I like to think he's additionally implying "and if you demonise me for wishing ill on others, then you, logically, must demonise those who wish ill on those like my father".
I.e. he *wants* people to demonise him for his statement, in the hope that the passion and hate this arouses will seep back through onto the other side of his analogy.
I certainly "foe" those who are proud of having certain approaches to subject matters that interest me. If their approaches are to the core fundamentally illogical, or are based on premises which I cannot even begin to accept, then there is *no way I can have a logical discourse with them*, and the downward scoring of "foe"ing is a perfect pre-processing filter to mean I don't have to waste time with their illogic.
I'd call it a "statement of fact made by the police without proof".
The fact that he put "fact" in quotes implied that he does not consider it to actually be factual, merely that it was being presented, by the cops, as such.
It's people like you that make the English language almost worthless. Please evolve some comprehension skills.
Scientists are also quite happy with "model"s. (The Standard one, for example.)
The concept that scientists are so arrogant they assert everything under the umbrella of "science" is absolutely undeniably true, with no margin for doubt seems to only exist in the minds of the non-scientific.
Until you hark back to the old meaning of the word. The things that were "proved" were the things that were put to the test (an attempt to falsify), but which passed that test. One would prove a pudding by eating it, and one would prove the alcohol percentage of a liquor by testing whether it permitted gunpowder to ignite.
With the presumed reproduceability of such tests - even the naysayer is invited to repeat the experiment - plenty of science can be said to be proved. Of course, you'd want to justify your confidence intervals too.
One of the problems with anti-evolution loons is that they are not prepared to attempt to disprove the things they claim are false. Or even to get enough knowledge about the field to even understand what they're dismissing, most of the time.
The OED lost the plot about a decade ago. By the time they're including things that have not proven to have any momentum in the language, and which then fall completely out of use, then following up with a new set of updates with even less traction, you know that they've completely forgotten what their mandate is.
While I wish I agreed with it, I completely disagree with your final sentence.
You did not acknowledge it, but hopefully you noticed that I didn't say "the new use rife in modern trashy jargon is wrong" and explicitly described it as "ambiguous", as the word is in a state of evolution.
As long as there's putting power in the masses' hands, I have no objection to the term; for example, guiding the editorial policy of a periodical. However, a statement such as "twitter is democratizing the internet" I would consider to be a serious dilution of the earlier meaning of the term.
No, you are not. However, if you look at what used to be one of the most respected sources of news in the world, namely the BBC, and analyse the paragraph structure of the news stories on their website, then you will see a depressingly similar correlation; one which I view as an indication that their presumed audience is one with a 10-word attention span, at most:
Every
Sentence
Seems
To
Get
Its
Own
Paragraph.
(And "Nasa" has apparantly become a word, mumble grumble...)
Ug, and the "Bitcoin vs. The State" section is the most pitifully naive write-up of anything I've ever seen primary school. It's about as well reasoned as a "from my cold dead hands" argument. Using some of the logic presented in that section, there's nothing the government can do to regulate, and by that I mean outlaw, barter, and yet as we've seen in the real world, not on planet loonie-idealist-libertarian, they can do just that.
It's hard to take seriously, it's a swiss cheese of an article.
I like this sentence, due to the wonderful (il)logic it performs:
"Inflation...
currenly very negative
"... is thus pre-determined...
that's nice to know, in that case you'll be able to tell me exactly how much a dollar will be worth at any arbitrary point in the future?
"... and ever-decreasing...
Holy fucking shit, that's gonna get scary negative.
"... toward zero."
So it's gonna wrap around minus infinity and become positive again, so that it can continue its ever-decreasing behaviour?
Curiously, were that to actually happen, there are some interesting side effects. At the point it becomes minus infinity, bitcoins will be the only things of any value in the whole of the world. Everything else effectively becomes either worthless or free, depending on your point of view. Even sovereign teritory loses its value, compared to the literally almighty bitcoin. At that point, the world might fraction into two factions - those with bitcoins, and those without. Those with bitcoins, being rational agents, will be unable or unwilling to exchange them for anything, as nothing else has any value. Those without bitcoins would then be free to continue trading and bartering everything apart from bitcoins with each other. I.e. those with bitcoins become unable to buy anything, and those without bitcoins are able to buy things - the exact opposite of what you might expect.
Fun things happen when you start with false premises and make deductions from them. And those premises come from sources like that blog.
Lack of empathy? Did you not understand the first sentence in my second paragraph? I'll spell it out in words short enough for you to understand - when I'm not walking or taking public transport, I have never been anything apart from a biker. (Both kinds, 4 seasons, even in a cold climate.)
