|
Well 燕丸 is swallow balls, I'm not sure how else you'd put it, even though it now carries an unfortunate connotation..
|
|
|
|
|
Nothing wrong with a nice tasty Pork Faggot[^].
And the food pre-dates the American pejorative slang by at least 63 years, so don't try to claim the makers should have "been aware" of that alternative meaning.
(There are plenty of other meanings[^] too.)
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
CDP1802 wrote: Edit: Liberals and Sander avert your eyes![^] ARGHHH WHY DID I LOOK!?
Reminds me of some brand of paracetamol. Their packaging had instructions in pictures.
Picture 1: Person with headache.
Picture 2: Person takes pill.
Picture 3: Person is happy.
They then shipped to the Middle-East and Asia... Where they read from right to left
Can't find a picture right now.
|
|
|
|
|
Not always the same meaning, could be historical, geographical
consider something like this
Sin tack
the any key okay
|
|
|
|
|
There is also the Mitsubishi Shogun (UK name) also known in Australia and Japan as the "Pajero".
Which is unfortunate if you speak Spanish ... as it means "a person who plays on their own", if you know what I mean. A neighbour of mine had a second hand imported one, and I have to say that watching him drive round with "Pajero" emblazoned on his vehicle fit really well...
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
How much does Wo get paid for coming up with these names?
|
|
|
|
|
I take it you have a yen to find out?
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
A typo! How Wong of me!
The language is JavaScript. that of Mordor, which I will not utter here
This is Javascript. If you put big wheels and a racing stripe on a golf cart, it's still a f***ing golf cart.
"I don't know, extraterrestrial?"
"You mean like from space?"
"No, from Canada."
If software development were a circus, we would all be the clowns.
|
|
|
|
|
Freudian slip, there, given that half the products are Chinese?
Wo == mandarin for "I".
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
@melchizidechh
You won on Friday - nobody got it - so you're supposed to be up again today.
But I guess it's getting a bit late - so we'll make it tomorrow, OK?
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry, yes, I'll have summat for tomorrow. Snowed under today.
One morning I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got in my pajamas, I don't know.
|
|
|
|
|
So what was the answer to Fridays?
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
Trainspotting
Wee Tom : T
Keeps an eye on the weather : Rainspotting
Trainspotting 2 had just come out that morning so I figured it was a timely cultural reference
One morning I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got in my pajamas, I don't know.
|
|
|
|
|
Ah, I see.
Easy when you have the solution...
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
LOST
One took a $100 bill from the register without being noticed. After that he collected goods worth $70 and payed with the stolen bill... The cashier - unaware of the theft - gave back the $30 change. How much was actually stolen from the shop?
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
|
$100.
-100: The person took $100 from the register.
-70: The person purchased $70 goods from the shop.
+100: The person paid $100 to the cashier.
-30: The person received $30 change from the cashier.
-100: Total
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack.
--Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
Ah, but there was nothing about the money being given back being counted as non-stolen.
0. He stole $11
Amount stolen = $100
1. He paid for goods with stolen money, from which he got change; i.e. he stole $100-worth of goods and change.
Amount stolen = $100
Total amount stolen = $200
You have to remember the devious mind of the question-setter.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
If he had purchased $70 of goods with $100 of his own money, you would agree that the store had received $100, and had given $70 of goods and $30 of change, for a total "loss" of $0.
The only loss here was the crime - stealing $100, and therefore the store lost $100.
Your method counts the stolen money twice.
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack.
--Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
But the (trick) question doesn't say anything about discounting the fact that the money was paid back in, or anything about profit/loss, and all three amounts were /technically/ theft.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Hmm. So according to you, we have a few additional crimes here:
- The customer stole $100 (theft)
- The customer took $70 worth of merchandise and paid for them with the stolen $100 (paying with stolen money)
- The shopkeeper received stolen goods (the $100 stolen by the customer)
- The shopkeeper gave $30 under false pretenses to the customer
If your legal theory is correct, then
- Every shopkeeper who receives money must somehow verify that the money is legitimately owned by the customer.
- "Fencing" has been expanded to the case where the thief also uses the proceeds of the theft.
From a "God's eye" view, you may be correct, but I'd hate to be the prosecutor who has to prosecute this case...
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack.
--Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
Hey, it ain't no "legal theory"! Although,legally, they guy would be prosecuted on all counts, and receive a harsher sentence.
It's an "awkward bugger setting trick questions" theory!
The phrasing avoided any mention of "returned" money not being definable as "stolen", so there were three trick-question-style acts of theft:
0. The cash was stolen from the till. $100 stolen
1. The goods were stolen, because they were paid for with stolen money. $70 stolen
2. The change was obtained unlawfully. $30 stolen
From the trick-question perspective, that's $200 stolen (that word being the only pertinent one).
It's only logically that it's only $100.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
So, would the shopkeeper be prosecuted for receiving stolen goods? How would your answer change if the thief went to another shop and spent the $100 there?
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack.
--Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel Pfeffer wrote: So, would the shopkeeper be prosecuted for receiving stolen goods? If it were 60 years ago, and the shopkeeper were Margaret Thatcher, I'd vote Aye, and demand the death penalty.
Think how much suffering that would have prevented.Daniel Pfeffer wrote: How would your answer change if the thief went to another shop and spent the $100 there? It's still $200, but this clarifies the non-logic of it -- he steals $100 from one shop, and $100 from another shop.
But that still wasn't my point.
The way the question was phrased, the answer can only be $200.
It's a trick question, phrased in a way to get logic-centric people to make the mistake of thinking logically.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
100.
70 - worth goods
30 - cash
charges: robbery and shoplifting among others (I guess)
"It is easy to decipher extraterrestrial signals after deciphering Javascript and VB6 themselves.", ISanti[ ^]
|
|
|
|
|
I can't remember whose face is on the $100 bill, so I can't answer in a fitting manner.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|