"That's "whom to contact", as any 9th grader would tell you:D"
In everyday British English 'who to contact' is quite correct. In formal written English 'whom' is considered to be more appropriate - but this practice is increasingly looked upon as pedantic and affected. The only place where it is mandatory to use 'whom' is when it is governed by a preposition.
"So go ahead and kick the cripple, it's easy and fun. right."
I deeply sympathise with you, as I myself suffer from a mild form of dyslexia and have over the years taught students suffering from full dyslexia .
I understand your reaction to my post. The problem with online forums is the remoteness of context; what you see is what you get. To slightly modify the old saying, "Never attribute to malice that which may be explained by ignorance".
"Did you miss the "farrellj writes:" part of the summary? You can CLICK RIGHT HERE [slashdot.org] to view the author's Slashdot profile if you did miss that part of the summary."
His writing is poor and ungrammatical. Show some respect for the English language!
"My reasoning is that "amount available to spend" on a debit card is how much money you have, and "amount available to spend" on a credit card is your credit limit."
Wrong, I'm afraid. My UK bank account provides me with an automatic overdraft limit, plus an 'emergency' short-term (high interest) excess overdraft. So when I go shopping with my debit card the 'amount available to spend' includes the unused portion of my overdraft limit.
"The original design worked great. Change for the sake of change is bad, and undoubtedly will cost Slashdot in pageviews. The search for alternatives to slashdot is now commencing for me."
Hear! hear! Another turn-off is the full-page-width for comment lines. There's a good reason for paper publications using colums.
"You do realize that essentially only 2 things combined caused him to fail? The invasion of Russia being delayed by a month alone might have made the difference, but the attack on Pearl Harbor sealed the deal. Without the latter, the US likely would not have entered the war in time to save Britain, which was on the brink of surrendering..."
Am I correct in assuming that you are not a historian?
The redeeming virtue of The Interview is that it makes everything else look good by comparison. This tawdry mishmash of low-grade scriptwriting, casting, directing, acting and editing is a rare treat for aficionados of cinematic rubbish.
"Is that unreasonable? If there were evolutionary pressure (ie, short people kept being killed before reproducing), and tall people got multiple mates, I could see this change happening within twenty generations."
Twenty generations sounds like guesswork, as it doesn't take into account regression - tall parents tend to have taller-than-average offspring, but not as tall as their parents. Likewise, short parents tend to have children who are taller than they are. The same, some experts argue, applies to measured IQ.
Turn this on its head. Facial scans for ID cards, credit/debit cards, passports, driving licences etc. become the norm: a scanner fails to identify you at an airport, so you are a suspicious individual - guilty until proven innocent.
Indonesia is preparing to build a nuclear power plant. Those of us who live with its antiquated electricity supply network, third-world standard railway infrastructure, a national airline that was banned from landing at European airports until quite recently, more shipping disasters than possibly any other country, plus world-ranking corruption, look on in bemused wonderment.
Slashdot Mirror
"The NCAA, a non-governmental organization which oversees college sports in the US considers this to be in bad taste"
In other words they have reservations.
"This troll is apparently one of them, and he's trademarked the most likely new nicknames"
If he threatens legal action, tell him to Sioux and be damned.
"That's "whom to contact", as any 9th grader would tell you :D"
In everyday British English 'who to contact' is quite correct. In formal written English 'whom' is considered to be more appropriate - but this practice is increasingly looked upon as pedantic and affected. The only place where it is mandatory to use 'whom' is when it is governed by a preposition.
"Anyone got a source for 'safe' black & color inks?"
Safe generic ink is a pigment of the imagination.
"The result is that they try to make us feel guilty for eating eggs, drinking milk and even chewing on imported fruits."
It's a yolk we have to bear.
"Knowing Kojima's body of work, the title is deliberate and thematic."
Actually I don't think they have a leg to stand on.
"So supposably, for all intensive purposes, he meant "case in point", right? Here, here."
So supposedly, for all intents and purposes ... Hear hear.
"Solitaire was originally put in Windows to train users how to use a mouse."
Oh, I always thought it was to provide the user with something to do while Office was loading.
"So go ahead and kick the cripple, it's easy and fun. right."
I deeply sympathise with you, as I myself suffer from a mild form of dyslexia and have over the years taught students suffering from full dyslexia .
I understand your reaction to my post. The problem with online forums is the remoteness of context; what you see is what you get. To slightly modify the old saying, "Never attribute to malice that which may be explained by ignorance".
"Did you miss the "farrellj writes:" part of the summary? You can CLICK RIGHT HERE [slashdot.org] to view the author's Slashdot profile if you did miss that part of the summary."
His writing is poor and ungrammatical. Show some respect for the English language!
"My reasoning is that "amount available to spend" on a debit card is how much money you have, and "amount available to spend" on a credit card is your credit limit."
Wrong, I'm afraid. My UK bank account provides me with an automatic overdraft limit, plus an 'emergency' short-term (high interest) excess overdraft. So when I go shopping with my debit card the 'amount available to spend' includes the unused portion of my overdraft limit.
Better latent than never.
Beware of Geeks bearing gifts.
"The original design worked great. Change for the sake of change is bad, and undoubtedly will cost Slashdot in pageviews. The search for alternatives to slashdot is now commencing for me."
Hear! hear! Another turn-off is the full-page-width for comment lines. There's a good reason for paper publications using colums.
Would the moderator who labelled this 'flamebait' please explain why they did so? It seems a perfectly reasonable comment.
"You do realize that essentially only 2 things combined caused him to fail? The invasion of Russia being delayed by a month alone might have made the difference, but the attack on Pearl Harbor sealed the deal. Without the latter, the US likely would not have entered the war in time to save Britain, which was on the brink of surrendering..."
Am I correct in assuming that you are not a historian?
No, is not rat, is Siberian hamster!
Holy Fuck, does there have to be some evil conspiracy behind everything?
On Slashdot, yes.
Point of information - this wasn't Malaysia Airlines, it was AirAsia.
The redeeming virtue of The Interview is that it makes everything else look good by comparison. This tawdry mishmash of low-grade scriptwriting, casting, directing, acting and editing is a rare treat for aficionados of cinematic rubbish.
"Writing and shorthand notation is the only things that should be standard education."
It looks as though you've dropped grammar from a standard education.
The 'charge' for a negative review is a 'minimum of pds 100'? I'd like to see this stand up to legal scrutiny.
"Is that unreasonable? If there were evolutionary pressure (ie, short people kept being killed before reproducing), and tall people got multiple mates, I could see this change happening within twenty generations."
Twenty generations sounds like guesswork, as it doesn't take into account regression - tall parents tend to have taller-than-average offspring, but not as tall as their parents. Likewise, short parents tend to have children who are taller than they are. The same, some experts argue, applies to measured IQ.
Turn this on its head. Facial scans for ID cards, credit/debit cards, passports, driving licences etc. become the norm: a scanner fails to identify you at an airport, so you are a suspicious individual - guilty until proven innocent.
Indonesia is preparing to build a nuclear power plant. Those of us who live with its antiquated electricity supply network, third-world standard railway infrastructure, a national airline that was banned from landing at European airports until quite recently, more shipping disasters than possibly any other country, plus world-ranking corruption, look on in bemused wonderment.