I am not a grammar Nazi. I just have a question about how headlines have evolved to have different syntax than normal speech. For exmaple, I would say "Apple is the fastest growing company," but the headline is "Apple The Current Fastest Growing Brand." When did it not become standard to include verbs? Also, I've noticed that headlines most often omit the word "and," and use a comma even when a list contains two items.
Any English teachers or historians know something about this?
I was the one who came up with this. But due to budget cuts, they had to change "Back to the Future" to "Back to the Moon." Otherwise, it's pretty much as is.
I think Joe from joblo.com had something good to say about these top 100 lists:
"You know you're getting into trouble when you try to list the 'Best' anything. The 'best' anything, movies especially, is SO objective that there can never be a definitive list, or at least a list that is even close. Regardless, Time Magazine devoted their current issue to such a topic. The difference here: The Time critics, Richard Corliss and Richard Schickel, know this. The whole point of making this list, they say, was to initiate debate and let people discuss what their favorite films are. And to sell magazines."
So, don't get angry if your favorite movie isn't on the list... that's just what they WANT you to do!
I've decided to invent a new language called bloggie. It helps to get the point accross more quickly when talking about blogs or writing articles about them.
Here is a sample English phrase:
This is a sample sentence about blogs.
In bloggie, this becomes:
Blog blog blog blog blog blog blogs.
But on a more serious note, this is what all the recent media coverage about blogs sounds like. It has become ridiculously overexposed. I remember that one time I wasn't able to open a single newspaper without finding a front page article about what a "metrosexual" was. I'm hoping that the same thing doesn't happen to blogs, which have many uses when they are used instead of talked about.
I like the concept of an alphasmart. Its a barebones appliance for when you don't need the power of a labtop, you just need to type. To those who say you can handwrite for much cheaper, well, I'll challenge to a speed competition any day. And it is a really SIMPLE device, something that seems to be absent in modern gadgetry.
The only thing I never understood was the price. $250, for the most basic model. Its a keyboard with a very small, liquid crystal display. You could get a pda for that much.
If these things were under $50, I know I would by one. Considering how fast some of my teachers talk, typing would allow me to take legible notes.
For all the nerds who have been looking for pictures of Natalie Portman on the internet (read: everyone here), this is the movie that she shaved her head for.
I think that Moore has a reason to be angry. Since I first heard about this movie, I went out and got the graphic novel. This was quite strange, seeing as I had never read a comic before that. I was surprised at the amount of intellectual stimulation I was able to get out of it. It also helped that I was into distopian literature; fans of 1984 will love it.
But key parts started to be changed. It was inevitable, considering the length of the novel. For example, the fictional British-fascist movement called Norsefire comes to power in a somewhat complex manner. In the movie, they just decided that they would have the Nazis win WWII. Everybody hates the Nazis right, and nobody wants to go see a movie based on a political comic book.
The moral status of the main character, V, is also ambivalent, which made the novel even more thought-provoking. V wears a disguise, papier mache mask included, that bears the likeness of Guy Fawkes (check wikipedia if you're not familiar; basically, he once tried to blow up parliament). It is never obvious whethere he is a terrorist or freedom fighter. He blows stuff up, and often kills civilians to get his point accross. I suppose the easy way to categorize him would be as an antihero. My only fear is that the movie will take this all away and make him another run of the mill masked crusader.
So in conclusion, just read the graphic novel, in case the movie blows.
P.S.: The teaser poster says "remember, remember the 5th of november." This is NOT necessarily the date it will be coming out. (Warning: those of english decent will hate me for pointing out the obvious). It comes from a popular rhyme recited on Bonfire day (again, wikipedia for those who don't know) that tells the fate of Guy Fawkes:
Remember remember the fifth of November
Gunpowder, treason and plot.
I see no reason why gunpowder treason
Should ever be forgot...
Cheesetor: Elftor, have you ever played grand theft auto?
Elftor:No, what's that?
Cheesetor: The best game in the world! You get to run over civilians, cops, and prostitutes!
Elftor: Wow, that sounds awesome!
(Elftor begins to run over civilians, cops, and prostitutes in his car)
Elftor: You were right Cheesetor, this game is awesome!
Cheestor: What game? You just killed like 15 people!
Elftor: No silly Cheesetor, I was playing Grand Theft Auto.
