The cynic in me would suspect Google of throwing these stories out there, via proxy, so that people would not stray from their app store.
Realistically though, I don't think I've seen a large surge in non-Google app stores.. although, perhaps in countries / areas where providers haven't paid Google for access, there is a growing trend?
Very well, I see you have not replied to the points raised two posts ago. I'll consider this discussion closed, as you are not reading and replying to the points I raise.
Those who don't study history are doomed to repeat it. The same crap went on a second time with the Americans under the opening up of the oil patch, and a third time under NAFTA where we guaranteed them a minimum of 59% of our production no matter what.
And yes, it's as valid to blame American business interests for maintaining a corrupt local government, same as it was for the Banana Wars, or more recently, the Shah of Iran and their "best buddy" Sadaam Hussein while it was profitable for them.
Good grief.
First, I have no idea what you mean by "the oil patch". Are you referring to the tarsands in Alberta? If so, what on earth does that have to do with the Americans?!
You do realise that the Alberta government *begged* anyone, foreign or domestic to work the tarsands, yes? There was no scam, no pressure from the Americans. Albertans *want* the oil out of the tarsands! It generates revenue for them! They democratically elected (and continue to elect) governments that *support* the tarsands being processed! Further, in addition to Canadian companies, there are Australian, Norwegian, Chinese, British and others mining the tarsands! To say it is an american endeavor is absurd.
As for NAFTA? We got an *incredible* deal in NAFTA. Further, *we* initiated discussions about NAFTA! Not the Americans!
How does any of this, by the way, have to do with Quebecers being racist? Are you suggesting that there is *ever* a valid reason for racism?
You do know what racism is, yes? Making assumptions about a person, based upon their physical/cultural characteristics, yes?
So, are you claiming that racism is a valid act? That it makes sense to be racist? Because, that's what you've been arguing...
Do you know that due to recent fervor over language recently, statements like 'press 9 for english' has disappeared from many state run menu items? Like Hydro Quebec? Amusingly, you can still press '9' to get english, but the prompt stating so is gone! Do you know that many government departments now refuse to speak english, even if they can? Due to their managers ordering them not to speak engish?
Of course it's gone. You no longer use the keypad to select language. You follow the voice prompts. The computer will detect if you're speaking english. This isn't the 20th century any more:-)
Uh, no. Not gone as in "you can't press 9". Gone, as in "it doesn't say "press 9 for english". Further, the Hydro Quebec number I am referring to, does not have voice recognition yet... unlike the Hydro Quebec "my power is out" line.
Of course, your flippant response did not even cover the other points above. It is becoming quite clear that you are not actually reading my posts, with an eye to respond to all the points raised therein.
And yes, it was one hospital worker. I have NEVER had a problem receiving services in english. Then again, I'm comfortable with both languages, so it's never been an issue. Most of the time, if the person is french, I'll switch to french anyway - and they'll keep on in english as per hospital policy.
Well, regardless, living in Quebec does not mean you should speak french. However, living in a predominately french speaking area? Sure, you should try! However, if you can't -- you shouldn't be treated rudely.
You should make the attempt because you would want the same consideration shown to you. Doesn't matter who the majority in an area is, you're still going to have some dealings with the other language, so it's only polite to learn both, no matter which side of the linguistic divide you hale from. Your prescription of "if it's a predominantly french area" makes no more sense than for the french to only speak english when in a predominantly english area. That's how this mess continues to simmer for some people - they simply don't want to make the e
You obviously don't know what you're talking about when you write this:
Er. Americans?! Well, first, I assume you mean Loyalists, who were not Americans.. they were English. After all, they left the Southern Colonies after they rebelled....
The Asbestos strike was in 1949. Not a couple of centuries ago. Just like racism is still alive and well in parts of the US today.
It was the typical behaviour of American multi-nationals treating french-quebecers at the time. So when you write:
anyone that says "200 years ago, my great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandparents had $x happen to them, so I'm mad" is a moron. An absolute idiot.
