Google could probably tell you the answer pretty quickly.
Of course, I should have applied the same approach to "wallah" - then I would have known that it's a suffix used to refer to a professional of some sort... So "Stark finds a replacement for his implant wallah" would mean that Stark actually has a professional contact who sells or services implants, and that this guy is due to be replaced by another implant wallah...
Or is it the Arabic oath "By Allah"? Danged ambiguity...
The fact that some of it once belonged to you (even if only on paper) does not entitle you to a stake in deciding how it is used.
Actually, you do.
Every 4 years, at the ballot box.
Well, voting is kind of an incidental, minimal means of influencing the direction of the government. One can involve oneself in the decision-making process by activism or even entry into politics. My point is that it's not the money which grants us this privilege, or which governs the situations in which the privilege may be exercised.
"but it was bought and paid for by the City of San Francisco"
Excuse me, it was bought and paid for by THE PEOPLE OF SAN FRANCISCO.
Paid through our tax money, which also means it was paid for through *HIS* tax money.
The government is supposed to serve the public trust and taxes are their main source of revenue - but I take exception to this attitude that, because someone pays taxes, government funds are somehow their money. It's not your money anymore, you gave it to the government. The fact that some of it once belonged to you (even if only on paper) does not entitle you to a stake in deciding how it is used.
So, for instance: yes, your taxes pay the wages of the police. This doesn't mean you get to boss them around. Your taxes pay for the schools, but that doesn't entitle you to decide the curriculum. Your taxes pay for government infrastructure, but that doesn't mean you can micro-manage the government.
That's not to say citizens in the US (or anywhere else, for that matter) have no stake in the government or its affairs - but the money paid in taxes has nothing to do with that. We have a stake in our government because the operation of the government affects our lives, in the short term and the long term. Would this stake not still exist even if the government could somehow operate without taxing its citizens? IMO bitching about "the taxpayers' money" is just a cheap way to get the attention of people who would otherwise not care.
The only real weakness with the movie is that the villain was underdeveloped. But seeing as this was also an origin movie, there's only so much that can be shoehorned in.
Does Iron Man really have an iconic archenemy? A Joker to his Batman? I'm not so sure.
so if you go to see a movie you cover your eyes and go lalala till opening credits roll?
It's not a bad way to go, really. I mean, it's a drag having to avoid information, but the trailers provide too much information. By the time you actually see the movie, half the scenes wind up being stuff you've already seen, or at least enough of it that there's no potential left to be surprised by what happens.
Iron Man Vs. Justin Hammer. Sounds like a.... Oh well, at least Schumacher isn't there to put nipples on the suit.
You know, the interesting thing about the nipples on the Batman suit is that initially they weren't part of the design. When Joel Schumacher first had Val Kilmer wear the suit, he realized something was missing - and so he suckled Kilmer's chest until the now-well-known nipple features of the Batman suit emerged.
Speaking as an American of Italian heritage who also used to be a plumber, not only am I not offended by Mario, I hold him up as a role model. I mean, I lost count of the number of times I had to chase some damned monkey through the pipes. Happened all the time.
Actually, I had 5 copies made. Now I just have to steal the original./obscure
Fourth Doctor is "obscure" now? What the hell has happened to us?
(I guess I got my "City of Death" reference wrong... I thought he'd made 6 additional copies so he could sell to all his 7 buyers - but I guess there were only 6 total, including the original? <shrug>)
You might also disappointed because it's massively overrated. If you put someone who hadn't heard of it before in a room full of Da Vinci's work and asked them to pick the best one, I doubt very much that they'd pick the Mona Lisa.
Maybe. But Leonardo clearly thought highly of it - how else do you explain the fact that he created a total of seven copies? The copies are all so similar as to be almost indistinguishable - so it seems he wasn't trying to improve on earlier efforts, but rather replicate his earlier results due to some kind of strange fixation.
The problem here is that, while Apple's approach works well for them, it's an approach that frustrates would-be developers for the platform and, I imagine, doesn't please a lot of Apple's audience, either.
