Laundering money is actually just washing it, like putting it into the washing machine, drying it, and then ironing it. That's what it means when someone says that.
I know people that do this, but no, that's not what it means. As far as actual money laundering goes though I hear vending machines are popular due to the relatively low start-up costs (where you need traceable income), and high profit margins.
"Water fouridation is poison and it's making us all stupider, here's a bunch of studies that PROVE IT!"
"Um, this is what the studies you posted say (list of quotes from posted studies that explicitly disprove the initial point). Did you read this AT ALL?"
"Translation: I'm okay with poison being in my water, as long as it's in small amounts! It only reduces my IQ a little! Thanks government for my poison it makes me docile!"
"Dude, 99% of that was just quotes from what you posted. You just "translated" yourself."
While we're on the topic, does it make me a bad person if I only like Whiskey on the rocks?
Nope.
Agreed.
Whiskey usually needs a bit of water to open it up.
While normally - as the consummate bartender - I would say this anyway(after all, drink whatever the fuck you like, your enjoyment of it is the important part), this is what makes it doubly true, mostly.
It's better to add cool-to-room temperature water generally, because ice cools the whiskey enough that the flavor tightens down before it really opens as the ice melts. But, ice is perfectly acceptable, just leave it for a bit before you drink it. As a rule, if you're walking around with your drink in hand, go for ice, if you're setting it on the table - say, during dinner - go for a splash of water.
But, this is only for Cask strength whiskeys(about 50%/100 Proof) and finer whiskeys. If you're going for a 45% to 50%, use a little less water. Anything around 80 proof, then you generally don't need to bother - adding water isn't going to open it up as much, you can get away with only adding a tiny bit, if any. Adding as much as you would for a cask strength whiskey, you're actually going to thin it out too much, and fuck up the balance of flavors.
Ah, that explains it. Right now I've been frustrated because I'm used to coding more object-oriented things. Well, that and the fact that Javascript doesn't really scope variables unless you're carefully instantiating them in objects, which is a bit irritating.
Ah, that explains it. Right now I've been frustrated because I'm used to coding more object-oriented things. Well, that and the fact that Javascript doesn't really scope variables unless you're carefully instantiating them in objects, which is a bit irritating.
JavaScript is not an object oriented language. It's a functional language like LISP.
Ah, that explains it. Right now I've been frustrated because I'm used to coding more object-oriented things. Well, that and the fact that Javascript doesn't really scope variables unless you're carefully instantiating them in objects, which is a bit irritating.
JavaScript is not an object oriented language. It's a functional language like LISP.
Eh... it's object-oriented, but prototype-based, not class based like the more common object-oriented languages like C++, Java, Python, Ruby, etc.
Ah, that explains it. Right now I've been frustrated because I'm used to coding more object-oriented things. Well, that and the fact that Javascript doesn't really scope variables unless you're carefully instantiating them in objects, which is a bit irritating.
JavaScript is not an object oriented language. It's a functional language like LISP.
Eh... it's object-oriented, but prototype-based, not class based like the more common object-oriented languages like C++, Java, Python, Ruby, etc.
Yes, you can mimic various object oriented patterns in Javascript, such as using function prototypes for inheritance. I can do similar things in C, but nobody would say C is object oriented. I could also mimic LISP functions in Smalltalk, but that doesn't make Smalltalk a functional language.
Yes, you can mimic various object oriented patterns in Javascript, such as using function prototypes for inheritance. I can do similar things in C, but nobody would say C is object oriented. I could also mimic LISP functions in Smalltalk, but that doesn't make Smalltalk a functional language.
Again, you're comparing JavaScript to class-based OO languages. It is not a class-based OO language but a prototype-based OO language. Just because the method of OO is different than what you're used to doesn't make it non-OO.
Where you may be getting confused is that functions are first-class objects in JavaScript, which they typically aren't in other OO languages such as C++, Java, etc.
Yes, you can mimic various object oriented patterns in Javascript, such as using function prototypes for inheritance. I can do similar things in C, but nobody would say C is object oriented. I could also mimic LISP functions in Smalltalk, but that doesn't make Smalltalk a functional language.
Again, you're comparing JavaScript to class-based OO languages. It is not a class-based OO language but a prototype-based OO language. Just because the method of OO is different than what you're used to doesn't make it non-OO.
Where you may be getting confused is that functions are first-class objects in JavaScript, which they typically aren't in other OO languages such as C++, Java, etc.
Everything's an object in Python... and Ruby... and Smalltalk... and JavaScript. JavaScript's main difference from those languages is that it doesn't have any classes. Instead of instantiating a new object from a class, you simply clone an original object that serves as the prototype of your new object.
Really, if you want to know what language JavaScript was mostly inspired by, it isn't Java, or LISP, but Self, another prototype-based OO language.
So, in my country, a footballer has been accused of rape. And it seems a lot have people are suddenly learning legal terms, because all of a sudden, I'm noticing people warning people on reddit and other social media platforms about Sub Judice.
I'm pretty sure that doesn't apply to social media, guys, unless you've a connection to the case.
Plus, using legal terminology to try and suppress discussion on social media about a footballer allegedly raping someone, but not using it for other cases seems a little suspect. And by suspect, I mean stinks to high heaven and sounds like you're trying to keep this thing down because he's a famous sportsman.
Bought a bike this weekend. Was looking on amazon for bike lock and lights. Sadly hardly any of the u locks are prime eligible and 99% of the poor reviews are people bitching that despite having a strong lock their bike still got stolen in NYC. Huge surprise!
I'm willing to bet that maybe 50, 60 percent of them - minimum - were locking their bikes up wrong. At least another ten percent were locking it up right, but to the wrong thing.
Comments
"Um, this is what the studies you posted say (list of quotes from posted studies that explicitly disprove the initial point). Did you read this AT ALL?"
"Translation: I'm okay with poison being in my water, as long as it's in small amounts! It only reduces my IQ a little! Thanks government for my poison it makes me docile!"
"Dude, 99% of that was just quotes from what you posted. You just "translated" yourself."
(Only old alcoholics and, apparently, me, drink them on the rocks).
Whiskey usually needs a bit of water to open it up.
It's better to add cool-to-room temperature water generally, because ice cools the whiskey enough that the flavor tightens down before it really opens as the ice melts. But, ice is perfectly acceptable, just leave it for a bit before you drink it. As a rule, if you're walking around with your drink in hand, go for ice, if you're setting it on the table - say, during dinner - go for a splash of water.
But, this is only for Cask strength whiskeys(about 50%/100 Proof) and finer whiskeys. If you're going for a 45% to 50%, use a little less water. Anything around 80 proof, then you generally don't need to bother - adding water isn't going to open it up as much, you can get away with only adding a tiny bit, if any. Adding as much as you would for a cask strength whiskey, you're actually going to thin it out too much, and fuck up the balance of flavors.
This guy's insistence always cracks me up
JavaScript: The Good Parts
Where you may be getting confused is that functions are first-class objects in JavaScript, which they typically aren't in other OO languages such as C++, Java, etc.
Really, if you want to know what language JavaScript was mostly inspired by, it isn't Java, or LISP, but Self, another prototype-based OO language.
At least I found a quick way to format a 1 TB drive to FAT32...
I'm pretty sure that doesn't apply to social media, guys, unless you've a connection to the case.
Plus, using legal terminology to try and suppress discussion on social media about a footballer allegedly raping someone, but not using it for other cases seems a little suspect. And by suspect, I mean stinks to high heaven and sounds like you're trying to keep this thing down because he's a famous sportsman.