I have always found their hardware to be of much better quality than their software. Their software is not as bad as a lot of people say but I prefer OSX etc. I have had several M$ mice and keyboards in the past and have been very happy with them.
For someone that already has XP, the cost has already been paid and there is no future cost. If you try to force such a user to upgrade they will quite understandably object. Very few people who are being coerced feel a loyalty to the person (or company) that is coercing them and would rather go down the market and get a copy...
They won enough to get in the best situation to get a favourable settlement. They were never going to win.
You know, some of us remember driving cars that didn't have airbags, antilock brakes, traction control, rear view cameras, auto felch, auto transmission, etc.
I was following you until I got to auto felch...
They are allowed to become president...
You know, this started off with a one liner, and then you brought Gene Ray into this as almost a pseudo-Godwin. It's clear you feel strongly about begging the question, so beg away.
Got me there on the punctuation inside/outside the quotes. My fingers trip me up on that one, as I'm a programmer. In most programs, you want the punctuation outside, and in most typeset environments, you want it inside. Mea culpa and big whup.
I'm personally not all that much of a prescriptivist. For example, I think the rules around "whom" and "comprise" were invented to give certain anal retentive sorts their own perverse set of jollies. I'm a big fan of the singular they as well. And sure, many style guides likely have a problem with singular they.
My point isn't that I live and die by style guides because I consider them the be-all and end-all of language. My point is that nobody reputable stands up for Gene Ray, so comparing my observation of misused English to Gene's bizarro rants is not a valid comparison. Rather, it smacks of a straw man argument bordering on an ad hominem attack.
In contrast, you can find many, many reputable sources that stand up for the fact that "beg the question" does not mean "raise the question," just as "irregardless" has never been a valid English word. (Some begrudginly do recognize the common misuse of the phrase in modern English.) Show me someone, anyone reputable backing up Gene Ray. Even if you disagree with all of those resources, you can do so from a different standpoint than "You're entitled to your position just as Gene Ray is." (I realize that wasn't your argument, but it is the main thing I was objecting to.)
If all you have to do to shut down someone you disagree with is compare their opinions to Gene Ray's absurd rants, well then, arguments can be very short indeed. Do we need a new variant of Godwin's Law here?
Comparing me to Gene Ray is a "nice knock-down argument"? You have some mighty low standards. I don't think anyone reputable has gone in print defending Gene, but just about any style guide you can point to that mentions "beg the question" tells you not to use it to mean "raise the question."
But, thanks for playing.
English is not context-free. Begging the question, for example, is an expression with multiple meanings, the correct one of which must be deduced from said context.
Sure, but that's irrelevant. That's how most people make sense of other people who are otherwise not making sense. "Begging the question" has never (correctly) meant "raising the question." Next you'll tell me "I could care less" means "I couldn't care less." Oh, "but context!" is a cheap, meaningless argument.
But hey, feel free to take it up with any of these other folks:
* Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage. If you misuse it in court, I'd love to see you say "But context, your Honor! And for my next argument, I'm going argue about what the meaning of the word 'is' is."
* Zoe Triska: "In the long run, misusing phrases like 'begging the question' doesn't make you sound smarter. It makes you sound dumber."
* The New York Times, which felt the need to come clean on their occasional abuses of the phrase.
Where were we? Oh yeah, context. Sure, from the context surrounding the phrase, everyone will be able to figure out what you meant. And a good fraction of them will know you're using it incorrectly and think less of you for it. As Zoe said above "In the long run
Knock yourself out. I could of gone on irregardless, but I could care less. I won't wait with baited breath for your reply, because for all intensive purposes I'm done. (Context: See how dumb misused English sounds?)
Back to the topic at hand:
But even if you overcame that problem, the light would still be bouncing between the walls of the core, and thus traveling a longer distance than the mere length of the fiber.
That's true, especially for multi-mode fiber. For single mode fiber, the fiber plus cladding act more like a wave guide, because the diameter of the fiber is small relative to the wavelength of the light.
I don't claim to be an expert though. I've just been reading up online.
In any case, the mere fact you have to bend the fiber optics at all implies the light contained therein isn't going in a straight line between repeaters.
Linux is not crap on the desktop in any way, it is crap as a games platform. Not everyone (OK the majority but still not everyone) wants to play games all the time. Some people actually want to have a reliable work platform and for that, Windows is crap.
Raises the question, maybe, but it certainly does not beg the question.
In any case, the speed of light in fiber optics is dominated by the glass or plastic, not any air that might be somehow still be in the fiber. So far as I know, that quantity is zero or close enough at least. For fiber optics to work, you need total internal reflection. To get total internal reflection over a decent range of angles (so that you can actually bend your fiber optic cable), you needs a sufficiently high index of refraction. It turns out that the higher the index of refraction, the slower the speed of light in the medium.
Apart from the obvious mistake regarding the book being written prior to the medical condition in question, are you honestly suggesting that the DHS can read?
Yes, I speak English, the problem is that I do not understand all that bollox.
but yes, I do take your point that if it is a war, then it is still ongoing. Except that those that were not part of the war are still there as well as the soldiers that we lied to.
The Taliban, the government that we overthrew, still have offices, still exist, are still there to talk to, and will take over again as soon as we leave, and we will leave one day. There is no option. I do not like to get into these discussions because I do not like to defend the Taliban. I oppose all they stand for but we invaded their country and they defended bravely. I hope that I would be as brave if my country was invaded. We then dropped leaflets that said "if you surrender, you will be sent home". And those that were stupid enough to surrender were sent to Guantanamo along with lots of other poor unfortunates who got sold out because the CIA offered bounties to anyone that could inform on a terrorist, so every bent policeman in Yemen and Pakistan etc. gave the name of someone they did not like and received $1000.