Wist
-
Posts
896 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Wist
-
-
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/maverick
The third meaning of the 'name' is preferable to the first. You have made a sound choice.
-
I remember reading an amusing quote regarding this image: "The symmetry of the compounds is quite nice. It's a good compromise between efficient use of geometric space and openess[sic]. I support this building pattern for other complexes."
-
I do not think you do not understood how a potential financial bailout would work. At the moment, banks are unable to afford to give out loans because defaulted loans, partially to blame on the most recent real estate bubble, have bankrupted the banks and ultimately Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (where banks turn to for loans). This results in companies, most of which rely on loans to expand, having no option but to scale back on their business. Layoffs result, reducing the number of people able to pay back personal loans and mortgages which further harms the banks. The bailout plan would result in the government absorbing all of the defaulted loans in exchange for shares in all affected banks. The banks will no longer be in horrific debt and will again be able to afford giving out loans, pulling out of what was previously a viciously tumbling cycle. Because the government would have a share in most of the banks, it would make up the money lost in the bailout; the rest would ideally be accounted for when the government sells its shares back to private investors further enabling the economy to grow.Fix'd.Yeah, Wall St., the White Collars, some baby boomers and others have forgotten the other generation, us. We are the ones who's gonna get fucked in the ass with no lube at the end of the day because of all this bullshit they overlooked.
That explanation is obviously simplified but it covers the gist of how such a plan would operate. Such a bailout, if handled effectively, is immensely more agreeable to allowing the economy to descend into a depression. If one is inclined to scapegoat a group of people for the current economic crisis (something I think isn't a great idea because it doesn't solve anything and there are many more factors involved), it is the fault of those in the middle class who opted to purchase houses they clearly could not afford with the assumption than the real estate market would continue to flourish. Once homeowners began to default, banks could not afford to give out loans and most people were unable to buy new homes. More people defaulted and the banks were left with houses that could not be sold for anywhere near the amount they were worth when loans were given out, thus beginning the cycle described above.
Every generation has a variety of issues to contend with, such is life, but the predictions put forth in this thread don't appear to be well grounded at the moment.
Edit (28.09.2008):
Added a missing word.
-
-
At least our generation hasn't had to suffer a draft.
-
What anime have you watched? What games have you played? Would you prefer a unique avatar or one that simply represents a favorite character?
-
Note to self: don't take Metal Arc seriously.I told him you all thought he was an ass.It makes me feel... well I can't describe it.
-
I've never had school spirit, neither for my high school or my university. I have done little to contribute to a school as an entity, and any feats I have accomplished have been for my own satisfaction or in support of my friends. I believe that this perspective is probably very much affected by my inability to understand nationalism (which may or may not be further tied to my being a foreigner). Having pride for anything which one has not notably contributed to strikes me as too much a form of bias for my liking.
-
That would be the case if that use of the word "gay" as a pejorative adjective hadn't been adopted into mainstream slang. Regardless of whether altering or expanding upon the definition of a word makes literal sense, if the word is used by the general public in a new way, then the word's connotations have been amended. In a sense, any commonly understood use of a word is correct by virtue of being used by the general public. This is the case irrespective of small disagreements; if a word can be commonly understood to convey a specific idea then it has been adopted into the language in question by means of an unconscious lingual vote. No one would be forced to use "gay" in the way implied in this discussion (there are alternatives, as you suggested). However, those who do choose to use the word in such a way will expect you, an English speaking individual, to understand what they seek to express.
If use of the word "gay" as used in such a manner becomes enough of a taboo, then its usage will be reduced; that assumes it doesn't become a swear word. Swear words seems to have a special status in that they are very much politically incorrect but perfectly acceptable in a variety of casual environments (including some forums). If the aforementioned suggestions do not come to fruition, then "gay" will probably drop out of favor sometime in the future (as slang frequently does) anyways. Certainly, if a significant number of people oppose the word's usage then this process will be accelerated.
-
I don't know why Tino phrased his post with the tone that he did considering that "then" was not used in the text quoted in the opening post, but what you and he suggest are the same thing. I think you may have misread his post.No, "than" is correct in this case. -
I agree with the points put forth by Lyle Dayek. Implementing a feature like this could easily encourage elitism, something that would most probably degrade the forum. It would act as a means of censorship which defeats the purpose of a discussion board. I think it is preferable to wait for comments of little discernible value to be evaluated by a moderator than to restrict peroples' access to specific topics. Personal matters should hopefully not be too difficult to conduct via private messages or other means.
-
Again I thank you for being an immense help.
-
Ok, I think I'll wait to get a 720p television in Black Friday. I was leaning towards getting a 720p, presumably with an HDMI input, unless they were too expensive (at which point I'd reluctantly go for 480p), but this is clearly not something I'm experienced with. I'm very grateful for your help Doom103 and Meteor; thank you very much.
