So as well as using terms from some of the greatest civilizations of the past we should now honour a short-lived Southern California slang term that will have no relevance to anybody else? At least "helluva" would have made a little more sense to people that aren't living in one little area of the world.
Nothing says you can't be married only for the tax and legal reasons.....I don't agree with it, but it's not illegal.
I think the point was the reverse - why should you have to get married to enjoy tax or legal benefits when marriage is based on religious moralities from the stone-age?
For our cosmology course, our recommended text was a book that was no longer in print and even when it was printed, the print run was extremely limited.
I guess that depends on the size of your jeans, and depth of your pockets. My N1 fits rather nicely in mine, and I've seen people do that to their iPhones.
That's nothing. In the US, I've seen people do that with their iPads! They've got some wide butts out there;-)
"Independence Day. Aliens arrive on Earth in giant spaceships and proceed to destroy the White House. However, they later turn out not top be friendly after all".
But then again, it seems like everyone's saying that Wikipedia isn't to be trusted, but that traditional encyclopedias are. From where I'm standing, the only difference between them is the fact that Wikipedia is up front about the "don't trust us". Traditional encyclopedias are typically outdated as soon as they are purchased (for any kind of an active field at least), and typically only show the "opinion" of one or two editors in each subject. Wikipedia at least has the benefit that it's constantly updated and is "peer reviewed" by a significant number of people in the field (at least for the more popular topics). Both have their limitations, but at lest Wikipedia is upfront about theirs...
But you're comparing apples and oranges, on-line encyclopaedias vs dead wood encyclopaedias. The on-line Britannica is also updated more regularly than the print version. Also, the way Wikipedia is set-up, in many cases it also shows ony the "opinions" of a single editor who controls that particular entry. As for peer reviews, it is reviews after the fact, not before, leading to published errors that are then reviewed. And there are cases of "peers" being complete charlatans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essjay_controversy) which (to my knowledge) hasn't yet happened with the traditional encyclopaedias. But thank goodness for all those people with doctorates in Pokemonology that can peer review Wikipedia articles;-)
It's also interesting that a number of Wikipedia articles cite the Encyclopaedia Britannica as a source (try citation 1 on the article on automobiles for example) . I'm not sure you'd find the reverse situation.
We also have an automatic toll system set up in a few places (on highways entering cities, for example) to automatically scan cars' number (license) plates and send bills to the car owners. This information is deleted as soon as the bills are paid and cannot be used by law enforcement. There are also speed cameras all over that take photos of the driver and automatically blur out the passengers. If you get a ticket as the car owner and you were not driving the car, then you don't have to pay it. My wife drives my car and I driver hers, which completely eliminates these sort of fines. Some people drive with burkas and sunglasses! Motorcyclists cannot get fines as they wear helmets. It's quite an interesting system.
It's great you have these strong privacy rules in place, but then when you start abusing the freedoms to avoid paying justified fines, you just put pressure on to have the laws weakened to stop them being abused in this way.
"Like all eminently quotable people, Dijkstra tended to hyperbole and oversimplification."
Surely you meant:
"Like all outstanding, amazingly prominent, extremely eminently quotable people, the immortal and infallible Dijkstra tended to massively over-exaggerated hyperbole and leaving out too many difficult bits."-
Slashdot Mirror
Hence the next prefix is likely to be xona
Xona and Xena hopefully :)
So as well as using terms from some of the greatest civilizations of the past we should now honour a short-lived Southern California slang term that will have no relevance to anybody else? At least "helluva" would have made a little more sense to people that aren't living in one little area of the world.
No one is forced into a conventional marriage.
Try submitting joint tax returns if you're not married and watch out for inheritance tax.
And don't even think about adopting in most states...
Nothing says you can't be married only for the tax and legal reasons.....I don't agree with it, but it's not illegal.
I think the point was the reverse - why should you have to get married to enjoy tax or legal benefits when marriage is based on religious moralities from the stone-age?