That's a steaming load.
Both would-be developers and Apple's "audience" pretty much know what they are in for when they sign up.
And I agree with that. If said people take the time to keep themselves informed of what's going on, exercise due diligence to not be ignorant of what Apple does, then yes, they should know what it is they're getting into before they buy an iPhone or whatever. That doesn't mean they like what Apple's doing, you know? Not all of them, I mean. Obviously many people are quite happy with Apple - and I don't believe I have any reason to tell them they shouldn't be.
It's kinda like going into a steak house and bitching to the manager that they don't serve sushi.
Oh, boy, the analogy game! I love this one! But I'm a lot better with car analogies, so I hope you don't mind if I drop the whole steak house thing...
It's kind of like if somebody made a safe, efficient, and affordable flying car - with the catch that the manufacturer also exercised sole discretionary control over where the car could take you...
Blu-Ray didn't "win", at least not in the honourable sense of "besting one's opponent in a challenge of skill". Sony just threw money at key people to make sure HD-DVD never got a fair shot.
Yeah, well, couldn't the HD-DVD people have also thrown money at key people? Seems like just another set of skills being challenged, to me...
We swear Safari won't let you surf porn (of non-existent species of fungi).
Oh, come on, you think, even in the face of "rule 34" that there's no porn of non-existent species of fungi on the web? I mean, are you really sure? I'd like to mention something that I think might force you to rethink that...
"Pokemon porn"
Now, if you want to get picky, it's not entirely accurate to call something like Parasect a "fungus" - it's half-bug, after all - and it wouldn't be the most popular choice for porn I imagine (no tentacles, etc. - though it can induce paralysis) - but it's a very real possibility and I think it hits very close to the mark, too.
Slashdot is seriously out of touch with reality regarding Apple. The company just posted yesterday their highest non-holiday profit quarter ever (90% year-over-year increase in profit). iPhone sales were up 130% year-over-year. AAPL stock is soaring right now
This is all due to Apple's complete control over the iPhone. So does the lack of hardcore adult content hurt the iPhone sales? No, it does not. Steve Jobs is absolutely right.
Hold on, now - when did this become all about what's best for Apple?
The problem here is that, while Apple's approach works well for them, it's an approach that frustrates would-be developers for the platform and, I imagine, doesn't please a lot of Apple's audience, either. The question isn't whether what Apple's doing is reasonable or advantageous in a business sense or whatever - it's whether we, as potential customers of Apple are OK with this.
Apple could be raking in enough money to buy Canada for all I care - it doesn't change the fact that I personally find the restrictions of their iPhone platform unacceptable - both as a developer and a user.
Actually... it's more like saying that the person who built your house (that YOU own) says that he doesn't want OJ Simpson in the house that YOU own. And actively stops you from having him as a guest.
No, it would be like the person who built your house not offering to call OJ for you to come over. You are still free to invite OJ over yourself.
Except OJ demands a fee for his appearances - and the person who built your house is doing everything they can to stop OJ from offering you the chance to pay his appearance fee and have him come over... Because OJ doesn't know you personally and knows you only want him over because he's famous...
And then the person who built your house has a deal going with Dennis Rodman and tries to encourage you to have him come over instead.
I have no idea what you're talking about. Why the "whoosh"? What is it that you think I missed? Be specific, so I'll know you're simply mistaken, and not just full of shit.
Slashdot Mirror
What the hell is "Tetsujin"?
Wallah.
Google could probably tell you the answer pretty quickly.
Of course, I should have applied the same approach to "wallah" - then I would have known that it's a suffix used to refer to a professional of some sort... So "Stark finds a replacement for his implant wallah" would mean that Stark actually has a professional contact who sells or services implants, and that this guy is due to be replaced by another implant wallah...
Or is it the Arabic oath "By Allah"? Danged ambiguity...
The fact that some of it once belonged to you (even if only on paper) does not entitle you to a stake in deciding how it is used.
Actually, you do.
Every 4 years, at the ballot box.
