You really can't focus if you are severely depressed, especially on mentally taxing tasks. And we aren't talking about being bummed out because it's Monday and raining. That's not "feeling awfully depressed".
You miss the point and your analogy is flawed. There's nothing intrinsic to a black person that makes serving them more difficult than serving white people. Discriminating on that basis would be a preference alone and therefore unreasonable. But blind people have different requirements than sighted people. The game must function differently, perhaps in fundamental ways. The game may make use of elements that specifically require vision to be meaningful. It is not unreasonable discrimination, then, for a game to have elements which are not accessible to people of disabilities. This is not discriminatory, unless the elements are placed there only to prevent, e.g., blind people from being able to make effective use of the game. I daresay that's the problem.
Why are game companies, or any companies for that matter, required to make every product accessible? I can understand government services, both because of their purpose but also because of the fact that they are paid for by public money (and generally don't actually need to be un-accessible), but products of corporations? If this guy wants to complain to the company and then not buy their products, fine. In fact, that's really the best way to deal with the issue.
Well, that's not really how it works. There was no point at which Saxon ceased to be Saxon and one day became English, a new and separate entity. The language was a continuous development since the dawn of language. The names may change due to political reasons, but from the point of view of the language itself, nothing has changed. The terminology "ancestor of English" is a linguistic convenience for people who are talking about language development. It is not a fact about the development itself. Ancestors do not "give birth" to new languages and then die. It is, as I said, a continuous development.
Now, if you want to talk about particular periods of a language being older or younger, then that is valid. You can speak of Latin, as the language spoken between 600 BC and 200 AD as having taken place before Modern English as spoken from 1650 AD to the present.
English is as old as any other language. If you are going to talk about when it split off from the other Germanic dialects, it probably did that before the Romance languages became non-trivially distinct from each other.
For any Western European language that I can think of, sending speakers back 800 or 1000 years would result in unintelligibility. Italian and Spanish probably wouldn't be as bad as French and English, but those languages have changed a lot too, and certainly compared to Latin. Same thing with German and the Slavic Languages.
The reason Chinese can still be read is because it is an ideographic system and the orthography is conservative. This is also why we can read Shakespeare and Chaucer, even though both sounded considerably different from Modern English. It's not that Chinese hasn't changed -- it's changed a lot -- but that the writing system hasn't.
Your Greek example is also bad because Greek has undergone a great deal of phonetic change since the Classical Greek days (and there wasn't even one language called "Classical Greek" -- there were a variety of more and less mutually intelligible dialects) and some grammatical changes. It lost the dative case and significantly reduced the morphological distinctiveness of the case endings. The entire set of perfect tenses was built anew with auxiliary verbs. It also simplified the accent system to move away from a pitch-based accent and towards a stress-based accent. I can go on and on. It's definitely changed a great deal.
But honestly, you can go and read Old English pretty easily if you take a short amount of time to go over how the letters are pronounced, a few of the correspondences in sounds between Old and Modern English and a quick run through of the fact that there are cases and other verb forms. It's not significantly different from Modern English, even though at first glance it looks insane. The biggest difference is probably vocabulary, but if you know German, you'll find that even that isn't too much of a hurdle.
It's not a grammatically incorrect sentence. It's just a bit confusing, albeit technically precise. Better would probably have been something like "and he wouldn't want to work for a company that only hires those who like to code in their spare time."
I feel like you are so close...nobody here bothers to define what free will actually is or means. But they *know* it is incompatible with determinism. That's no way to run a debate or scientific inquiry.
I would disagree. The original statement is along the lines of "do not multiply entities needlessly", which can probably be reworded as "don't invoke things without due reason". It doesn't say "the simplest answer is always the best". That is a gross misinterpretation and rightly is useless. The correct interpretation is in line with an assumption that we must make when doing science: if we cannot directly observe something to exist, nor can we provide evidence that it must exist, then there is no reason to claim it exists. It might well still exist nonetheless, but then it falls outside the realm of science to verify its existence.
In spoken English, you generally pronounce the second 's' (unless you are a pedant of some sort), so it would stand to reason that the second 's' should remain. There is another motivation: the "'s" is actually a clitic that attaches to phrases (usually noun phrases) and is thus a separate word, not a part of the word it is attached to. As such, it should always be spelled out (as it is always pronounced).
Umm what? North Korea was quiet during Bush's administration? Really? Perhaps you forgot to read the news for those 8 years, because they most certainly were not quiet and were doing pretty much the same thing they are doing now.
I kind of assumed that was implicit, since the alternative is impossible. There's no need to explicitly state that I can't know 100% for sure. People who complain about that are just annoying pedants.
