It's great that all you drivers are so concerned about being able to help out others in distress. Well then would it f**king kill you to pull over, stop the car, and get out to make the call?! I guarantee it won't be jammed.
I recently obtained a Brazilian tourist visa for a trip in January. Whereas the visa fee for most countries like EU members or Japan is $20, U.S. citizens are singled out for a $160 fee, which is classified as a "reciprocal fee" (and the clerk at the consulate made sure to emphasize that when I submitted the application). And when I go, I fully expect the full interrogation, fingerprints, etc., while my Japanese wife will be waved right through.
It's just a blatant tit-for-tat move to get back at U.S. immigration policies. I frankly don't see how it benefits Brazil in any way, but I can hardly blame them.
Interesting thing, though, is that while my wife's $20 visa is valid for a 90-day period, my $150 visa is good for ten years.
And how would this in any way affect search procedures for U.S. citizens on domestic flights, which constitute the vast majority of flights to/from U.S. airports? Pre-flight TSA security checks (keeping bombs off the plane) have nothing to do with immigration procedures on arrival (keeping undesirable people from entering the country).
And many countries are doing what you've described, singling out U.S. passport holders for higher visa fees and more extensive checks, fingerprinting, etc. It hasn't done a thing except piss off international travelers. It certainly isn't going to increase pressure on the U.S. to change policies, and ends up just hurting the countries doing this (as well as the U.S.). I don't think many U.S. citizens are going to complain to the government to please stop hassling Brazilian citizens, so that the Brazil will stop hassling U.S. citizens and make it easier to go there. They're just going to decide not to go to Brazil.
On one hand we have a person who uses his ingenuity to exploit a market in a way that is completely legal yet socially unrespected, is completely open about how he does it and to what degree, describes this to millions of readers all over the world, and still admits to having moral reservations about it.
On the other hand we have someone who asserts that what the first person does is in itself "probably illegal" without presenting any supporting evidence, suggests in addition (also with no evidence) that the first person is evading taxes, and finally admits to be willing to destroy his own property just to spite the intentions of the first person.
I certainly have no trouble deciding which person I have more respect for.
It's not just smearing; you're also pushing the pen "into" the paper with nearly every horizontal stroke, so it digs in. Especially with cursive, where every letter is connected by a horizontal ligature.
And if holding the pen above the line is incorrect, apparently the vast majority of teachers are doing it wrong.
So I'm not the only one who thought the interviewer's pronunciation was bizarre.
For all of you who haven't listened to the podcast, he pronounces the first 'a' the same as in "have", rather than "jar". I have never heard "Java" (the place or the language) pronounced that way.
You're missing the point. "Persian" vs "Farsi" is like "Mandarin" vs. "Putonghwa", or "Cantonese" vs. "Gwong zau wa".
An Iranian speaking in his native language will say "Farsi", but a person speaking English will say "Persian", to refer to the same thing. If someone asks you in English what language you speak, I don't think you will reply in English "I speak gwong zau waa". And conversely, if an Iranian tells me "I speak Farsi", I would say "In English we call it Persian."
The drone pilots are military pilots, in uniform, on military installations. The aircraft themselves are clearly marked with U.S. Air Force insignia.
"Hiding among civilians" would be If the drone aircraft were carrying out their attacks while mixed in among a formation of CNN-chartered helicopters and UN support transports, or if the pilots remotely operating the aircraft were doing so sitting in public cafes dressed as businessman.
The enemy are wholly justified under the rules of warfare to attack the drone aircraft, or the pilots who control them. Neither of these actions in any way necessitate engaging civilians. If Taliban soldiers in Afghanistan don't have the means to take out a pilot sitting in a underground bunker in Las Vegas, that's their problem.
Actually, if you're talking about academic publications, I would bet that the typical foreign (non-native speaker or English) reader would have no more, perhaps even less, trouble understanding modern SMS-influenced grammar than a typical middle-aged, non-academic native speaker of English (myself). Why? Because such people have probably picked up all their informal English from their peers -- fellow grad students who are young and tech-savvy.
