Melvin Menezes

Ranch Hand
+ Follow
since Aug 03, 2002
Cows and Likes
Cows
Total received
0
In last 30 days
0
Total given
0
Likes
Total received
0
Received in last 30 days
0
Total given
0
Given in last 30 days
0
Forums and Threads
Scavenger Hunt
expand Ranch Hand Scavenger Hunt
expand Greenhorn Scavenger Hunt

Recent posts by Melvin Menezes

17 == (4*4)+(4/4)
Ah! Greg hit post button before i did!
Using a . was smart, David.
[ June 03, 2003: Message edited by: Melvin Menezes ]
17 years ago
1 ==44/44
2 ==(4*4)/(4+4)
3 ==(4+4+4)/4
4 ==4*(4^^(4-4))^^ is power
5 ==4+(4^^(4-4))^^ is power
6 ==4+((4+4)/4)
7 ==4+4-(4/4)
8 ==4+4+4-4
9 ==4+4+(4/4)
10 ==(44-4)/4
11 ==
12 ==
13 ==
14 ==
15 ==44/4 +4
16 ==4*4*4/4
17 ==
18 ==
19 ==
20 ==(4+(4/4))*4
17 years ago
Where is November?
Everywhere. Where would you like to have it?
17 years ago
AJ: If there will be more democracy in the middle east. I think the general feeling will be much more anti-american than Germany in the 50/60ties and probably more anti-american than the current Saudi Arabian government (or similar government).
There two different topics in this statement.
1) More democracy means more anti-american feeling.
2) More democracy means more hurting the US interests.
First point is obviusoly wrong. The anti-american feelings will neither increase nor decrease in the near future and they will remain the same as they were in the recent past and as they are now, whether there is democracy or not. More democracy will only mean that those anti-american feelings and their reasons and solutions will be more openly discussed and debated. More people will have a say in what their government does about it. The monarchy and royals will not be able to hide and support terrorism secretly.
Second point is also wrong. Because when power is divided among the people as opposed to a dictatorship, the common people will start benefiting from international trade and relations. Common people will not be interested in harming their relations with other nations.
Either way, more democracy in ME means more good for the US and everyone, imho
[ May 29, 2003: Message edited by: Melvin Menezes ]
17 years ago
DL: some medical research volunteer, you are paid $100 just to do nothing.
Aaw! So this is one of those side-effects of the research, hmm..
Anybody's seen senseless?
17 years ago
Jeez! Since when did robots start having sense of humour?
17 years ago
I think it does allow them
http://www.javaranch.com
internally, are they stored as strings?
http://www.javaranch.com
[ May 08, 2003: Message edited by: Melvin Menezes ]
17 years ago
Supreme Deity?
how'bout negatives?
17 years ago
doesn't the database accept zero?
17 years ago
(I had tried earlier but couldn't find a way fit the 'kwestion' into it. Now i see it was so simple. The statement below uses 16 different words with kyus. Challenge: make it 20)
When they kwestioned him, the writer was kwoted as saying that "In the sekwal of the story after the earthkwake hit the kweendom, the highly kwalified kween known for ekwality and justice, ekwipped with knowledge, kwit playing with the skwirrels and kweryied her akwaintance to help her out in conkering the hearts of the people who were kueuing up outside the palace akwarium"
17 years ago
"The procedural programming language formerly known as the third letter of the English Alphabet before said letter was deemed to be useless and subsequently removed."

How about 'Q'? It is even less usable than 'C'
The writer was kwoted as saying that "In the sekwal of the story after the earthkwake hit the kweendom, the highly kwalified kween known for ekwality and justice, ekwipped with knowledge, kwit playing with the skwirrels and kweryied her akwaintance to help her out in conkering the hearts of the people who were kueuing up outside the palace akwarium"
17 years ago
I guess Kernighan and Ritxhie will be upset with that idea.
17 years ago
MP: ...In either case I don't think you could define raising a child as a right because it impairs the rights of another person, the child...
I just don't get that part. If you read my posts, we are not talking about whether the parents can starve or feed their kids. We are talking about the right of a parent to decide how to raise his/her kids. In the sense the right of a parent to decide what values to teach the kid.
Some examples:
- What to feed the kid? A Jew parent can enforce strict kosher diet. It violates the right of a human kid to have non-kosher food.
- What religion to teach. A Christian parent can decide whether and which church to take his kids to. It impairs the right of a human kid to learn about other religions.
- Which school to send him too. Public, private, ...?
- Should the kid be given horse-riding lessons or music lessons or both or none?
- should the kid be allowed to watch TV 2 hours a day or 6 hours a day?
- instill good reading habits. What constitutes good reading? What if the parents have socialistic and liberal or even communististic mind-set and background and encourage and buy the kids only those types of books.
Can a local govenrment dictate any of the above?. Making sure the kid is not starved and is in a safe non-smoking environment is your responsibility. But raising your child the way you like is your right!
17 years ago
Sorry to interrupt your discussion about 'the constitution and its amendments'
TP: Poor Joe should be glad that the government does intervene and give him until the kid is 18 or his 16 year old kid could just walk out on him. The law is the only thing that is giving poor Joe any authority over his son in the first place
So do you consider it a good thing or do you consider it a sad thing that parents have to rely on the law to have any authority over their own children? that parents have to rely on the law so that they can correct their kids' bad behaviour?

MP: You lost me on this one. I don't think that I would call leading a child in the right direction a right. That is a responsibility that goes along with having a child.
That is just a different way of looking at it. Would you lead your child in the right direction because you want to (from your heart) or Would you lead your child in the right direction because you think it is your responsibility and just because you have to fulfill your responsibility (by law)
[ May 05, 2003: Message edited by: Melvin Menezes ]
17 years ago
Just so that you all don't get mad at me, let me tell you that I neither completely agree nor completely disagree with Joe, Jane, John, or Jack, in anyway. The story was just my way of putting different views togather, for those who favor as well as for those who oppose any kind of intervention by law.
I thought someone would oppose Joe's ideas about gun-control as much as they opposed his frustration over smoke-control. Both are somewhat similar issues according to me.
17 years ago