Hmm. So a quip (in response to another quip) that happens to play on a spelling error implies that one can't recognize a joke? It's funny (or is it? I can't tell) that you didn't consider the replies that solely picked on the spelling error worthy of your ire. Perhaps your humorless response is more telling with regard to defective humor genes than your assessment.
SPAM was the subject of a well-known and much-loved Monty Python sketch, in which various customers of a cafe requested a meal without SPAM.
Hmmm. I thought it was just one customer who didn't want SPAM, a revelation which shocked the others. The other customers as I recall tried to help with suggestions that didn't have 'much SPAM in it.'
Don't apologize. Your grammar and spelling are superior to a good many folk who speak English primarily (or, more likely, solely). Although the word you wanted was 'easily' at least your misspelling had the root right.
The government doesn't see 'sold at a loss' the way most folks think of it. If you purchased something and used it for a while and then sold it for less than you bought it for you didn't necessarily sell it at a loss because you're likely not factoring in the value that usage represents. Now, if you buy things just to resell on e-bay and sell them for less than you paid, you've incurred a loss - and you should probably rethink your strategy....
Re:Hardly realistic
on
The Bug
·
· Score: 4, Funny
Your still in college...
What about their still in college? Are you suggesting that they supplemented their income to pay tuition by moonshining? Egad!
McBride radiates confidence, describing SCO's contracts as "bullet-proof." He says he thinks IBM is desperate to buy SCO because "the last thing [IBM wants] to hear is the testimony that is going to come out," but that SCO isn't interested in being acquired.
A friend of mine has a three or four year old boy who, whenever he sees me, says, "You can't catch me, Carlo..." (which is an approximation of my name). But the fact of the matter is he knows that I can catch him and once I do I tickle him and throw him in the air and (usually) catch him which is the very thing he wants.
We weren't talking about which crime was worse. You said that the (paraphrasing here since you didn't take exception to anything in my statement) sentence for one was less than for the other and I pointed out that your "Three Strikes" example would be the same for both.
This guy has made threats on his web site against the United States, and specifically against the AG, pledging that the wrath of god will destroy any official who moves against him. This clearly a dangerous man.
Being a looney doesn't make you a terrorist. Is he blowing up buildings or picking off people with a sniper rifle? If all he's doing is tax evasion and telling the government that, "God's gonna get ya fer that!" (which is all you've given us), he's not a terrorist.
Did you know that in some states in the USA you get a lower conviction for rape than for possession of pot? For instance in California, if you get caught 3 times for possession you are locked away for life.
And what happens if you get convicted three times for rape in California? Same thing. How is that a "lower conviction" which I take to mean a lesser sentence?
I'm sure downloading someone else's letter and sending it as your own will ease the Senator's mind regarding the use of the internet to copy and redistribute content. If everyone else does as you urge, the onslaught of identical letters from the independent thinkers of/. will certainly sway the man. One of the worst ways to get your point across is to send a form letter. Another is to send a flaming response telling him just how 'stupid' he is.
The best ways to get through to an elected official are:
1. Personal visit 2. Telegram 3. Phone call 4. Personal letter (although this has slowed down due to checks after the anthrax scare)
Other methods drop off rapidly from there in terms of their effectiveness. In each of the cases above, keeping your cool and explaining the problem clearly (along with better solutions if you've got them) is a given. A personal visit from a hothead is likely to land you in jail.
Thanks for bringing things into focus. The tendency to demonize those you don't agree with is far too prevalent (I sometimes do it myself) in our "modern" society. The truth is we can contribute a flow of tit-for-tat examples of the stupidity of either Quayle or Gore, Republican or Democrat or whatever label you have the biggest problem with. I'm sure If any of us had a press corps hanging on our every exhalation we'd find that we say some pretty stupid stuff from time to time as well. I'm just glad mine aren't a matter of public record. Well.... except for the stuff I post here.
Slashdot Mirror
Hmm. So a quip (in response to another quip) that happens to play on a spelling error implies that one can't recognize a joke? It's funny (or is it? I can't tell) that you didn't consider the replies that solely picked on the spelling error worthy of your ire. Perhaps your humorless response is more telling with regard to defective humor genes than your assessment.
Either
1. You were focused on something other than what you thought were pearls (shouldn't that be PERLs here?)
2. You have much more experience with digital cameras and/or images than with actual girls
I'm assuming you're talking about the glitter that is found in everything from hand soap to lip-gloss to who-knows-what.....
Thanks. It's been nearly thirty years since I last saw the skit and my recollection may have been (ahem) Fawlty.
SPAM was the subject of a well-known and much-loved Monty Python sketch, in which various customers of a cafe requested a meal without SPAM.
