The URL parser is homophobic (+ applications for personal finance (+ warm clothing))
-
am I the only person who thinks "near field communication" instead of "no fucking clue" when they see NFC?
I always think football.
http://sas.suplitodomedia.com/resource/landing/bookmaker/national-football-conference-betting.gif
-
-
You really should spoiler that. Most USAliens have not yet had lunch.
-
Pantyhose are not typically worn without something over top of them...maybe around the house to seduce your SO. But that would be it.
Leggings: have no feet, always opaque, may be worn without something over the top (though are often worn under short dresses or long tops)
Pantyhose: have feet, often translucent, are not worn in public without something over the top.
Tights (British English): synonymous with pantyhose.
Tights (US English): I thought it was synonymous with leggings, but your post seems to imply otherwise, though I can't tell from those two pictures wherein the difference lies. I would call both of those things leggings.
-
Tights (US English): I thought it was synonymous with leggings, but your post seems to imply otherwise, though I can't tell from those two pictures wherein the difference lies. I would call both of those things leggings.
There really is not much difference. At least to my knowledge. It is generally assumed that tights would cover the feet, but not a requirement as there are a lot of things marketed here as tights now that do not cover the feet at all. Although, I have not heard it the other way around, I believe that if they do cover the feet they would be called tights.
-
And also, "tights" are generally athletic in form or function. Leggings would not really be so. Hence "running tights" do not cover the feet.
But, to futher confuse the issue, there is not a hell of a lot of difference between running tights and yoga pants in some cases.
But they all will make me drool and stutter, given the proper female form inside of them.
-
There really is not much difference. I believe that if they do cover the feet they would be called tights.
Do you have things that are as substantial as leggings but cover the feet? I've never encountered such a garment (the nearest I can get is a pair of jodhpurs I used to have that had bands under the feet to stop them riding up). There are thicker tights (mainly worn by very little girls) but they're still much less substantial than leggings and made of a rather different material.
And much smaller off than on because they're considerably stretched, lengthwise as well as widthwise, when worn. If you cut the feet off a pair of thick tights, and put them on, they'd ride halfway up your legs because they'd have no resistance to keep them stretched. I guess I'd consider that the defining feature, and leggings with feet would just be ... weird leggings.
-
Like I said, you can probably get a charge reversed, but it's a longer process and you don't have access to that money until it's complete.
-
I don't wear those things.
You probably wouldn't look as good in it as her, either.
-
I thought a sweater was USAlien for sweatshirt
Nope, those are two different things.
We also distinguish the pullover type of sweater from the button type, with "pullover" and "cardigan", but I think most people just call them both "sweater" unless the distinction's important.
-
-
Leggings? Tights? Pantyhose?
Like the soi-disant "colors" ecru, beige, and so on, aren't those all basically the same thing?
-
You
probablydefinitely, absolutely, no doubt about it, wouldn't look as good in it as her, either.FTFE
-
We haven't touched on jeggings yet. AFAIK, thy're just leggings in a material that looks like denim
-
Aren't they normally called skinny-fit jeans?
-
Not quite, I think.
Skinny jeans
Jeggings
I think jeggings are more elasticated
-
-
Every time I see a College Humor video, I think of this:
-
I mean, you aren't one of those people who have major panic attacks because they get assigned the next user ID after 14665 are you?
As a DBA I'd prefer user ID 18456
Edited to explain the joke Re-edited to un-fuck Discoformatting
-
-
Reply to OP*
I used to support a document management system and it renamed the electronic documents that were saved using a randomly generated filename. It didn't use vowels or Y's so that there was no chance of generating a swearword.
Filed under: I am new here, Cool story bro
-
This post is deleted!
-
-
-
-
fvck in some fonts tho...
At some point you have to say the issue is in the eye of the beholder.
-
-
It didn't use vowels or Y's so that there was no chance of generating a swearword.
thtsmthrfckngsmrt
-
But it is an RMA site of a well-known hardware manufacturer. But to add more WTFery to it, there was also this:
Well, it looks like I will be back there very soon. First the switch failed, now the wireless controller has failed.
Total installation/upgrade:
PoE switch
Wireless controller
6 access pointsWhat is left and has not failed (yet):
6 access points
Cheeky fucking bastards.
-
The gays are really out to get you on this one, I guess.
-
It appears so. This hardware did seem pretty
It appears to not be all it was cracked up to.
-
fvck
Those *.CNT files circa 2000 were c... [Ahem, better put my non-en-au filter on] ... annoying files.
-
A hold isn't an actual charge.
Coming in here late, a bit. Actually, a "hold" is a charge. Here's how card transactions work:- Cardholder presents card (or card number and guff on-line) to merchant
- Merchant requests authorization for the transaction. This is the transaction. It blocks funds equal to the transaction value, sending them to a sort of limbo state, neither in the cardholder's account nor in the merchant's.
- Time passes.
- Merchant submits a settlement request for the transaction. This is not the transaction, but a request to actually finish it. It releases the funds from limbo to the merchant.
For a (refundable) rental deposit, the merchant will, instead, in step 4, either issue a cancel request (not all issuers will process these), or just not submit the settlement, in which case the transaction eventually times out. In either case, the funds exit limbo back to the cardholder's account.
-
Issuers don't generally post the charge to your statement until it settles though ;)
-
Issuers don't generally post the charge to your statement until it settles though
But regardless, you do not have access to that money while you are subject to the hold.
-
Yeah, It's much less of an issue for a credit card unless you have a very low credit limit, whereas with debit you have actual fiat cash that you can't access.
It's also less of an issue if the hold is for less than you're charging (i.e. restaurants)
-
Issuers don't generally post the charge to your statement until it settles though ;)
Yes, because if they did post it, and the merchant didn't settle (cancelled or timed out), they'd have to issue a refund, and the hoo-hah they'd get as a result of all these rental deposits showing up and being refunded on people's accounts would be epic.
-
I've actually heard that little bit of urban legend ("you can't rent a car with a debit card") from other people, but I'm not sure if it was once true or never true and people are just confused.
I thought the whole deal was that this only applied back before almost all debit cards actually had Mastercard or Visa logos and could be used indistinguishably from credit...except that the amount reserved by the transaction might be higher until it was actually processed, or something.
Then again, I've almost never used debit and resisted my ATM card being made usable as a debit card for a long time because I preferred being a deadbeat credit card account. So all that is just vague recollections of things I was told by people I have no reason to believe knew any better than I did.
-
Nah, the problem is that for a debit card, a temporary hold counts against your available balance. Which technically it counts against your available credit on a credit card, but if you routinely use every last penny of your available credit on a credit card, you're doing it wrong, whereas I don't usually keep a few hundred extra in my checking account to be tied up in superfluous holds -- anything not earmarked for immediate needs in my budget goes to a secondary account to save up for larger expenses down the line.
-
anything not earmarked for immediate needs in my budget goes to a secondary account to save up for larger expenses down the line.
I put mine into my home loan: my bank makes it trivially easy to redraw: I can even pay bills directly from the home loan!
-
I don't usually keep a few hundred extra in my checking account to be tied up in superfluous holds -- anything not earmarked for immediate needs in my budget goes to a secondary account to save up for larger expenses down the line.
At the moment there's a few banks offering real interest rates on current accounts, so my current account is also my main savings account. It's quite convenient, although it does mean you have to pay a bit more attention to make sure you're not overspending.