Comment Re:Advocate for?! (Score 1) 140
how does this relate to "advocate against"?
how does this relate to "advocate against"?
of course you can, you just have to be a hunter-gatherer. you're perfectly free to move to the alaskan bush any time you like. just remember, some days you eat the bear, some days the bear eats you.
23% still have confidence in banks?
fnord
can we get someone who respects the constitution who doesn't sound as wacky as Ron Paul?
Will Gary Johnson do?
+1
(tho i'd've said github)
/bow
(coincidentally, the fortune at the moment is "'From there to here, from here to there, funny things are everywhere.' -- Dr. Seuss"
yo dawg....
my mistake, i have a pro with 8 hyper-threaded cores.
reminds me of pre-OS X Macs--on the extremely rare occasions i have to boot OS 9 on bare metal, I'm always amazed by how much more responsive it is, on a single 300MHz core, than Snow Leopard is on 16 3GHz+ cores with more RAM than that box has disk space. (right up to the Type 2 bomb, failed attempt at typing "g finder" into the interrupt box, and four-minute reboot....)
perhaps a couple examples are in order:
tic-tac-toe: solved (on paper, by bright grade-schoolers everywhere)
checkers: weakly solved (from the standard start, assuming perfect play)
yes, ideally bonded to medium-length chains of carbon atoms for stability, ease of transport, etc.
That said, none of these categories explain the use (I was referring to the title) of quotes around "too intrusive". Context clues still indicate to a reader that this is a direct quote, but he did not say it.
someone (either Unknown Lamer or jfruh, i suppose) probably picked it up from newspapers, where it's mostly a libel shield: "Celebrity X 'abusive'" is a much safer headline to print than "Celebrity X abusive". It's supposed to be a quote from a statement referenced in the article, though, so this was definitely not a correct instance of that use.
Never test for an error condition you don't know how to handle. -- Steinbach