There's no arguing your main point that using "cuz" in an academic paper is a very bad idea, but I think you're underestimating the ability of non-native speakers to pick up informal language. The French speaker can figure out a phonetic transform in English-as-a-second-language just as well as the native speaker.
I frequently read English-language e-mails/postings by Japanese, Turkish, and Brazilian people and they use "pls" and "ur" and the rest all the time. Conversely, I occasionally read Portuguese (my third or fourth language) on net forums, and figuring out abbreviations like
"vc" for "você" is quite simple.
What makes this different from Legos, pixelblocks, ASCII art, or even a JPEG image, is that the selection of pixels/pieces is predetermined, limited, and they must all be used to make the image. For all those other forms you're allowed to pick the closest color value for each pixel.
With this puzzle, supposing you did it manually, scanning row by row, and picking the best-fitting piece for each pixel. It'll look great at first, but soon you'll be running out of good matches and having to choose less and less optimal pieces; you can't say "give me a 45% with a sideways gradient" when you've used them all up. So the algorithm has to consider how to distribute all the pieces throughout the image for the optimum match.
Yeah, yeah. You know what's another lazy form of protest? Stupid people who protest to show how much they disagree with the policy of their country's government. If they take such exception, they should stop being subject to the government by renouncing their citizenship and moving to another country. Sheesh.
Two is, in fact, a somewhat magical number, and thus a legitimate condition for unions (of people or anything else). In a group of two, each member has one and only one partner.
What if an outside agency (such as the police) is in a situation of having to notify or otherwise grant some priviledge to a person's spouse in an emergency? If the person has multiple spouses, which should come first? If one can't be tracked down, how many more should be tried?
With just two people, one can't get jealous of the "other". Two or more can't conspire against others.
As every software tester should know, there are three classes of numbers: zero, one, and more than one. And a partnership by definition is one to one, not zero, no more than one.
Why should marriage be tied to the issue of having children? The two acts are completely independent of each other, and an enlightened definition of marriage should thus pose no restrictions based on consanguinity. What if one or both are infertile?
Preventing inbred children is a legitimate concern, but that is, and should be, out the reach of marriage laws.
Yeah, after all everyone knows just how superior -- in terms of nutrition, environmental impact, and taste -- the typical Western diet (beef and processed everything) is, right?
We ought to be subsidizing McDonald's to provide meals in space.
>> The other straws being waiting three hours in >> security lines, having your baggage smashed by >> pissed-off hispanic handlers,....
I'm neither hispanic, nor a particular fan of airport baggage handlers, but as an American I say, by all means, take your ethnic stereotypes to other countries whose baggage handlers will most certainly appreciate them.
Let's see, from your post I surmise that you are neither a EU citizen nor a US citizen.
So what is/was your citizenship? The Soviet Union? Some "non-aligned" African republic? (How many foreigners were able to enter The German Democratic Republic without a visa?!)
>They wont let me in the country, even if I > have a visa, even if I answer all the > intrusive questions they want to ask.
If you have a visa, doesn't that by definition mean they've agreed to let you in the country?
As the article says, the survey is about how many people participate in the sports and gaming. If you put it that way, probably more Americans play games than play basketball, more Japanese play games than play baseball. Not at all surprising.
But if someone says he's "in to football", chances are good that he's in to watching professional football, not playing it. Apparently only 3% of Swedes play hockey, but undoubtedly many many more watch it. I think even a lot of football fans would, if placed in front of a TV set, prefer to interact and be challenged by a game than passively watch a game. And either activity would be greatly preferred to actually going out and getting down in the dirt.
And nowhere does the article mention the amount of money spent on gaming vs. sports, and that's the conventional measure of how "big" something is. It's quite possible that gaming does take in more money, but probably not to the proportions reported here.
Slashdot Mirror
Copying others' work without attribution, in a forum dedicated to the idea of reaping riches without working for it? I would have never imagined!
Also this podcast: http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2010/06/blakely_on_fash.html
It's great that all you drivers are so concerned about being able to help out others in distress. Well then would it f**king kill you to pull over, stop the car, and get out to make the call?! I guarantee it won't be jammed.