Well, voting is kind of an incidental, minimal means of influencing the direction of the government. One can involve oneself in the decision-making process by activism or even entry into politics. My point is that it's not the money which grants us this privilege, or which governs the situations in which the privilege may be exercised.
"but it was bought and paid for by the City of San Francisco"
Excuse me, it was bought and paid for by THE PEOPLE OF SAN FRANCISCO.
Paid through our tax money, which also means it was paid for through *HIS* tax money.
The government is supposed to serve the public trust and taxes are their main source of revenue - but I take exception to this attitude that, because someone pays taxes, government funds are somehow their money. It's not your money anymore, you gave it to the government. The fact that some of it once belonged to you (even if only on paper) does not entitle you to a stake in deciding how it is used.
So, for instance: yes, your taxes pay the wages of the police. This doesn't mean you get to boss them around.
Your taxes pay for the schools, but that doesn't entitle you to decide the curriculum.
Your taxes pay for government infrastructure, but that doesn't mean you can micro-manage the government.
That's not to say citizens in the US (or anywhere else, for that matter) have no stake in the government or its affairs - but the money paid in taxes has nothing to do with that. We have a stake in our government because the operation of the government affects our lives, in the short term and the long term. Would this stake not still exist even if the government could somehow operate without taxing its citizens? IMO bitching about "the taxpayers' money" is just a cheap way to get the attention of people who would otherwise not care.
Does Iron Man really have an iconic archenemy? A Joker to his Batman? I'm not so sure.
Oxidization Man?
Wallah.
What the hell is "wallah"?
so if you go to see a movie you cover your eyes and go lalala till opening credits roll?
It's not a bad way to go, really. I mean, it's a drag having to avoid information, but the trailers provide too much information. By the time you actually see the movie, half the scenes wind up being stuff you've already seen, or at least enough of it that there's no potential left to be surprised by what happens.
Iron Man Vs. Justin Hammer. Sounds like a.... Oh well, at least Schumacher isn't there to put nipples on the suit.
You know, the interesting thing about the nipples on the Batman suit is that initially they weren't part of the design. When Joel Schumacher first had Val Kilmer wear the suit, he realized something was missing - and so he suckled Kilmer's chest until the now-well-known nipple features of the Batman suit emerged.
Speaking as an American of Italian heritage who also used to be a plumber, not only am I not offended by Mario, I hold him up as a role model. I mean, I lost count of the number of times I had to chase some damned monkey through the pipes. Happened all the time.
He's an ape! Show some fucking respect!
Check out the National Air and Space Museum (not the one in the middle of DC, it's about a half hour away in VA). http://www.nasm.si.edu/UdvarHazy/.
When I was there, they had a space shuttle, a Concorde, and an SR-71 (which RULED)
Yeah, but not a real space shuttle...
Actually, I had 5 copies made. Now I just have to steal the original. /obscure
Fourth Doctor is "obscure" now? What the hell has happened to us?
(I guess I got my "City of Death" reference wrong... I thought he'd made 6 additional copies so he could sell to all his 7 buyers - but I guess there were only 6 total, including the original? <shrug>)
You might also disappointed because it's massively overrated. If you put someone who hadn't heard of it before in a room full of Da Vinci's work and asked them to pick the best one, I doubt very much that they'd pick the Mona Lisa.
Maybe. But Leonardo clearly thought highly of it - how else do you explain the fact that he created a total of seven copies? The copies are all so similar as to be almost indistinguishable - so it seems he wasn't trying to improve on earlier efforts, but rather replicate his earlier results due to some kind of strange fixation.
Wasn't that more of a directive than a statement?
Do you mean a cosmetic failure, like blowing the layout, or a functional failure in which the interface stops working?
Did you not get the memo about this thread's paradigm?
That's a steaming load.
Both would-be developers and Apple's "audience" pretty much know what they are in for when they sign up.
