Try not to repeat simple statements that you think are clever, without actually assessing them. You wont get into circular conversations pointing out the inaccuracy of your favorite quote of the day...that you made.
It doesn't matter what construct you put into the statement, it's not a logical claim or proof, it's nonsense. Snarkiness applies as it was true (in terms of coherence, of which Socrates was not a fan) and helpful in inspiring the following discourse.
To reiterate, The logic is: Time is a part of most physical theories. Therefore time is physical. The logic is: Math is part of most physical theories. Therefore Math is physical.
Making a statement using an absurd predication and conclusion is not logical.
It's a jump to say that time is physical because it's a relative measurement TsubO.
Time is not part of physical theories beyond our perception of before and after observations. Science is predicated on OBSERVATION (over time). Hence, Time is not part of theories at all, but how we measure and compare it. I didn't think it was necessary to break down how Science works.
This phrasing suggests that time is not a physical thing. Given that the variable "t" occurs in practically all dynamic equations of physics, I'd have to disagree with the assertion that time isn't physical.
This phrasing suggests that Math is not a physical thing. Given that Math occurs in practically all dynamic equations of physics, I'd have to disagree with the assertion that Math isn't physical.
That means every dollar I have gains more buying power, making me wealthier even if I don't have more money per se.
You buy the stock or the gold to get the dollar OUT of your hand. Capitalism breeds deflation as wealth is created. If you put 5 dollars in a drawer in 1920 (when it could buy you a suit and breakfast) and 5 dollars of gold and a 5 dollar stock (that exists today), you know that the gold is going to be worth a couple hundred dollars, the stock could be damn near worthless to a couple thou and the 5 dollars is enough to get you breakfast. The dollar (or unit de-jour) loses purchasing power with investment or work. Even in the pure commodity market we see this, so I'm not sure where you're getting your premise. The trick that Greenspan did was keeping the domestic have-nots in a state where they can survive and feeling like they are climbing the economic ladder when most pure economic pressures hinder it. Obviously, IANAE
And YES, changing what OTHER people wrote about you [on Wikipedia] without admitting who you are IS an indication of guilt.
As a matter of fact, it is not and I don't really need to prove the sky is blue either. In this case where the legal entity is separate from the individual, I'm not sure where you even got the idea that this would be possible in this case. You don't need to read a Wikipedia policy to know basic tort law. I'm not exactly a proponent of the US rule of (corporate) law, but I won't concede that there's legal precedent or rights where they do not exist and it seems others would in accordance with their morality (see the aforementioned modding). So sad.
Someone creating a link on wikipedia is not the same as one existing (although it often correlates with reality) and there's nothing illegal about changing wikipedia.
This is a feature or Wikipedia, not a revelation. Why would you deride (by inclusion into a list of reprehensible acts) someone for using a tool as intended? It's unfortunate that a reader might be led to believe that sanitizing is an indication of guilt or even malfeasance, when it is not.
I have no comment on the semantics of want versus desire. The difference between need and want is very important as it speaks to a number of topics including morality and motivation. When speaking about ideology, specifically when talking to fanatics, the distinction is important to highlight any reasoning which is really an attempt to legitimize a personal agenda.
This is factually incorrect. I can still run, repair, and write code for my Sun IPX. The only reason to "change" (not evolve) is human desire. Has nothing to do with need.
For FlexOS. This idea that you can do an ajaxOS is nonsense. The mere fact that you can't feasibly do sorts on large tables using javascript tells us that.
In some countries, you can't just put wild claims on a poster and not live up to them, to the letter.
I think this is a GOOD THING(tm) as it's the difference between a culture of deception (marketing) and a culture of virtue. Of course, as you astutely point out, a culture of virtue leaves society looking 98% dumb and ugly.//Still pissed my Incredible Hulk sneakers didn't give me the ability to leap over cars.
My aorta was perforated due to external developmental interference (virulent infection). A stem cell replacement would develop normally (theoretically). The chances that I'd actually let them put such a "replacement" in me is very very low as it would not have been properly "worn" for my age and lifestyle (history of running marathons and intense workouts). The mechanicals are very efficient and I wouldn't trust a vat valve for my aorta today. I'm just not the guinea-pig type.
SCO-like attacks on stare decisis are dismissed. Once the date of inception (invention) has been determined and documented, what manner of legal precedent is there for proving it again? (unless you need to take it to a higher court).
I respectfully disagree. You would only open the box and letters in the case of an actual dispute, after which you have proven prior art. You only need to have a decision made once. The question isn't how to copyright something, but how to cover your ass before the application is processed.
