ello ello.

What the actual .....?

Yes, there are such people in the world.

launches question into sun

OP already deleted it himself.

Huh.

I wonder why?

Because he knew I was voting to close and he couldn't bear it.

Or he was in despair because of my closevote/downvote combo.

@Waiwai are you around?

@simchona Yep; what can I do for you?

I saw that on english.stackexchange.com/questions/74903/work-out-their-anger you merged the users, but not for all the questions by the same user

was just wondering why

@simchona Can you show me something that didn't get merged? The merge should catch everything.

@waiwai933 I had flagged english.stackexchange.com/questions/74870/…, and none of the other questions by the same user look merged

unless I'm mixing up users, which is highly possible

@simchona I think you are; the first question was made by a user called "Throwback"

I can't be certain the second user is a sockpuppet, so that's why they haven't been merged.

@waiwai933 Oh, I was getting totally confused. Sorry about pulling you in here ><

DM's comments sound like the sockpuppet, but you have way more tools to find socks than I do

@simchona No problem. Better to be safe than sorry.

As for DM, it's very suspicious, but since merging accounts is irreversible (in some cases, even by devs), mods aren't supposed to do it unless we're 110% sure.

Oh, I see

Just for comparison

And the glitter

english.stackexchange.com/revisions/…

@simchona Oh, that's very, very interesting. Let me take a look at that again.

And voila, it's taken care of. Thanks for finding the glitter; I don't think I'd ever have spotted it since it was edited out.

I had a feeling that'd be the kicker, so I was looking at his (her?) edited questions to see if someone had taken some out.

I knew that NS put it in questions he (she?) had already posted after the first iteration was closed, so I looked in the dupes

This is what too much time leads to

@JasperLoy Hello.

It's that time of day again

Happens every 24 hours.

indeed it does

I should get used to it

Really good room :)

@GentleYang We've had to spend a fortune on obedience training for it though.

ya. bear spray isn't cheap ;p

Is that what the mods use? That explains the stinging sensation

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 Yay for F'x!

@f'x closed it like a man.

@RegDwightΒВB How would a woman have closed this question?

Haha, I like the answer "by issuing commands in the correct syntax". It's a shame that the answerer elaborated on this.

I was always a proponent of answering the actual question literally.

Not quite like that, but kind of. It's more like "How do I cross the road - by walking in the right direction until you get to the other side".

Well he's still a rookie.

I'm obviously a pro.

I wish I could get 234 upvotes by cutting and pasting from a freaking manual.

Speaking of which, why would one put the whitespace before a period rather than after?

> I have read this sentence .I can not understand why it has been used here .And also give comparison with "have been entertaining" and "might have been entertaining" .

What is this grammar?

Or even 210 for asking a stupid question.

@DavidWallace oh and he asked it when an upvote on a question was a whopping 10 reps.

And a downvote wasn't free.

"How do I end questions with a question mark?"

Maybe your "space full stop" person is native in an RTL language? Or some language with odd punctuation rules.

"How do I point and click, using a mouse?"

"Should words where a precedes a vowel pronounce that a as an? E.g. Beautiful, should that be pronounced beanutiful?"

That's a u, duh. It's not a vowel sound.

lol

We still need 30 questions with a score of 10+.

Everybody go redistribute their votes.

Mine are all on 5-vote questions already.

mine are similarly distributed

meta ebay

Cash for questions?

I think I'll go propose a site for people who buy things on a regular basis. We will outnumber Sales by orders of magnitudes.

:D

we could set up a futures market in questions and answers. ask a question for a certain number of up votes now, on the basis that the number of upvotes will go up when you actually want to ask it

That's how private betas work, in a nutshell.

Hi!

Hello!

@MattЭллен Good idea! And let's self-report the number of views, I mean, we're gentlemen, aren't we?

Of course, but why are we reporting the number of views?

is that representative of interest in the question

well, then

Yes, self reporting of such information is imperative!

Since we're gentlemen and all

@MattЭллен All that counts is our profits and short-term benefits, silly.