I recently obtained a Brazilian tourist visa for a trip in January. Whereas the visa fee for most countries like EU members or Japan is $20, U.S. citizens are singled out for a $160 fee, which is classified as a "reciprocal fee" (and the clerk at the consulate made sure to emphasize that when I submitted the application). And when I go, I fully expect the full interrogation, fingerprints, etc., while my Japanese wife will be waved right through.
It's just a blatant tit-for-tat move to get back at U.S. immigration policies. I frankly don't see how it benefits Brazil in any way, but I can hardly blame them.
Interesting thing, though, is that while my wife's $20 visa is valid for a 90-day period, my $150 visa is good for ten years.
And how would this in any way affect search procedures for U.S. citizens on domestic flights, which constitute the vast majority of flights to/from U.S. airports? Pre-flight TSA security checks (keeping bombs off the plane) have nothing to do with immigration procedures on arrival (keeping undesirable people from entering the country).
And many countries are doing what you've described, singling out U.S. passport holders for higher visa fees and more extensive checks, fingerprinting, etc. It hasn't done a thing except piss off international travelers. It certainly isn't going to increase pressure on the U.S. to change policies, and ends up just hurting the countries doing this (as well as the U.S.). I don't think many U.S. citizens are going to complain to the government to please stop hassling Brazilian citizens, so that the Brazil will stop hassling U.S. citizens and make it easier to go there. They're just going to decide not to go to Brazil.
So did I, until I saw Jeremiah Cornelius' post. Wow.
Let me see.
On one hand we have a person who uses his ingenuity to exploit a market in a way that is completely legal yet socially unrespected, is completely open about how he does it and to what degree, describes this to millions of readers all over the world, and still admits to having moral reservations about it.
On the other hand we have someone who asserts that what the first person does is in itself "probably illegal" without presenting any supporting evidence, suggests in addition (also with no evidence) that the first person is evading taxes, and finally admits to be willing to destroy his own property just to spite the intentions of the first person.
I certainly have no trouble deciding which person I have more respect for.
No, it's this guy.
It's not just smearing; you're also pushing the pen "into" the paper with nearly every horizontal stroke, so it digs in. Especially with cursive, where every letter is connected by a horizontal ligature.
And if holding the pen above the line is incorrect, apparently the vast majority of teachers are doing it wrong.
...unless they get a lucky break.
I think I learned that in junior high.
So I'm not the only one who thought the interviewer's pronunciation was bizarre.
For all of you who haven't listened to the podcast, he pronounces the first 'a' the same as in "have", rather than "jar". I have never heard "Java" (the place or the language) pronounced that way.
You're missing the point. "Persian" vs "Farsi" is like "Mandarin" vs. "Putonghwa", or "Cantonese" vs. "Gwong zau wa".
An Iranian speaking in his native language will say "Farsi", but a person speaking English will say "Persian", to refer to the same thing. If someone asks you in English what language you speak, I don't think you will reply in English "I speak gwong zau waa". And conversely, if an Iranian tells me "I speak Farsi", I would say "In English we call it Persian."
The drone pilots are military pilots, in uniform, on military installations. The aircraft themselves are clearly marked with U.S. Air Force insignia.
"Hiding among civilians" would be If the drone aircraft were carrying out their attacks while mixed in among a formation of CNN-chartered helicopters and UN support transports, or if the pilots remotely operating the aircraft were doing so sitting in public cafes dressed as businessman.
The enemy are wholly justified under the rules of warfare to attack the drone aircraft, or the pilots who control them. Neither of these actions in any way necessitate engaging civilians. If Taliban soldiers in Afghanistan don't have the means to take out a pilot sitting in a underground bunker in Las Vegas, that's their problem.
Actually, if you're talking about academic publications, I would bet that the typical foreign (non-native speaker or English) reader would have no more, perhaps even less, trouble understanding modern SMS-influenced grammar than a typical middle-aged, non-academic native speaker of English (myself). Why? Because such people have probably picked up all their informal English from their peers -- fellow grad students who are young and tech-savvy.