And I agree with that. If said people take the time to keep themselves informed of what's going on, exercise due diligence to not be ignorant of what Apple does, then yes, they should know what it is they're getting into before they buy an iPhone or whatever. That doesn't mean they like what Apple's doing, you know? Not all of them, I mean. Obviously many people are quite happy with Apple - and I don't believe I have any reason to tell them they shouldn't be.
It's kinda like going into a steak house and bitching to the manager that they don't serve sushi.
Oh, boy, the analogy game! I love this one! But I'm a lot better with car analogies, so I hope you don't mind if I drop the whole steak house thing...
It's kind of like if somebody made a safe, efficient, and affordable flying car - with the catch that the manufacturer also exercised sole discretionary control over where the car could take you...
Blu-Ray didn't "win", at least not in the honourable sense of "besting one's opponent in a challenge of skill". Sony just threw money at key people to make sure HD-DVD never got a fair shot.
Yeah, well, couldn't the HD-DVD people have also thrown money at key people? Seems like just another set of skills being challenged, to me...
We swear Safari won't let you surf porn (of non-existent species of fungi).
Oh, come on, you think, even in the face of "rule 34" that there's no porn of non-existent species of fungi on the web? I mean, are you really sure? I'd like to mention something that I think might force you to rethink that...
"Pokemon porn"
Now, if you want to get picky, it's not entirely accurate to call something like Parasect a "fungus" - it's half-bug, after all - and it wouldn't be the most popular choice for porn I imagine (no tentacles, etc. - though it can induce paralysis) - but it's a very real possibility and I think it hits very close to the mark, too.
Nah. He still gets to be called a megalomaniac for only allowing his store to exist.
If Microsoft did this people would be comparing Bill Gates to Ghengis Khan and Ming the Merciless.
Or Kahless the Unforgettable...
Yes, I'll always remember that wonderful weekend Kahless and I spent in France... That little cafe... and what was the waiter's name?
Er, anyway - we already make those comparisons.
Slashdot is seriously out of touch with reality regarding Apple. The company just posted yesterday their highest non-holiday profit quarter ever (90% year-over-year increase in profit). iPhone sales were up 130% year-over-year. AAPL stock is soaring right now
This is all due to Apple's complete control over the iPhone. So does the lack of hardcore adult content hurt the iPhone sales? No, it does not. Steve Jobs is absolutely right.
Hold on, now - when did this become all about what's best for Apple?
The problem here is that, while Apple's approach works well for them, it's an approach that frustrates would-be developers for the platform and, I imagine, doesn't please a lot of Apple's audience, either. The question isn't whether what Apple's doing is reasonable or advantageous in a business sense or whatever - it's whether we, as potential customers of Apple are OK with this.
Apple could be raking in enough money to buy Canada for all I care - it doesn't change the fact that I personally find the restrictions of their iPhone platform unacceptable - both as a developer and a user.
Actually... it's more like saying that the person who built your house (that YOU own) says that he doesn't want OJ Simpson in the house that YOU own. And actively stops you from having him as a guest.
No, it would be like the person who built your house not offering to call OJ for you to come over. You are still free to invite OJ over yourself.
Except OJ demands a fee for his appearances - and the person who built your house is doing everything they can to stop OJ from offering you the chance to pay his appearance fee and have him come over... Because OJ doesn't know you personally and knows you only want him over because he's famous...
And then the person who built your house has a deal going with Dennis Rodman and tries to encourage you to have him come over instead.
Can you zoom in real life with only 2 fingers?
Well, if I "pinch" the boobs, they do move further away...
Apple Apple Apple, Apple Apple Apple.
Malkovich?
I have no idea what you're talking about. Why the "whoosh"? What is it that you think I missed? Be specific, so I'll know you're simply mistaken, and not just full of shit.
I don't think anyone has ever thought or suspected that the 'invisibility cloaks' of today are in any way without flaws.
I don't know. I mean, I haven't seen them, so clearly they're working...
While slashnerds may not be able to throw on a cloak of invisibility and slide into the womens locker room
Not to worry - we're working on autonomous robot spiders to place cameras for us...