You speak as if getting the flu is entirely your fault. Maybe it's OTHER people engaging in risky and dangerous behavior that gets YOU sick. Certainly the government stepping in to solve that kind of problem makes total sense. But yes, let's blame the victims, as usual in Republican America.
Most of the debt is owed to people in the US or between branches of the government. China, for example, owns only about 8% of the debt. The foreign part of the equation is nearly irrelevant and needs to stop being brought up.
All your little anecdote proves is that someone wrote some bad code, even if it was well-documented. I've seen plenty of unreadable C, Perl and Python, to say nothing of Java or.NET. Object orientation can be very clean, and it can be very dirty if you don't know what you're doing or don't care.
The switch from 32 to 64 is a lot less painful than 16 to 32, because the memory model didn't change.
Even if you are writing in C, most code is probably fairly agnostic to 32- vs. 64-bit. But if you do things like cast pointers to ints, or use byte-based arithmetic when interacting with structures or unions, then you'll run into trouble. C code that conforms to the standard should be fairly portable from 32 to 64 bit, though, and this is yet another situation where the value of the standard and well-designed code pays off.
It's not just about memory, it's also about an enhanced instruction set that includes extra registers, addressing modes and the removal of some old x86 cruft.
But the GDP growth has slowed considerably, and programs put in place before Obama have continued to balloon. Only so much blame can be placed on him, mostly in the form of blaming him for *not* doing something about the balls in motion. I certainly blame him for that.
Whites did poorly for a very long time, actually. It wasn't until the last millenium that they started diverging from the rest of the world. Before that, Northern and Western Europe was a backwater and had been since before the dawn of civilization.
You missed the early phase of Facebook when it was cool because it was only for colleges, had a clean layout (unlike the ugly pages people frequently had for MySpace). It was exclusive and pretty.
Xinerama may not have come about until 1998, but multiple screen support was built into X from the beginning. That's where the whole:0.0,:0.1, etc. business comes from.
You could have stopped with "was misheard by someone". But like all the pedants, you have to go on and make a bunch of judgmental statements about people with no basis in fact. Just stop it already. It's entirely possible, if not more likely, that since the phrase is so common, things like "as if" get clipped off. We frequently reduce idiomatic phrases to the core parts rather than speak or write the entire thing. Why assume that people are mishearing and being stupid, when they might actually be clever and efficient?
Basically, it appears to be a case of "care less" developing a negative meaning and then dropping the existing redundant negative. The latter link gives examples of other phrases that have had similar transitions. I should also be noted that the French "ne...pas" construction is not an isolated example of a positive word becoming negative and then losing the original negation element. French has a whole host of words in that category: jamais, point, que, personne, rien. English, German and Dutch went through periods of having double (and sometimes triple or quadruple) negatives, similar to the "ne...pas" construction in French, which were later simplified by the removal of the "ne" at the beginning. In German, this kind of change left us with "es sei denn" meaning "unless" and "weder...noch..." meaning "neither...nor...". The negative particle disappeared during the early modern German period, but the negative meaning remained.
You may say "that's all fine and dandy, but it could just be an example of abject stupidity across time and language". However, these types of changes appear to be systematic and logical, taken in the proper context. The transfer from "je ne sai" to "je ne sais pas" to "je sais pas" is fairly reasonable when you consider the semantics. In the first, you have simple negation. In the second, you add an intensifier. That intensifier only ends up showing up with a negative, so it takes on a negative meaning (seems like a reasonable semantic shift). We now have two negative elements in the sentence, so the weaker one is removed, reducing redundancy. Sensible, logical and it leads to clarity and simplification. Maybe the middle steps are a bit weird, but the end point is reasonable.
All sorts of idioms, in any language, may be confusing, difficult or incomprehensible to foreigners. I know I've run across a few in German that I could just not figure out (can't remember them now, as that would be CONVENIENT). That's one of the annoyances of learning another language. Remember, though, that a language is for its native speakers to communicate. It is not meant to make life easy for foreigners. I think it's reasonable, though, for someone to limit the use of idioms and strange words when writing for or speaking to an audience that includes people who are likely to have less-than-fluent skills in that person's native language. In much the same way we recommend not to use technical jargon from a field when writing to a general audience.
Yeah, it's annoying. It can even be a pet peeve. I don't see anything wrong with people being annoyed by phrases and words. We all have personal tastes and preferences. What I dislike is people taking their personal preferences and elevating them to grandiose statements about language, morality and people's character and education.