Are there any particular brands either of you believe to be more reliable than others?, or is brand not so much indicative of quality.
-
My father uses a PS3 as a Blu-ray player for his 1080p television and I can attest that high definition and regular definition look immensely different. Even though PS3 games natively run at 720p, they look much better on my father's television than the regular 480i television my sister uses. It's also much easier to read small text on higher definition televisions. Am I wrong to assume that PS3 games will not look notably worse on a 720p screen than a 1080p screen?
I won't get any high definition cable or satellite signals, the TV will be only for playing games at college, most likely for the next four years.
-
This is a very interesting point. I do not know if you will agree with my proposition or not (please say either way, I do not seek to misrepresent your position), but I think humanity is most unique because humans change their environment to suit them instead of remaining in areas in which they are the most comfortable and well provided for. It is this which has best enabled humans to expand as they have, and to innovate as they have. Other factors are clearly involved but they denote no immensely special characteristics, humans use what they have to survive as does any other species. What I suggested above is what most differentiates humans (not necessarily making them superior, a plague, or whatever one sees in humanity as an entity) from other species.That really means nothing, it's not like we invented those things. Most primates have them, and STILL species of primate become extinct.
In class I once tried to argue the idea that good and evil do not exist, even as perspectives, because someone with relatively complete knowledge of a conflict is able to recognize and appreciate the catalyst for action on both sides. I'm not sure if that exactly matches your position, but I am pleased to have discovered a person who is steadfast in his or her belief that good and evil do not exist. The concepts of good and evil can (and are) used to justify a variety of behavior, but they are not valid when all related things are considered.Maybe first we should dive into good and evil. They don't exist. This is a simple enough concept, but one many people have trouble grasping. Morals are subjective. There is no single act that is always the "right" or "wrong" thing to do, and to be honest, how can you even tell what the "right" or "wrong" thing is? People thought up morals, mainly as a way to protect themselves and manipulate. Laws, contrary to popular opinion, are not based on morals. They are what is best for society. If murder was legal, everyone would kill people they didn't like, which would hardly be efficient or helpful for anyone. Likewise with theft, etc. Some laws are really stupid. Some aren't -
I mostly disagree with this aspect of your post. Words change all the time, it is natural for any living language to evolve over time. Most any English speaker two hundred years ago would be familiar with the words "hot" and "dog," but they would not understand what is meant by the term "hot dog." The now taboo words "bitch" and "bastard" have been adopted into English as conventional insults and are much less frequently used in context of their original definitions; words often pick up additional definitions over time. In Mandarin Chinese, "同志" used to be most equivalent with the English word "comrade" (as a Communist form of address) but it can now be understood to refer to homosexual men.See THAT's what the issue is, the fact people adapt words to improper meanings and just accept it as if it was the way it's supposed to be used.Whether or not this alteration of definitions is disagreeable or insulting is not overtly relevant because it is mainstream society who decides how to use words (this is especially true for English because it lacks a central governing body, an example of which being L'Académie française which tries to dictate proper French). "Their" is a plural pronoun but it has been favored by the masses when the gender of a subject is unclear; "his," "hers," "his or hers," and proposed gender neutral singular pronouns like "hir" have not caught on as much as "their." Just to make sure I'm being clear, I'm referring to sentences such as, "The driver gave their key to the hotel attendant," in which "their" is the word most would use when speaking despite "his" or "her" being more grammatically correct. Academics have been unable to change this pattern of speech since English speakers have, in general, become more conscientious of gender neutrality and some avoid favoring "his" or "her." This is an amusing case because, until the 1800's, "their" was the proper pronoun to use in a sentence such as the one I stated above. Academics tried to standardized "his" because, where there were no formal rules to English, they sought to mandate related rules in Latin; this is why the use of "his" (and recently "her") is supposed to be favored over "their."
People will come up with ways of communicating anything they hope to communicate, and that can include insults and other forms of derogatory language. Because "gay" is used to refer to homosexuals, and equal rights and respects for homosexuals is a matter of concern for some people (I currently live in the United States, I do not know how much of a concern this matter is in other countries), then the use of "gay" as a derogatory adjective may become taboo (the way the Japanese word "家内" has become become a politically incorrect equivalent of "wife" because its characters, which denote 'home' and 'inside,' suggest that one's wife should stay at home). Perhaps "gay" will instead become less frequently used to reference homosexuals (and "homosexual" or "unstraight" could become the most adopted norm); who knows? At the moment, "gay" is widespread enough that most people below a threshold age are expected to understand its connotations as slang. You and I can choose not to use the word in such a manner, but the word may very well shift to becoming more an insult than anything else (a reference to homosexuals being included in that anything else).
Living languages are not static; they change and adapt as society needs or expects them to. With as widespread a language as English, suggestions of what are and aren't valid changes cannot be enforced by anyone except for the general public. In twenty years, "gay" may very well not be used to refer to those who are homosexual.
