Style guides say s's is acceptable. I call it a hanging offence.
Style guides mean nothing. English is defined by custom and custom for the last 1,500 years says they is singular and plural. No style guide in the world can dictate to historic and customary use.
Besides, the guide is wrong.
The origin of the determiner they (âoethe, thoseâ) is unclear. The Oxford English Dictionary, Joseph Wright's English Dialect Dictionary and the University of Michigan's Middle English Dictionary[4] define it, and its Middle English predecessor thei, as a demonstrative determiner or adjective meaning "those" or "the".
(Source: Wikipedia)
"The" is most definitely singular. If you're going to accept the 'pedia, you have to accept this as the quintessential fact, the style guide as merely a recommendation for presentation.
They is singular and plural. Has been for 1,500 years. If you're that far behind, great choice on longevity products but you need a better English teacher.
It's odd that it doesn't happen in other languages. It's even odder that nobody actually proposes it for English. It's fascinating that gender-neutral defined the poetry and fluidity of English for its first thousand years, with the whining by the right being limited to the last ten.
It's almost as if people want to create an insult to a subject they don't understand. They try their best, but fail miserably.
It's complaints like this that make me despair of humanity. Honestly, Slashdot used to have intelligent geeks. Maybe it still does, relative to the population. Jumping off a bridge has more appeal than this crap.
Open source content was available on the Internet several decades before two Utah lawyers published a book on how to spam, which itself was about a decade before most sites were ad-based.
An even better solution is to require people to take responsibility and ownership of their own stuff. No cloud, no central commercial providers, just personal servers. Security just requires a decent installer and an adequate patch release system.
Sorry, conspiracy theories based on a fundamental misunderstanding of climate as a system don't impress. Nor does a misunderstanding of basic statistics. C'mon.
Actually, our resolution even back to 10,000 years before present is close to year by year, thanks to pollen counts, atmospheric samples in ice cores, insect counts in archaeological deposits, limestone deposition rates, and so on.
Climates tend to be global. As long as you have enough data points to map relationships, you don't need every data point.
Cheap shots are like bad whiskey - they only look good on the outside.
Climate scientists technically do not believe in evolution because science is not a belief system. They do, however, accept evolution - on the scale of hundreds of thousands to millions of years. The speed everyone else accepts it as being for all higher lifeforms.
Climate change due to humans is taking place hundreds, maybe thousands, of times too fast for that. That matters.
Plenty of insects in Britain need the cold, which is why they're extinct in the south.
You're also assuming only one variable changes in isolation. Higher temperatures mean fewer plants suitable as a good source due to both higher temps and the consequent reduced rain.
Less rain means fewer puddles for eggs.
Rapid change, and this is the killer, means less time to migrate to a suitable new location. I
Not sure how antibiotics would affect butterflies. In Britain, monoculture fields starve insects. It's possible that cutting down forests and planting monocultures is having a devastating impact.
Not really. Those doctors will be frankly terrified by the news. Maybe you'll understand why, maybe not. If you don't, and are interested, ask. If you aren't interested, I can't help.
However, expect people including people you know and care about to die of malaria and other tropical diseases in higher latitudes in very large numbers over the coming decades.
1. When it was hotter, there was twice as much oxygen and no higher lifeforms.
2. The rate of change is greater than that from the asteroid strike that took out the dinosaurs. Rate of change, not magnitude, is what matters, as climate scientists keep pointing out.
Scientists don't think in those terms. You might be interested in how they do think, if so, you might try asking. If you don't care, then let the scientists think and do what they like. It's a free galaxy.
Rate of change is different. Insects can move, just not fast enough when the change is hundreds of times faster than anything natural outside of an asteroid strike.
And even there, the great dying took centuries, and that was an asteroid plus the entire Siberian flats turning into a magma pond.
Here, we're still seeing change maybe twice that rate
Slashdot Mirror
Style guides say s's is acceptable. I call it a hanging offence.
Style guides mean nothing. English is defined by custom and custom for the last 1,500 years says they is singular and plural. No style guide in the world can dictate to historic and customary use.
Besides, the guide is wrong.
The origin of the determiner they (âoethe, thoseâ) is unclear. The Oxford English Dictionary, Joseph Wright's English Dialect Dictionary and the University of Michigan's Middle English Dictionary[4] define it, and its Middle English predecessor thei, as a demonstrative determiner or adjective meaning "those" or "the".
(Source: Wikipedia)
"The" is most definitely singular. If you're going to accept the 'pedia, you have to accept this as the quintessential fact, the style guide as merely a recommendation for presentation.
They is singular and plural. Has been for 1,500 years. If you're that far behind, great choice on longevity products but you need a better English teacher.