And to address your points: - GPS is the worst way to learn a new place. - You have a point here - I'd forgotten that you magically become invincible once you're cycling at your magical cadence. In fact the word "cadance" is derived from the ancient Zulu word for "bullet-proof". - Because the non-thinking technology-reliant are those who drive into ditches, or rivers, or canyons, or railway stations, or buildings. Just because it's technology, doesn't make it better. - If you're "going up a long hill", then you don't need GPS, a map, or to stop. Just keep going up, idiot.
Get over yourself. The thing about biking is getting from point A to point B. If it's not, you're doing it wrong. However, getting from point A to point B is a mostly solved problem - do your groundwork and plan, before you even set off. For another 9, have something to refer to when the route doesn't match your plan. It's worked for centuries.
"Cadence", sheesh, I almost feel embarassed to have never had a road-going vehicle with more than 2 wheels in my 3 decades of adult life. And you wonder why Critical Mass Porto Alegre happened?
I'm prepared to give Mate a quick try if you're prepared to delve to the depths of computer terminal depravity that calls itself DWM. Ratpoison an acceptable alternative, Awesome not.
Joking aside. My g/f isn't happy with *anything*, maybe Mate would press her buttons (as long as it gets to Debian backports). I think she's stuck on Sawfish at the moment.
Some people like more and more and more features. Some people like the familiarity of something that has its roots way back. Some people like things to just be as darn simple as possible.
Slashdot Mirror
Mostly that, but perhaps an extra twist.
I like to think he's additionally implying "and if you demonise me for wishing ill on others, then you, logically, must demonise those who wish ill on those like my father".
I.e. he *wants* people to demonise him for his statement, in the hope that the passion and hate this arouses will seep back through onto the other side of his analogy.
I certainly "foe" those who are proud of having certain approaches to subject matters that interest me. If their approaches are to the core fundamentally illogical, or are based on premises which I cannot even begin to accept, then there is *no way I can have a logical discourse with them*, and the downward scoring of "foe"ing is a perfect pre-processing filter to mean I don't have to waste time with their illogic.
> The first 1000 years might be all fun and games
Nope, the first ten million years are the worst.
Oops, wrong Adams.
> No, because it's not using '180W'. It's using the equivalent of 180W draining for 24 hours.
The car sitting at standby for 24 hours is the equivalent of 180W draining for 24 hours.
I.e. the car sitting at standby is the equivalent of 180W.
> Compare with 180W draing for 5 minutes, the time component is important.
But 180W draining for 5 minutes is equivalent to the car sitting on standby for 5 minutes.
The time component is *absolutely unimportant*, as long as you include the *same time on both sides* of the comparison.
Upmods to parent need euthanising, for supporting idiocy.
I'd call it a "statement of fact made by the police without proof".
The fact that he put "fact" in quotes implied that he does not consider it to actually be factual, merely that it was being presented, by the cops, as such.
It's people like you that make the English language almost worthless. Please evolve some comprehension skills.
However, it's still a thought-crime.
>> Troopers noticed...
> Assuming they are telling the truth,
Clearly you're whoring for +5 funny!
> which is the same price point
But is it the same price?
"The documentation for the hardware must clearly specify what portion of the design, if not all, is being released under the license."
I somehow doubt the entire ARM core is open source hardware, for example. It might be almost nothing, it's a rather meaningless designation.
Scientists are also quite happy with "model"s. (The Standard one, for example.)
The concept that scientists are so arrogant they assert everything under the umbrella of "science" is absolutely undeniably true, with no margin for doubt seems to only exist in the minds of the non-scientific.
> The "Invisible hand of selective adaptation" ?
All hail the mighty Ihosa - I shall create a shrine, chant some little operettas and play bongos too.
> NOTHING can be proved.
Until you hark back to the old meaning of the word. The things that were "proved" were the things that were put to the test (an attempt to falsify), but which passed that test. One would prove a pudding by eating it, and one would prove the alcohol percentage of a liquor by testing whether it permitted gunpowder to ignite.
With the presumed reproduceability of such tests - even the naysayer is invited to repeat the experiment - plenty of science can be said to be proved. Of course, you'd want to justify your confidence intervals too.
One of the problems with anti-evolution loons is that they are not prepared to attempt to disprove the things they claim are false. Or even to get enough knowledge about the field to even understand what they're dismissing, most of the time.
The OED lost the plot about a decade ago. By the time they're including things that have not proven to have any momentum in the language, and which then fall completely out of use, then following up with a new set of updates with even less traction, you know that they've completely forgotten what their mandate is.
While I wish I agreed with it, I completely disagree with your final sentence.
> what does she do?
Now mum's died, I think she has a lion's share of all the waving activities.
You did not acknowledge it, but hopefully you noticed that I didn't say "the new use rife in modern trashy jargon is wrong" and explicitly described it as "ambiguous", as the word is in a state of evolution.