I didn't get viruses. I had no slowdowns, nothing showing up in process explorer, no weird behavior, nothing from ZoneAlarm (worthless though it otherwise be). Of course, if you go the route of "you can't ever truly be sure of xyz", then I suppose you are right. I probably did get viruses. And even though I think I'm running Linux, it's probably actually just a rootkit that's infected my Windows XP installation to make it look like some other OS. How can I really know?
You could try not freaking the fuck out about browser security, unless you plan on visiting Russian spam sites and whatnot. I use Firefox on Linux and I've never had an issue. I use Flashblock, Adblock and occasionally Noscript. Just exercise reasonable caution and you should be fine. Heck, even under Windows I never got viruses or spyware, and I used IE!
Uhh, why would it make sense for you NOT to log in to read a PM? How else would they know you are the intended recipient? For that matter, how would they know which PM box to read you messages from? I can think of a lot of problems with social networking sites, but that's definitely not one of them. It's more of a faulty logic problem on the part of the OP.
That's what I do...or Konsole. But it's annoying that I should be kept from what was a working app because of the interface NAZI mentality which is not based in reality.
What's annoying is that they used to have separate settings, or at least a setting specific to the terminal and then the global setting. Then, in 2.24 (I think it was 2.24), they replaced it with a single setting. I wasn't the only one who was pissed. In fact, here are some links to blogs and bug reports:
Goddamn it I didn't say it was my biggest problem. I just mentioned it because it was representative of the kind of philosophy and design decisions that go into GNOME.
Uhh, I didn't say KDE 4 was great, but simply that GNOME sucks. I am still using KDE 3.5 myself and probably won't switch to 4 until 4.2 or probably 4.3. Everything you mentioned about KDE 4 is spot on and that's part of why I don't like it. It's also missing features, has stability issues and is much slower than 3.5. KWin still can't do compositing without visual glitches and major slowdowns on my machine, where KDE 3.5 did just fine and compiz also works great.
Slashdot Mirror
But it's still better than nothing and other people can help fill in the gaps with a good already-documented base.
You really can't focus if you are severely depressed, especially on mentally taxing tasks. And we aren't talking about being bummed out because it's Monday and raining. That's not "feeling awfully depressed".
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/m/mec/med-idx?type=id&id=MED12891
You miss the point and your analogy is flawed. There's nothing intrinsic to a black person that makes serving them more difficult than serving white people. Discriminating on that basis would be a preference alone and therefore unreasonable. But blind people have different requirements than sighted people. The game must function differently, perhaps in fundamental ways. The game may make use of elements that specifically require vision to be meaningful. It is not unreasonable discrimination, then, for a game to have elements which are not accessible to people of disabilities. This is not discriminatory, unless the elements are placed there only to prevent, e.g., blind people from being able to make effective use of the game. I daresay that's the problem.
Why are game companies, or any companies for that matter, required to make every product accessible? I can understand government services, both because of their purpose but also because of the fact that they are paid for by public money (and generally don't actually need to be un-accessible), but products of corporations? If this guy wants to complain to the company and then not buy their products, fine. In fact, that's really the best way to deal with the issue.
Well, that's not really how it works. There was no point at which Saxon ceased to be Saxon and one day became English, a new and separate entity. The language was a continuous development since the dawn of language. The names may change due to political reasons, but from the point of view of the language itself, nothing has changed. The terminology "ancestor of English" is a linguistic convenience for people who are talking about language development. It is not a fact about the development itself. Ancestors do not "give birth" to new languages and then die. It is, as I said, a continuous development. Now, if you want to talk about particular periods of a language being older or younger, then that is valid. You can speak of Latin, as the language spoken between 600 BC and 200 AD as having taken place before Modern English as spoken from 1650 AD to the present.
English is as old as any other language. If you are going to talk about when it split off from the other Germanic dialects, it probably did that before the Romance languages became non-trivially distinct from each other.
For any Western European language that I can think of, sending speakers back 800 or 1000 years would result in unintelligibility. Italian and Spanish probably wouldn't be as bad as French and English, but those languages have changed a lot too, and certainly compared to Latin. Same thing with German and the Slavic Languages.
The reason Chinese can still be read is because it is an ideographic system and the orthography is conservative. This is also why we can read Shakespeare and Chaucer, even though both sounded considerably different from Modern English. It's not that Chinese hasn't changed -- it's changed a lot -- but that the writing system hasn't.