... you're the one being an "absolute idiot." A lot of these people are still alive.
Wow. Just -- wow.
Ok, fine... you're referencing something else. However, I assure you that most people outside of Quebec (and many people inside of Quebec), would not have caught this reference. After all, you simply stated 'the americans'.
After all, no one in the rest of Canada would think that "the americans" were responsible for the outcome of that strike. It was Quebecers that caused events to unfold as they did, NOT americans. A fanatically pro-business Conservative government -- elected by Quebecers, that was anti-union. The way this strike unfolded could have happened in any other industry, in Quebec, at that time -- thanks to Duplessis and his government's view of unions and labour.
The Americans did not invade Quebec and cause these woes! QUEBECERS DID! Quebec *elected* that government!
The police that followed orders.. were Quebec police! The corporate thugs were mostly Quebecers! These were Quebecers attacking other Quebecers.
Man, if people in Quebec blame the Americans for that -- pfft, what lunacy! Put the blame where it sits, on the people for electing that government! Or, are you trying to claim that after this event, Duplessis said "Wups -- we didn't know this happened!"
As for your rest, anyone who is not brain-damaged can learn to speak a second language if they want to. The question is motivation. It has nothing to do with the ability to read or write their primary language - reading and writing are not something that happens instinctively. Or did you have to go to school to learn to speak your primary language?
Clearly you do not understand that everyone's brain is not identical, and that age contributes to the ability to learn new languages -- which is fact. Until you do, this part of the discussion is utterly pointless.
As for your whole "old woman in Gatineau", I'm sure that there are thousands of examples of the same treatment of french-canadians in english-speaking provinces. Get over it, already. It's ancient history, and it was *one* hospital worker who was being an a**hole (kind of like you right now in accusing me of trolling when you can't even get the context right).
Uh, no. It was not one hospital worker. It was the hospital administration. Workers had been told (wink wink, nudge nudge) not to speak english even if they could -- lets they be let go. Don't give me that drivel about how a $10 per hour worker is protected... you can *always* find a pretense to let someone go, and people fear that.
Isolated, my ass!
Do you know that due to recent fervor over language recently, statements like 'press 9 for english' has disappeared from many state run menu items? Like Hydro Quebec? Amusingly, you can still press '9' to get english, but the prompt stating so is gone! Do you know that many government departments now refuse to speak english, even if they can? Due to their managers ordering them not to speak engish?
Like I wrote before, access to english-language hospit
English-language services are guaranteed in all Quebec hospitals by law. Sure, there have been times in the past when a hospital has been short-staffed, and people have hade to muddle through,
Hello?! How does the above relate to my original statement:
"There have been cases where hospital staff have been *ordered* not to speak english to people, even if they can. French only!"
There is a *vast* difference between there being a shortage of staff and having to 'muddle' through, and there being staff that speaks english but are told to NOT do so.
You have ignored this statement, and even implied it has not happened in the past. It has. Repeatedly. In Gatineau.
It is also, if you are a die-hard administrator of a hospital, a way to push forward a specific language agenda.
but let's be honest... if you're english and live in quebec, why not learn french? Knowing a second language helps delay alzhehimers by half a decade or more.
It's not that hard. Even two-year-olds manage to pick it up.
Uh.
Ok, so you suggest the 'wounded elderly woman' learn french? You compare the aged to the young?
Tom, are you really thinking this through?
First, there are dozens, yes dozens of reasons why someone may move to Quebec without it being their choice. People often 'tag along' with family members and loved ones. Aunts, Uncles, Parents, Grandparents, all may make a move when a child/relative moves to a new place. The elderly sometimes *have* *no* *choice*.
My example specifically listed an elderly person. You then responded to *my* example, and cited the langauge learning ability of a 2 year old. A *two* year old, that has the most powerful adaptive ability to learn a new language. You compared the absolute *worst* scenario for learning a new language (the elderly woman) to the easiest (a 2 year old).
