Sounds like my case. Increasing couldn't get wear contacts any more without problems, hated all of the problems of glasses, was scared of the surgery... and it was just nothing. Seriously, how can instantly improved vision not be at the top of your to-do list?
You've got your period and comma keycaps swapped. Or you're European, I guess. Either way, it doesn't make sense to write numbers that way.
Legacy Systems are built with 40 years of code and modifications to meet every requirement the user needs.
Then you have 5 years to build something new and try to catch 40 years worth of rules and logic.
I don't hate the Flat UI style. But for Microsoft and Apple to adopt it is not really their thing.
Google has always had the flat style, it was their thing.
With Microsoft and Apple doing it it makes them look like they are a cheap rip off.
Apple did start to go a little too far in the 3d thing. I think when they made the Dock background 3d perspective.
Microsoft in Windows 7 had a good balance.
Now I argue to anyone who is thinking about skipping a degree to go straight to work is a bad idea. Because your job even with a 2 year degree will tend to have your career max out rather quickly.
But in terms of getting a job if you graduate with a 2 year degree or a 4 year degree you will tend to start out with the same types of jobs. So if you are not ambitious in moving up the food chain you can get a good job without the hassle of extra college education.
And still in most institutions you will be able to work up if you can prove yourself. However the degree is an extra tool in your life box to help you out.
A degree is really just a piece of paper stated that you have done some stuff at an acceptable level. You could have done this stuff without having someone grade you. But that paper still helps.
Only someone as arrogant as you would claim themselves as a source.
Only someone who doesn't understand language would assert that I am not a source. Everyone who uses language is a source of meaning of that language. That's how our language actually works.
We both know you're wrong
We both know you're lying, because I quoted other sources agreeing with me, and you pretend I didn't, just like you pretend I didn't reference Madison in regards to "democracy."
Without a common source on the meaning of words, how do words have meanings at all? You can argue for a different source - and I have noticed that you have not yet done so
Actually, in fact, I did. I was very explicit. You just don't understand language, so you missed it. But because I am so generous, here it is again: common usage. That determines the meaning of all words. We can be prescriptive in a given context -- for example, "organic" has a specific legal definition when applied to food for sale -- but generally, we simply have to go with how words are commonly used. We use dictionaries to discover common usage if we don't know it, but not to prescribe it.
the dictionary is a generally agreed-upon source for the meanings of words
Not by anyone who understands language or dictionaries, no, it's not. Even Wikipedia says you are full of shit: "Large 20th-century dictionaries such as the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) and Webster's Third are descriptive, and attempt to describe the actual use of words. Most dictionaries of English now apply the descriptive method to a word's definition
You have not yet however demonstrated your interesting alternate use of the word "democracy" to be used by anyone other than yourself
You're a liar, of course: I referenced a very important person in the history of the word: James Madison himself. And it's not an "alternative," it's the original meaning. The original use of the word "democracy" was in reference to Athens, where all citizens collectively made all legislative decisions. You're just being completely idiotic, as usual.
I see that you didn't bother to present that definition.
I presumed you were capable of taking your URL and replacing "democracy" with "socialism". My bad.
you openly despise the dictionary
You're a liar. I simply use dictionaries properly, and criticize their improper usage. Using a dictionary to settle a discussion about the proper meaning of a word is obviously stupid, if you understand that dictionaries are descriptive, and therefore prone to error. Even without understanding how dictionaries work, the fact that we have many English dictionaries with sometimes conflicting definitions should clue you in to the fact that you can't use one dictionary to settle the discussion.
It appears to be - again - you versus the dictionary.
Once again, you do not know how dictionaries work: they do not prescribe definitions, telling us what words must mean; they merely describe how words are commonly used. Dictionary authors are reporters, not dictators. And if we identify common usage that is not captured by the dictionary definition, that is proof that the dictionary is wrong or incomplete. Further, if we can identify common usage, we literally have no need for a dictionary at that point, because it would at best be redundant, and at worst mislead the less-educated among us who have been tricked into thinking that dictionaries are authoritative.
And too bad you didn't look at that same dictionary for "socialism," because under that entry, you see definitions that well-describe the Soviet and Chinese regimes of the 20th century that you say are not socialist. So by your own logic, you proved yourself wrong.
Do you ever tire of being a tool?
Democracy is people voting for their leaders.
False. In fact, "democracy" means people making decisions collectively. As Publius wrote in Federalist 10, it's a society of people assembling and administering the government in person. For example, in Massachusetts, the residents, at a town meeting can pass any rules they wish for the town (subject to state and federal law, etc.). That's, arguably, actual democracy. But voting for your leaders is not. We call it "representative democracy," to highlight the fact that we're collectively voting for people to make decisions for us, but that's not a "type" of democracy, it's actually a different thing. We have small pieces of democracy -- town meetings, voter initiatives, and so on -- but not much of it.
You can make an argument for their being different degrees of democracy, but there are plenty of democracies in this world including the country you currently live in (unless you finally moved away from the USA).
Only in the exact same sense that there are different degrees of socialism, and there are plenty of socialist regimes in this world.
In other words your attempt to make an argument on "True Socialism" : "True Democracy" is completely without merit
It only seems that way to morons like you. Really.
For someone who likes to bitch incessantly about politics, your knowledge is sorely lacking.
Literally no one agrees with you on this, no matter their opinions of my beliefs. I don't even believe you believe this. I can tell you're trying to hurt my ego, but you'll have as much luck doing so by attacking my intelligence and knowledge as you would for calling me short or hairless.
unless you really though insurance costs would not skyrocket for the new services they provide
Competition lowers costs, not monopolies.
I cite every hellhole third world country in the world as my reference, where this is exactly what happens, with few exceptions
You're citing examples of corrupt governments as reasons why we need to have corrupt governments.
You have an extremely poor understanding of how power works.
Every week you give another example of where you ignore some of His' teachings in favor of others.
As someone who takes the Gospel more seriously than pretty much anything else, I have to ask for specifics on where you think I'm off course.
Just as I cannot force you to read what I write, I cannot force you to read what you write, either.
Translation: "crap, you caught me in a lie again, so I'll just lie some more and pretend that I wrote it and you just ignored/missed it."
Of course, this is the same idiot who lied about Democracy being responsible for more deaths than Socialism, even though the essentially socialist regimes Soviets and Chinese in the 20th century killed many times more than all democracies put together. Right, right, they aren't True Socialists. Well, there's never been a True Democracy either -- thankfully -- so it's a dishonest claim no matter how you slice it.
Not that we're surprised.
If you truly believe this is the problem, then you clearly have never tried to run a business in that market.
Incorrect assumption. Been there, done that, got the business cards of half the executive branch.
The story I read before this one was about a malaria vaccine that was developed in the early 90's, was known to be effective by '97, and has been awaiting approval since then, while ten million people died from the disease.
Really, though, it was only ten million families who had to lose their loved ones - that's a small price to pay for the paperwork being in order.
Who was the sad f*ck who decided to make up a confusing three letter acronym for Ebola?
But "ebola" has three syllables and "EVD" only has three.