Yes, the original idiom was "couldn't care less", but the "not" has been dropped for any of a variety of proposed reasons, none of them having to do with abject stupidity (the fact that a great number of well-read and highly-educated people also say "could care less" when not being careful in their speech should tell you as much). You know, it's that sort of moralizing about people's character based solely on some technicality of how they speak that I find to be disgustingly judgmental and stupid, to boot. Why is it stupid? It's a stupid line of thinking because it is built on willful ignorance (the definition of stupid). You don't know why people say what they say, but you're sure that since it's not standard, it must be wrong and the product of some sort of mental deficit. That's quite a leap, and to take that leap without any supporting evidence and with the nearly express goal of belittling people is a sign of true arrogance and douchebaggery. It's all too common on the Internet, but it is, of course, to be found in more traditional sources of media. People have complained about shifts in language since there has been language to complain about it.
For what it's worth, "could care less" has a meaning that is well-known and unambiguous. Nobody would hear "could care less" and think that the speaker cared by some amount (according to the phrase's technical meaning). Any time a pedant comes along to call someone out on their usage, they never first ask "did you mean that you did care, or did you mean that you didn't?" No, the meaning is already clear: the speaker/writer did not care at all. The correction thus immediately follows, as does a diatribe, short or long, about the intelligence of the person who "misused" the idiom. Like it or not, the mutated idiom is unambiguous, well-known and clear. There is no deficit in communication when using it. It is not at all a problem and people like you need to just let it go. It's not going away and it doesn't need to. Seriously, deal with it.
But I'm not an ignoramus. In fact, I understand perfectly well that idioms often don't mean what their constituent parts mean. I also understand that language isn't about making statements that are rigorous according to formal logic. Instead, we have things like tone, connotation, emphasis and so on.
You just have to exploit before the machines get there. For example, you could buy off the company that makes the machines and have them put in some code that fudges the numbers.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe if you have no mouse acceleration and minimal sensitivity. I don't think I ever have to reposition my mouse.
You speak as if getting the flu is entirely your fault. Maybe it's OTHER people engaging in risky and dangerous behavior that gets YOU sick. Certainly the government stepping in to solve that kind of problem makes total sense. But yes, let's blame the victims, as usual in Republican America.
It's required, but doesn't cost anything. Pretty simple concept!
Most of the debt is owed to people in the US or between branches of the government. China, for example, owns only about 8% of the debt. The foreign part of the equation is nearly irrelevant and needs to stop being brought up.
All your little anecdote proves is that someone wrote some bad code, even if it was well-documented. I've seen plenty of unreadable C, Perl and Python, to say nothing of Java or .NET. Object orientation can be very clean, and it can be very dirty if you don't know what you're doing or don't care.
The switch from 32 to 64 is a lot less painful than 16 to 32, because the memory model didn't change.
Even if you are writing in C, most code is probably fairly agnostic to 32- vs. 64-bit. But if you do things like cast pointers to ints, or use byte-based arithmetic when interacting with structures or unions, then you'll run into trouble. C code that conforms to the standard should be fairly portable from 32 to 64 bit, though, and this is yet another situation where the value of the standard and well-designed code pays off.
It's not just about memory, it's also about an enhanced instruction set that includes extra registers, addressing modes and the removal of some old x86 cruft.
Not everybody in the "third world" lives like that.
But the GDP growth has slowed considerably, and programs put in place before Obama have continued to balloon. Only so much blame can be placed on him, mostly in the form of blaming him for *not* doing something about the balls in motion. I certainly blame him for that.
Only if you're an uninformed idiot.
Whites did poorly for a very long time, actually. It wasn't until the last millenium that they started diverging from the rest of the world. Before that, Northern and Western Europe was a backwater and had been since before the dawn of civilization.
Catching and receiving are the same thing.
You missed the early phase of Facebook when it was cool because it was only for colleges, had a clean layout (unlike the ugly pages people frequently had for MySpace). It was exclusive and pretty.
It works fine for me. I use a second monitor at home and at work and it remembers the settings for both without any extra work on my part.
Xinerama may not have come about until 1998, but multiple screen support was built into X from the beginning. That's where the whole :0.0, :0.1, etc. business comes from.
You could have stopped with "was misheard by someone". But like all the pedants, you have to go on and make a bunch of judgmental statements about people with no basis in fact. Just stop it already. It's entirely possible, if not more likely, that since the phrase is so common, things like "as if" get clipped off. We frequently reduce idiomatic phrases to the core parts rather than speak or write the entire thing. Why assume that people are mishearing and being stupid, when they might actually be clever and efficient?
