 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=795
>
> What on earth do you call the item Faye's wearing?
A doo-rag...
--
Dan
GoofyGraffix.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 09:59:53 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>> I asked a perfectly simple question, and I get this... It seems a
>> little uncalled for to me.
>
> FWIW, I thought it read as a bit condescending also. Maybe "what *are*
> you interested in?" would have been a better way to phrase it than
> "don't you know *anything*?" :-)
Same here....I do get the feeling that some here consider it something of
a sport to pick on Andy....
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 10:22:53 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>> People have LONG memory. Believe me. I know.
>
> "If you think people don't remember what you say, try telling the same
> joke you told last month."
Didn't you say that last month? ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 19:25:20 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>
>> ... people just don't have a sense of humor, sheesh?-)
>
> Maybe we should add a new NNTP error code?
>
> 673 Error In Humour Implementation
673 is an eDirectory error, it means ... wow, I have to look it up (I
used to know them all from memory; 672 I could tell you, but not 673....)
Ah here it is..."Replica not on". That means that the replica - either
while being added or deleted - has not completed the partition operation,
and the state is not "On" - it's either "Dead", "Dying", or one of the
other intermediate replica states ("Add state 0", "Add state 1", etc.).
If there's a communications error, particularly in communicating with the
master replica, that would cause this type of error to occur when
performing an operation that requires the replica be in an "On" state.
So we could possibly tie this back to someone not having a sense of
humour from the standpoint of "what we have here is a failure to
communicate".
I guess this error would work after all. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> Well, as I alluded to, it's not like you can put a picture of a
>>> headscarf into Google and do a search to find out what it's called.
>>
>> IBM has a system like that, tho.
>
> OK, now *that* is something I could enjoy having a discussion about! :-D
>
Couldn't you code an image identifier in Haskell?
--
----
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>Interesting (to me) that Mike goes for Kerchief whereas you and the Doc go
>for Headscarf, which would also have been my first answer; another case of
>two languages forever separate?
In the USA kerchiefs were mass produced with a typical western print
pattern (in white), mostly in two variations, red and blue thin cotton
cloth.
Typical women's head-scarves are usually made of much finer materials.
A number of years back kerchiefs came into style among inner-city
gang members as way to mark their membership in a gang, and soon
after most schools banned wearing kerchiefs as being "gang colors".
Since then I haven't seen many for sale. The cartoon lacks the print
that would identify the scarf as a kerchief. Also jewish tradition has
women wear head-scarves, so it might be a subtle visual clue that she
is somehow "serious". I would tend to think that the choice of
wording between "head-scarf" and "kerchief" is probably more of
an age thing than a language thing.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Thu, 24 Apr 2008 17:43:12 +0100, Doctor John
<doc### [at] gmailcom> did spake, saying:
> Phil Cook wrote:
>> And lo on Thu, 24 Apr 2008 14:33:02 +0100, Stephen <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom>
>> did spake, saying:
>>
>> Interesting (to me) that Mike goes for Kerchief whereas you and the Doc
>> go for Headscarf, which would also have been my first answer; another
>> case of two languages forever separate?
>>
> I'm always amused by the piture conjured up by the (american) words "He
> was formally dressed in vest and suspenders" :-)
Heh well he might have been going to a late night double feature picture
show.
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Maybe we should add a new NNTP error code?
>>
>> 673 Error In Humour Implementation
>
> 673 is an eDirectory error, it means ... wow, I have to look it up (I
> used to know them all from memory; 672 I could tell you, but not 673....)
Damn. I assumed that such a high number would be unassigned...
Oh, wait. They assign at the 2nd digit too, right?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Fri, 25 Apr 2008 05:25:12 +0100, Tim Attwood
<tim### [at] comcastnet> did spake, saying:
>> Interesting (to me) that Mike goes for Kerchief whereas you and the Doc
>> go
>> for Headscarf, which would also have been my first answer; another case
>> of
>> two languages forever separate?
>
> In the USA kerchiefs were mass produced with a typical western print
> pattern (in white), mostly in two variations, red and blue thin cotton
> cloth.
> Typical women's head-scarves are usually made of much finer materials.
> A number of years back kerchiefs came into style among inner-city
> gang members as way to mark their membership in a gang, and soon
> after most schools banned wearing kerchiefs as being "gang colors".
Oh yeah the Bloods and Crips thing I suppose.
> Since then I haven't seen many for sale. The cartoon lacks the print
> that would identify the scarf as a kerchief. Also jewish tradition has
> women wear head-scarves, so it might be a subtle visual clue that she
> is somehow "serious".
It might be that kerchiefs are larger handkerchiefs i.e. square whereas
headscarfs are more rectangular?
> I would tend to think that the choice of
> wording between "head-scarf" and "kerchief" is probably more of
> an age thing than a language thing.
Oh gee thanks for that :-)
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> Couldn't you code an image identifier in Haskell?
Sure - because using a specific programming language makes it trivial to
overcome a fundamentally hard AI problem. :-P
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
