Troll? Well, at least I'm not an anonymous coward, bitch.
The guy insulted me for no reason. Am I a troll for disagreeing or for saying the F-word?
I'm making a point that the right to privacy is less explicit in the US constitution than it is in the Alaska constitution. The right to privacy of the Alaska constitution allows people to smoke pot legally in their own home because as interpreted by the courts privacy is based on the sanctity of the bond between man and women in the privacy of their own bedroom.
That's WAY DIFFERENT than the protections the US constitution affords us.
Yeah but she's been there for 21 years and is probably counting on a pension and retirement. Does the punishment really fit the crime? She tested clean. It was obviously a joke. Do we as a society think it's fair that gov't employees are not allowed to make off-color jokes in their spare time? You're more than welcome to send an email commending their HR policies.
Ok, I think I'm figuring it out now.
In the example:
A simple example would be "I think he is unattractive because he is ugly." The adjective "ugly" does not explain why the subject is "unattractive"
That begs the question. Meaning, the premise has not been proved. So, I think it might be correct to say, "This begs the question: why is he ugly/unattractive?". But, Starcub meant to say, "this raises another question."
"In tests on animals they have shown that with the right sort of electrical pulse (frequency appears to be the key), a shock lasting less than a hundredth of a second causes an electroconvulsive reaction that knocks the animal out for 20 seconds."
Does anybody have any more information on this new type of more incapacitating shock?
It said:
A simple example would be "I think he is unattractive because he is ugly." The adjective "ugly" does not explain why the subject is "unattractive"
Then it says:
To beg the question does not mean "to raise the question." (e.g. "It begs the question, why is he so dumb?") This is a common error of usage made by those who mistake the word "question" in the phrase to refer to a literal question.
Why did they change the example from ugly to dumb? Wouldn't the original example beg the question, "Why is he so ugly?"
I must be fucking dumb, because I didn't understand shit from your link.
Do I have to turn in my geek card since I've never heard of Aion? Is slashdot the place I should go to learn whenever some online game changes their game balance?
For instance, what's the difference between these invectives?
A twat - since the inclusion of cunt, twat has been deprecated
A dick - stubborn, demanding, mean
An ass - obnoxious and unwanted
An asshole - similar to dick, but less flattering
An assface - face looks like an ass
A shithead - entire head is worth as much as shit
A shitface - similar to assface, but worse
A dumbass - not intelligent
A smartass - obnoxious
A wiseass - similar to smartass, but with more old-timey feel, deprecated
A twatface - deprecated, you might get laughed at if you use this term
A shit-for-brains - unintelligent
A retard - developmental disability
A fucktard - like retard, but worse
A dumbfuck - unintelligent with subtle hints of sexual inadequacy
A fuckhead - worthless, except possibly for use as a masturbation tool
A bitch - 1. female dog 2. rude, overbearing woman
A fucking bitch - worse than a bitch
A giant fucking bitch - worse than a fucking bitch. Ex: Susan may be a bitch, but Marth is a giant fucking bitch.
Personally, I always choose the subtle nuances of my emphatic invectives with utmost intention, you wiseass hippy-dippy stump-humpin forest faggot. God, I hate hippies.
Or, land crayfish, as they're known colloquially. Some prefer to squeeze out the poo before you pop em in your mouth. But, true connoisseurs actually suck out the poo... some say, it's the best part.
From Wikipedia's Terms of Use:
"Wikimedia projects are required to grant broad permissions to the general public to re-distribute and re-use their contributions freely, as long as the use is attributed and the same freedom to re-use and re-distribute applies to any derivative works."
If he didn't cite Wikipedia (snicker) then he's at least violated their Terms of Use specifying a "Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License 3.0".. which I assume would be a copyright violation. But, IANAL.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, based on my own price index, which I call the 20-Ounce Coke Index, the value of a human is worth about $6.3 million.
Why?
Because the price of a 20-ounce Coca Cola in 1994 was $0.59. Today it is $1.69. Which is a factor of about 2.865, because 0.59 * 2.865 = 1.69.
So $2,200,000 * 2.865 = $6,303,000.
"CS101A was a C++ class, but it never once mentioned object orientation and had students write all the exercises C-style"
Since you only took "a few classes" you must have never taken CS102, where they teach the object oriented stuff.
Your loop body would never run, so you would never do(bad).
;)
for(bad=swearing; bad<kill; bad++){ do(bad);}
FTFY.
I'm talking to this guy, Anonymous Coward. He's like the biggest spammer on /. and I'm tired of his BS!
How many hours have you spent in an Alaskan Law library reading cases about the constitutional right to privacy just for fun? Yeah, I spent a lot.
Troll? Well, at least I'm not an anonymous coward, bitch.
The guy insulted me for no reason. Am I a troll for disagreeing or for saying the F-word?
