Your comments remind me of the Microsoft Kin commercial I watched to understand the following statement: "You have to admire a marketing strategy that takes a product made for idiots, and then essentially tells those idiots that they are idiots." This was posted on this site in a thread connected to the article about Microsoft cutting Kin support after only 45 days, but I can't remember by whom, just that I felt it was worth saving.

Posting this a third time to correct the accidental run-on paragraph (why doesn't HTML recognize carriage returns by default?):

Good comments. I'm sorry to see so many derisive comments about your one mistake, so I thought I'd give you a few tips on the proper use of the pronoun 'who' Hope this helps.

Who is the subject form (i.e. We think this is a person who may be involved in the scandal).

Whom is the object form (i.e. This list is of people whom we believe may be involved in the scandal).

Whose is the possessive form (i.e. We received this list from an informant whose research brought this scandal to light).

Who's is a contraction (used interchangeably for Who is or Who was).

Hope this helps clear a few things up in the future (and don't worry too much, the various forms of who are commonly misused by adult native speakers, likely including many of those who've posted responses to you, and I, myself, am not perfect in this regard either).

Posting this again to correct the accidental run-on paragraph: Good comments. I'm sorry to see so many derisive comments about your one mistake, so I thought I'd give you a few tips on the proper use of the pronoun 'who' Hope this helps. Who is the subject form (i.e. We think this is a person who may be involved in the scandal). Whom is the object form (i.e. This list is of people whom we believe may be involved in the scandal). Whose is the possessive form (i.e. We received this list from an informant whose research brought this scandal to light). Who's is a contraction (used interchangeably for Who is or Who was). Hope this helps clear a few things up in the future (and don't worry too much, the various forms of who are commonly misused by adult native speakers, likely including many of those who've posted responses to you, and I, myself, am not perfect in this regard either).

Good comments. I'm sorry to see so many derisive comments about your one mistake, so I thought I'd give you a few tips on the proper use of the pronoun 'who' Hope this helps. Who is the subject form (i.e. We think this is a person who may be involved in the scandal). Whom is the object form (i.e. This list is of people whom we believe may be involved in the scandal). Whose is the possessive form (i.e. We received this list from an informant whose research brought this scandal to light). Who's is a contraction (used interchangeably for Who is or Who was). Hope this helps clear a few things up in the future (and don't worry too much, the various forms of who are commonly misused by adult native speakers, likely including many of those who've posted responses to you, and I, myself, am not perfect in this regard either).

I know exactly what you mean. Furthermore, I received an invite from Facebook from a new user who did not send me the invite himself; I found out about this after he responded to my reply. Then Facebook began spamming me with "reminders" until I blackballed them through Google. As for those whom Facebook suggested I "may know" I remember at least one false positive. Nevertheless, I'm personally boycotting Facebook for this BS, and passing the word on.

This isn't for a 3D engine, and it's bitmap based, not vector based. I know it's not novel, but my graphics system will be based more on old NES/SNES bitmap technology, where a near infinite number of multicolor palettes can be applied to a single graphic image, just with far greater flexibility.

You have to know these things when you're a king.

Well stated. I'm working on making one of my game projects potentially compatible with higher resolution DPI than is presently available; sure, getting that to work properly will be a great deal of work, but since I'm designing the graphic system to be a separate component, I shouldn't need to worry about changing the core elements of other parts of the engine.

Actually, unless you're somehow using a bridge rectifier with a much smaller voltage drop across the individual diodes, you're using 1.4V(two diodes on a bridge are always in use, so that's double the voltage drop), or pretty much all the energy supplied of the battery if it's alkaline, and more than the total if it's anything else. Other than that, you are absolutely correct.

For D, C, AA, AAA and N batteries, there really isn't a need for more wires, just a slightly more complicated connector for each cell, which would not necessarily require more space and must be aligned plus to minus, so one end's plus and the other end's minus are connected to the power for the circuit itself. Lithium batteries, however, would have to use a different circuit design for this type of scheme, which wouldn't necessarily require more wiring, but would need to require each battery to have its own seat. I'll agree with you about not being compelling for anything that permits multiple batteries in the same seat.

In high school there was a small group of miscreants who took the phrase "To boldly go where no man has gone before" to new depths of depravity.

That's why there's a toilet on the ceiling in the bathroom. My brother said this one time after I modified the Star Trek opening in relation to our family's then 1978 Plymouth Voyager van.

Minor correction; the state of your self reply was +5 when I replied. I'm not sure why I wrote initial in place of that.

I did note the initial state of your self reply, but I still couldn't comprehend the justification concerning your original post. At least the Mods didn't penalize me for calling them out (particularly considering my relatively high UID). I do agree with your opinion on the moderation system; I was merely objecting to the abuse of the system, not that many mods will likely see it, considering the lateness of my reply. Even if my post is little read, hopefully it affects the few who actually do read it to be more careful. Fortunately, I did not immediately dismiss your thoughts just because they had been unfairly criticized. And thanks for the history of the moderation.

Well stated. A good part of the reason people don't understand what the Children of Israel did in taking over what was then called the land of Canaan is caused by a lack of understanding of Canaan religious rites (which often involved, among other things, slaughtering children on their altars). Without understanding the culture of the Israelites at the time, we cannot fairly judge their actions.

Furthermore, the Israelites had nothing to do with the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, which took place well over a century before the Mosaic exodus (and the beginning of the Kingdom of Israel), and long before the birth of Jacob (who is called Israel). I don't claim to know exactly what happened, but from what the biblical record states, I believe it may have had something to do with a natural disaster, such as a volcanic eruption.

Irregardless of these facts, there have been thousands who have misused the basic precepts of Christianity since its inception, and they should be individually condemned without condemning the teachings they misused, but unfortunately, the teachings are generally castigated first.

(Score:0, Troll)

I cannot see any justification for this; I see no attempt in these comments to troll anyone, merely to lay out a viable explanation to support Mr. Ormandy, finishing with a logical summary of the argument. I'm tempted to meta-mod in hopes of correcting this travesty (though having commented, I'm not likely to be given the opportunity). I see this kind of thing far too often. As several sigs point out, -1 disagree does not exist for a very good reason. Moderation is intended to punish those who are deliberately uncivil or abusive with their comments. -1 Troll, -1 Flamebait, and -1 Overrated are not, and never will be, acceptable substitutes.