Further, intelligence is not something that is identical across all skills. There are people that have great difficulty with language, that are geniuses in other fields. There are people that are geniuses with language, that have issues adding two numbers together. People are not all some identical clone off of an assembly line. Simply stating 'it's easy!' is disingenuous. You know such ease is not the case for all, surely.
Racism knows no bounds... and Quebec is quickly becoming the least tolerant society in North America.
It's the legacy of the Americans coming up here and treating them like they were dirt, same way they were treating the blacks in the US. But if you want to see least tolerant, go to Arizona.
What's stupid is someone who lives here and doesn't make an effort to speak the language. That's as ignorant as someone living in Alberta and not even making an effort to speak english. It cuts both ways.
Er. Americans?! Well, first, I assume you mean Loyalists, who were not Americans.. they were English. After all, they left the Southern Colonies after they rebelled....
Second, you're claiming that the racism of today has to do with the events of 235 years ago?! That's when the loyalists started to move North.
No, truthfully, in today's society of well read and well watched media, racism is the result of the *now*. It is the result of people *wanting* to create elitism, not a result of ignorance. Further, anyone that says "200 years ago, my great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandparents had $x happen to them, so I'm mad" is a moron. An absolute idiot.
And lastly, you've returned to another fallacy. The fallacy that "If someone is in Quebec, and they don't speak french, they didn't try!". After all, you've said "What's stupid is someone who lives here and doesn't make an effort to speak the language.", in the context of a discussion where we're talking about an OLD LADY IN THE HOSPITAL.
Ah, but my point was about the unilingual person in Quebec. Specifically, the unilingual english speaker.
There have been cases where hospital staff have been *ordered* not to speak english to people, even if they can. French only!
No, I'm not making this up. I know people that left Quebec because of it, and there were accusations of a mortally wounded elderly woman being treated this way in a Gatineau hospital.
Racism knows no bounds... and Quebec is quickly becoming the least tolerant society in North America.
It is imperitive that you throw off the shackles of peer pressure. More horror has been thrust upon the world due to peer pressure, than anything.. even religion.
You should not have a care in the world about what your fellow man thinks about your actions. Certainly, you need to define and live by a moral code, but hell.. in most cases peer pressure is the opposite of that.
Watching a TV show about your profession, is like watching teaching videos which are designed to teach you how to do everything wrong.
These teaching videos are coupled with strange music, which convey emotion in places that no normal person would feel strong emotion. They portray professionals acting as drama queens, as children, incapable of performing their job.
This is quite literally part of the problem with modern society. Heck, want to marry living hell? Marry a chick that watches soaps.
Stay away. If you are in law, especially a law student, STAY AWAY from law TV shows.
Long ago, I assume he's became hes, then his. At the same time, her's became hers, and it's became its.
So:
he's -> hes -> his her's -> hers it's -> its
So, when you realise that "it" is a non-gender specific pronoun, the apostrophe sort of makes sense.. or lack thereof.
As an aside, this is why I *hate* the use of she or her as a change in the non-gender specific use. Some languages use female, and others male as the non-gender specific, and English uses male. However, if we must protect the easily enslaved female mind and change the non-gender specific to save her, then let's do it right.
I've been using "it" in that capacity now for a decade. This is no more incorrect than using the female "her" when we do not know the gender, and in fact we know "it" was used this way in the past. For example, when someone knocks on the door, we say, "Who is it"? We do not think that a piece of rock, or a horse knocked; we know a human was at the door.
So, "it" at one point was the accepted non-gender specific, and we should use it again.
While I don't disagree with you I think the point made was that people live far away from their places of work regardless. In terms of planning that's not economically logical or environmentally friendly.
In the past decades we have focused on bringing people to buildings, while we should be looking at this issue from the point of the least possible impact and cost on a macroeconomic scale. Unless you perform a service in person or require expensive machinery there's no reason you should commute.
We should focus more on creating a new culture, and economic conditions where it's profoundly more beneficial for employers and employees to telecommute. Why waste energy and money unless there's an actual need? Society as a whole should increase the cost of transport for non-essential travel during the morning/afternoon commute and create incentives for telecommuting for everyone involved. And possibly make more use of differential pricing [of road use/fuel] based upon "classes" of users?
