Most of what IE does that Mozilla doesn't is based on bugs. Mozilla already has a fantastic quirks mode that works around sites designed for IE bugs. All that's left is Jscript, ActiveX, VBscript, the technologies that Mozilla wouldn't include even if they were open source.
3. It is easy to use COM to instantiate Word from your own code and manipulate documents throught the API, so ".doc format" is fully accessible and reusable from your own code, just as it would be if it was "open source".
Don't you need to pay for office to get that COM object? Or pay bigtime to be allowed to distribute it? Lastly, why did you put "open source" in quotation marks?
My main objection was simply that the word "entrepreneurship" is exactly synonymous to the word "enterprise". "Entrepreneur" is derived from "enterprise"--or from their common parent--but apparently is too different for many people to remember the relationship. So someone decided to make a word for "what an enrepreneur does", unaware that such a word already existed. I tend to object to all neologisms that are based on ignorance (e.g. "virii").
It has always been odd to me that people would cheat so much. They would put a lot of effort into it, and it was a constant struggle to keep up with it. It is funny to me that knowledge, even in something you aren't interested in, is avoided. I wonder if this is a by-product of our quick-fix culture, or if this affects other countries as well.
I studied like a madman, and then when I was taking the tests, I knew all the answers. It's like a whole new kind of cheating!
Personally, I think it's quite an innovative bit of entrepeurneership from the websites
What? Firstly, it's "entrepreneurship". Secondly, no it's not; it's "enterprise". I don't usually complain about spelling so you should ignore that part, but "entrepreneurship" is the single most irritating word in the English language (including "blog"). Yes, I know, it's off topic and pretentious and you can feel free to ignore me but I can't let that word slide.
It's unfortunate that "gender" was a convenient grammatical term that was abused when people decided it was no longer acceptable to say the word "sex". The sex-related definitions are entirely derived from the original grammatical one. I agree, of course, that tables have gender but not sex. I find it curious that Anglophones are perturbed by the use of two genders in other languages when the real curiosity is why we have (grammatical) genders at all.
Yes it is. That's what gender means. Gender has nothing to do with sex except that words describing females (the sex) are generally female (the gender) and similarly for males.
"And it will not change." What? By your royal decree? Of course it'll change. Everything changes eventually. My personal take on the capitalisation of "internet" is if "the world" is correct then so is "the internet". Though really it's "an internet". It's a bit like "god" versus "God". "The Internet" is a proper noun describing "an internet".
Interesting reading, thanks. I guess I just fell victim to another division by a common language. Being Irish--and therefore a speaker of British English--I have always known "Esquire" to be a slightly pretentious variation of "Mister". Anyone entitled to call themselves "Mister" (ie. any adult male) can instead use "Esquire", though never both. After some more reading it seems that this is a very recent use of the word, with no claim to being more correct than your (American) version.
This isn't hugely important to the topic at hand but Parry Aftab calls herself "Parry Aftab, Esq." What's up with that? Maybe once she learns what esquire means she can start to learn what "I was here first" means. Idiot.
We see a full moon every 28 days. So a month with 31 days will have a blue moon if it has a full moon in the first three days. The chance of that is 3/28. The chance of a blue moon in a 30-day month is 2/28. There are 7 31-day months, 4 30-day months. So chance of no blue moon in a year (treating the months as independent of each other which obviously isn't the case but shouldn't affect the outcome) is (25/28)^7 * (26/28)^4 which is about 43.4%. So there's a 56.6% chance of a blue moon in any year.
Well I've just listened for it and I couldn't find it anywhere in Fit the First. Let's say for the moment that it is there (Zaphod: "it is", Ford: "...which it isn't") what stops the movie from having any of the book's lines from the radio show?
The punctuation issue isn't one of hard right and wrong (unlike, say, apostrophes). The British style of punctuation is compatible with the programmer style in most cases. Furthermore it's substantially more logical to use a system that never adds elements to the quote that were not part of the quote. Putting punctuation inside is hideous.
Slashdot Mirror
Most of what IE does that Mozilla doesn't is based on bugs. Mozilla already has a fantastic quirks mode that works around sites designed for IE bugs. All that's left is Jscript, ActiveX, VBscript, the technologies that Mozilla wouldn't include even if they were open source.