It's odd that it doesn't happen in other languages. It's even odder that nobody actually proposes it for English. It's fascinating that gender-neutral defined the poetry and fluidity of English for its first thousand years, with the whining by the right being limited to the last ten.
It's almost as if people want to create an insult to a subject they don't understand. They try their best, but fail miserably.
It's complaints like this that make me despair of humanity. Honestly, Slashdot used to have intelligent geeks. Maybe it still does, relative to the population. Jumping off a bridge has more appeal than this crap.
Open source content was available on the Internet several decades before two Utah lawyers published a book on how to spam, which itself was about a decade before most sites were ad-based.
An even better solution is to require people to take responsibility and ownership of their own stuff. No cloud, no central commercial providers, just personal servers. Security just requires a decent installer and an adequate patch release system.
Sorry, conspiracy theories based on a fundamental misunderstanding of climate as a system don't impress. Nor does a misunderstanding of basic statistics. C'mon.
Actually, our resolution even back to 10,000 years before present is close to year by year, thanks to pollen counts, atmospheric samples in ice cores, insect counts in archaeological deposits, limestone deposition rates, and so on.
Climates tend to be global. As long as you have enough data points to map relationships, you don't need every data point.
Actually, they are. A century is three to four generations in humans. That's nothing. Humans have barely changed in the last 1.8 million years.
Insects have barely changed in 250 million years.
You can't expect both to handle a 4'C rise and an O2 fall in the next 50 years.
Ummm, no, it doesn't. The case was not thrown out with prejudice.
What, you're saying that you have solid, compelling evidence that Carboniferous had 20% oxygen?
Want to share this?
During the Carboniferous, oxygen was 40%. Last I heard, 40% is twice 20%.
It's relevant because oxygen levels affect insects, what they can survive, where they can survive, how large they become.
That warming was brief. Brief spells do not a climate make. There was no significant warming, from a climate standpoint, from that strike.
Irrelevant. Dragonflies have remained unchanged for over 250 million years. Change for insects is very, very slow.
Cheap shots are like bad whiskey - they only look good on the outside.
Climate scientists technically do not believe in evolution because science is not a belief system. They do, however, accept evolution - on the scale of hundreds of thousands to millions of years. The speed everyone else accepts it as being for all higher lifeforms.
Climate change due to humans is taking place hundreds, maybe thousands, of times too fast for that. That matters.
Mutations are random. So, no, that's bad from an evolutionary standpoint.
Most insects can only survive in a very narrow band of temperatures. Anything above or below will kill them.
The rate of change was slower, so more time to migrate and adapt.
Rainfall patterns due to more forest and thus lower albedo meant less impact on the environment.
More forest and more open grassland meant a larger reserve of insects, so greater genetic diversity, so greater capacity to endure.
More wildflower species in existence meant alternative food sources.
Don't look at one variable, if you want to understand anything
Different insects prefer different climates.
Plenty of insects in Britain need the cold, which is why they're extinct in the south.
You're also assuming only one variable changes in isolation. Higher temperatures mean fewer plants suitable as a good source due to both higher temps and the consequent reduced rain.
Less rain means fewer puddles for eggs.
Rapid change, and this is the killer, means less time to migrate to a suitable new location.
I
Not sure how antibiotics would affect butterflies. In Britain, monoculture fields starve insects. It's possible that cutting down forests and planting monocultures is having a devastating impact.
No, they didn't.
The judge ruled there was no case to answer, which is not the same as losing.
Not really. Those doctors will be frankly terrified by the news. Maybe you'll understand why, maybe not. If you don't, and are interested, ask. If you aren't interested, I can't help.
However, expect people including people you know and care about to die of malaria and other tropical diseases in higher latitudes in very large numbers over the coming decades.
And that's not good news.
I
You're forgetting several things.
1. When it was hotter, there was twice as much oxygen and no higher lifeforms.
2. The rate of change is greater than that from the asteroid strike that took out the dinosaurs. Rate of change, not magnitude, is what matters, as climate scientists keep pointing out.
I think that's the Christians
Scientists don't think in those terms. You might be interested in how they do think, if so, you might try asking. If you don't care, then let the scientists think and do what they like. It's a free galaxy.
Rate of change is different. Insects can move, just not fast enough when the change is hundreds of times faster than anything natural outside of an asteroid strike.
And even there, the great dying took centuries, and that was an asteroid plus the entire Siberian flats turning into a magma pond.
Here, we're still seeing change maybe twice that rate
That's pretty unusual.
You're assuming those against would comment. People are lazy and need motivation. There's no motivation when it comes to the default.
SNR is still zero, regardless of how on-topic, and SNR is the only thing that matters.