Notice how ironical the word "futures" is in that business.

yes, it's not particularly forward thinking

Do you think those bankers will go to prison?

probably not

It is sort of kind of like massive fraud.

Hmm.

but rich people don't go to prison

because they can afford solicitors to keep them out

Don't they? I do find it funny how rarely CEOs of big companies go to prison or are personally punished at all.

What could be a way of mending the justice system to mitigate the effect of expensive solicitors?

Well, some rich people do, but it's unusual. Jeffrey Archer, for example

Who's that?

I can Google him.

Personal webpage, wikipage

Ah, thanks.

he was caught lying in court

And he lied several other times too, I see.

And he has an ugly tie.

Whay do you have life peerages anyway? It's so silly.

heh

It is a contradiction in terms.

how so?

The essence of nobility is that it is inherited.

> The peerage is a legal system of largely hereditary titles in the United Kingdom,

if it's hereditary, then it should be for life

does the Dutch government have two houses?

A life peerage is for life, but not inherited. That's the silliness!

@MattЭллен We have separation of powers, so parliament ≠ government; and our parliament has two houses (kamers, "chambers").

@Cerberus oh, well, largely, but some people decided that inheriting it was bad. I don't really understand all the problems as I've not looked into it

@Cerberus but parliament is part of government?

Well, the way life peerages are handed out, making them hereditary would be worse, agreed.

@MattЭллен Nope.

@Cerberus so it doesn't govern?

Nope.

so what is it for?

that seems like having a supermarket you can't buy food from

It monitors government, and it legislates. Government is the cabinet.

@Cerberus legislation isn't governing?

Just as the courts are no part of government, they are completely independent.

@MattЭллен Not if you follow Montesqieu, which we do.

The three powers are judicial, legislative, and executive.

The last is what we call government.

Um, yeah. The three governmental powers.

The US follows Montesquieu too.

@Cerberus I see

Can congressmen be secretaries of state at the same time?

I guess the UK does? I don't really know

@KitFox Ah OK.

@KitFox We don't call them that.

oh, possibly not

Your ministers are also MPs.

since ministers are secretaries of state

Here, an MP needs to give up his seat if he wants to be a minister.

Here they are the three branches of government. Checks and balances and whatnot.

Yeah.

@Cerberus what does an MP do and what does a minister do?

I find it exceedingly odd that legislation and the judicial system aren't considered part of "government."

given that they are the same in my head

In Dutchland, I mean.

Formally, MPs legislate and keep a check on government.

How is that not governance?

@KitFox I guess you can call them that in a broader sense. It also depends a bit on which translation of government you pick. We have regering and overheid.

I suppose it doesn't matter. It just hurts my brain. I haven't enough coffee yet this morning.

@MattЭллен A minister theoretically makes policy within the room that the law leaves him, upon approval of parliament.

@Cerberus and the difference between policy and law?

@KitFox I understand. It wouldn't be weird to call our parliament part of the "overheid", but it is strictly speaking a bit imprecise perhaps in our system.

@MattЭллен Don't you have that in the UK?

@KitFox probably, apparently I don't understand quite a lot of this stuff

Our president says "We should have universal health care" so legislation is introduced for universal health care.

@MattЭллен The law is in our code. Written down and passed by the representatives of the people. Policy is whatever is not in the law; policy may never contradict law, while law can force policy.

@KitFox so that's a law?

@MattЭллен If the legislation is passed, yes. But the president determines the agenda.

so policies are ideas for laws?

@KitFox Yes, in practice, laws are often (but by no means always) introduced by ministers; but they can only be law if parliament wills it so. Basically anybody can introduce a law, in theory. I believe you also have some kind of petitions for that?

@KitFox Determines the agenda?

And that particular one was passed and recently upheld by the courts, so I guess we're doing that now.

But MPs can introduce bills independently of the executive, can't they?

@Cerberus That's true. Anybody can introduce a bill in the legislature.

OK.

@MattЭллен More than ideas. More like a mandate, but not quite. The president decides what the important issues are. Then he argues with Congress over it.

