Sure if you want to limit your communication and have your point side tracked go ahead and use archaic phrases like that. That the person thought they needed to link the phrase to a wikipedia entry for it pretty much shows that they expected a significant number of people to not understand it anyway, so communication wasn't the primary goal anyway.
That only one reply is actually about the meat of the comment as opposed to the archaic phrase is just further indication of the primary goal.
It's part of the gambit. They have to generate as much publicity as possible so that other patent trolls see it.
It's the same technique as "we don't negotiate with terrorists". It doesn't work if no one knows it's what you do. The idea is that patent trolls won't bother going after them because the patent trolls want the settlement option, they don't want it to end up in court and certainly don't want the patents themselves challenged.
Why would you need to? There is no woodpile. There is no person, African or otherwise. It's just a phrase that means what the damn link it links to above says is means. There's about 17 billion different ways to say the same thing, many of which aren't needlessly jarring (and hence don't detract from the actual point being made).
I paid for the groceries this morning with my credit card, it added exactly 0 seconds to the transaction time. I swiped the card while the checkout person was swiping and bagging and then went back to loading the bags into my cart. I signed on the touch screen when it asked and finished doing that before they had finished lifting up the bag they put the last item in.
Time travel can be fine. With the rather large caveat anything that uses time travel has to be *about* time travel. If it's just a plot device to fix something then it will suck. But the implications are so far reaching that there's plenty of scope for exploring time travel itself.
Of course that doesn't stop someone from making truly shitty stories about time travel.
So repeal the 2nd amendment, or change the wording. The second amendment says the people are allowed to own and use guns, thus they should be allowed to own and use guns. It doesn't matter if that is a good or a bad thing, it just is.
Interestingly it doesn't say anything about "for hunting" or "for sports shooting" or "in case of a burglar" - cases you could argue "assault weapons" (though given the broadness of that term I'd wouldn't agree) aren't needed for. It does mention a militia though - something "assault weapons" are certainly useful for.
If you really think there is no need for them in this society, then change the constitution so that is doesn't say the people have the right to keep and bear them.
Oh and please point out a single person who is talking about changing the legality of "50mm machines gun"s in the US. Other than you of course. By the way here's a picture of 50mm non-machine gun: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pak38_cfb_borden_2.JPG
They wouldn't, but you have it backwards so that is irrelevant.
It's a Californian investing in an out of California company that is the issue. The government was charging them something that it wasn't charging those who invested in a Californian company. The *exact* situation that the commerce clause is supposed to be about.
Because the submitter is an idiot? Because the submitter wants to "give credit" to where he found the information? Because the submitter wants to encourage such articles by upping the view counts on that page? Because the submitter felt guilty for plagiarizing that article for his summary? Because the submitter thinks the article adds something of value?
You'd have to ask the submitter to actually find out of course.
The title of the paper is "Males Are Overrepresented among Life Science Researchers Committing Scientific Misconduct", surely you can work it out from that?
Why would you read a second hand article when there's a direct link to the paper?
How is 100% of the population not a significant sample set?
You want them to completely make some more up?
Claiming that the total numbers are too small to produce meaningful results would be fine (whether or not that's the case), but claiming the sample size is too small when they used the entire population is ridiculous.
The retro clones have taken off (in relative terms, this is a niche product obviously) in the last few years. All the old TSR stuff is available on torrents and file download sites anyway. WotC might as well try and get some of the money.
So use a 64 bit machine and that "problem" goes away as well. If performance is such a concern you would be already anyway, since newer cpus are faster than old cpus...
That's not testing the scientific method. Testing the scientific method would involve some test as to whether the scientific method itself works. Determining if some published experiment is actually described in a way that is reproducible says nothing about whether the scientific method itself works or is useful.
Asking whether professional and peer-reviewed scientific work is actually using the scientific method is also not asking whether the scientific method itself works or is useful.
I agree it's a useful thing to do though. In fact it seems like something that should be a routine part of graduate studies, heck even honors level studies. Give them some experience with real world experiments and check something to boot.
Slashdot Mirror
or play the game or listen to the music you downloaded. It's the making and distribution of copies that is the "problem".
So they'll just go after the proxy runner who has both downloaded and uploaded the copyrighted content.
Congrats on dumbest idea for the day though!
Sure if you want to limit your communication and have your point side tracked go ahead and use archaic phrases like that. That the person thought they needed to link the phrase to a wikipedia entry for it pretty much shows that they expected a significant number of people to not understand it anyway, so communication wasn't the primary goal anyway.
That only one reply is actually about the meat of the comment as opposed to the archaic phrase is just further indication of the primary goal.
It's part of the gambit. They have to generate as much publicity as possible so that other patent trolls see it.
