Starp citu, es balsoju impulsīvi - paņēmu visu čupiņu, sadalīju divās daļās, izpētīju uzvārdus "Nr. 1" mazākajā čupiņā, ievilku pa seju krustiņu tam, kas man likās visprātīgākais (lai gan pabrīnījos, ka šis vēl nav aizgājis pensijā), pagaršoju līmi (negaršoja) un gāju svinīgi mest aploksni (uzreiz iešāvās prātā tāda vizualizācija par to, kā svarīgas personas balso fotozibšņu pavadībā - manu metienu pavadīja tikai garlaikotas policistes skatiens). Un jā, sasodīti grūti bija īstajā brīdī nokļūt īstajā vietā, tb, tajā iecirknī, kur biju piereģistrēts. Mana mīļotā tikai tāpēc nevarēja balsot, ka pase vienā pilsētā, iecirknis citā, un mēnesi pirms vēlēšanām normāls students vēl nav saplānojis savu sesiju. Vecmāmiņai teiksim, ka abi nobalsojām.

Starp citu, kā beidzās (tb, sākās) futbols? Protams, tas ir lieks un retorisks jautājums, jo google zina visu

kaitnieks kaut kur izgājis.
ko nu?

"But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." [Carl Sagan]

© nozagts no Quotes of the Day

BBC: pusotra gada laikā internetā tiks publiskotas 19. gadsimta britu avīzes (autortiesības vairs nav spēkā).

"Among the national papers that are expected to be digitised is The Morning Chronicle, a reformist newspaper which employed Charles Dickens as a reporter and W M Thackeray as art critic.

Another likely candidate is the Morning Post, which featured articles by Samuel Coleridge and William Wordsworth."

British Library rulz

Update: slashdot diskusija par tēmu

FuckingGoogleIt.com

Bet vispār MetaFilter diskusijā ir labs pretarguments:

"Google's a great first place to check when looking for some pretty simple facts; for anything more in-depth it can give you interesting results but it's no substitute for asking a knowledgeable human being. Why? Because it returns bullshit as readily as fact, lunacy as easily as scholarship, misquotes and distortion as often as citation, rants as often as reportage. In short, Google can only return what's on the web, almost indiscriminately and certainly without any direct metric for the actual quality of the information. In many topics the best information is in books, and books generally aren't on the web. Having someone who's made your subject their area of study to ask can save you going down some very misleading paths indeed.

That said, this page would be a lot more clever if it acutally took parameterized arguments and passed them to Google, listing the results below the chalkboard. As it is it's just a very cheap way to be snide."