It's just that, in practice, the executive (cabinet or president) have a legion of civil servants working for them, so it is relatively easy for them to come up with proposed laws, whereas MPs only have a few assistants each, and some committees. Even so, they still come up with many laws too.

So, our Chancellor of the Exchequer comes up with economic policy and we make laws from that?

@MattЭллен No, not at all. A policy is something that can be executed without the consent of parliament.

???

How is that possible? Because a policy must conform to all existing laws.

So let's take an example.

@MattЭллен Sometimes, yes. The policy is set, and legislature decides how to enforce it. But often Congress and the President disagree, so you end up with interesting things happening.

I've got to go, the boys are awake. Back later.

CU!

@KitFox Okay, so that is a bit of a different definition of policy.

By policy I mean everything that people in power can do that they don't need parliamentary consent for.

So let's say the law says that you capital punishment is forbidden.

Then a minister cannot tell the justice department to reintroduce capital punishment.

But let's say the law is somehow silent on whippings.

Then a minister can instruct police officers to whip people who don't stop at traffic lights.

Provided that there is no other law forbidding this punishment, of course.

hmmmm

I think this is confusing because that's not how English law works, I think.

Could very well be.

isn't it that European law tells you everything you're allowed to do?

How do you mean?

UK laws only says what is forbidden?

I don't know

I...don't think so?

Surely English law also mandates things actively?

this is something I heard once. I've probably forgotten it

Like paying taxes?

Of course you could say English law forbids not paying taxes, but then the difference becomes meaningless.

there is a difference between UK/US law and European law, but I can't think what it is

There is common law v. ehh what we have.

maybe that's it

So you could say in common law judges have a greater influence in the shaping of new rules, because precedent is more important, I think.

But I'm never quite sure how great the effect is in practice.

yes, especially since it forms part of our constitution

Because your judges must also rule based on the law.

true

@MattЭллен How so?

we have no written consitution

Oh, right!

it is formed from laws and decisions

That is kind of funny.

:D

Although new laws cannot be tested for compatibility with our constitution either: it is fairly weak.

We have no constitutional court or anything, unlike the Germans.

"It's important he be reprimanded" - is be infinitive or subjunctive there?

@Cerb So, back to the difference between policy and law - If the home office institutes policy of apprehending people based on where they live, is that a policy?

it's clearly not a law

I guess it is a policy

I think I get it now

but the latest snoopers' charter is a bill that the home office wants to be law. So it must be a policy that currently breaks the law, so can't be done.

@Jez Subjunctive.

ok

It is important that he be reprimanded.

What?! Why? I've done nothing wrong!

@MattЭллен Yes, that is policy, unless Parliament had to create / approve of a law first to make it possible.

@MattЭллен Yes, if this snooping is currently against the law, then the home office just cannot do it now. They need to change the law. And they need parliament for that. It just so happens that the guys who came up with the idea for this law were the home office, but it doesn't matter where the idea came from: what matters is who needs to approve of it.

@MattЭллен Are you sure, if you look deep within your soul?

Have you visited McDonald lately?

@Cerberus I don't think it's against the law, but they need the law in order to get the Internet Access Providers to do as they're told.

@Cerberus N...no Only KFC! I've been good.

I suppose the part that might be against the law is that, although the IAPs can store the data regardless of law, the unfettered access by the security services is currently illegal.

@MattЭллен Okay, so you could say it is against the law for the government to force IPAs to hand over data like that. I mean, what else could prevent the government from just tell them to give them the data now?

but still, the law requiring the IAPs to store the data needs to be there, or they won't do it.

Ah, yes.

@Cerberus yeah, the only way they can get it at the moment is via warrant

There is also something like common practice: if it's something big, you want parliamentary approval (i.e. a law) anyway, if only because parliament can sack the cabinet if they are displeased, right? That's how it works here.

possibly. I don't know.

So there is a common understanding between parliament and cabinet of what room cabinet has to make policy.

I see

It is not always immediately clear.

Sometimes the cabinet claims it doesn't need a law for something, but then, if parliament insists, cabinet has to comply.