-
I think humanity and civilization as a whole have been amazingly successful thus far despite huge rifts in personal opinion and cultural bias. 13% of people see the world their own way, 95% of people allow society to mold their perspective, and 67% of generalizations regarding other people are made up on the spot with incomplete information.
-
It is very difficult to judge one's knowledge and intelligence on-line. Gay and fagot are often used colloquially in jest or as insults. Languages change all the time and English is especially notable for its vast array words with multiple definitions. His responses, if represented accurately, appear immature, but thy don't necessarily mean that your friend is ignorant or stupid. A number of people with whom I communicate on various forums neglect standardized spelling, punctuation, and grammar, or react to provocations differently than I would, but from previous discussions and experience with their writing I know that they some of them are much cleverer than I am.
As a broad example topic, some theists and atheists look down on each other for supporting views they respectively believe to be ridiculous or fallacious. To assume a person from a different camp of thought is ignorant or blind because of their perspective is unfruitful. Stereotyping a person in such a way completely neglects his or her individual merits; there are educated and uneducated theists and atheists both. In the same vein, some people choose to use language less strictly than others, whether for personal preference, typing speed, familiarity with those with whom the person is communicating, or because of the environment in which they were raised.
One cannot obtain a solid understanding of a person from his or her behavior on-line, and I think it's too presumptuous to label others as ignorant or unintelligent because of it. It could very well have been your attempt to educate him that inspired an angry retaliation, most people know how to define the word gay and he may have felt insulted. He may have been angry that your post implied that you believe you are his intellectual superior and he wasn't going to bother trying to argue you out of that perceived mindset. He may have been playing around for his own amusement and does not have a personal care for forum discussions. There are many viable explanations, none of which one can automatically assume to be true.
Whether or not anyone here finds it agreeable, the word gay now has an additional connotation, as happened when the word was expanded to describe homosexuals. It is an individuals choice whether or not to use the word as such (I personally do not, and evidently some of you do not either), but not everyone who doesn't uphold your preferred manner of writing is intellectually inferior.
-
Is it not worth going for a TV with 720p? Very few PS3 games support 1080p and I don't expect to buy many Blu-ray format movies while at university.
-
I believe you are mistaken in correcting my statement about Linux servers. 'Commonly' was perhaps not the best choice of word because it implies a majority, 'respectable' might fit better. A respectable percentage of servers implement Linux (as do a disproportionately large percentage of super computers, but that does not directly pertain to the topic at hand). Linux's popularity is in no way evaporating.
You refer to personal experiences and I refer to perceived generalizations, our arguments are too discordant in scope. It is perfectly reasonable for you to choose a more popular operating system over one that is incompatible with the programs you are familiar with, but that does not mean that your choice is inherently superior. The GameCube had the lowest market share of its generation (I am clearly ignoring the Dreamcast because Sega withdrew from the market) and had a reduced amount of software available for it, but that it was not inferior or unwanted.
Linux was first developed by a college student unaffiliated with the Unix brand. It was inspired by Unix, as you stated, but Linux was not developed by the people who developed Unix.
-
I will probably use TV speakers and headphones (not at the same time). My dorm room is very small and my room-mate does all of his homework in the room, so I don't think it would be worth my investing in speakers.
-
Linux, and it's multitude of derived distributions, is free because it was founded as, and remains, an open source project. Firefox was founded with that same philosophy. Linux is not a low quality operating system. Linux users know that they will not be able to run some programs without emulators or resorting to a similar alternatives, but there exists strong community support for making viable options available. Linux most certainly has its own merits (for example, servers commonly use Linux).Linux is free because it's a LOW quality OS.As I stated before, it's the people BUILDING the COMPUTER. Not Microsoft. Faulty parts = inability to run Vista PROPERLY.
Many people are averse to Vista because of its lack of reliable backwards compatibility, its noticeable system requirements, and its reduced access to security settings and other internal aspects of the computer. Driver compatibility is blotchy in Vista. Because it is more taxing on the computer's hardware, Vista runs programs slower than XP. The level of expected backwards compatibility with programs written for XP is not met by Vista, and the user has less control over how the computer operates than XP allowed for. Ultimately, Vista is comparatively slow and not as capable as was originally expected.
-
Yeah, I'll make sure to check that.
Thanks for your help, both of you.
-
Ok, neat. Should I try to come up with a list of specific models? Would you recommend I go to a store location or should I spam F5 on a retailer's website come Black Friday?
I decided what I'm going to name my kid.
in Far from the Forest...
Posted · Edited by Wist
Ah, but if your wife for some inconceivable reason finds naming her child after a video game entity disagreeable, you can tell her the name refers to "an electro-optically guided U.S. air-to-ground tactical missile for destroying tanks and other hardened targets at ranges up to 15 mi. (24 km)."
Edit (29.09.2008)
Fixed a grammatical oversight.