|
On December 09 2014 02:54 _fool wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2014 03:15 Alzadar wrote:
Ultralisks are babies when in the egg, then they grow up really fast. (How to frame this in a stupid -question-stupid-answer format...) Wouldn't it be awesome if Zerg had little baby units that where 50m 50g 2supply, that where harmless at first (as in: single zergling) but gut huge bonusses to their stats the longer they survived? You'd have to protect them, hide them, feed them... And after 8 minutes they'd be 2supply Ultra's-with-stampede! (Hm, I just realized this is roughly how 3-3 bio works  )
I like this idea! But please rethink it so it only benefits Terran.
|
On December 09 2014 08:40 Yoav wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2014 01:54 Simberto wrote:On December 08 2014 23:10 Jockmcplop wrote:On December 08 2014 13:33 Yoav wrote:
I'm a longstanding proponent of pronouncing that letter "dubs." Every other letter is one syllable, only that one gets more, and it gets 3?!?!? "Dubs" is easy to say, preserves the sound, and, more importantly, is immediately recognizable in context.
Of course, it's all a little academic, because whenever you actually want to spell something correctly, "whisky" is the correct name of that letter. i think we should just go simple and use ewwww Double-you is especially silly since every other letter at least has the letter incorporated in it one-sillable name. A, Be, Ce, De, E,Eff, Gee, ...,...Double-you ??????, Ax, Why, Zet. Yeah, conventions a little disobeyed, moreso in US. Almost all letters' names start with the letter, except "ex." In US we also have "eych" which really doesn't have an "h" in it (except in the compound), unlike the Brits (et al) who say "heych" which sounds ugly as balls, but at least starts with the letter. Why we don't use "hey" as the name is beyond me. And then there's "zed" versus "zee." + Show Spoiler +To fuel the USvUK fire, notice how the periods/quotes are above? Edit: Okay, I also have a question, speaking of national differences. Was reading through some of Slate's highly entertaining "If it happened there" series and it said (perhaps hyperbolically) that things like Prime Minister's Questions were common among Western Democracies. While I am a huge fan of the concept, I was under the impression that such a form of debate was fairly rare. Does anybody know what other countries have some version of this, where the head of government regularly faces direct questioning from members of the various parties and has to answer them on the spot? Just curious about the extent and forms of the practice.
I don't find this particular form of conjecture all that useful, does away with so much context. How would the US Media deal with election coverage in a nearly homogeneous country? How would the US media cover sensational television in another country? I dunno, I can see how it would be entertaining, lord knows I love my fair of inapplicable entertainment, but I still just get to thinking it isn't worth much long therm.
|
in english grammar: is it incorrect to end a sentence with a preposition ? if so why ?
for example: "thats something my english teacher would have slapped me for"
|
On December 09 2014 12:14 miky_ardiente wrote:
in english grammar: is it incorrect to end a sentence with a preposition ? if so why ?
for example: "thats something my english teacher would have slapped me for"
"That's something my English teacher would have slapped me for."
Otherwise, no problem as far as I know.
*Not an English major
|
On December 09 2014 12:14 miky_ardiente wrote:
in english grammar: is it incorrect to end a sentence with a preposition ? if so why ?
for example: "thats something my english teacher would have slapped me for"
It is technically incorrect but it is done all the time, for example your sentence, correctly written, would be, "That is something for which my English teacher would have slapped me."
It is all about colloquial usage versus technical correctness.
|
On December 09 2014 12:14 miky_ardiente wrote:
in english grammar: is it incorrect to end a sentence with a preposition ? if so why ?
for example: "thats something my english teacher would have slapped me for"
I'm pretty sure that rule is bullshit; just something English teachers came up with to sound smarter or whatever.
|
Canada11355 Posts
On December 09 2014 12:14 miky_ardiente wrote:
in english grammar: is it incorrect to end a sentence with a preposition ? if so why ?
for example: "thats something my english teacher would have slapped me for"
"That's something for which my teacher would have slapped me."
http://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2011/11/grammar-myths-prepositions/
It's really no big deal, though.
|
Unless you're a spy, Soviets used to nail spies by their overly correct Russian, or so anecdotes would have me believe. So if you are a spy you may want to mix in some incorrect speech.
|
On December 09 2014 12:21 SetGuitarsToKill wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2014 12:14 miky_ardiente wrote:
in english grammar: is it incorrect to end a sentence with a preposition ? if so why ?
for example: "thats something my english teacher would have slapped me for" I'm pretty sure that rule is bullshit; just something English teachers came up with to sound smarter or whatever.
All about technical usage, my grandmother who was a librarian would have disowned me at some point for doing just this.
|
This is a nice little piece, quite accurate. But it's adorable that they cite "reddit.com" with the joke.
|
When did sugar and salt go from a luxury limited to the privileged to an staple ingredient?
|
On December 09 2014 13:32 Shiragaku wrote:
When did sugar and salt go from a luxury limited to the privileged to an staple ingredient?
Without knowing anything much about it, I am going to say the industrial revolution, which is when pretty much everything suddenly became cheap, and also when the proletariat gained serious spending power.
|
As far as i know, salt wasn't really a luxury pretty much ever. It was important and valuable, yes, but also something you needed rather often, for example for the conservation of foods.
|
When the Spanish colonized the Americas, forced the natives into bondage on sugar plantations, and shipped the stuff back to Europe in the 16th century.
|
On December 09 2014 18:50 Simberto wrote:
As far as i know, salt wasn't really a luxury pretty much ever. It was important and valuable, yes, but also something you needed rather often, for example for the conservation of foods.
It also depended on the ease of access to it. If you have the sea right by your nose you don't really have to worry about it. Deeper inland it might be harder to get, that's why salt mines were just as good as gold mines in the middle ages.
And here's something amazing for you:
http://www.pommietravels.com/2012/04/wieliczka-salt-mine-polands-salt-cathedral/
Teaser:
![[image loading]](http://www.grupafuntime.pl/wp-content/gallery/wieliczka/wieliczka-salt-mine-2.jpg)
|
On December 09 2014 13:32 Shiragaku wrote:
When did sugar and salt go from a luxury limited to the privileged to an staple ingredient?
As people already have said, salt was never a luxury reserved for the privileged, it was expensive yes, but was used by all for conservation and as the only spice we had in Europe.
Sugar on the other hand was very expensive and reserved for the nobles and rich for a long time. The sugar that came back from the colonies was not affordable for the farmers and villagers.
That all changed during the napoleon war. Great Britain embargoed France and made it impossible for France to import sugar from the colonies, so Napoleon ordered his farmers to plant sugar beets.
Ways to extract sugar from sugar beets was discovered just prior to the war.
The production of sugar beets exploded because of that and within 20 years it was all over Europe as one of the biggest crops.
So blame Napoleon for the sugar
link
link 2
|
Why can't we swap one Plott brother for the other, and get the real casting archon?
|
It has happened before, infrequently, but it has happened. The logic early on, circa 2010/2011 as explained by Nick and Dan was that they didn't want to deviate from their brand and cast seperately.
|
Who's Dan? Nicolas and Sean!
I was more implying that we swap Nicolas - tastless for Sean - day9, then we'd have real casting archon!
Artosis and Day9, a synergie of sooper dooper-ness.
edit: artosis - dan, oooops do i feel dumb
|
Could you imagine how hairy a merging archon style of Day9 and Tastless would be?
Shares in Gillette and Wilkinson Sword would quadruple over night.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
