String theory has not been proved, but neither has any physical theory. Perhaps you are complaining that unlike other physical theories, it is unlikely that an experimentally accessible test for disproving string theory can be found. This makes string theory not really "science," in the sense that we normally understand it.
Additionally, people's names are conventional rather than scientific, but their legal usage has necessitated their meticulous recording. While it can't be proven, it can be verified beyond a reasonable doubt that the Lucasian Chair of Mathematics at Cambridge is Stephen Hawking.
I'm a researcher in a soft, ill-defined pseudoscientific field. I'd like to ask a loaded question so that I can reinterpret your results into a deceptive "confirmation" of my preconceptions. Would you like to participate?
Before I saw your post, I almost posted something lamenting that there is still no desktop today that implements drop pockets and the shelf. Mac OS X comes closest to rounding out your list, though. I have on several occasions over the last few years filed feature requests in both KDE and OS X for an IMD-like shelf.
I had a summer job in college through a temp agency, and they put me in a position which I was sworn to secrecy about. It really was the lamest weaseliest reason the company had for the confidentiality agreement, but it sure was a kick having people react with some combination of apprehension and awe to my employment history. I couldn't even explain to them why it was truly not a big deal, because that would break the agreement.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that it's pretty likely that the p2p users the RIAA chose to sue were actually violating the law. You can't possibly think that suing less than a fraction of a percent of p2p abusing copyright violators somehow makes more people look guilty than actually are?
After writing that, I realized that I can probably agree completely with the plaintiffs in this RICO suit, but I will get called all kinds of names for calling your sorry post an overreaction.
"The Slippery Slope" is a logical fallacy only in that it does not produce an ironclad chain of reasoned implications. The slippery slope phenomenon is real, however, and it is perfectly fine to use inductively.
The feel-goodie leftie says...guarantee a fixed minimum price for the coffee growers, which is a good thing (of course)...
And then the realist says ...removes a major incentive to grow the best tasting coffee.
At least you're honest enough to state the second part, but where did that "of course" come from? Why is it "of course" a good thing to set price controls when there is an obvious legitimate economic explanation of how this is a bad thing?
Slashdot Mirror
String theory has not been proved, but neither has any physical theory. Perhaps you are complaining that unlike other physical theories, it is unlikely that an experimentally accessible test for disproving string theory can be found. This makes string theory not really "science," in the sense that we normally understand it.
Additionally, people's names are conventional rather than scientific, but their legal usage has necessitated their meticulous recording. While it can't be proven, it can be verified beyond a reasonable doubt that the Lucasian Chair of Mathematics at Cambridge is Stephen Hawking.
I'm a researcher in a soft, ill-defined pseudoscientific field. I'd like to ask a loaded question so that I can reinterpret your results into a deceptive "confirmation" of my preconceptions. Would you like to participate?
Yeah, no kidding. My refrigerator has JVM 1.1, but my oven runs J2EE 1.4. Just try storing leftovers with that kind of arrangement!
If anarchy is ever declared...
...ask under what authority the "declaration" was made.
Shhh... You'll ruin his smug sense of irony.
...I blame Ashcroft.
Before I saw your post, I almost posted something lamenting that there is still no desktop today that implements drop pockets and the shelf. Mac OS X comes closest to rounding out your list, though. I have on several occasions over the last few years filed feature requests in both KDE and OS X for an IMD-like shelf.
if ( you.need( new comment().repeat( code.express(ALREADY, CLEARLY) ) ) ) { you.possess( new problem(BIG) )
rule.thumb() = code(CLEARLY)
Yeah, he should have told the officer that that sounded like a conflict of interest. Then he would have been let go for sure.
Which is why you use comments like this:
It's easy really: since the OO macro language is Turing complete, you just write a perl interpreter in OO macros.
Since the article is slashdotted, I have reprinted the text below:
$_
Coming this summer from Random House: John Grisham's The Shithammer
I had a summer job in college through a temp agency, and they put me in a position which I was sworn to secrecy about. It really was the lamest weaseliest reason the company had for the confidentiality agreement, but it sure was a kick having people react with some combination of apprehension and awe to my employment history. I couldn't even explain to them why it was truly not a big deal, because that would break the agreement.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that it's pretty likely that the p2p users the RIAA chose to sue were actually violating the law. You can't possibly think that suing less than a fraction of a percent of p2p abusing copyright violators somehow makes more people look guilty than actually are?
After writing that, I realized that I can probably agree completely with the plaintiffs in this RICO suit, but I will get called all kinds of names for calling your sorry post an overreaction.
And from what I understand, Lisa isn't allowed on the internet either.
Just imagine how big the problem would be if instead the fish were congruent. Even cameras couldn't tell the difference!
CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW MR. BRUCKHEIMER? BOOOOOOM!
How about: "You can make a truckload of money by selling effective software to a niche market."
"The Slippery Slope" is a logical fallacy only in that it does not produce an ironclad chain of reasoned implications. The slippery slope phenomenon is real, however, and it is perfectly fine to use inductively.
And then the realist says ...removes a major incentive to grow the best tasting coffee.
At least you're honest enough to state the second part, but where did that "of course" come from? Why is it "of course" a good thing to set price controls when there is an obvious legitimate economic explanation of how this is a bad thing?
And I suppose you would be just fine with Al-Qaeda knowing the mass of the K*-meson to four significant digits?
Well gosh, you don't suppose they are willing to waste an address because adding a fourth CPU might make the box too expensive, do you?