Don't you need to pay for office to get that COM object? Or pay bigtime to be allowed to distribute it? Lastly, why did you put "open source" in quotation marks?
My main objection was simply that the word "entrepreneurship" is exactly synonymous to the word "enterprise". "Entrepreneur" is derived from "enterprise"--or from their common parent--but apparently is too different for many people to remember the relationship. So someone decided to make a word for "what an enrepreneur does", unaware that such a word already existed. I tend to object to all neologisms that are based on ignorance (e.g. "virii").
I studied like a madman, and then when I was taking the tests, I knew all the answers. It's like a whole new kind of cheating!
What? Firstly, it's "entrepreneurship". Secondly, no it's not; it's "enterprise". I don't usually complain about spelling so you should ignore that part, but "entrepreneurship" is the single most irritating word in the English language (including "blog"). Yes, I know, it's off topic and pretentious and you can feel free to ignore me but I can't let that word slide.
It's unfortunate that "gender" was a convenient grammatical term that was abused when people decided it was no longer acceptable to say the word "sex". The sex-related definitions are entirely derived from the original grammatical one. I agree, of course, that tables have gender but not sex. I find it curious that Anglophones are perturbed by the use of two genders in other languages when the real curiosity is why we have (grammatical) genders at all.
Welcome to my friends list.
Yes it is. That's what gender means. Gender has nothing to do with sex except that words describing females (the sex) are generally female (the gender) and similarly for males.
"And it will not change." What? By your royal decree? Of course it'll change. Everything changes eventually. My personal take on the capitalisation of "internet" is if "the world" is correct then so is "the internet". Though really it's "an internet". It's a bit like "god" versus "God". "The Internet" is a proper noun describing "an internet".
They'll be trapped!
That wasn't an achievement! He was a physics nerd. It would have been a great achievement to avoid abstinence.
You can give it--as well as all the other contents of your wallet--to me, the Wallet Inspector.
Interesting reading, thanks. I guess I just fell victim to another division by a common language. Being Irish--and therefore a speaker of British English--I have always known "Esquire" to be a slightly pretentious variation of "Mister". Anyone entitled to call themselves "Mister" (ie. any adult male) can instead use "Esquire", though never both. After some more reading it seems that this is a very recent use of the word, with no claim to being more correct than your (American) version.
This isn't hugely important to the topic at hand but Parry Aftab calls herself "Parry Aftab, Esq." What's up with that? Maybe once she learns what esquire means she can start to learn what "I was here first" means. Idiot.
You're not suggesting Katie get together with someone she met on the internet?
We see a full moon every 28 days. So a month with 31 days will have a blue moon if it has a full moon in the first three days. The chance of that is 3/28. The chance of a blue moon in a 30-day month is 2/28. There are 7 31-day months, 4 30-day months. So chance of no blue moon in a year (treating the months as independent of each other which obviously isn't the case but shouldn't affect the outcome) is (25/28)^7 * (26/28)^4 which is about 43.4%. So there's a 56.6% chance of a blue moon in any year.
Batman doesn't even own *a* gun, let alone many guns that would necessitate an entire rack.
I think, if anything, James Earl Jones would be the black one. Then again I don't know who Wilford Brimly is so he could be blacker than JEJ.
Well I've just listened for it and I couldn't find it anywhere in Fit the First. Let's say for the moment that it is there (Zaphod: "it is", Ford: "...which it isn't") what stops the movie from having any of the book's lines from the radio show?
The radio series was hillarious without such lines, why would the movie be any less hillarious?
I bet she has pointy knees
The punctuation issue isn't one of hard right and wrong (unlike, say, apostrophes). The British style of punctuation is compatible with the programmer style in most cases. Furthermore it's substantially more logical to use a system that never adds elements to the quote that were not part of the quote. Putting punctuation inside is hideous.
What if there was a smaller bird or mammal? Then that would be the smallest vertebrate (unless there was something smaller again).
Gah! Don't hit post before you're finished. They're actually monkeys, but the ones with no tails are refered to as apes.
Can't blame you for not being sure. Consider the rhesus monkey and the barbary ape. Both are macaques.