I didn't list the reasons because I had already typed them out, but I accidentally closed the tab and lost all my work. So I just left it at that.
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001202.html
http://www.yaelf.com/aueFAQ/mifcouldcareless.shtml
Basically, it appears to be a case of "care less" developing a negative meaning and then dropping the existing redundant negative. The latter link gives examples of other phrases that have had similar transitions. I should also be noted that the French "ne...pas" construction is not an isolated example of a positive word becoming negative and then losing the original negation element. French has a whole host of words in that category: jamais, point, que, personne, rien. English, German and Dutch went through periods of having double (and sometimes triple or quadruple) negatives, similar to the "ne...pas" construction in French, which were later simplified by the removal of the "ne" at the beginning. In German, this kind of change left us with "es sei denn" meaning "unless" and "weder...noch..." meaning "neither...nor...". The negative particle disappeared during the early modern German period, but the negative meaning remained.
You may say "that's all fine and dandy, but it could just be an example of abject stupidity across time and language". However, these types of changes appear to be systematic and logical, taken in the proper context. The transfer from "je ne sai" to "je ne sais pas" to "je sais pas" is fairly reasonable when you consider the semantics. In the first, you have simple negation. In the second, you add an intensifier. That intensifier only ends up showing up with a negative, so it takes on a negative meaning (seems like a reasonable semantic shift). We now have two negative elements in the sentence, so the weaker one is removed, reducing redundancy. Sensible, logical and it leads to clarity and simplification. Maybe the middle steps are a bit weird, but the end point is reasonable.
That's a statement about education and character.
All sorts of idioms, in any language, may be confusing, difficult or incomprehensible to foreigners. I know I've run across a few in German that I could just not figure out (can't remember them now, as that would be CONVENIENT). That's one of the annoyances of learning another language. Remember, though, that a language is for its native speakers to communicate. It is not meant to make life easy for foreigners. I think it's reasonable, though, for someone to limit the use of idioms and strange words when writing for or speaking to an audience that includes people who are likely to have less-than-fluent skills in that person's native language. In much the same way we recommend not to use technical jargon from a field when writing to a general audience.
Yeah, it's annoying. It can even be a pet peeve. I don't see anything wrong with people being annoyed by phrases and words. We all have personal tastes and preferences. What I dislike is people taking their personal preferences and elevating them to grandiose statements about language, morality and people's character and education.
Yes, the original idiom was "couldn't care less", but the "not" has been dropped for any of a variety of proposed reasons, none of them having to do with abject stupidity (the fact that a great number of well-read and highly-educated people also say "could care less" when not being careful in their speech should tell you as much). You know, it's that sort of moralizing about people's character based solely on some technicality of how they speak that I find to be disgustingly judgmental and stupid, to boot. Why is it stupid? It's a stupid line of thinking because it is built on willful ignorance (the definition of stupid). You don't know why people say what they say, but you're sure that since it's not standard, it must be wrong and the product of some sort of mental deficit. That's quite a leap, and to take that leap without any supporting evidence and with the nearly express goal of belittling people is a sign of true arrogance and douchebaggery. It's all too common on the Internet, but it is, of course, to be found in more traditional sources of media. People have complained about shifts in language since there has been language to complain about it.
For what it's worth, "could care less" has a meaning that is well-known and unambiguous. Nobody would hear "could care less" and think that the speaker cared by some amount (according to the phrase's technical meaning). Any time a pedant comes along to call someone out on their usage, they never first ask "did you mean that you did care, or did you mean that you didn't?" No, the meaning is already clear: the speaker/writer did not care at all. The correction thus immediately follows, as does a diatribe, short or long, about the intelligence of the person who "misused" the idiom. Like it or not, the mutated idiom is unambiguous, well-known and clear. There is no deficit in communication when using it. It is not at all a problem and people like you need to just let it go. It's not going away and it doesn't need to. Seriously, deal with it.
But I'm not an ignoramus. In fact, I understand perfectly well that idioms often don't mean what their constituent parts mean. I also understand that language isn't about making statements that are rigorous according to formal logic. Instead, we have things like tone, connotation, emphasis and so on.
Only if you take it literally. Idiomatically, it means the opposite. Deal with it.
Developer Chrome allows you to block cookies per page. I don't know if that's in Beta or Live, though.
You just have to exploit before the machines get there. For example, you could buy off the company that makes the machines and have them put in some code that fudges the numbers.