Come one, it's just a trumpet
REMEMBER JERICHO !!
Joel Robinson, is that you?
use less petrol/gas
take public transport
buy an electric car/hybrid
get on your bike
car share
move closer to work
use less petrol/gas
For our cosmology course, our recommended text was a book that was no longer in print and even when it was printed, the print run was extremely limited.
The photocopier got a lot of use that year!
Best of all, they grew on trees!
First tab-nabbing and now submission-nabbing where the link in the article changes after submission!
The professor was lecturing the class.
"So while two negatives make a positive, two positives can never make a negative"
An answering voice came from the back of the class:
"Yeah, right"
It's perfect - he's just from Brooklyn
you really should add a Pedo Panic button as soon as possible!
Dolph Lundgren? :)
I guess that depends on the size of your jeans, and depth of your pockets. My N1 fits rather nicely in mine, and I've seen people do that to their iPhones.
That's nothing. In the US, I've seen people do that with their iPads! They've got some wide butts out there ;-)
Can't find it now, but it was along the lines of:
"Independence Day. Aliens arrive on Earth in giant spaceships and proceed to destroy the White House.
However, they later turn out not top be friendly after all".
"Euston, we have a problem!"
"A paperless office is as useful as a paperless toilet.
But they both mean everything has to be done digitally... ;-)
The 'Configure now' option will use 'the entire device capacity, up to the maximum of 512 MB plus 16 GB,'
So who sells 16.5 GB USB sticks?
Driving Rights Management in this case!
Correction - should on the article on movable type: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movable_type
The automobile reference is to a dictionary.
But then again, it seems like everyone's saying that Wikipedia isn't to be trusted, but that traditional encyclopedias are. From where I'm standing, the only difference between them is the fact that Wikipedia is up front about the "don't trust us". Traditional encyclopedias are typically outdated as soon as they are purchased (for any kind of an active field at least), and typically only show the "opinion" of one or two editors in each subject. Wikipedia at least has the benefit that it's constantly updated and is "peer reviewed" by a significant number of people in the field (at least for the more popular topics). Both have their limitations, but at lest Wikipedia is upfront about theirs...
But you're comparing apples and oranges, on-line encyclopaedias vs dead wood encyclopaedias. The on-line Britannica is also updated more regularly than the print version. Also, the way Wikipedia is set-up, in many cases it also shows ony the "opinions" of a single editor who controls that particular entry. As for peer reviews, it is reviews after the fact, not before, leading to published errors that are then reviewed. And there are cases of "peers" being complete charlatans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essjay_controversy) which (to my knowledge) hasn't yet happened with the traditional encyclopaedias. But thank goodness for all those people with doctorates in Pokemonology that can peer review Wikipedia articles ;-)
It's also interesting that a number of Wikipedia articles cite the Encyclopaedia Britannica as a source (try citation 1 on the article on automobiles for example) . I'm not sure you'd find the reverse situation.
We also have an automatic toll system set up in a few places (on highways entering cities, for example) to automatically scan cars' number (license) plates and send bills to the car owners. This information is deleted as soon as the bills are paid and cannot be used by law enforcement. There are also speed cameras all over that take photos of the driver and automatically blur out the passengers. If you get a ticket as the car owner and you were not driving the car, then you don't have to pay it. My wife drives my car and I driver hers, which completely eliminates these sort of fines. Some people drive with burkas and sunglasses! Motorcyclists cannot get fines as they wear helmets. It's quite an interesting system.
It's great you have these strong privacy rules in place, but then when you start abusing the freedoms to avoid paying justified fines, you just put pressure on to have the laws weakened to stop them being abused in this way.
with all these different taste receptors, why can't i taste my own tongue?
"Like all eminently quotable people, Dijkstra tended to hyperbole and oversimplification."
Surely you meant:
"Like all outstanding, amazingly prominent, extremely eminently quotable people, the immortal and infallible Dijkstra tended to massively over-exaggerated hyperbole and leaving out too many difficult bits."-