You lost me the first time you used bold. Next time try writing all in caps.
What the hell is tabs on titlebar? The only titlebar I have, is the actual x.org title bar managed by my window manager. If the tabs are up there, I'll be mightly pissed!
Why would I want to move my mouse that much further up the screen, past the url bar, the quicklinks, and what not?
When you say "the animal died humanely", you mean that it was an animal, member of the human species, and it then died? I mean, that's the only way a human can do things: Humanely. The word actually means "In a human way".
Quite a few percentages quoted, but no marker to base those percentages against.
When are all these ups and downs being compared to? The article doesn't say. The summary doesn't say.
Statements like "The average spam level for the quarter was 83% down from 88% in Q3 2010." clearly indicates that there is some point being tracked, prior to a half year ago.. but when? If spamit closed in September, why are figures from July-Sept showing a downtrend?
Electricity prices for commercial usage in California is what? 27cents/kwh? And it's what... FIVE CENTS per kwh in Quebec?
Sure.... SUUUUURE... that's all due to regulation, or infrastructure, or reliability. Suuuure.
Sorry for the MASSIVE sarcasm, but frankly -- have you seen how large/complex Quebec's infrastructure is?
The real difference in costs here, is the cost of the power source. Hydro in Quebec's case, or the fact that California buys so much of its power from out of state....
I was forced to post, so I could undo a mistaken moderation. Why does moderation happen instantly? Why can't you undo it, if your mouse slips, except via this method?
Slashdot Mirror
Hmm.
The cynic in me would suspect Google of throwing these stories out there, via proxy, so that people would not stray from their app store.
Realistically though, I don't think I've seen a large surge in non-Google app stores.. although, perhaps in countries / areas where providers haven't paid Google for access, there is a growing trend?
Very well, I see you have not replied to the points raised two posts ago. I'll consider this discussion closed, as you are not reading and replying to the points I raise.
Those who don't study history are doomed to repeat it. The same crap went on a second time with the Americans under the opening up of the oil patch, and a third time under NAFTA where we guaranteed them a minimum of 59% of our production no matter what.
And yes, it's as valid to blame American business interests for maintaining a corrupt local government, same as it was for the Banana Wars, or more recently, the Shah of Iran and their "best buddy" Sadaam Hussein while it was profitable for them.
Good grief.
First, I have no idea what you mean by "the oil patch". Are you referring to the tarsands in Alberta? If so, what on earth does that have to do with the Americans?!
You do realise that the Alberta government *begged* anyone, foreign or domestic to work the tarsands, yes? There was no scam, no pressure from the Americans. Albertans *want* the oil out of the tarsands! It generates revenue for them! They democratically elected (and continue to elect) governments that *support* the tarsands being processed! Further, in addition to Canadian companies, there are Australian, Norwegian, Chinese, British and others mining the tarsands! To say it is an american endeavor is absurd.
As for NAFTA? We got an *incredible* deal in NAFTA. Further, *we* initiated discussions about NAFTA! Not the Americans!
How does any of this, by the way, have to do with Quebecers being racist? Are you suggesting that there is *ever* a valid reason for racism?
You do know what racism is, yes? Making assumptions about a person, based upon their physical/cultural characteristics, yes?
So, are you claiming that racism is a valid act? That it makes sense to be racist? Because, that's what you've been arguing...
Of course it's gone. You no longer use the keypad to select language. You follow the voice prompts. The computer will detect if you're speaking english. This isn't the 20th century any more :-)
Uh, no. Not gone as in "you can't press 9". Gone, as in "it doesn't say "press 9 for english". Further, the Hydro Quebec number I am referring to, does not have voice recognition yet... unlike the Hydro Quebec "my power is out" line.
Of course, your flippant response did not even cover the other points above. It is becoming quite clear that you are not actually reading my posts, with an eye to respond to all the points raised therein.