It's the same technique as "we don't negotiate with terrorists". It doesn't work if no one knows it's what you do. The idea is that patent trolls won't bother going after them because the patent trolls want the settlement option, they don't want it to end up in court and certainly don't want the patents themselves challenged.
Why would you need to? There is no woodpile. There is no person, African or otherwise. It's just a phrase that means what the damn link it links to above says is means. There's about 17 billion different ways to say the same thing, many of which aren't needlessly jarring (and hence don't detract from the actual point being made).
cash faster than credit?
I paid for the groceries this morning with my credit card, it added exactly 0 seconds to the transaction time. I swiped the card while the checkout person was swiping and bagging and then went back to loading the bags into my cart. I signed on the touch screen when it asked and finished doing that before they had finished lifting up the bag they put the last item in.
Every single current US coin is minted by treasury, you moron.
Time travel can be fine. With the rather large caveat anything that uses time travel has to be *about* time travel. If it's just a plot device to fix something then it will suck. But the implications are so far reaching that there's plenty of scope for exploring time travel itself.
Of course that doesn't stop someone from making truly shitty stories about time travel.
So repeal the 2nd amendment, or change the wording. The second amendment says the people are allowed to own and use guns, thus they should be allowed to own and use guns. It doesn't matter if that is a good or a bad thing, it just is.
Interestingly it doesn't say anything about "for hunting" or "for sports shooting" or "in case of a burglar" - cases you could argue "assault weapons" (though given the broadness of that term I'd wouldn't agree) aren't needed for. It does mention a militia though - something "assault weapons" are certainly useful for.
If you really think there is no need for them in this society, then change the constitution so that is doesn't say the people have the right to keep and bear them.
Oh and please point out a single person who is talking about changing the legality of "50mm machines gun"s in the US. Other than you of course. By the way here's a picture of 50mm non-machine gun: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pak38_cfb_borden_2.JPG
They wouldn't, but you have it backwards so that is irrelevant.
It's a Californian investing in an out of California company that is the issue. The government was charging them something that it wasn't charging those who invested in a Californian company. The *exact* situation that the commerce clause is supposed to be about.
It is reduced by those tax breaks. Without them Californians would pay even more federal taxes without any increase in federal spending in California.
And of course no one is allowed to be replying to just part of what you wrote, but has to give an all encompassing response to the whole thing?
I guess you can keep thinking that.
Because the submitter is an idiot?
Because the submitter wants to "give credit" to where he found the information?
Because the submitter wants to encourage such articles by upping the view counts on that page?
Because the submitter felt guilty for plagiarizing that article for his summary?
Because the submitter thinks the article adds something of value?
You'd have to ask the submitter to actually find out of course.
The title of the paper is "Males Are Overrepresented among Life Science Researchers Committing Scientific Misconduct", surely you can work it out from that?
Why would you read a second hand article when there's a direct link to the paper?
How is 100% of the population not a significant sample set?
You want them to completely make some more up?
Claiming that the total numbers are too small to produce meaningful results would be fine (whether or not that's the case), but claiming the sample size is too small when they used the entire population is ridiculous.
Please point out where the you mentioned non-violent in:
None of that means they aren't used to the presence of gay people. It just means they are also dickheads.
Unless your marginal tax rate is 100%, something being tax deductable does not make it "like free money".
There is not a chance they still have originals.
You could already get it all for free prior to them doing this, so 15 minutes is just a tad of an overestimate.
The retro clones have taken off (in relative terms, this is a niche product obviously) in the last few years. All the old TSR stuff is available on torrents and file download sites anyway. WotC might as well try and get some of the money.
I found one!
$ uname -im ./a.out
sun4u SUNW,Ultra-2
$
sizeof(time_t) = 4
sizeof(int) = 4
sizeof(long) = 4
$ g++ --version
2.95.2
What do you mean "from the last millennium"?
And that had nothing at all to do with the NASA staff wanting to get drunk on New Year's Eve. Just a happy coincidence, honestly.
So use a 64 bit machine and that "problem" goes away as well. If performance is such a concern you would be already anyway, since newer cpus are faster than old cpus...
That's not testing the scientific method. Testing the scientific method would involve some test as to whether the scientific method itself works. Determining if some published experiment is actually described in a way that is reproducible says nothing about whether the scientific method itself works or is useful.
Asking whether professional and peer-reviewed scientific work is actually using the scientific method is also not asking whether the scientific method itself works or is useful.
I agree it's a useful thing to do though. In fact it seems like something that should be a routine part of graduate studies, heck even honors level studies. Give them some experience with real world experiments and check something to boot.
12 paragraphs about paypal scewing him over followed by "I still do use their services from time to time".
You have a different dumb threshold than me.