I'm making a point that the right to privacy is less explicit in the US constitution than it is in the Alaska constitution. The right to privacy of the Alaska constitution allows people to smoke pot legally in their own home because as interpreted by the courts privacy is based on the sanctity of the bond between man and women in the privacy of their own bedroom.
That's WAY DIFFERENT than the protections the US constitution affords us.
Yeah but she's been there for 21 years and is probably counting on a pension and retirement. Does the punishment really fit the crime? She tested clean. It was obviously a joke. Do we as a society think it's fair that gov't employees are not allowed to make off-color jokes in their spare time? You're more than welcome to send an email commending their HR policies.
Fuck you. There's a big difference between the vague text of the 9th amendment the text of Alaska's Constitution:
22. Right of Privacy The right of the people to privacy is recognized and shall not be infringed.
Link to webform email City Attorney Scott Post Phone #: (414) 302-8450
Link to webform email Mayor Dan Devine Phone #: (414) 302-8290
Link to webform email Human Resources director Audrey Key Phone #: (414) 302-8292
I'm emailing the Mayor a picture of Kim Jong-il.
The US constitution does not guarantee a right to privacy.
As opposed to the Alaska constitution section 22, which does.
Ok, I think I'm figuring it out now.
In the example:
A simple example would be "I think he is unattractive because he is ugly." The adjective "ugly" does not explain why the subject is "unattractive"
That begs the question. Meaning, the premise has not been proved. So, I think it might be correct to say, "This begs the question: why is he ugly/unattractive?". But, Starcub meant to say, "this raises another question."
I can see the writers now:
"It's 4AM guys, and we have to finish this season's plot by 6AM... Damn, if only we didn't spend the last 3 months snorting coke off a hooker's ass."
What is the explanation for the magical black smoke from the first season?
thanks for this
"In tests on animals they have shown that with the right sort of electrical pulse (frequency appears to be the key), a shock lasting less than a hundredth of a second causes an electroconvulsive reaction that knocks the animal out for 20 seconds."
Does anybody have any more information on this new type of more incapacitating shock?
Uggg, I looked at your link.
It said:
A simple example would be "I think he is unattractive because he is ugly." The adjective "ugly" does not explain why the subject is "unattractive"
Then it says:
To beg the question does not mean "to raise the question." (e.g. "It begs the question, why is he so dumb?") This is a common error of usage made by those who mistake the word "question" in the phrase to refer to a literal question.
Why did they change the example from ugly to dumb? Wouldn't the original example beg the question, "Why is he so ugly?"
I must be fucking dumb, because I didn't understand shit from your link.
Do I have to turn in my geek card since I've never heard of Aion? Is slashdot the place I should go to learn whenever some online game changes their game balance?
They must be eaten with rice porridge (congee). Otherwise the flavor is too strong. But, as a crumbled garnish on a savory rice porridge... yum!
Here's a recipe(hack;) that uses the eggs:
Cantonese Lean Pork Congee
Et tu, Fartapp?
For instance, what's the difference between these invectives?
A twat - since the inclusion of cunt, twat has been deprecated
A dick - stubborn, demanding, mean
An ass - obnoxious and unwanted
An asshole - similar to dick, but less flattering
An assface - face looks like an ass
A shithead - entire head is worth as much as shit
A shitface - similar to assface, but worse
A dumbass - not intelligent
A smartass - obnoxious
A wiseass - similar to smartass, but with more old-timey feel, deprecated
A twatface - deprecated, you might get laughed at if you use this term
A shit-for-brains - unintelligent
A retard - developmental disability
A fucktard - like retard, but worse
A dumbfuck - unintelligent with subtle hints of sexual inadequacy
A fuckhead - worthless, except possibly for use as a masturbation tool
A bitch - 1. female dog 2. rude, overbearing woman
A fucking bitch - worse than a bitch
A giant fucking bitch - worse than a fucking bitch. Ex: Susan may be a bitch, but Marth is a giant fucking bitch.
Personally, I always choose the subtle nuances of my emphatic invectives with utmost intention, you wiseass hippy-dippy stump-humpin forest faggot. God, I hate hippies.
Is that a joke?
Or, land crayfish, as they're known colloquially. Some prefer to squeeze out the poo before you pop em in your mouth. But, true connoisseurs actually suck out the poo... some say, it's the best part.
She's been terrorizing me with her cooking for years.
under the weight of rendering all those fat chicks.
From Wikipedia's Terms of Use:
"Wikimedia projects are required to grant broad permissions to the general public to re-distribute and re-use their contributions freely, as long as the use is attributed and the same freedom to re-use and re-distribute applies to any derivative works."
If he didn't cite Wikipedia (snicker) then he's at least violated their Terms of Use specifying a "Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License 3.0".. which I assume would be a copyright violation. But, IANAL.