Bingo. What he did was legal. Wrong, but legal.

Of course, having seen pictures of him closer to the end of his life, it's entirely possible he might have qualified for a handicapped space by then, so maybe just like "you are what you eat", he "was where he parked"?

Agreed.

Obligatory: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

I didn't call you a crazy spammer. I said you looked like one with the way you formatted your post, and I stand by that claim. You're welcome to disagree or disregard what I've said.

As for your points, I already said I agreed with all of them...

And I really did dismiss your original post as a spam post, just based on the way it was presented. It really wasn't until your second post that I realized you weren't a spammer. Whether you believe that or not is entirely your choice, but it is the truth. Take it into account or don't. It's just an anecdote, after all.

So, basically, "proper English" doesn't exist because $standard_descriptivist_summary. All the prescriptivists are wrong.

I don't understand the value in publishing an article that presents the topic as it does. It's a standard descriptivist argument being presented by someone who—at least from the summary—seems to be blissfully unaware that they were not the first person to think of it and is under the misconception that simply presenting the idea will convince all of us of its merit. Never mind that prescriptivists and descriptivists have been arguing about language since before any of us were born. What next? Are they going to tell us to stop quibbling over what's right or wrong because relativism is a thing? Perhaps suggest everyone convert to Judaism as a means for achieving peace in the Middle East? Tell us that because OS X exists, malware isn't a problem? Toss in a postscript with a pick for vi while they're at it, just to rankle some more people for fun?

It's a waste of everyone's time to suggest that a matter is closed just because someone can trot out the standard lines espoused by one side.

That wasn't intended to be antagonistic towards you, though I can certainly see how it would be taken that way since it was expressed rather rudely of me, so I do apologize for that. What I was trying to convey is that you're undermining your own arguments with your style of posting. It was your way of expressing your idea that I took issue with, not you.

When I saw your original response to me, I read a few of the bolded phrases and came to the incorrect determination that it was a spam post from one of the numerous spammers Slashdot has. It wasn't until your second post that I realized you were a normal person who was actually trying to make a point. That's why I said it looked like it was from a crazy spammer. I continue to stand by what I said (though not the way I said it), since I still believe that your formatting is undercutting the message you're seeking to convey to others.

The reason why I referred to you as being antagonistic towards me is because of things like your continued use of "boy" as a derisive term aimed my way, as well as a case or two where you've chosen to engage in baseless ad hominem attacks against me.

Animals from a particular pedigree may be "natural-born", but they are oftentimes unnaturally selected, in many cases without regard for the long-term health of the animal or its offspring. They're bred for certain traits that make them desirable, whether that be an ability to run fast, a thick and luxurious coat, or the way that their ears lay, but the end result of artificially selecting them based on those traits can mean that deleterious traits are passed along as well, rather than being culled through natural selection.

Modern breeders are more aware of the issues surrounding breeding and a good number have been taking better steps to avoid some of those issues, but other breeders continue to push things to the extreme in an effort to produce "ideal" creatures for a given task or scenario, whether it be a show dog or a race horse.

As such, while cloning can certainly lead to issues, those problems are slowly being eliminated as techniques improve and we understand the science better. In contrast, the very nature of artificially selecting leads to undesirable consequences that can only be mitigated, rather than eliminated.

That's a contributing factor, and is largely responsible for the sudden spike in the last few days, but I pointed out the British pound as well to illustrate that it's strong in general, rather than just strong against the Euro due to the stuff happening in Europe right now.

But yes, you're quite correct that the USD came on strong against the Euro in the last few days because of that stuff. Even so, it was already gaining at a steady pace, and was set to reach parity sometime late this year. The changes in the last little bit just moved that time table forward a few months.

To me, this was never a debate at all, since we're on the same side: people should be using hosts, and tools like the one you make are beneficial in helping people to use hosts more easily.

