for choosing microsoft," and "linux is fine for hobbyists."
Their customers have no idea that they can switch, and microsoft doesn't expect them to figure it out anytime soon.
Yet another false pedanticism.
Remember, people; the dictionary is only a list of known uses of words. It isn't an exclusive list, just a list of stuff that is known.
So even if the dictionary agreed with you, you'd be wrong. But it doesn't.
In English we have lists of known words, and style guides. There aren't any rules, other than that if it isn't clear what the meaning is, then that is non-optimal. It is easy to write something that sucks, or is meaningless, but much harder to write something that is "wrong." But a false pedanticism is a sure a good try.
Are car companies liable for someone who leaves their car in neutral on an incline?
Is "parking on an incline" listed as a beta feature? Is the neutral gear listed as a beta feature?
If so, then potentially yes. If one of those is beta and the user interface was confusing, then certainly yes.
The car I drive doesn't have any "beta" features at all; every feature it has is well-tested, or purported to be. So that leaves most of the liability on me to use those features in the standard (correct) way. If pressing a button on the key fob could cause the car to go from "park" to "neutral," they'd probably be liable even if they designed it that way and told me about it, unless the car was specially made as a "stunt" or "exhibition" car. Tesla doesn't make stunt cars, they make passenger cars.