Your Greek example is also bad because Greek has undergone a great deal of phonetic change since the Classical Greek days (and there wasn't even one language called "Classical Greek" -- there were a variety of more and less mutually intelligible dialects) and some grammatical changes. It lost the dative case and significantly reduced the morphological distinctiveness of the case endings. The entire set of perfect tenses was built anew with auxiliary verbs. It also simplified the accent system to move away from a pitch-based accent and towards a stress-based accent. I can go on and on. It's definitely changed a great deal.
But honestly, you can go and read Old English pretty easily if you take a short amount of time to go over how the letters are pronounced, a few of the correspondences in sounds between Old and Modern English and a quick run through of the fact that there are cases and other verb forms. It's not significantly different from Modern English, even though at first glance it looks insane. The biggest difference is probably vocabulary, but if you know German, you'll find that even that isn't too much of a hurdle.
It's not a grammatically incorrect sentence. It's just a bit confusing, albeit technically precise. Better would probably have been something like "and he wouldn't want to work for a company that only hires those who like to code in their spare time."
The problem has already been solved by the brain. Although we have all sorts of thoughts going on all the time, we only act on a few of them.
No other system does this and it offers almost no benefit, so why should this be implemented?
Amazing that nobody got the reference.
I feel like you are so close...nobody here bothers to define what free will actually is or means. But they *know* it is incompatible with determinism. That's no way to run a debate or scientific inquiry.
I would disagree. The original statement is along the lines of "do not multiply entities needlessly", which can probably be reworded as "don't invoke things without due reason". It doesn't say "the simplest answer is always the best". That is a gross misinterpretation and rightly is useless. The correct interpretation is in line with an assumption that we must make when doing science: if we cannot directly observe something to exist, nor can we provide evidence that it must exist, then there is no reason to claim it exists. It might well still exist nonetheless, but then it falls outside the realm of science to verify its existence.
In spoken English, you generally pronounce the second 's' (unless you are a pedant of some sort), so it would stand to reason that the second 's' should remain. There is another motivation: the "'s" is actually a clitic that attaches to phrases (usually noun phrases) and is thus a separate word, not a part of the word it is attached to. As such, it should always be spelled out (as it is always pronounced).
Umm what? North Korea was quiet during Bush's administration? Really? Perhaps you forgot to read the news for those 8 years, because they most certainly were not quiet and were doing pretty much the same thing they are doing now.
I kind of assumed that was implicit, since the alternative is impossible. There's no need to explicitly state that I can't know 100% for sure. People who complain about that are just annoying pedants.
I didn't get viruses. I had no slowdowns, nothing showing up in process explorer, no weird behavior, nothing from ZoneAlarm (worthless though it otherwise be). Of course, if you go the route of "you can't ever truly be sure of xyz", then I suppose you are right. I probably did get viruses. And even though I think I'm running Linux, it's probably actually just a rootkit that's infected my Windows XP installation to make it look like some other OS. How can I really know?
You could try not freaking the fuck out about browser security, unless you plan on visiting Russian spam sites and whatnot. I use Firefox on Linux and I've never had an issue. I use Flashblock, Adblock and occasionally Noscript. Just exercise reasonable caution and you should be fine. Heck, even under Windows I never got viruses or spyware, and I used IE!
What does marriage have to do with biology?
The "then" vs. "than" distinction was actually created in spelling first. They both come from the same source word.
Uhh, why would it make sense for you NOT to log in to read a PM? How else would they know you are the intended recipient? For that matter, how would they know which PM box to read you messages from? I can think of a lot of problems with social networking sites, but that's definitely not one of them. It's more of a faulty logic problem on the part of the OP.
That's what I do...or Konsole. But it's annoying that I should be kept from what was a working app because of the interface NAZI mentality which is not based in reality.
What's annoying is that they used to have separate settings, or at least a setting specific to the terminal and then the global setting. Then, in 2.24 (I think it was 2.24), they replaced it with a single setting. I wasn't the only one who was pissed. In fact, here are some links to blogs and bug reports:
http://www.chrishowie.com/2008/03/28/gnome-terminal-cursor/
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=342921
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/hardy/+source/gnome-terminal/+bug/188732
Goddamn it I didn't say it was my biggest problem. I just mentioned it because it was representative of the kind of philosophy and design decisions that go into GNOME.
Uhh, I didn't say KDE 4 was great, but simply that GNOME sucks. I am still using KDE 3.5 myself and probably won't switch to 4 until 4.2 or probably 4.3. Everything you mentioned about KDE 4 is spot on and that's part of why I don't like it. It's also missing features, has stability issues and is much slower than 3.5. KWin still can't do compositing without visual glitches and major slowdowns on my machine, where KDE 3.5 did just fine and compiz also works great.