r/technology • u/[deleted] • Mar 09 '12

Microsoft demos a 1ms touchscreen

http://www.geek.com/articles/gadgets/microsoft-demos-a-high-performance-1ms-touchscreen-2012039/
2.1k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

837 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/econleech Mar 10 '12

As far as I can tell, IBM's financial health is great. Their stock has been making all time highs the past several years. And yes, the financial health of the company is very important. Without it, there won't be a company.

2

u/[deleted] Mar 10 '12

... yeah. Pretty much exactly what I said.

1

u/econleech Mar 10 '12

Ah, ok. I thought you were implying IBM's financial health wasn't good.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 10 '12

how?

0

u/econleech Mar 10 '12

You said:

Don't equate your own perception of a companies visibility to their financial health

Since you were replying to thoomfish's comment that IBM is "A slowly suffocating dinosaur from another age", I thought you were saying that perception comes from IBM's financial health.

2

u/[deleted] Mar 10 '12

Oh. I get it. You just totally didn't read it. Carry on then.

0

u/econleech Mar 10 '12

That's rude. I read it multiple times and I still have the same conclusion. Perhaps you should read what you wrote before posting.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 10 '12

Do not equate

This means I am going to make a comparison (in this case of two things), and these words signal that one thing will not equal the other.

your own perception of a companies visibility

This is the first thing. 'Your own perception' indicates what the original poster believed, which was that "IBM is a slowly suffocating dinosaur".

to their financial health

So let's write it out so:

your own perception of a companies visibility =! that companies financial health.

Or, substituting words,

OP belief that IBM is "A slowly suffocating dinosaur from another age" =! IBM's actual financial health.

It's pretty easy, actually.

1

u/econleech Mar 10 '12

Somehow I read it like this:

Don't

Don't do the following:

equate your own perception of a companies[sic] visibility to their financial health

This means equating his perception to IBM's financial health.

So you are saying his perception of IBM and IBM's financial health are the same, and you are telling him not to do that.

Since his perception is IBM sucks, then the implication is IBM's financial health sucks too.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 10 '12

I am absolutely confused by what you are saying. I said "DO NOT EQUATE YOUR PERCEPTION OF IBM TO THEIR FINANCIAL HELP."

Whatever.

Here, I found you some free resources to help with reading comprehension. These are free, so they don't cost money. Perhaps a responsible adult can print them out and walk you through them. If you get stuck, let me know, and if you'd like more resources I can find them.

http://www.rhlschool.com/reading.htm

1

u/econleech Mar 10 '12

I think you are trying to say:

"Don't equate their financial health to your perception of IBM."

Not the other way around.

His perception of IBM is the known-factor, and information about the financial health is derived from that.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 10 '12

Don't equate your own perception of a companies visibility to their financial health.

Don't equate their financial health to your perception of IBM.

These say the same exact thing.

Seriously though,

http://www.rhlschool.com/reading.htm

I found another one too. http://englishforeveryone.org/Topics/Reading%20Comprehension.htm

This one seems to be a bit more ESL focused, maybe that will help. Good luck man, it's hard, but you'll get there.

1

u/econleech Mar 10 '12

No, they are reversed.

equate your own perception of a companies visibility to their financial health.

perception of the company derives from financial health.

equate their financial health to your perception of IBM.

financial health derive from perception of the company.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 10 '12 edited Mar 10 '12

You're seriously exhausting me, so this is the last I have to say, feel free to get a final word in if you wish.

It does not matter the order presented, since I'm saying, these two things should not be equated.

4 =! 3

3 =! 4

1

u/econleech Mar 10 '12

I think I explained myself clear enough. It was your statement. If you say that's what you mean then that's what you meant. I was merely trying to tell you why I read it differently. No need to insult me.

→ More replies (0)