Apologies.

Sorry, didn't read your reply well, so I find that I was addressing a straw man. But it seems the point stands: They are still true possessives, contra mcgrew who appears to have been taking issue with Scalawag's calling them possessives.

For many words the OE genitive ending is -es, which in Modern English becomes 's.
Old English did have genitives that did not use -es. So the fact that 'his' and 'her' didn't evolve from -es (note that 'its' did so evolve at least in a sense) is irrelevant. Look up the etymologies of his, her, their, your: All of them came from genitives whether they ended in -es or not.
Moreover the etymology is hardly the issue: In Modern English--and by Modern I mean from say 1600--these words are unquestionably and universally treated grammatically as possessive genitives.
So again, what is not "true" about them?

Pretty sure they are possessive adjectives. What isn't "true" about them?

From your second link:

Okay, I'm confused, polarization works with glasses because the two lenses have different polarities, so each eye gets the correct image. The polarization is just used as a filter. How does polarizing the light at the source (without the glasses) get us to 3-d? Unless of course the panel is some fixed distance front and center of the viewer, so it can direct the correct image to th correct eye, and so is effectively acting as a set of glasses that you don't have to wear.

what does COW have to do with knowing your data got committed?

Yes but, assuming I'm following this, very little real desktop stress is created in a neat little TTY.
For most desktop users really high load is caused by X programs that don't run in a tty. (run ps -A and see how may ?'s are in the second column)
The real solution to better desktop performance is
A)to make X a little less network transparent so it will reliably report PIDs to the window manager (at least for apps running locally, which for most people is all of them, and moreover even if there are some running on a foreign host, they won't be the ones to bring the local machine to its knees). ATM you have to rely on the _NET_WM_PID atom which is entirely voluntary, and some major--both in terms of users and memory footprint--programs don't set it (OOo).
And B) make it so that users can renice their own apps to lower values, as long as it follows some policy, e.g., a normal user can't set his processes' nice value below 0. There is no reason I can think of for a blind only-root-can-ever-lower-the-nice-value-on-any-process policy.
If we did these two things, then the window manger--which actually has the information about what window and process needs to be responsive (i.e., the one with focus) and which don't (i.e., ones that are unmapped/minimized/on-other-desktops)--could dynamically alter scheduling priority in an intelligent way instead of the kernel trying to guess what is interactive and needs low latency and what isn't.

Is it?

really?

I thought he was trying to say, 'The smallest fonts in the wold exist.'
Of course I was left wondering why anyone would need to say this, unless of course he was simply expressing, in an extremely round-about way, that some font exists.

Only slightly on topic, but I split my side when I read this at wikipedia:

Do you understand how laws get passed in the US? The legislature is made up of two chambers: the House and the Senate; a Bill must pass in each of them and then it has to be signed by the president.
Thus controlling either the House, or the Senate, or the White House is enough to stop a Bill from becoming law. In fact, you only need 2/3rds to stop a bill on procedure in the senate.
If the Republicans act as a whole, they can stop every last bill in Congress right where it is (not only do they control the House, they also have more than enough in the Senate to fillibuster.)
The only reason republicans need to do what the Democrats want is if the Republicans are trying to get something done on their own and thus need to gain some Democratic support.
Unless of course what you are calling crap is the whole US system of legislating.

citation?

Interesting, I always thought 'triangulation' referred to tirlateration.

Isn't that basically how all the TOS's on major sites work? By using this site/service you agree to the following.