And yes, it was one hospital worker. I have NEVER had a problem receiving services in english. Then again, I'm comfortable with both languages, so it's never been an issue. Most of the time, if the person is french, I'll switch to french anyway - and they'll keep on in english as per hospital policy.
You should make the attempt because you would want the same consideration shown to you. Doesn't matter who the majority in an area is, you're still going to have some dealings with the other language, so it's only polite to learn both, no matter which side of the linguistic divide you hale from. Your prescription of "if it's a predominantly french area" makes no more sense than for the french to only speak english when in a predominantly english area. That's how this mess continues to simmer for some people - they simply don't want to make the e
You obviously don't know what you're talking about when you write this:
The Asbestos strike was in 1949. Not a couple of centuries ago. Just like racism is still alive and well in parts of the US today.
It was the typical behaviour of American multi-nationals treating french-quebecers at the time.
So when you write:
Wow. Just -- wow.
Ok, fine... you're referencing something else. However, I assure you that most people outside of Quebec (and many people inside of Quebec), would not have caught this reference. After all, you simply stated 'the americans'.
After all, no one in the rest of Canada would think that "the americans" were responsible for the outcome of that strike. It was Quebecers that caused events to unfold as they did, NOT americans. A fanatically pro-business Conservative government -- elected by Quebecers, that was anti-union. The way this strike unfolded could have happened in any other industry, in Quebec, at that time -- thanks to Duplessis and his government's view of unions and labour.
The Americans did not invade Quebec and cause these woes! QUEBECERS DID! Quebec *elected* that government!
The police that followed orders .. were Quebec police! The corporate thugs were mostly Quebecers! These were Quebecers attacking other Quebecers.
Man, if people in Quebec blame the Americans for that -- pfft, what lunacy! Put the blame where it sits, on the people for electing that government! Or, are you trying to claim that after this event, Duplessis said "Wups -- we didn't know this happened!"
As for your rest, anyone who is not brain-damaged can learn to speak a second language if they want to. The question is motivation. It has nothing to do with the ability to read or write their primary language - reading and writing are not something that happens instinctively. Or did you have to go to school to learn to speak your primary language?
Clearly you do not understand that everyone's brain is not identical, and that age contributes to the ability to learn new languages -- which is fact. Until you do, this part of the discussion is utterly pointless.
As for your whole "old woman in Gatineau", I'm sure that there are thousands of examples of the same treatment of french-canadians in english-speaking provinces. Get over it, already. It's ancient history, and it was *one* hospital worker who was being an a**hole (kind of like you right now in accusing me of trolling when you can't even get the context right).
Uh, no. It was not one hospital worker. It was the hospital administration. Workers had been told (wink wink, nudge nudge) not to speak english even if they could -- lets they be let go. Don't give me that drivel about how a $10 per hour worker is protected... you can *always* find a pretense to let someone go, and people fear that.
Isolated, my ass!
Do you know that due to recent fervor over language recently, statements like 'press 9 for english' has disappeared from many state run menu items? Like Hydro Quebec? Amusingly, you can still press '9' to get english, but the prompt stating so is gone! Do you know that many government departments now refuse to speak english, even if they can? Due to their managers ordering them not to speak engish?
Like I wrote before, access to english-language hospit
English-language services are guaranteed in all Quebec hospitals by law. Sure, there have been times in the past when a hospital has been short-staffed, and people have hade to muddle through,
Hello?! How does the above relate to my original statement:
"There have been cases where hospital staff have been *ordered* not to speak english to people, even if they can. French only!"
There is a *vast* difference between there being a shortage of staff and having to 'muddle' through, and there being staff that speaks english but are told to NOT do so.
You have ignored this statement, and even implied it has not happened in the past. It has. Repeatedly. In Gatineau.
It is also, if you are a die-hard administrator of a hospital, a way to push forward a specific language agenda.
but let's be honest ... if you're english and live in quebec, why not learn french? Knowing a second language helps delay alzhehimers by half a decade or more.
It's not that hard. Even two-year-olds manage to pick it up.
