To be fair, the only reason I would use encryption on my own initiative is "keep your fucking noses out of my private life and my reasons for that are none of your concern."
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
Or, to put a different spin on what you said, is the money spent on counter-terrorism the most cost effective way of minimizing death of any kind? Could the spending be deployed in different endeavours that would outweigh the lives saved from terrorism? (Not that we have a lot of proof it saves any lives at all from terrorism).
(blushes) uh... believable, not beleivable!
Plenty of languages routinely use double negatives as ways of reinforcing the negative. English should be able to adapt to this too, without ambiguity. And in fact it does.
Find me a beleivable argument for interpreting "I ain't gonna work on Maggie's farm no more" as "I'm gonna keep on working on Maggie's farm".
The English most of the world learns is called EFL. There is a profession called TOEFL, a subject called TEFL, translations intended for non-native speakers are often required to be in EFL.
EFL is neither EN_US nor EN_UK. It's "English as a foreign language". Listen to a teacher speaking EFL and you'll see what I mean.
The problem with the subjunctive in English is that although the mood clearly exists, only a very tiny number of verbs are capable of explicitly expressing it outside of the third person singular form. And since these days we don't use constructions like "I want that he come", even that form seldom gets used.
To most English speakers, therefore, the subjunctive exists only in the subconscious. They aren't linguists and they have better things to do. In such a context, "If I were" will quite justifiably go the way of the dodo.
The GP did not say American English was wrong. He (or she) said Americans were lazy and uneducated. "Their", "there" and "they're" are identical both sides of the pond.
I'm not saying I agree with him because I see a lot of the same sloppy writing on UK-only forums.
By the way would you mind providing a link to the recordings of 17th century English you based your remarks on.
Shouldn't that be "one of them rare times"?
Yes, but who owns CEA, the 54.37% shareholder? (Clue CEA = Atomic Energy Commision.)
"The government of France, the world's most nuclear dependent country, has a 29% stake in Areva"
Not according to Areva it hasn't.
"Today, public sector holdings (CEA, the French state and CDC) of group capital has risen close to 87%. 4% of AREVA’s share capital is float."
The French have a peculiar way of privatizing stuff. It sort of looks like the companies are private, but the state still ultimately owns them. And all these "private" companies are acting like global players. The problem is whose money are they playing with?
Congratulations Sir or Madam. You seem to be the only one who noticed that detail.
Or so says Neil Gaiman, at which point one of my favourite authors lost all respect I had for him. What I say is call me back when it's finished.
GRR Martin is taking the piss. He took the piss with a Feast for Crows, among the dullest fantasy books I've ever read. He took the piss when he forgot about the readers for five years to go for the TV money. He is taking the piss trying to fool us into believing he knows where this story is heading.
A Song of Ice and Fire is a totally worthless work with no ounce of merit. Fuck you, Martin.
The problem is they can't say your prophet sucks if you don't have one. Maybe non-believers should keep a six-pack of prophets handy so the squabble can be settled verbally instead of with Kalashnikovs.
It's a bit harsh burning the UK just for being submissive, like.
Don't use that word Blair!