Cheesetor: Elftor, GTA is a video game. You play it on a playstation.
Elftor: Really?
(Elftor runs over some more people)
Elftor: Well my way's better.
I realize that this is a sensitive issue for many people, so I'm going to try by absolute best to not sound like a troll, flamebait, etc. The submitter was oversimplifying things a bit by trying to emcompass an entire sentiment in one snide remark. I myself am opposed to hunting, but I try not to base my opinion on broad sweeping generalizations.
The reason I am opposed to hunting is not that I explicitly think it's wrong, it's because I see no reasonable justification is right. I think the burden is on hunters to defend their own actions, and not for us to condemn them. Here are the reasons I have heard for hunting:
1) Fun
If this is your reason for hunting, then your having fun is contigent on the needless pain and suffering you inflict on animals. Whether or not you think animals suffer is a matter of personal belief, but from what I've seen, pain is a necessary component of ensuring survival in an animal. Plus, if animals didn't feel pain, they wouldn't back down from a fight.
2) It happens in nature all the time.
Seeing how far removed from nature we are, it's ridiculous to use nature to justify our actions. Animals go around naked, so why shouldn't we? Animals use physical violence to assert dominance over individuals, so why shouldn't we? (I mean in general day to day life, excluding wars and such). My dog sometimes humps the sofa, so why shouldn't we? I could go on and on.
3) For Food
Really, has food gotten so scarce and times so desparate that you have to hunt for sustinence? Is the nutritional value of venison so great that it justifies hunting? Is there nothing else to eat? We're not caveman; you don't have to hunt for food. It is not necessary.
I realize that most of these arguments can extend to all killing of animals. I in fact have done so. I'm a vegan, the only reason I didn't mention this earlier is because I was afraid I would be dismissed as some nutcase.
I'm not the type of person who values animal life over human. I'm only angry because most of the suffering we inflict on aniamls is so easily avoided, unlike many of the problems that don't involve animals. I still know what's more important.
Considering the millions of dollars that Celera invested in gene sequencing, it should at least have the opportunity to make back that money. Heaven forbid, they might even deserve to make a PROFIT. Profit is a leading motivation of many corporations, you know...
Slashdot Mirror
how much money you want to earn / how much time you want to work = hourly wage
Thanks. I guess there's no arguing with a person named "The Journalist" when it comes to journalism. :)
Any English teachers or historians know something about this?
I was the one who came up with this. But due to budget cuts, they had to change "Back to the Future" to "Back to the Moon." Otherwise, it's pretty much as is.
Buy me! Buy me! I promise I'll be good, and I don't eat much, I swear! I'll be ever so greatful! Puh-leasssssee? I'll be your friend!
Behold the power of MS Paint!
Then how am I supposed to know whose computer it is? Maybe I'll just give up now. I'm not very good with all this technology.
Zing. I am UNSTOPPABLE.
THEY'VE CROSSED THE FUCKING LINE!
This is the most recent one to be made into a movie.
I think you used "methinks" when you meant to use "I think."
</joke>
"You know you're getting into trouble when you try to list the 'Best' anything. The 'best' anything, movies especially, is SO objective that there can never be a definitive list, or at least a list that is even close. Regardless, Time Magazine devoted their current issue to such a topic. The difference here: The Time critics, Richard Corliss and Richard Schickel, know this. The whole point of making this list, they say, was to initiate debate and let people discuss what their favorite films are. And to sell magazines."
So, don't get angry if your favorite movie isn't on the list... that's just what they WANT you to do!
3rd Grade Scientists Successfully Vaporize Water.
Here is a sample English phrase:
This is a sample sentence about blogs.
In bloggie, this becomes:
Blog blog blog blog blog blog blogs.
But on a more serious note, this is what all the recent media coverage about blogs sounds like. It has become ridiculously overexposed. I remember that one time I wasn't able to open a single newspaper without finding a front page article about what a "metrosexual" was. I'm hoping that the same thing doesn't happen to blogs, which have many uses when they are used instead of talked about.
The only thing I never understood was the price. $250, for the most basic model. Its a keyboard with a very small, liquid crystal display. You could get a pda for that much.
