I took drawing (by hand) and modelling (by CAD). By hand was in first year, with a bit of 2D CAD thrown in for good measure. 3D CAD with the respective drawings for manufacture was 2nd to 4th. This was in South Africa (University of Cape Town) 2008 - 2011.
If a mechanical / mechatronics student doesn't know how to produce drawing of things that will be made, what is the point of learning how to design things? Are you going to find someone else to turn it into something to be manufactured? One of the most important components of drawing and CAD was learning what can and can't be manufactured. Knowing that you need drafts for casting and that you can't have concave corners on machined components, getting an intuitive sense for where bolts should be placed and what materials should be used are all things that need practical experience.
Wire wrap vs. conductive thread - wire wrap is air sealed so it doesn't corrode, giving it a decent working life and resistance to corrosion. Conductive thread is not air sealed, so it oxidises fairly quickly and fails.
Yay, you called me on it. I freely admit that your argument was not a strawman, and the freelance example was a bit of a red herring. However, it made you state your primary assumptions, which is possibly the root of this entire argument.
But a huge percentage of the websites out there - including Slashdot - have some kind of tracking code by Google, both via Anaytics and Ads. Many emails I send go to gmail accounts - sometimes, even without my knowledge, if the user or company is using Google Apps with their own domain.
There are hundreds or thousands of ways in which Google collects users' data - it's essentially their business model! - often without their knowledge and explicit consent. So it's important to know how much can they be trusted with it. And the answer seems to be "not much".
Just because they have demonstrated that they are highly capable of collecting data doesn't mean that they are doing anything bad with it. Sure, they give you more personalised ads, but they don't share any of that personalisation data with their advertising customers. You can't say that they're not trustworthy unless they give you an action which demonstrates it.
Collecting data doesn't make them untrustworthy. Doing something bad with that data does. If they gave the personal information of anybody who had the word 'anarchy' in their email to the FBI, then sure, I'd agree with you. If they sold lists of people who meet certain criteria to advertisers, I'd agree. But they don't, they keep all of the data internal. Simply having the capability of doing something evil doesn't make them evil, and unless they use the data for something bad, it is just data.
Strawman. If you're scared about company employees having access to this data, you should be even more scared about people going freelance with a Kismet setup and collecting it for themselves.
And as I accurately stated, 'can' and 'could' are merely different modes of the same word.
Yep. 'Could' is conditional, 'can' is present. 'Could' is not future, like you originally asserted.
There are several ways of putting something in the future tense. The use of 'could' is one of them, but it puts it in the conditional future. Not the future. There is a difference.
Look it up in a dictionary, not some random website with the word "English" in the name.
I take it you haven't heard of the 'simple future' tense then? How about the 'continuous future' tense? 'Conditional future'? Trust me, they've all been around for a while. This isn't the only website that mentions it. In fact, you'll even find it in dictionaries. Impressive, huh? (Hint: dictionaries aren't somehow better than structured lessons on grammar, particularly when it comes to arguing finer points of grammar.)
Just because you have the ability to have sex with a man, doesn't mean you are compelled to
'Having the ability to' is the definition for 'can', I have not problem with that. However, 'being compelled to' is not a definition for 'will'. Moreover, this sentence can't be used to prove anything in the way you have, because of the "doesn't" (which by the way, is a contraction of "does not", since that seems so novel to you). The sentence could just as easily be: Just because you can have sex with a man, doesn't mean you are a flying space alien from Mars. The "doesn't" just means that what is in the second clause isn't true, and does mean that nothing from the first clause even applies to the second clause. So let's drop the "doesn't". How about: "Because you have the ability to have sex with a man, you could, if you so wished." See? Use of the conditional. 'Could' is not future, but conditional.
Your 'compelled to' argument is completely besides the point, which was you asserting that 'could' is future, not conditional. However, if you would like an explanation on that one too, just give me a yell.
It'd be crazy not to assume that wind turbines do the same, but how much more do they affect an area compared to an office building of the same size?
Probably less than an office building. Less frontal area, less foundation construction, less chance of a bird flying into them. The only thing that wind farms do that office buildings don't is stir up the inversion layers, so sometimes it will be warmer at night than it would have been; then again, it will sometimes be cooler during the day for exactly the same reason.
First, as the AC correctly surmised, the argument was about 'can' and 'could'.
Secondly, 'will' has two meanings. I was referring to the one which was relevant to the context it was used in, an argument of future/present tenses, where it is used as a future 'modifier' on verbs. Consider if replacing 'will' with "going to" makes sense. If so, then it means it is the "simple future" tense, and has nothing to do with a desire or need to do something. See http://www.englishpage.com/verbpage/simplefuture.html
The 'will' you reference in your link to is a noun in the context of "He has a strong will and stubborn personality." However, both of your sentence examples show are the simple future, not the one you link to.
