I found this app randomly about a month back, and I would echo the same criticisms. Whenever I see a sentence that needs translating the includes The/A/One (using for French, btw) I pretty much shrug and give it a crap shoot. The andriod app does allow skipping the microphone sections, though. So I don't have to call attention to myself while using it on the job by saying "I am a girl who likes apples" and getting cockeyed looks.
All that said, the fact that this is free and I haven't hit a wall where it says "to continue you must pay X amount" is very, very cool. For that reason, I'd actually be more inclined to donate at least $5 (wait, you sure this guy isn't a marketing strategist?).
Good thing there's no call for or benefit from greater per-car occupancy, or experimentation more generally with disruptive disintermediation.
I'm thinking Anon was having too much fun writing the summary to give the title a second glance. Editors are notorious for making slight changes to titles as well (it's about the only thing they'll "correct").
I suppose given the sketchiness on some details, ("As officers closed in, the man pointed a handgun in the direction of at least one of the officers; one or more of the officers opened fire, killing the man, the police said.") and there's always a possibility of planted evidence you have a point. But cops aren't soldiers, (well, shouldn't be) so some confusion from the shootout is to be expected. On the other hand, the dead man's past record sort of seals the deal that this was legit.
I guess we're stuck at "news breaks fast, stories take years".
Let me get this straight: using the word "retard" is deplorable, but inhumane treatment of prisoners is A-OK?
Pretty much this. If the series was going to be milked further, it should have gone forward, not backward*. Oh well, a bunch of people will pay $10-$35 to see it. That's all the people pulling the strings care about
*(upward, not forward. whirling towards freedom, etc)
And since you clearly do, link? To someone who's a known open source contributor and can be quoted as saying (along the lines of ) "open source is 100% immune from flaws".
I mean, what are the odds that people anonymously post on the Internet pretending to be from one organization/ideology but intentionally use invalid logic and reason because they're actually an opponent of said organization/ideology?
So much for "one question per post" eh?