Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Comment From Sports Night (Score 1) 442

Dan: What’s the problem?
Mallory: During your broadcast on September 5th, you sang Happy Birthday to your partner, Casey McCall.
Dan: Yeah, but I can explain that. Wait, it was his birthday. Why do I have to explain that?
Mallory: You sang Happy Birthday on the air.

Mallory: Listen, I think it’s sweet that you and your partner sing to each other on television. Others may think that it’s vaguely gay, but I disagree.
Dan: Thank you.
Mallory: Nonetheless, you can’t do it anymore.
Dan: Why not?
Mallory: It’s against the law?
Dan: It’s against the law to be vaguely gay?
Mallory: It’s against the law to sing Happy Birthday on television.
Dan: Why?
Mallory: It's owned by the representatives of Mildred and Patty Hill.
Dan: It took two people to write that song?

Comment Re:Does BR even rate having a sequel? Explain plea (Score 1) 326

One has the voice-over narrative, which gives the movie a feeling reminiscent of the old "gum-shoe" detective movies from the Golden Age of Hollywood

It already had that feel in spades. Adding the voiceover just beats you over the head with it. Which I guess is appropriate, because the voiceover itself just beats you over the head with everything else.

Comment Re:not so good with numbers... (Score 1) 151

What kind of pedantic choice of interpretation is that?

Internet-pedantry, where either 1) pedantry is misapplied because the word in question does not have a single, precise definition to be pedantic over, and both the the original and the "pedant's" "pedantic" correction are correct or 2) pedantry is possible because the word does have a precise technical definition, but the "pedant" has no idea what that is and is wrong while the original usage was correct.

Slashdot Top Deals

The solution of this problem is trivial and is left as an exercise for the reader.