Our cabinet is appointed by our Prime Minister. I'm not sure if parliament can sack them. Possibly though.

I would think it is somewhat similar in your system.

Sack the PM, then.

heh, I wish!

Haha.

time time, bbl!

Bye!

A Preview of an Olympic-Sized Fiasco

I wasn't aware it was that bad. Or bad at all, for that matter.

@RegDwightΒВB Stop trying to make me print stuff.

I only just begun.

> Is it any surprise that so many people there have a few drinks at a pub before heading home, resorting to alcohol to cast the place where they live - and their lives -- in a somewhat rosier light?

Oh yeah, right. Like the Brits ever need an excuse to down a pint. In a pub.

I liked the bit about Tony Blair.

> the proponents held out the prospect of a cheap spectacle accompanied by an economic miracle, with a price tag of only £2.37 billion (€3.02 billion, $3.71 billion). The East End of London, parts of which had been a polluted industrial wasteland for decades, would be cleaned up and blossom like never before. And an entire generation of British children would become caught up in the Olympic fever and turn into athletes.

> An Irishman and a Scot decided to have a drinking contest. They met at a pub, and the Mick raised his glass of whiskey, saying "Cheers!" The Scot just glowered over his glass of scotch and said, "Did ye come here tae drink, or did ye come here to talk?"

Can anybody explain the definition of a troll in simple English or by examples.

What kind of troll?

en.wiktionary.org/wiki/troll#Noun

In fact there is even one in Simple English.

This word often appears in chatroom.

simple.wiktionary.org/wiki/troll

The last definition in my upload is the one you are most likely looking for.

I cannot get the clear idea of trollface

What stands in your way? There's even a picture.

The "face" suffix just is a way of identifying someone as whatever the stem is.

Thus, "dick-face" means someone whose face resembles a dick. Etc.

Duckface.

@RegDwightΒВB Come on, Olympics have all been like that for the past few decades. A horrible excess of capitalism, farther removed from the true Olympic spirit than anything but the Syrian civil war.

> A parliamentary committee recently concluded that the Games will cost the public sector alone £11 billion. Some critics believe that the total cost for London will, in fact, amount to some £24 billion.

In English chatroom, I often see You are trolling! from sombody to somebody.

I think the word troll in computerese is a fortuitous merging of the two senses of troll: the noun (monster) and the verb (to fish with a baited line behind a boat).

@FrankScience you are trolling for definitions

> In an online community or discussion, to attempt to lure others into combative argument for purposes of personal entertainment and/or gratuitous disruption.

It's all there in the dictionary.

@MattЭллен What?

> By extension, to incite anger (outside of an internet context); to provoke, harass or annoy.

@MattЭллен Bravo, sir. Again I say, bravo.

@FrankScience It's a joke, don't worry ;)

@Robusto bows

@Robusto Oh, you really think it came partly from the fishing sense? That's interesting, never thought of that.

Hey he's the master baiter.

@RegDwightΒВB To incite anger, for example, XXX is full of shit?

@Cerberus Well, that describes exactly the process, while the noun describes the perpetrator.

I suppose it does.

@FrankScience that is not trolling. That is abuse or slander.

@RegDwightΒВB Nobody else even cums close.

@RegDwightΒВB Oh, I'm really confused. Could you give me some simple example?

Sorry, I cant. Trolling is a art.

Haha.

lol

@FrankScience It is more like either nagging or annoying in a deceitful way, I'd say.

@RegDwightΒВB But I find it's somewhat a negative word.

didn't we have this conversation a few months ago?

I know we did, but I can't remember with whom

@Reg: I noticed you deleted a large addendum to one of my answers from a year ago. Since it was you, I let it stand, as you don't act capriciously except in The Incomprehensible Room. But what was the reason for that?

I think it is essential that it is done on purpose to annoy the other person(s).

@MattЭллен Yeah we did.

@MattЭллен I remember it too, but not the person either.

@Robusto I deleted it following the deletion of said addendum from the question proper.