I mean, you put a sharp metal edge on those... wings and you've got, well, something that rocks. It's more of a waddle, but yeah, they do kind of rock back and forth.
So Sylar may have had the foresight to do what he did. I'll accept that as a path I hadn't considered. That Peter can't fly is rubbish as far as I'm concerned. He's demonstrated control over it and strong control over many of his other powers. There is one power he seems incapable of controlling, and that's the radioactivity.
I suppose it's possible that Mohinder is also trained in first aid, though that's certainly not made clear anywhere prior to him attending to D.L. Beyond that, paramedics are paramedics and are trained in first response. Geneticists aren't. I'm not sure how there's any confusion in this beyond semantic nitpicking (doctor vs. paramedic).
Heroes suffers strongly from an inability to live up to its own hype. Forget the commercials and all the crap they pump into the show, just watch the story build up and then fall completely flat in an oh-so-anticlimactic fashion. It happens repeatedly through small plot bumps through the series and then rears its head in an ugly fashion with the season finale.
[spoilers ahead?] And that wasn't even the smallest problem with the finale. The characters became completely disassociated with their build-up through earlier episodes. Sylar goes from being able to control 100 pieces of glass simultaneously, to not being able to withstand an attack from two different people. Peter can fly, but requires Nathan to carry him up and out of harm's way. Mohinder states in one episode that he's a geneticist, not a doctor, and then later acts as a paramedic for D.L. and others.
I still hold hope for the show. I hope that they can get their act together and do some decent writing. It was an enjoyable, albeit absolutely aggravating, show to watch. I'm willing to accept all of the fantastical parts of the show, but such disingenuous writing, changing characters to allow for some poorly-though-out plot line is completely bogus.
I keep reading your hidden message, but it just doesn't make sense to me. "John Dvorak fired Trash-80 Radio Shack biggest" Am I missing a cipher key to translate that into something else?
On-line websites have been a major source of information security breaches. SO TRUE! We should all be using off-line websites. They are MUCH more secure.
Why correct to something phonetically dissimilar to what the person was saying when a perfectly reasonable, phonetically similar, and equally correct alternative exists?
"Would've" is much closer to "Would of" than "Would have" is.
I recommend thinking about why the person used the wrong word before correcting him or her.
I'm pretty sure only seeing two lines of your pictures and videos and such would be a little more annoying than only seeing two lines of your text message. But maybe that's just me.
Well, clearly then, the analogy should have been, "And Manning drops back to pass...", because then a whole slew of things could happen: fumble, sack, scramble, end around, pass, interception,...
They get their milk from the store. (get is singular) No. The third person plural form of "to get" is "get". As you so kindly provided earlier, the third person singular form of "to get" is "gets".
It's the same difference as building a mosaic out of a bunch of different colored tiles and dropping one breaking one big painted tile into different pieces. One is fragmented and put together by design, the other is broken.
And I feel happy without that. I think something just broke, and I don't want to fix it. That's a great way of putting it. So now I'm going to steal it.:)
schools have the right to require uniforms, and the power to enforce that right.
But remember - it's not the school that is taking this action. The school is a building, probably made with bricks. It just sits there. What you are seeing are the actions of a few individuals, probably reflecting the attitudes of the local school board - a school board probably elected by your community. If you refer to "the school" as having rights to require uniforms, then you can't meaningfully distinguish between "the school" and the policy makers for the school later.
Just call it Frustration 101. You get this nice course on the ideal development cycle and then go out into the business world and get to deal with rushed schedules, managers who don't understand programming who just want you to develop something rather than sit down and produce a good design. Or maybe you land in a situation where you're maintaining legacy code and instead of being able to fix design problems, you're just asked to make the new feature work or make the bug go away. So you continue making ad hoc changes and four years later someone wonders what the hell was wrong with you, but then after four months they understand that you're actually intelligent and that it's management's idiocy that causes the bad code. You might as well have a class about perfect relationships where you emulate a relationship without any trials or tribulations.
I think the answer to that question is inherently different for every person reading the question. It all depends on how you valuate disparate concepts. For me, the answer is that it is only worth going into a field if you enjoy the work in that field. I am of the mind that money should not be a driving factor for studies. Others are attempting to use a career to acheive the largest financial gains. How you define worth defines how you answer this question.
Re:Don't forget their records of voter affiliation
on
Google and the CIA?
·
· Score: 1
From the highlighting in the overlayed document, it looks like the person's search contained "dr", "n", and "keizer" all of which are perfectly logical things to search for on a map!
So how many false positives and false negatives does this produce? i.e., how many non-offenders does it misidentify as being offenders and how many offenders does it misidentify as non-offenders? Furthermore, of the offenders properly identified, how many of them are actually committing, planning to commit, thinking about committing, wanting to commit, or some other way being involved with the committing of a sexual offender related crime on myspace?
While the tool may produce results, are the results good enough and non-damaging enough to be useful? (I'd consider any given non-offender being identified as an offender and subsequently harrassed as such rather extensively damaging.)