Uh.
Ok, so you suggest the 'wounded elderly woman' learn french? You compare the aged to the young?
Tom, are you really thinking this through?
First, there are dozens, yes dozens of reasons why someone may move to Quebec without it being their choice. People often 'tag along' with family members and loved ones. Aunts, Uncles, Parents, Grandparents, all may make a move when a child/relative moves to a new place. The elderly sometimes *have* *no* *choice*.
My example specifically listed an elderly person. You then responded to *my* example, and cited the langauge learning ability of a 2 year old. A *two* year old, that has the most powerful adaptive ability to learn a new language. You compared the absolute *worst* scenario for learning a new language (the elderly woman) to the easiest (a 2 year old).
Further, intelligence is not something that is identical across all skills. There are people that have great difficulty with language, that are geniuses in other fields. There are people that are geniuses with language, that have issues adding two numbers together. People are not all some identical clone off of an assembly line. Simply stating 'it's easy!' is disingenuous. You know such ease is not the case for all, surely.
It's the legacy of the Americans coming up here and treating them like they were dirt, same way they were treating the blacks in the US. But if you want to see least tolerant, go to Arizona.
What's stupid is someone who lives here and doesn't make an effort to speak the language. That's as ignorant as someone living in Alberta and not even making an effort to speak english. It cuts both ways.
Er. Americans?! Well, first, I assume you mean Loyalists, who were not Americans.. they were English. After all, they left the Southern Colonies after they rebelled....
Second, you're claiming that the racism of today has to do with the events of 235 years ago?! That's when the loyalists started to move North.
No, truthfully, in today's society of well read and well watched media, racism is the result of the *now*. It is the result of people *wanting* to create elitism, not a result of ignorance. Further, anyone that says "200 years ago, my great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandparents had $x happen to them, so I'm mad" is a moron. An absolute idiot.
And lastly, you've returned to another fallacy. The fallacy that "If someone is in Quebec, and they don't speak french, they didn't try!". After all, you've said "What's stupid is someone who lives here and doesn't make an effort to speak the language.", in the context of a discussion where we're talking about an OLD LADY IN THE HOSPITAL.
How do you know she didn't try? Hell, Tom, th
Ah, but my point was about the unilingual person in Quebec. Specifically, the unilingual english speaker.
There have been cases where hospital staff have been *ordered* not to speak english to people, even if they can. French only!
No, I'm not making this up. I know people that left Quebec because of it, and there were accusations of a mortally wounded elderly woman being treated this way in a Gatineau hospital.
Racism knows no bounds... and Quebec is quickly becoming the least tolerant society in North America.
Unless you are in Quebec.
No!!
Correalation does not imply causation!
It is imperitive that you throw off the shackles of peer pressure. More horror has been thrust upon the world due to peer pressure, than anything .. even religion.
You should not have a care in the world about what your fellow man thinks about your actions. Certainly, you need to define and live by a moral code, but hell.. in most cases peer pressure is the opposite of that.
Being moral is NOT a popularity contest!
Don't watch any more, I beg you.
Watching a TV show about your profession, is like watching teaching videos which are designed to teach you how to do everything wrong.
These teaching videos are coupled with strange music, which convey emotion in places that no normal person would feel strong emotion. They portray professionals acting as drama queens, as children, incapable of performing their job.
This is quite literally part of the problem with modern society. Heck, want to marry living hell? Marry a chick that watches soaps.
Stay away. If you are in law, especially a law student, STAY AWAY from law TV shows.
Stay away.
Here's a great way to keep it straight.
Long ago, I assume he's became hes, then his. At the same time, her's became hers, and it's became its.
So:
he's -> hes -> his
her's -> hers
it's -> its
So, when you realise that "it" is a non-gender specific pronoun, the apostrophe sort of makes sense.. or lack thereof.
As an aside, this is why I *hate* the use of she or her as a change in the non-gender specific use. Some languages use female, and others male as the non-gender specific, and English uses male. However, if we must protect the easily enslaved female mind and change the non-gender specific to save her, then let's do it right.