Consider:
Just because you can have sex with a man, doesn't mean you will.
Just because you can have sex with a man, doesn't mean you are going to.
See what I did there? There is more to English than being able to form parse-able sentences.
I think it's a bit more like remembering what was seen where, and when asked, "I'm hearing these people yelling each other, calling each other 0A:78:89:E4:7C:F2, do you have any clue where I am?", being able to say, "I'm pretty sure you're at the corner of Oak and Elm in Washington DC".
The actual contents of the wifi is never actually made available to people, it is not shared. The only thing which is shared is the location that the MAC address was 'heard'.
Heard it on the radio, heard it at a friend's house, heard it in a friend's car. That kind of thing. People have been pirating cassettes ever since they came out... or don't you remember the days of waiting for your favourite song to come on the radio so you could start hitting 'record' on your cassette player?
Then the wind farm might make it slightly warmer at night and slightly cooling during the day, due to stirring up the inversion layers and causing turbulence. Nothing here. Move on.
No, the people don't have any call to complain. But I will still despise anyone who sits there watching just because they can.
What about somebody who is just walking down the street? Do you despise them too? Google didn't stop and gather as much data as it could the moment it found an open wifi. It just recorded what was there, while it happened to be in the area, and kept on going. To me the analogy is not people who crowd around and watch, but somebody who happened to walk down the street at the time.
Just because there tends to be lots of people 'out on the porch', does that somehow make walking down the street dirty? Especially when looking for people on the porch wasn't even the main reason to be walking down the street in the first place?
Slashdot Mirror
Unfortunately, the fact that you're an atheist puts you in the minority of people who are willing to change their mind...
I took drawing (by hand) and modelling (by CAD). By hand was in first year, with a bit of 2D CAD thrown in for good measure. 3D CAD with the respective drawings for manufacture was 2nd to 4th. This was in South Africa (University of Cape Town) 2008 - 2011.
If a mechanical / mechatronics student doesn't know how to produce drawing of things that will be made, what is the point of learning how to design things? Are you going to find someone else to turn it into something to be manufactured? One of the most important components of drawing and CAD was learning what can and can't be manufactured. Knowing that you need drafts for casting and that you can't have concave corners on machined components, getting an intuitive sense for where bolts should be placed and what materials should be used are all things that need practical experience.
Just to be pedantic, you're answering the "Did Anyone Care?" subclause with "no". Not the "when".
And why all the hate for A/C? Maybe they were moderating and didn't want to lose their mods?
Wire wrap vs. conductive thread - wire wrap is air sealed so it doesn't corrode, giving it a decent working life and resistance to corrosion. Conductive thread is not air sealed, so it oxidises fairly quickly and fails.
That's just for overclocking. Regular usage is improved.
Yay, you called me on it. I freely admit that your argument was not a strawman, and the freelance example was a bit of a red herring. However, it made you state your primary assumptions, which is possibly the root of this entire argument.
But a huge percentage of the websites out there - including Slashdot - have some kind of tracking code by Google, both via Anaytics and Ads. Many emails I send go to gmail accounts - sometimes, even without my knowledge, if the user or company is using Google Apps with their own domain.
There are hundreds or thousands of ways in which Google collects users' data - it's essentially their business model! - often without their knowledge and explicit consent. So it's important to know how much can they be trusted with it. And the answer seems to be "not much".
Just because they have demonstrated that they are highly capable of collecting data doesn't mean that they are doing anything bad with it. Sure, they give you more personalised ads, but they don't share any of that personalisation data with their advertising customers. You can't say that they're not trustworthy unless they give you an action which demonstrates it.
Collecting data doesn't make them untrustworthy. Doing something bad with that data does. If they gave the personal information of anybody who had the word 'anarchy' in their email to the FBI, then sure, I'd agree with you. If they sold lists of people who meet certain criteria to advertisers, I'd agree. But they don't, they keep all of the data internal. Simply having the capability of doing something evil doesn't make them evil, and unless they use the data for something bad, it is just data.
Sorry for typo.
'Could' and 'will' contract to 'would' which is future conditional. Note, there is still an 'if'.
Strawman. If you're scared about company employees having access to this data, you should be even more scared about people going freelance with a Kismet setup and collecting it for themselves.
And as I accurately stated, 'can' and 'could' are merely different modes of the same word.
Yep. 'Could' is conditional, 'can' is present. 'Could' is not future, like you originally asserted.
There are several ways of putting something in the future tense. The use of 'could' is one of them, but it puts it in the conditional future. Not the future. There is a difference.
Look it up in a dictionary, not some random website with the word "English" in the name.