Hmmm. I thought it was just one customer who didn't want SPAM, a revelation which shocked the others. The other customers as I recall tried to help with suggestions that didn't have 'much SPAM in it.'
I'm french speaking...
Don't apologize. Your grammar and spelling are superior to a good many folk who speak English primarily (or, more likely, solely). Although the word you wanted was 'easily' at least your misspelling had the root right.
These quotes were made about a week ago.
And we all know what great strides have been made in browser innovation in the past week.....
The out of context statement I might buy, but excusing the comments as old might work if they were two years old, but a week?
Maybe we need a German Public License.
The government doesn't see 'sold at a loss' the way most folks think of it. If you purchased something and used it for a while and then sold it for less than you bought it for you didn't necessarily sell it at a loss because you're likely not factoring in the value that usage represents. Now, if you buy things just to resell on e-bay and sell them for less than you paid, you've incurred a loss - and you should probably rethink your strategy....
Your still in college...
What about their still in college? Are you suggesting that they supplemented their income to pay tuition by moonshining? Egad!
McBride radiates confidence, describing SCO's contracts as "bullet-proof." He says he thinks IBM is desperate to buy SCO because "the last thing [IBM wants] to hear is the testimony that is going to come out," but that SCO isn't interested in being acquired.
A friend of mine has a three or four year old boy who, whenever he sees me, says, "You can't catch me, Carlo..." (which is an approximation of my name). But the fact of the matter is he knows that I can catch him and once I do I tickle him and throw him in the air and (usually) catch him which is the very thing he wants.
Assuming foldable screens fold as well as paper, you get 8 or 9 folds max.
Not if you use an accordion pleated fold. Well, at least accordion to my sources....
Imagine your laptop, which is half the size of a normal keyboard (folded in half), with a display folded like a map inside it.
Nah. Rolled up, not folded up. I don't want creases all over my display.
Loose money? Dang! How much of it is loose? Somebody help me gather it up!
I suppose on /. that would be considered a regular expression....
If he's gutting his PC case to upgrade, new mobo, etc. is that supported?
Yeah, I thought about looking it up because I couldn't remember which spelling was used, but I thought, "Nah. Who cares?"
I guess you care.
We weren't talking about which crime was worse. You said that the (paraphrasing here since you didn't take exception to anything in my statement) sentence for one was less than for the other and I pointed out that your "Three Strikes" example would be the same for both.
This guy has made threats on his web site against the United States, and specifically against the AG, pledging that the wrath of god will destroy any official who moves against him. This clearly a dangerous man.
Being a looney doesn't make you a terrorist. Is he blowing up buildings or picking off people with a sniper rifle? If all he's doing is tax evasion and telling the government that, "God's gonna get ya fer that!" (which is all you've given us), he's not a terrorist.
...2.8 billion songs a month were cursing through Napster.
That's a lot of gangsta rap....
I thought it was "Steamboat Willy"....
Why not you might ask? Because these people were not military soldiers acting under state sanction in an announced aggression against another country.
They were common thugs. They were the guy who sticks up the little old lady on the street corner.
Dang! Whiplash! You shouldn't shift gears so suddenly, unless you really meant to say that the people in the Pentagon were common thugs.....
Did you know that in some states in the USA you get a lower conviction for rape than for possession of pot? For instance in California, if you get caught 3 times for possession you are locked away for life.
And what happens if you get convicted three times for rape in California? Same thing. How is that a "lower conviction" which I take to mean a lesser sentence?
I'm sure downloading someone else's letter and sending it as your own will ease the Senator's mind regarding the use of the internet to copy and redistribute content. If everyone else does as you urge, the onslaught of identical letters from the independent thinkers of /. will certainly sway the man. One of the worst ways to get your point across is to send a form letter. Another is to send a flaming response telling him just how 'stupid' he is.
The best ways to get through to an elected official are:
1. Personal visit
2. Telegram
3. Phone call
4. Personal letter (although this has slowed down due to checks after the anthrax scare)
Other methods drop off rapidly from there in terms of their effectiveness. In each of the cases above, keeping your cool and explaining the problem clearly (along with better solutions if you've got them) is a given. A personal visit from a hothead is likely to land you in jail.
Hmmm. The silence is telling, isn't it?
Thanks for bringing things into focus. The tendency to demonize those you don't agree with is far too prevalent (I sometimes do it myself) in our "modern" society. The truth is we can contribute a flow of tit-for-tat examples of the stupidity of either Quayle or Gore, Republican or Democrat or whatever label you have the biggest problem with. I'm sure If any of us had a press corps hanging on our every exhalation we'd find that we say some pretty stupid stuff from time to time as well. I'm just glad mine aren't a matter of public record. Well.... except for the stuff I post here.