This is the purpose of the 3 envelopes. Forensic testing will show tampering. In addition, you have the bank logs. Together this is rather difficult to dispute.
Send 3 copies, certified mail to yourself or your local bank which you have a safe deposit box with. Put sealed letters in the box. Never open it again until discovery when you sue. Problem solved.
In Islamic countries like say...Libya, it's not uncommon to punish (and execute) people who have broken their own laws abroad. In China, this is also true. Australia will punish (ban) people from entering based on activities outside of their country. There's NOTHING special about this case and Yahoo should be punished. It's the price of doing business in the USA.
Slashdot Mirror
Try not to repeat simple statements that you think are clever, without actually assessing them. You wont get into circular conversations pointing out the inaccuracy of your favorite quote of the day...that you made.
It doesn't matter what construct you put into the statement, it's not a logical claim or proof, it's nonsense. Snarkiness applies as it was true (in terms of coherence, of which Socrates was not a fan) and helpful in inspiring the following discourse.
To reiterate,
The logic is: Time is a part of most physical theories. Therefore time is physical.
The logic is: Math is part of most physical theories. Therefore Math is physical.
Making a statement using an absurd predication and conclusion is not logical.
It's a jump to say that time is physical because it's a relative measurement TsubO.
Time is not part of physical theories beyond our perception of before and after observations. Science is predicated on OBSERVATION (over time). Hence, Time is not part of theories at all, but how we measure and compare it. I didn't think it was necessary to break down how Science works.
You missed the sarcasm and the point. The logic is flawed and the conclusion incorrect. Try again.
This phrasing suggests that time is not a physical thing. Given that the variable "t" occurs in practically all dynamic equations of physics, I'd have to disagree with the assertion that time isn't physical.
/try again
This phrasing suggests that Math is not a physical thing. Given that Math occurs in practically all dynamic equations of physics, I'd have to disagree with the assertion that Math isn't physical.
nt
Someone creating a link on wikipedia is not the same as one existing (although it often correlates with reality) and there's nothing illegal about changing wikipedia.
I have no comment on the semantics of want versus desire. The difference between need and want is very important as it speaks to a number of topics including morality and motivation. When speaking about ideology, specifically when talking to fanatics, the distinction is important to highlight any reasoning which is really an attempt to legitimize a personal agenda.
For FlexOS. This idea that you can do an ajaxOS is nonsense. The mere fact that you can't feasibly do sorts on large tables using javascript tells us that.
In some countries, you can't just put wild claims on a poster and not live up to them, to the letter.
//Still pissed my Incredible Hulk sneakers didn't give me the ability to leap over cars.
I think this is a GOOD THING(tm) as it's the difference between a culture of deception (marketing) and a culture of virtue. Of course, as you astutely point out, a culture of virtue leaves society looking 98% dumb and ugly.
I have excellent karma.
Are (printing) page breaks working yet in Safari?
What makes you think that?
You sir, have been trolled by the author. Congrats.
My aorta was perforated due to external developmental interference (virulent infection).
A stem cell replacement would develop normally (theoretically). The chances that I'd actually let them put such a "replacement" in me is very very low as it would not have been properly "worn" for my age and lifestyle (history of running marathons and intense workouts). The mechanicals are very efficient and I wouldn't trust a vat valve for my aorta today. I'm just not the guinea-pig type.
SCO-like attacks on stare decisis are dismissed. Once the date of inception (invention) has been determined and documented, what manner of legal precedent is there for proving it again? (unless you need to take it to a higher court).
I respectfully disagree. You would only open the box and letters in the case of an actual dispute, after which you have proven prior art. You only need to have a decision made once. The question isn't how to copyright something, but how to cover your ass before the application is processed.
This is the purpose of the 3 envelopes. Forensic testing will show tampering. In addition, you have the bank logs. Together this is rather difficult to dispute.
Send 3 copies, certified mail to yourself or your local bank which you have a safe deposit box with. Put sealed letters in the box. Never open it again until discovery when you sue. Problem solved.
In other words, in the grand scheme of things, the lack of knowledge isn't hurting us and is NOT worth pursuing at this time.
In Islamic countries like say...Libya, it's not uncommon to punish (and execute) people who have broken their own laws abroad. In China, this is also true. Australia will punish (ban) people from entering based on activities outside of their country. There's NOTHING special about this case and Yahoo should be punished. It's the price of doing business in the USA.