I take it you haven't heard of the 'simple future' tense then? How about the 'continuous future' tense? 'Conditional future'? Trust me, they've all been around for a while. This isn't the only website that mentions it. In fact, you'll even find it in dictionaries. Impressive, huh? (Hint: dictionaries aren't somehow better than structured lessons on grammar, particularly when it comes to arguing finer points of grammar.)
Just because you have the ability to have sex with a man, doesn't mean you are compelled to
'Having the ability to' is the definition for 'can', I have not problem with that. However, 'being compelled to' is not a definition for 'will'. Moreover, this sentence can't be used to prove anything in the way you have, because of the "doesn't" (which by the way, is a contraction of "does not", since that seems so novel to you). The sentence could just as easily be:
Just because you can have sex with a man, doesn't mean you are a flying space alien from Mars.
The "doesn't" just means that what is in the second clause isn't true, and does mean that nothing from the first clause even applies to the second clause. So let's drop the "doesn't".
How about:
"Because you have the ability to have sex with a man, you could, if you so wished." See? Use of the conditional. 'Could' is not future, but conditional.
Your 'compelled to' argument is completely besides the point, which was you asserting that 'could' is future, not conditional. However, if you would like an explanation on that one too, just give me a yell.
Sigh.
Ever notice how in a sentence with 'could', there is that hanging 'if'?
Eg. I could mow the lawn (if you pay me).
'Can' and 'will' contract to 'would' which is future conditional. Note, there is still an 'if'.
Eg. People would understand grammar (if they paid attention).
That's because could is the conditional. Not the future.
It'd be crazy not to assume that wind turbines do the same, but how much more do they affect an area compared to an office building of the same size?
Probably less than an office building. Less frontal area, less foundation construction, less chance of a bird flying into them. The only thing that wind farms do that office buildings don't is stir up the inversion layers, so sometimes it will be warmer at night than it would have been; then again, it will sometimes be cooler during the day for exactly the same reason.
First, as the AC correctly surmised, the argument was about 'can' and 'could'.
Secondly, 'will' has two meanings. I was referring to the one which was relevant to the context it was used in, an argument of future/present tenses, where it is used as a future 'modifier' on verbs. Consider if replacing 'will' with "going to" makes sense. If so, then it means it is the "simple future" tense, and has nothing to do with a desire or need to do something. See http://www.englishpage.com/verbpage/simplefuture.html
The 'will' you reference in your link to is a noun in the context of "He has a strong will and stubborn personality." However, both of your sentence examples show are the simple future, not the one you link to.
Consider:
Just because you can have sex with a man, doesn't mean you will.
Just because you can have sex with a man, doesn't mean you are going to.
See what I did there?
There is more to English than being able to form parse-able sentences.
If you were being sarcastic, I apologise. =)
Thank you, AC.
I think it's a bit more like remembering what was seen where, and when asked, "I'm hearing these people yelling each other, calling each other 0A:78:89:E4:7C:F2, do you have any clue where I am?", being able to say, "I'm pretty sure you're at the corner of Oak and Elm in Washington DC".
The actual contents of the wifi is never actually made available to people, it is not shared. The only thing which is shared is the location that the MAC address was 'heard'.
Thanks =)
Heard it on the radio, heard it at a friend's house, heard it in a friend's car. That kind of thing. People have been pirating cassettes ever since they came out... or don't you remember the days of waiting for your favourite song to come on the radio so you could start hitting 'record' on your cassette player?
No wonder Best Buy is going under...
Interested. Which one is this?
Yeah, the title is misleading. It will cause global *cooling* if we put wind farms everywhere. Which is climate change, but the good kind (for now).
Ad hominem. *clap clap* Aren't you the clever AC?
Next.
Then the wind farm might make it slightly warmer at night and slightly cooling during the day, due to stirring up the inversion layers and causing turbulence. Nothing here. Move on.
No, it's the conditional. The future tense (in this case) is "will", the future conditional is "would".
I can walk.
I will walk, tomorrow.
I could walk, if I had legs.
I would walk tomorrow, if I had legs.
Could implies that there will be an if coming up soon.
Coal doesn't make whole areas uninhabitable
Yes it does. Ever seen a strip mine?
No, the people don't have any call to complain. But I will still despise anyone who sits there watching just because they can.
What about somebody who is just walking down the street? Do you despise them too? Google didn't stop and gather as much data as it could the moment it found an open wifi. It just recorded what was there, while it happened to be in the area, and kept on going. To me the analogy is not people who crowd around and watch, but somebody who happened to walk down the street at the time.
Just because there tends to be lots of people 'out on the porch', does that somehow make walking down the street dirty? Especially when looking for people on the porch wasn't even the main reason to be walking down the street in the first place?
It's fine, I'm sure the government will buy it.