If these things were under $50, I know I would by one. Considering how fast some of my teachers talk, typing would allow me to take legible notes.
http://www.thesuperficial.com/image.php?path=/arch ives/np1.JPG
I think that Moore has a reason to be angry. Since I first heard about this movie, I went out and got the graphic novel. This was quite strange, seeing as I had never read a comic before that. I was surprised at the amount of intellectual stimulation I was able to get out of it. It also helped that I was into distopian literature; fans of 1984 will love it.
But key parts started to be changed. It was inevitable, considering the length of the novel. For example, the fictional British-fascist movement called Norsefire comes to power in a somewhat complex manner. In the movie, they just decided that they would have the Nazis win WWII. Everybody hates the Nazis right, and nobody wants to go see a movie based on a political comic book.
The moral status of the main character, V, is also ambivalent, which made the novel even more thought-provoking. V wears a disguise, papier mache mask included, that bears the likeness of Guy Fawkes (check wikipedia if you're not familiar; basically, he once tried to blow up parliament). It is never obvious whethere he is a terrorist or freedom fighter. He blows stuff up, and often kills civilians to get his point accross. I suppose the easy way to categorize him would be as an antihero. My only fear is that the movie will take this all away and make him another run of the mill masked crusader.
So in conclusion, just read the graphic novel, in case the movie blows.
P.S.: The teaser poster says "remember, remember the 5th of november." This is NOT necessarily the date it will be coming out. (Warning: those of english decent will hate me for pointing out the obvious). It comes from a popular rhyme recited on Bonfire day (again, wikipedia for those who don't know) that tells the fate of Guy Fawkes:
Remember remember the fifth of November
Gunpowder, treason and plot.
I see no reason why gunpowder treason
Should ever be forgot...
Sorry if you knew all this already.
It may be powerful, but is it readily mountable on a shark's head?
Writing (with) this (many) parentheses (is) incredibly (annoying).
Section 202: The second rule of the PATRIOT act is you do not talk about the PATRIOT act.
Thank you, thank you, I'll be here all night.
Nothing to see here, please move along...
Elftor:No, what's that?
Cheesetor: The best game in the world! You get to run over civilians, cops, and prostitutes!
Elftor: Wow, that sounds awesome!
(Elftor begins to run over civilians, cops, and prostitutes in his car)
Elftor: You were right Cheesetor, this game is awesome!
Cheestor: What game? You just killed like 15 people!
Elftor: No silly Cheesetor, I was playing Grand Theft Auto.
Cheesetor: Elftor, GTA is a video game. You play it on a playstation.
Elftor: Really?
(Elftor runs over some more people) Elftor: Well my way's better.
elftor.com
The reason I am opposed to hunting is not that I explicitly think it's wrong, it's because I see no reasonable justification is right. I think the burden is on hunters to defend their own actions, and not for us to condemn them. Here are the reasons I have heard for hunting:
1) Fun
If this is your reason for hunting, then your having fun is contigent on the needless pain and suffering you inflict on animals. Whether or not you think animals suffer is a matter of personal belief, but from what I've seen, pain is a necessary component of ensuring survival in an animal. Plus, if animals didn't feel pain, they wouldn't back down from a fight.
2) It happens in nature all the time.
Seeing how far removed from nature we are, it's ridiculous to use nature to justify our actions. Animals go around naked, so why shouldn't we? Animals use physical violence to assert dominance over individuals, so why shouldn't we? (I mean in general day to day life, excluding wars and such). My dog sometimes humps the sofa, so why shouldn't we? I could go on and on.
3) For Food
Really, has food gotten so scarce and times so desparate that you have to hunt for sustinence? Is the nutritional value of venison so great that it justifies hunting? Is there nothing else to eat? We're not caveman; you don't have to hunt for food. It is not necessary.
I realize that most of these arguments can extend to all killing of animals. I in fact have done so. I'm a vegan, the only reason I didn't mention this earlier is because I was afraid I would be dismissed as some nutcase.
I'm not the type of person who values animal life over human. I'm only angry because most of the suffering we inflict on aniamls is so easily avoided, unlike many of the problems that don't involve animals. I still know what's more important.
I've heard of people not RTFA, but I seem to be the only one with a problem of posting before reading the headline.
Considering the millions of dollars that Celera invested in gene sequencing, it should at least have the opportunity to make back that money. Heaven forbid, they might even deserve to make a PROFIT. Profit is a leading motivation of many corporations, you know...
... but as long as they aren't monitoring Slashdot I'll be fine.