That only works if you can cut it in half first.
pavon did not "incorrectly describe" anything. You formed an incorrect definition of what "chat" means, which led you to misinterpret what he said. The fact that most "chat" via computers used to be text-only communication is an artifact of the technology that was available, nothing more.
(Note that he didn't even say "web chat", but that's beside the point.)
What does lip reading have anything to do with chat (ie, text communication)?
Somehow you seem to have come to the conclusion that "chat" means "digital communication using text." It doesn't. The verb "chat" predates digital text communication by a very, very long time.
Because not all of us can read lips?
There are 7 billion people on earth. Hundreds of thousands of people die each day, many in violent deaths, and most of those did nothing wrong.
I may not wish those who commit crimes dead, but I'm sure not going to feel sympathetic when one of them snuffs it. These guys are a waste of skin. If they want to be treated like human beings, they should have acted like it.
would they have been thrown in jail for a decade and fined for all of the financial damage it caused?
They should have been. Driving your truck is not "speech." Purposefully shutting down the city deserves punishment.
Spoken like somebody who wasn't introduced to digital porn until after 1995.
No! Men and women are EQUAL, dammit! I'm not listening, lalalalalala...!
One of the great myths of our time is that "equality" is the same as "identicality."
There's no reason for an advanced, "civilized" human society to treat living, sentient* creatures as products to consume.
Sure there is: because they taste good.
You just mean that there's no reason that you approve of.
I can't for sites that I don't regularly visit, like healthcare.gov.
My grandmother uses a password safe, and she still talks about "downloading the facebook." If you can post to slashdot, you can use a password safe.
Since Salinger is dead, there is no moral reason to honor his wishes. He doesn't care -- he's dead.
Like Toronto there was a municipal law here in Halifax at one point that stores had to charge for bags, which is how the whole reusable bag thing got started here. That lasted all of a couple weeks, but some retailers used "ecofriendly" as an excuse to continue charging after the law was repealed, but offered no alternative to plastic bags.
All right; I didn't know that part. I was assuming that the store was simply covering the cost of the tax itself.
A little searching says that average costs for grocery bags (for the stores) run from about 2 to 5 cents per bag, depending on the quality of bag. Maybe Wal-mart manages to get lower rates for their patented fall-apart-if-you-look-at-them-too-hard bags, but the cost to the supermarket of using plastic bags might be higher than you think.
So as I pointed out, I've actually saved around $75 over the last four years by buying the reusable, which are durable and useful for all kinds of other things, and not having to pay for plastic bags.
If this store is eating the $0.05 cost of the plastic bags anyway, then isn't it the store that saved $75, not you? Most grocery stores around where I live do the same sort of thing too, largely to try to reduce the amount they spend on plastic bags. I know some stores have even started giving away rather than selling reusable bags in hopes of getting more people to use them.
I really wasn't being snarky in my post; the whole thing is a good idea. The stores save money, and we reduce the amount of waste.
What Sobey's did do right was start selling cheap reusable nylon and canvas bags, which they would replace if ever the bag was damaged. I paid around $12 for six bags and some how ended up with ten somewhere along the way.
Whoever came up with this one was a genius. Charge people for the reusable bags, and then save money at the same time by not having the store have to cover the cost of plastic bags.
Also, it reads like an advertisement.
Not true. Advertisers typically proofread their text for blatant mistakes before publishing it.