Often used in a sentence

Often in a sentence as an adverb

I often want to get away from the very people that Joel suggests spending time with on my break. 4.

All too often I see people here forgetting about that. I myself have been guilty of it in the past too.

This type of corporate mentality is one we see often, but tend to forget quickly. Apple did it in the 1990s.

And either type of friend will occasionally, if not often, expect you to make the plans. That's what happens in a mutual friendship.

More often than not those that are born into positions of wealth or with other so called advantages squander their fortunes and end up with less than their parents left them with. That's an all too common story.

People have often speculated about how much cheaper launch services might be if they were in the private sector -- now we can find out. The preliminary signs are very good.

This is a great reason to do what is often frowned upon by us high achieving Hacker Newsers: get a job. I have worked on so many projects in so many jobs that I lost track long ago.

Early on as a programmer, I was often in situations like you describe. I didn't like what I was doing, I thought the management was dumb, I just didn't think my work was very important.

This is often the result of attempting to overoptimize a system. You can optimize a race car to a huge degree, because you know exactly what you want it to do.

They've also made a number of bad mistakes that I had identified--often through trial and error--that I had told them about. It was a submarine rigged for silent running, deep and quiet, that's never bothered to surface for air.

It often takes a 'push' to get bad laws changed, and Uber's provided much of that push, but not all laws that restrain business are bad and not all companies that break bad laws are good.

You said it: the device only has a 24-48 hour windows to capture the weird, often rare, rhythm. There are different ways remote cardiac monitoring systems report their results and I'm not sure which this particular company was using, but it doesn't really matter.

They're kicking *** as far as I'm concerned, because they DO get platforms, and they are struggling heroically to try to create one in an environment that is at best platform-apathetic, and at worst often openly hostile to the idea. I'm just frankly describing what developers.

Com/softopedia/softonic to change/rewrap your installer, without your agreement, often violating your license; or they give back money to those websites, so they are ranked higher than normal other downloads. And of course, open source software are never respected.

Deaths mean increased regulation, often under the mistaken assumption that more rules would prevent engineers from making bugs. Modern testing and build systems might, but regulators aren't keen to change their testing systems, many of which were encoded by legislation decades ago.

Below, Babuskov raised the point that the endorsement system will obstruct useful back-and-forth discussions between sub-kilokarma users in buried threads that often takes the place of a private messaging system on HN. This would fix that more effectively than merely reducing the endorsement requirement. You should not entertain any illusions that you can **** the switch and watch this system work perfectly, and that you will therefore be able to avoid confusing people with many changes over a lengthy period of time.

Your reply, on the other hand, strikes me as exactly the sort of knee-jerk defensiveness which often makes me wish that submitters couldn't comment on their own posts: Not only did you fail to answer the question, but you implied that jug6ernaut was being unreasonable to even ask it. It's your site and you're entitled to encourage and discourage whichever types of posts you want -- but I think if your desire is to have a site where people engage in meaningful discussion, you made a poor choice here.

The salient quote from Greenwald's article on this: They completely abused their own terrorism law for reasons having nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism: a potent reminder of how often governments lie when they claim that they need powers to stop "the terrorists", and how dangerous it is to vest unchecked power with political officials in its name. [1] This is a great example of why we should treat terrorism like any other crime, and why the police should never be trusted with exceptional powers simply because we feel under threat.

Quite often though industry biases will engage and they'll be put on duty keeping some legacy system alive because their deep knowledge of the system lets the company put 1 guy maintaining half a million lines of code in perpetuity vs. 10 young guys maintaining the same, who all wanting to leave after a few years to build more skills.