There's no arguing your main point that using "cuz" in an academic paper is a very bad idea, but I think you're underestimating the ability of non-native speakers to pick up informal language. The French speaker can figure out a phonetic transform in English-as-a-second-language just as well as the native speaker.
I frequently read English-language e-mails/postings by Japanese, Turkish, and Brazilian people and they use "pls" and "ur" and the rest all the time. Conversely, I occasionally read Portuguese (my third or fourth language) on net forums, and figuring out abbreviations like
"vc" for "você" is quite simple.
Get your ass to Mars!
What makes this different from Legos, pixelblocks, ASCII art, or even a JPEG image, is that the selection of pixels/pieces is predetermined, limited, and they must all be used to make the image. For all those other forms you're allowed to pick the closest color value for each pixel.
With this puzzle, supposing you did it manually, scanning row by row, and picking the best-fitting piece for each pixel. It'll look great at first, but soon you'll be running out of good matches and having to choose less and less optimal pieces; you can't say "give me a 45% with a sideways gradient" when you've used them all up. So the algorithm has to consider how to distribute all the pieces throughout the image for the optimum match.
"Jigazo" means "self-portrait" in Japanese. Clever naming.
Yeah, yeah. You know what's another lazy form of protest? Stupid people who protest to show how much they disagree with the policy of their country's government. If they take such exception, they should stop being subject to the government by renouncing their citizenship and moving to another country. Sheesh.
Two is, in fact, a somewhat magical number, and thus a legitimate condition for unions (of people or anything else). In a group of two, each member has one and only one partner.
What if an outside agency (such as the police) is in a situation of having to notify or otherwise grant some priviledge to a person's spouse in an emergency? If the person has multiple spouses, which should come first? If one can't be tracked down, how many more should be tried?
With just two people, one can't get jealous of the "other". Two or more can't conspire against others.
As every software tester should know, there are three classes of numbers: zero, one, and more than one. And a partnership by definition is one to one, not zero, no more than one.
Why should marriage be tied to the issue of having children? The two acts are completely independent of each other, and an enlightened definition of marriage should thus pose no restrictions based on consanguinity. What if one or both are infertile?
Preventing inbred children is a legitimate concern, but that is, and should be, out the reach of marriage laws.
Yeah, after all everyone knows just how superior -- in terms of nutrition, environmental impact, and taste -- the typical Western diet (beef and processed everything) is, right?
We ought to be subsidizing McDonald's to provide meals in space.
>> The other straws being waiting three hours in ....
>> security lines, having your baggage smashed by
>> pissed-off hispanic handlers,
I'm neither hispanic, nor a particular fan of airport baggage handlers, but as an American I say, by all means, take your ethnic stereotypes to other countries whose baggage handlers will most certainly appreciate them.
Let's see, from your post I surmise that you are neither a EU citizen nor a US citizen.
So what is/was your citizenship? The Soviet Union? Some "non-aligned" African republic? (How many foreigners were able to enter The German Democratic Republic without a visa?!)
>They wont let me in the country, even if I
> have a visa, even if I answer all the
> intrusive questions they want to ask.
If you have a visa, doesn't that by definition mean they've agreed to let you in the country?
As the article says, the survey is about how many people participate in the sports and gaming. If you put it that way, probably more Americans play games than play basketball, more Japanese play games than play baseball. Not at all surprising.
But if someone says he's "in to football", chances are good that he's in to watching professional football, not playing it. Apparently only 3% of Swedes play hockey, but undoubtedly many many more watch it. I think even a lot of football fans would, if placed in front of a TV set, prefer to interact and be challenged by a game than passively watch a game. And either activity would be greatly preferred to actually going out and getting down in the dirt.
And nowhere does the article mention the amount of money spent on gaming vs. sports, and that's the conventional measure of how "big" something is. It's quite possible that gaming does take in more money, but probably not to the proportions reported here.
...I hear there are some rolling stones that are even older.