As long as there's putting power in the masses' hands, I have no objection to the term; for example, guiding the editorial policy of a periodical. However, a statement such as "twitter is democratizing the internet" I would consider to be a serious dilution of the earlier meaning of the term.
Slavery is democratising pyramid-building.
Erm, this is *news* for nerds, not *creative writing* for nerds.
E. E. Cummings need not apply for the role as an editor.
No, you are not. However, if you look at what used to be one of the most respected sources of news in the world, namely the BBC, and analyse the paragraph structure of the news stories on their website, then you will see a depressingly similar correlation; one which I view as an indication that their presumed audience is one with a 10-word attention span, at most:
Every
Sentence
Seems
To
Get
Its
Own
Paragraph.
(And "Nasa" has apparantly become a word, mumble grumble...)
Not the "declared enemy in time of war" part - there's an "or", and that's on the other side.
However, that troublesome phrase does indeed prove that Snowden has definitely not commited a treasonable act.
Ug, and the "Bitcoin vs. The State" section is the most pitifully naive write-up of anything I've ever seen primary school. It's about as well reasoned as a "from my cold dead hands" argument. Using some of the logic presented in that section, there's nothing the government can do to regulate, and by that I mean outlaw, barter, and yet as we've seen in the real world, not on planet loonie-idealist-libertarian, they can do just that.
It's hard to take seriously, it's a swiss cheese of an article.
...
...
...
I like this sentence, due to the wonderful (il)logic it performs:
"Inflation
currenly very negative
"... is thus pre-determined
that's nice to know, in that case you'll be able to tell me exactly how much a dollar will be worth at any arbitrary point in the future?
"... and ever-decreasing
Holy fucking shit, that's gonna get scary negative.
"... toward zero."
So it's gonna wrap around minus infinity and become positive again, so that it can continue its ever-decreasing behaviour?
Curiously, were that to actually happen, there are some interesting side effects. At the point it becomes minus infinity, bitcoins will be the only things of any value in the whole of the world. Everything else effectively becomes either worthless or free, depending on your point of view. Even sovereign teritory loses its value, compared to the literally almighty bitcoin. At that point, the world might fraction into two factions - those with bitcoins, and those without. Those with bitcoins, being rational agents, will be unable or unwilling to exchange them for anything, as nothing else has any value. Those without bitcoins would then be free to continue trading and bartering everything apart from bitcoins with each other. I.e. those with bitcoins become unable to buy anything, and those without bitcoins are able to buy things - the exact opposite of what you might expect.
Fun things happen when you start with false premises and make deductions from them. And those premises come from sources like that blog.
Except that's not the definition any of the sources I have access to offer:
democratize, democratise:
vb (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) (tr) to make democratic
Democratization (or democratisation) is the transition to a more democratic
political regime.
democratise:
verb (used with object), verb (used without object), democratized, democratizing. to make or become democratic.
democratize or democratise
verb
1. (transitive) to make democratic
You were right to be sceptical, it is an ambiguous and overused jargon term.
Lack of empathy? Did you not understand the first sentence in my second paragraph? I'll spell it out in words short enough for you to understand - when I'm not walking or taking public transport, I have never been anything apart from a biker. (Both kinds, 4 seasons, even in a cold climate.)
And to address your points:
- GPS is the worst way to learn a new place.
- You have a point here - I'd forgotten that you magically become invincible once you're cycling at your magical cadence. In fact the word "cadance" is derived from the ancient Zulu word for "bullet-proof".
- Because the non-thinking technology-reliant are those who drive into ditches, or rivers, or canyons, or railway stations, or buildings. Just because it's technology, doesn't make it better.
- If you're "going up a long hill", then you don't need GPS, a map, or to stop. Just keep going up, idiot.
Get over yourself. The thing about biking is getting from point A to point B. If it's not, you're doing it wrong. However, getting from point A to point B is a mostly solved problem - do your groundwork and plan, before you even set off. For another 9, have something to refer to when the route doesn't match your plan. It's worked for centuries.
"Cadence", sheesh, I almost feel embarassed to have never had a road-going vehicle with more than 2 wheels in my 3 decades of adult life. And you wonder why Critical Mass Porto Alegre happened?
Can a snooker ball detect what velocity (and hence direction) the cue ball hit it with?
I'm prepared to give Mate a quick try if you're prepared to delve to the depths of computer terminal depravity that calls itself DWM. Ratpoison an acceptable alternative, Awesome not.
Joking aside. My g/f isn't happy with *anything*, maybe Mate would press her buttons (as long as it gets to Debian backports). I think she's stuck on Sawfish at the moment.
Some people like more and more and more features. Some people like the familiarity of something that has its roots way back. Some people like things to just be as darn simple as possible.