Wouldn't it be interesting if there was a requirement that ISPs who claim that an area is served when "just one home" is actually being served were then required to extend that service to the entire area? That might help with the "Oh, sure, we can add you, but it will cost you $40,000 up front" crap. After all, if they're claiming they serve the area, actually serving the area should be part of the normal cost of doing business - in other words, they should put up or shut up.
But if you let people change 5 into 10 on their own, where will it stop? Next they'll want to change 7 into 14, or even 11 into 22! Won't someone think of the children?
Just like a corporation! It's a "person" when that allows something to its benefit, but not a "person" when that would mean it could be penalized the same way a human "person" would be.
Musk is a bot.
They choose "idealistic" names because they sound, well, idealistic. People who don't do their due diligence on the organization will see the name and think "Oh, this is a group that is focused on all the Good Things(tm)! I'm going to donate to them!". H. L. Mencken said "No one in this world, so far as I know ... has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people." Groups like these prove him correct.
That's why the drone will also carry air-to-surface missiles.
I've been on a jury (for a two-week-long drug trial) where the judge had to instruct us to ignore some testimony. It was actually pretty easy to do that; during deliberation, if someone mentioned that part of the testimony, someone (usually a different person each time) would point out that we weren't supposed to consider that information, and everyone moved on in our discussion. It probably helped, of course, that there was a lot of other evidence for us to consider.
Maybe the Australian company should just rebrand as "Rumpy Pumpy Burgers".
You had to go and remind them.... Now we'll get that one, plus a $4 "You pointed out that we forgot to charge you for something" fee.
It's definitely been more common since GoT, but I remember reading it when I was in high school, which was 40+ years ago. I guess true wisdom is ageless. :-)
I'm trying to remember where I read, years ago, that when you see the word "but" in a sentence, that's your clue that you can completely ignore everything that precedes it in the sentence. Here we have the existence proof.
That depends on which side is doing the maligning, I think.
Is there a numbered or named rule covering this?Probably. I just really, really hope it isn't "34".
"Why not both?"
"Massage the portmanteau" is one of the most wonderful phrases I've heard in a long time!
I suspect Pai meant "served" as in the Twilight Zone episode "To Serve Man".
Yeah, I've always wanted to learn how to scall my webiste; now's my chance!
Please explain your logic.Objection - assumes facts not in evidence.
So, silver linings, then?
Well, to be fair, that is three viewpoints....