I'm just sad you haven't realized we're on the same side yet and have continued resorting to antagonistic approaches towards me. I mean, what would I "EVER try" again: telling people to ditch AdBlock because it's inferior to alternatives? Because that's what started this whole discussion.

Or maybe they just realized it was a good time to do so. The USD is at a 12-year high against the Euro right now (the two are nearing parity), and a 5-year high against the British pound. The American economy has been on a major upswing in the last few years, outpacing the international community, so suggesting America's economy is in a position of weakness at the moment is outright false, suggesting the dollar is worthless is provably inaccurate, but suggesting stuff may go down soon could prove to be true. It remains to be seen. None of us know.

Not so fast. The IRS has something to say about this topic, since they draw a distinction between for-profit businesses and hobbies that happen to make a profit. Just because his videos are theoretically monetized (he has yet to actually receive any money), doesn't mean that they are a commercial venture. Given that he's operating at a loss (e.g. equipment, time, and travel costs), and that he doesn't seem to have any plans to turn things around or live off the $0 he's made so far, it's more likely that his activities constitute nothing more than a harmless hobby and wouldn't be subject to any of the regulations surrounding commercial activities.

Or, at least that's what the government organization in charge of making those distinctions seems to be saying, but if the government organization in charge of regulating airplanes thinks differently, who am I to disagree? I'll let them sort it out, since if he is engaged in commercial activities, he can itemize those expenses and write them off as business deductions.

That's a fair assessment. I would point out that, as I've already acknowledged elsewhere, I overgeneralized a bit.

I readily acknowledge that there are multiple causes for depression, some of them purely psychological and others of them due to chemical imbalances or other characteristics at the physiological level. A placebo is unlikely to do much of anything if someone is suffering from a chemical imbalance.

Again, I agree with you that I am rather ignorant on the subject, but I have had multiple friends suffer from depression, some due to unexplained and radical changes in their neurochemistry, others due to psychological factors, so I am sympathetic to those suffering from it, even if I am ignorant. But I made my statements with this article from a few years back in mind, just so that you know where my head was at when I made that post.

Except that they weren't my words. I can speak for myself.

Sure I could...once I understood that that's what you were asking, but it took two or three posts before I even understood what you wanted. Once I did, I realized I had miscommunicated earlier, so I clarified what I had said.

I did not say it only worked on some. In my very first response I even listed hosts' ability to work across browsers and services as one of its major benefits.

My only claim regarding browser-specific functionality was related to features that hosts doesn't even try to do, such as the specific content blocking that Opera supports. I said that addons are useful to people who want those features, since hosts don't provide them, and not everyone uses a browser that has them built in.

I neither deny it nor accept it. To me, it's like saying that a car does more than a computer...maybe it's true, but how would we objectively measure that? A list of features is a subjective metric.

I will agree with you, however, just as I have from my very first response, that where their features overlap, hosts is more efficient.

P.S. I don't know if I've ever been asked to defend so many things I didn't say. Just to make it clear where I have been standing all along...
1) Where their features overlap, hosts is more efficient than addons.

2) Hosts does things addons don't do, and addons do things hosts doesn't do.

3) Hosts works across all browsers and services, addons don't.

4) Addons are easier to maintain and use than hosts.

1-3 are readily apparent facts, so I'm confused why we haven't reached agreement, and #4 is a matter of opinion.

No disagreement from me, and that's a great clarification. I did overgeneralize a bit with that statement, so thanks for catching it and setting it straight.

True, though in some cases, reporting you feel better is the same as actually BEING better. Antidepressants, for instance.

Either way, I agree with your premise. Just because something happens after taking a "cure" does not mean that the "cure" caused the effect. In this case, it's likely the subject's belief in the "cure" that's causing the effects to occur, rather than the "cure" itself. That said, I might be okay with doctors charging $100/pill for placebos if the high cost managed to convince a patient it could work, so long as they didn't try the trick in cases where the patient was at risk and they refunded the patient afterwards if it didn't work. ;)