"As for the comment boards, I found them to be awash in trolls, full of sniping and insults, largely devoid of serious and insightful discussion and generally difficult to read."
As a Slashdot reader, you shoud have felt right at home.
Thank you for your re-post, these things do matter.
Wikipedia is bound to get something wrong somewhere along the line, as are the sources they cite.
This seems to be a case of both.
For instance, in one of the examples they give "However, in the case of singular but discretely quantifiable nouns as in "one less cup of flour in this canister", the adjective less should be used, the prescriptivists argue.", the actual wording should be "one cup fewer of flour", or "one cup of flour fewer".
As for their example of "...the ambiguity it may provide in noun phrases like less promising results".", they make the mistake of thinking that the number of results has changed, when it is actually their individual and collective promise which is less.
What? Where you do live that power lines are not strung through conduit when laid underground???
I'm guessing most anywhere where power lines are buried underground.
Now if you mean buried under streets in a large urban area, that's a different situation, but in places where people have houses that have yards, conduit would just get in the way of digging down to where the problem is and splicing it.
"'It is a common misconception that the less initial numbers..."
When you have discrete, countable units, such as the symbols, in this case numbers, already present on the Sudoku grid, you have more or you have fewer.
When it's something you can't count, you have more or you have less.
I have more 16x16 grid sheets printed up for hexadecimal Sudoku, because those are the ones I copy from 'the net'.
I have fewer (currently none, actually) of the 9x9 (4 to a page) printed because I quit doing the 1-9 version sometime back.
I'm going to try this one out, but suspect it will turn out to be the type that lets you get just so far with logic and then leaves you no alternative but trial and error, just like the Saturday ones in a certain Raleigh newspaper.
"I would have been been 15 when the TV show came out in 1966...I was thrilled that one of my comic heroes was on TV, but did not like the fact that it was making fun of the genre."
I think you have been mislead by the comic books having been changed to be more like the TV show, just as the Batmobile was.
The Marvel comics, in the early to mid '60s, introduced a certain wisecracking humor that the DC titles had not had, but the "camp" was introduced with the TV show. It wasn't in the comics before that.
Batman, in the comics, was impressive because he had developed himself physically, since he didn't have superpowers, and because he was smart.
He had some gadgets that came in handy, but it didn't rise to the level of ridiculousness that it did in the TV show.
And the dialogue wasn't as horrible as the TV show's.
Actually, very little before or since in human history has been as horrible as the dialogue on the Batman TV show.
My original post was a joking reference to his not entirely serious remarks about the economic stimulus to be gained from gearing up for an alien invasion (which would be the justification for the government lying and saying a real one was coming).
But now that we seem to have diverted from humor, what, in percentages, are those significant interest rates at which you think we'd be borrowing?
Slashdot Mirror
What kind of ICs?
54/74xx?
555s? 723s?
Perspiring minds want to know.
Just remember, when you (individual or government) can take from the rich simply because their rich, then you can also take from the poor...
No you can't. They don't have anything. That's why they're called poor.
: - )
Seriously, one would think that putting a McDonald's in Paris would constitute an assault all by itself.
Nah, we replaced her with a Bradbury 9000.
Too late, Ed Sullivan said it first.
Then rebuild from scratch.
Only way to be sure.
"As for the comment boards, I found them to be awash in trolls, full of sniping and insults, largely devoid of serious and insightful discussion and generally difficult to read."
As a Slashdot reader, you shoud have felt right at home.
Except the comment software is much, much worse.
Though not as bad as WordPress.
...did they get because Google sent them that way, and how many were regular HuffPo readers who saw it on the main page?
Oh, they read each other's comments. (and then the claws come out)
They just don't bother to actually read the article.
Sound familiar?
Thank you for your re-post, these things do matter.
Wikipedia is bound to get something wrong somewhere along the line, as are the sources they cite.
This seems to be a case of both.
For instance, in one of the examples they give "However, in the case of singular but discretely quantifiable nouns as in "one less cup of flour in this canister", the adjective less should be used, the prescriptivists argue.", the actual wording should be "one cup fewer of flour", or "one cup of flour fewer".
As for their example of "...the ambiguity it may provide in noun phrases like less promising results".", they make the mistake of thinking that the number of results has changed, when it is actually their individual and collective promise which is less.
Romney's no more a liberal than he is a conservative or anything else.
His only firm political belief is that he believes he'd like to be President.
What? Where you do live that power lines are not strung through conduit when laid underground???
I'm guessing most anywhere where power lines are buried underground.
Now if you mean buried under streets in a large urban area, that's a different situation, but in places where people have houses that have yards, conduit would just get in the way of digging down to where the problem is and splicing it.
It's obviously the fault of the unions.
Ask any right-winger.
Any number of people are credited with that quote, or variations.
Could I trouble you to be specific as to the person to whom you refer?
"'It is a common misconception that the less initial numbers..."
When you have discrete, countable units, such as the symbols, in this case numbers, already present on the Sudoku grid, you have more or you have fewer .
When it's something you can't count, you have more or you have less.
I have more 16x16 grid sheets printed up for hexadecimal Sudoku, because those are the ones I copy from 'the net'.
I have fewer (currently none, actually) of the 9x9 (4 to a page) printed because I quit doing the 1-9 version sometime back.
I'm going to try this one out, but suspect it will turn out to be the type that lets you get just so far with logic and then leaves you no alternative but trial and error, just like the Saturday ones in a certain Raleigh newspaper.
That's because Windom was pretty much good in everything he did. Especially as Thurber.
"NOTE: Season 1 is also best-watched in production number order, not airdate order."
So the NBC suits gave birth just in time for them to be Fox suits when Firefly premiered?
Do they do that sort of thing to non-sci-fi shows as well?
"I would have been been 15 when the TV show came out in 1966...I was thrilled that one of my comic heroes was on TV, but did not like the fact that it was making fun of the genre."
Are you sure you aren't me?
Not to mention being able to solve the problem of all of those people on the internet who are still wrong and finally get some sleep.
Tom Baker, of Dr. Who fame, had his Ward, both on-screen and off.
I think you have been mislead by the comic books having been changed to be more like the TV show, just as the Batmobile was.
The Marvel comics, in the early to mid '60s, introduced a certain wisecracking humor that the DC titles had not had, but the "camp" was introduced with the TV show. It wasn't in the comics before that.
Batman, in the comics, was impressive because he had developed himself physically, since he didn't have superpowers, and because he was smart.
He had some gadgets that came in handy, but it didn't rise to the level of ridiculousness that it did in the TV show.
And the dialogue wasn't as horrible as the TV show's.
Actually, very little before or since in human history has been as horrible as the dialogue on the Batman TV show.
The liberals did take a good page out of 1984 by learning how to warp and manipulate language to fit their own agenda.
I thought the current world record holder for that was Frank Luntz.
Well, as long as they didn't steal your baby in the outback...
It's very simple, being on the right nowadays requires a willing suspension of sanity.
And so I hold my nose and vote for the only candidates opposing them that actually have a chance to win.
My original post was a joking reference to his not entirely serious remarks about the economic stimulus to be gained from gearing up for an alien invasion (which would be the justification for the government lying and saying a real one was coming).
But now that we seem to have diverted from humor, what, in percentages, are those significant interest rates at which you think we'd be borrowing?