Well, the French have more to do with us not speaking Old English any more than the English do. Something about some guy named Norman (I checked and I'm pretty sure it's not Norm from Cheers) in the year 1066.
Slashdot Mirror
So Sylar may have had the foresight to do what he did. I'll accept that as a path I hadn't considered. That Peter can't fly is rubbish as far as I'm concerned. He's demonstrated control over it and strong control over many of his other powers. There is one power he seems incapable of controlling, and that's the radioactivity.
I suppose it's possible that Mohinder is also trained in first aid, though that's certainly not made clear anywhere prior to him attending to D.L. Beyond that, paramedics are paramedics and are trained in first response. Geneticists aren't. I'm not sure how there's any confusion in this beyond semantic nitpicking (doctor vs. paramedic).
Heroes suffers strongly from an inability to live up to its own hype. Forget the commercials and all the crap they pump into the show, just watch the story build up and then fall completely flat in an oh-so-anticlimactic fashion. It happens repeatedly through small plot bumps through the series and then rears its head in an ugly fashion with the season finale.
[spoilers ahead?]
And that wasn't even the smallest problem with the finale. The characters became completely disassociated with their build-up through earlier episodes. Sylar goes from being able to control 100 pieces of glass simultaneously, to not being able to withstand an attack from two different people. Peter can fly, but requires Nathan to carry him up and out of harm's way. Mohinder states in one episode that he's a geneticist, not a doctor, and then later acts as a paramedic for D.L. and others.
I still hold hope for the show. I hope that they can get their act together and do some decent writing. It was an enjoyable, albeit absolutely aggravating, show to watch. I'm willing to accept all of the fantastical parts of the show, but such disingenuous writing, changing characters to allow for some poorly-though-out plot line is completely bogus.
I keep reading your hidden message, but it just doesn't make sense to me. "John Dvorak fired Trash-80 Radio Shack biggest" Am I missing a cipher key to translate that into something else?
Why correct to something phonetically dissimilar to what the person was saying when a perfectly reasonable, phonetically similar, and equally correct alternative exists?
"Would've" is much closer to "Would of" than "Would have" is.
I recommend thinking about why the person used the wrong word before correcting him or her.
I'm pretty sure only seeing two lines of your pictures and videos and such would be a little more annoying than only seeing two lines of your text message. But maybe that's just me.
Well, clearly then, the analogy should have been, "And Manning drops back to pass...", because then a whole slew of things could happen: fumble, sack, scramble, end around, pass, interception, ...
Were they Prada? Because I hear that's what the devil wears.
What the hell?
I look away for five seconds and someone steals Antarctica from me.
I'd watch your back if I were you, 91degrees!
... there's a Professional eBay Sellers Alliance?
what the hell is that?!
Just makes me think:
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
It's the same difference as building a mosaic out of a bunch of different colored tiles and dropping one breaking one big painted tile into different pieces. One is fragmented and put together by design, the other is broken.
You may wish to re-edit the sentence and spell Philip K. Dick's name correctly.
Just call it Frustration 101. You get this nice course on the ideal development cycle and then go out into the business world and get to deal with rushed schedules, managers who don't understand programming who just want you to develop something rather than sit down and produce a good design. Or maybe you land in a situation where you're maintaining legacy code and instead of being able to fix design problems, you're just asked to make the new feature work or make the bug go away. So you continue making ad hoc changes and four years later someone wonders what the hell was wrong with you, but then after four months they understand that you're actually intelligent and that it's management's idiocy that causes the bad code. You might as well have a class about perfect relationships where you emulate a relationship without any trials or tribulations.
I think the answer to that question is inherently different for every person reading the question. It all depends on how you valuate disparate concepts. For me, the answer is that it is only worth going into a field if you enjoy the work in that field. I am of the mind that money should not be a driving factor for studies. Others are attempting to use a career to acheive the largest financial gains. How you define worth defines how you answer this question.
For those wondering where the map is:
keizer?
From the highlighting in the overlayed document, it looks like the person's search contained "dr", "n", and "keizer" all of which are perfectly logical things to search for on a map!
tin foil meet logic.
Wow did it take me a while realize that the title says
"Internet addicts as ill [as in sick] as alcoholics?"
and not
"Internet addict as iii [as in 3] as alcoholics?"
So how many false positives and false negatives does this produce? i.e., how many non-offenders does it misidentify as being offenders and how many offenders does it misidentify as non-offenders? Furthermore, of the offenders properly identified, how many of them are actually committing, planning to commit, thinking about committing, wanting to commit, or some other way being involved with the committing of a sexual offender related crime on myspace?
While the tool may produce results, are the results good enough and non-damaging enough to be useful? (I'd consider any given non-offender being identified as an offender and subsequently harrassed as such rather extensively damaging.)
Sounds like online is a great place for you to stay, because you sound fucking boring as hell. Seriously.
Try Google. The submitter got it really wrong.
Well, the French have more to do with us not speaking Old English any more than the English do. Something about some guy named Norman (I checked and I'm pretty sure it's not Norm from Cheers) in the year 1066.