I've been using "it" in that capacity now for a decade. This is no more incorrect than using the female "her" when we do not know the gender, and in fact we know "it" was used this way in the past. For example, when someone knocks on the door, we say, "Who is it"? We do not think that a piece of rock, or a horse knocked; we know a human was at the door.
So, "it" at one point was the accepted non-gender specific, and we should use it again.
Heh.
You now know that someone dislikes bold text, used in the way you used it, to the point of being unable to read such prose without discomfort.
I will also tell you that I know others that dislike bold to the same degree.
So, do what you will with the info. There's no need to get upset over the fact, perhaps I am a statistical minority.
While I don't disagree with you I think the point made was that people live far away from their places of work regardless. In terms of planning that's not economically logical or environmentally friendly.
In the past decades we have focused on bringing people to buildings, while we should be looking at this issue from the point of the least possible impact and cost on a macroeconomic scale. Unless you perform a service in person or require expensive machinery there's no reason you should commute.
We should focus more on creating a new culture, and economic conditions where it's profoundly more beneficial for employers and employees to telecommute. Why waste energy and money unless there's an actual need? Society as a whole should increase the cost of transport for non-essential travel during the morning/afternoon commute and create incentives for telecommuting for everyone involved. And possibly make more use of differential pricing [of road use/fuel] based upon "classes" of users?
You lost me the first time you used bold. Next time try writing all in caps.
Tabs on titlebar is self-explanatory.
No. No, it isn't.
What the hell is tabs on titlebar? The only titlebar I have, is the actual x.org title bar managed by my window manager. If the tabs are up there, I'll be mightly pissed!
Why would I want to move my mouse that much further up the screen, past the url bar, the quicklinks, and what not?
How would that even save space?!
Just the thought of Super Dave discussing the 6502 has me ROTFL!
Rock on SuperDave!
When you say "the animal died humanely", you mean that it was an animal, member of the human species, and it then died? I mean, that's the only way a human can do things: Humanely. The word actually means "In a human way".
No.
Go read a dictionary.
A spike into their brain is both humane, and natural! We are part of nature after all, as are our spears, gun, and spikes!
As for your other statement, look up the definition of humane.
As long as the animal lives and dies humanely, it's fine to eat it.
At the very least,children need meat to grow up healthy.
Which is precisely why pork tastes so good.. so we will breed them, and protect them as a species......
After all.. pork, beef and fowl are amoung the most numerous animals there are.. thanks to their tastiness!
ROTFL.
Quite a few percentages quoted, but no marker to base those percentages against.
When are all these ups and downs being compared to? The article doesn't say. The summary doesn't say.
Statements like "The average spam level for the quarter was 83% down from 88% in Q3 2010." clearly indicates that there is some point being tracked, prior to a half year ago.. but when? If spamit closed in September, why are figures from July-Sept showing a downtrend?
Bah!
Thing is, how many of those crimes could have been solved without those cameras?
You know, by people doing detective work? Neat thing about using that method ... it isn't 1984 like...
Uh.
Right.
Electricity prices for commercial usage in California is what? 27cents/kwh? And it's what... FIVE CENTS per kwh in Quebec?
Sure.... SUUUUURE... that's all due to regulation, or infrastructure, or reliability. Suuuure.
Sorry for the MASSIVE sarcasm, but frankly -- have you seen how large/complex Quebec's infrastructure is?
The real difference in costs here, is the cost of the power source. Hydro in Quebec's case, or the fact that California buys so much of its power from out of state ....
I went through a 9 season marathon of smallville earlier this year.
I feel for you.
I was forced to post, so I could undo a mistaken moderation. Why does moderation happen instantly? Why can't you undo it, if your mouse slips, except via this method?
There are no editors at /. None. Nada.
Never has been.
In fact, calling what Slashdot 'story submission approval' people do, 'editing', is an insult to editors everywhere!
No, the 49 acre piece of land is where they moved *to*. The price is for their old one acre lot..