 | | Re: English phrase
|
|
(...) Of course that's a morning coffee and not a before-bedtime coffee. ;-) --Todd (26 years ago, 12-Nov-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: English phrase
|
|
(...) Yeah, I think it means "no frills" or "no extras added yet." Like an undecorated 9"x13" pan cake instead of a wedding cake. Or a 2x4 brick instead of a BURP. Simple but not necessarily bad. (...) Mmmm, great example. Saw, how about that Ben & (...) (26 years ago, 12-Nov-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: English phrase
|
|
(...) I don't think it has to have positive or negative connotations to most people. It's just plain. Normal. Maybe boring, maybe just nothing "special" about it. Like vanilla ice cream. Yeah, it's good, but it isn't fudge ripple. (26 years ago, 11-Nov-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: English phrase
|
|
(...) <ramble> Well, I do like vanilla so don't get me wrong. It means no fancy features. It's an ice cream metaphor comparing plain vanilla to some other more complicated flavor like jamocha almond fudge or rocky road. Yet a computer that is plain (...) (26 years ago, 11-Nov-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: English phrase
|
|
(...) It comes from ice cream, where 'vanilla' is the default flavor. Minus all the chocolate goodies, etc. A plain vanilla computer would just be your basic normal computer, with no fancy "multimedia" features. ("Multimedia" in quotes because (...) (26 years ago, 11-Nov-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: English phrase
|
|
(...) I *love* vanilla. The stonger the better. The way I understand it, the term just means just "plain", and whether it's boring or not is derived from its context. For example, for most males a "plain vanilla Hugh Grant movie" would probably be a (...) (26 years ago, 11-Nov-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | English phrase
|
|
Here's a *really* off-topic question for native English speakers: What does the buzz phrase 'plain vanilla computer' exactly mean? A very good (everybody *likes* vanilla) computer or a very boring (*everybody* likes vanilla) computer? Eric (26 years ago, 11-Nov-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Non-"Leading Brand"s here?
|
|
(...) Probably the easiest and sure-fire method would be for all sides to agree to detonate their weapons in-situ. No need to worry about launch failures, etc. (26 years ago, 7-Nov-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Question for anyone in the UK
|
|
The article only mentioned Universities, so maybe it doesn't include (...) (26 years ago, 7-Nov-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Question for anyone in the UK
|
|
Same here. However, and maybe there is confusion on that side...... There is pending European legislation with regards to software sales, and privacy issues......... Huw Millington wrote in message ... (...) (26 years ago, 5-Nov-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Non-"Leading Brand"s here?
|
|
Moz (Chris Moseley) wrote in message ... (...) Just War Games, AFAIK. Although I do know that they ran test firings a lot to make sure that people would actually turn the keys when they needed to. Jesse ___...___ Jesse The Jolly Jingoist Looking for (...) (26 years ago, 5-Nov-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Non-"Leading Brand"s here?
|
|
Actually thee design if I recall cost lest to run than our does. I'm willing to bet that china(scary thought) could do it, or Japan but I think that it was more of safety thing because they auctioned off around the time those capsules didn't slow (...) (26 years ago, 4-Nov-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Non-"Leading Brand"s here?
|
|
Well the actual figures aren't available but I'd guess somewhere to 80% 90% would launch. I mean these guys had several backups in case one did decide to cop out right? Also if it's not authorized to launch fairly quickly isn't there a call to the (...) (26 years ago, 4-Nov-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Non-"Leading Brand"s here?
|
|
(...) I think that's because theirs was built after America's. US shuttle design was firmed up using mid-70's technology, as well as some stuff left over from the 60's. I'm not saying theirs isn't good, but it takes quite a bit of cash to finance (...) (26 years ago, 4-Nov-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Non-"Leading Brand"s here?
|
|
Steve Bliss <blisses@worldnet.att.net> wrote (...) Was it just "war games" or didn't they have a sub 50% launch rate from manned sites in trials? Like, half the time the boys would choose not to set the thing off? So there was some incentive to have (...) (26 years ago, 4-Nov-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Question for anyone in the UK
|
|
Its the first I have heard of it... Jeff Stembel wrote in message ... (...) CNET's (...) it (...) (26 years ago, 4-Nov-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Non-"Leading Brand"s here?
|
|
Steve Bliss wrote in message <363efd9e.2257101@lu...et.com>... (...) To the best of my knowledge they decommissioned the auto-launch missile right before they declassified it (about five years ago), so it's not in use anymore. As for the rest of the (...) (26 years ago, 3-Nov-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Question for anyone in the UK
|
|
Hi, I'm having a debate with a classmate about a news article I read on CNET's News.com website. The article was about a new policy that charges for trans-atlantic data flow. The article didn't mention comercial ISPs, just Universities. Were ISPs (...) (26 years ago, 3-Nov-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Non-"Leading Brand"s here?
|
|
(...) I'm not sure if this makes me feel better or worse about America's nuclear capabilities. Technically, it sounds 'cool', assuming it would actually work right under field conditions. But any discussion of making it easier to launch nukes gives (...) (26 years ago, 3-Nov-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Non-"Leading Brand"s here?
|
|
Jeff Stembel wrote in message <363E8913.DB8CDBE4@aol.com>... (...) Soyuz. Jesse ___...___ Jesse The Jolly Jingoist Looking for answers? Read the rec.toys.lego FAQ! (URL) in Deja News! (URL) (26 years ago, 3-Nov-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
