There was a scene in a Tom Clancy book where a computer-geek super-agent had the task of tracking down a terrorist's email traffic. So, did he hack into a mail server using a terminal window and download logs?
No. He put on a VR headset, booted up his favourite Wild West metaphor, moseyed into town (literally; he spent time walking), went into the local post office (a metaphor for a mail server) and used his fingers to leaf through virtual paper records.
I've read one Dan Brown book and one Tom Clancy book, and the Tom Clancy was by the far the most awful.
The plural of person is people. There is no other way to word it.
My point - which you seem to have missed entirely - is that "people" doesn't always just mean - and isn't always only inferred to mean - "more than one person."
That you attach so much emotion and subtext to words
I'm simply talking about the way people actually use words, which is what defines English.
"The people", "humanity", "human kind" and hundreds of other ways can be used to include everyone.
Yes, they can. So can "people."
What would you have them use for the plural of person? Persons? That's no longer in common usage.
I wouldn't have them say anything. I'd suggest they say "some people," which mitigates the ambiguity.
Also see AC's reply here which sums it quite nicely as well.
If more than one person treats an animal badly, then it is proper English to say that "people treat animals badly"
It might be "proper English," (as are many misleading statements) but it's disingenuous because "people" would usually be taken to mean humanity as a whole in that context, rather than "more than one person."
People, on the whole, or even on average, do not treat animals badly*.
Yeah, it's not because of a "similar name" as TFS would have it. CHM seem to be claming (if you can wade through the mangled English) links with Simmonds.
I'd have thought that adding anything to the landing gear which does nothing to help you land the plane would be a pretty dumb thing to do, engineering wise.
A tail wind would reduce the plane's speed relative to the surrounding air, causing it to require more thrust to take off. You want as much air flowing past the wings as possible, something a head wind provides, and that's why planes usually take off and land into the wind.
Only if you travel in a straight line (and even then, only if you calculate your distance based on all your way points, and don't just use your start and end positions). That's why I zig-zag everywhere I go.
Note how sympathetic the BBC is to homeopathy, giving a soft ride to someone who makes money from punting it.
What "soft ride"? What "sympathy"? They quoted someone in an article on the website - it's not a grilling from an interviewer and isn't meant to be. How was it any different to the "treatment" that they gave to the anti-homeopathy side (which was also just quotes)?
Wait until they get the opposing parties on Newsnight, then you might see what kind of a "ride" each gets.
Slashdot Mirror
There was a scene in a Tom Clancy book where a computer-geek super-agent had the task of tracking down a terrorist's email traffic. So, did he hack into a mail server using a terminal window and download logs?
No. He put on a VR headset, booted up his favourite Wild West metaphor, moseyed into town (literally; he spent time walking), went into the local post office (a metaphor for a mail server) and used his fingers to leaf through virtual paper records.
I've read one Dan Brown book and one Tom Clancy book, and the Tom Clancy was by the far the most awful.
The Plural of Lego is not Legos, It's Lego Bricks.
"Lego" doesn't have a plural.
The singular of "Lego bricks" is "Lego brick."
Also, no, RAW formats are not simply uncompressed
In fact they often are. They're losslessly compressed. And they use JPEG-like algorithms to do it!
The plural of person is people. There is no other way to word it.
My point - which you seem to have missed entirely - is that "people" doesn't always just mean - and isn't always only inferred to mean - "more than one person."
That you attach so much emotion and subtext to words
I'm simply talking about the way people actually use words, which is what defines English.
"The people", "humanity", "human kind" and hundreds of other ways can be used to include everyone.
Yes, they can. So can "people."
What would you have them use for the plural of person? Persons? That's no longer in common usage.
I wouldn't have them say anything. I'd suggest they say "some people," which mitigates the ambiguity.
Also see AC's reply here which sums it quite nicely as well.
If more than one person treats an animal badly, then it is proper English to say that "people treat animals badly"
It might be "proper English," (as are many misleading statements) but it's disingenuous because "people" would usually be taken to mean humanity as a whole in that context, rather than "more than one person."
People, on the whole, or even on average, do not treat animals badly*.
*which is subjective, anyway.
According to what absolute moral authority?
Pick one. There's loads of 'em posting on here!
Yeah, it's not because of a "similar name" as TFS would have it. CHM seem to be claming (if you can wade through the mangled English) links with Simmonds.
True, but that's always been an incorrect use of "they".
According to who?
(YIDTD)
Sounds more like it was a fortuitous by-product than a cover.
Could a Change In Wording Attract More Women To Infosec?
Yes. Start with not calling them "babes." Chicks hate that.
when it won't be long
I'm not sure what gave you that impression.
5. (subject to number 4 being worked around) Drone can't find its way home in an emergency.
It's not Slashdot if someone reads TFA.
It's dimension, not demention.
He wrote dimention, not demention.
Next up
Next kata , perhaps.
then I fail utterly to understand
Yes, yes you do.
I'd have thought that adding anything to the landing gear which does nothing to help you land the plane would be a pretty dumb thing to do, engineering wise.
Now read the rest of the summary.
The error was that he pushed the wrong button, which, no, you can't do on paper.
Airplanes do not work that way! Goodnight!
A tail wind would reduce the plane's speed relative to the surrounding air, causing it to require more thrust to take off. You want as much air flowing past the wings as possible, something a head wind provides, and that's why planes usually take off and land into the wind.
If you want to drive on the same road as me, go in the same supermarket as me, and ride on the same bus as me you should be as identifiable as me.
I'm an identical twin, you insensitive clod!
And more importantly, by doing things like this, Pastafarians are protecting other minority religious beliefs and practices.
I'm not sure that's what they're trying to do...
While Claire and Dave are, as usual, left out entirely.
GPS Always Overestimates Distances
Only if you travel in a straight line (and even then, only if you calculate your distance based on all your way points, and don't just use your start and end positions). That's why I zig-zag everywhere I go.
Note how sympathetic the BBC is to homeopathy, giving a soft ride to someone who makes money from punting it.
What "soft ride"? What "sympathy"? They quoted someone in an article on the website - it's not a grilling from an interviewer and isn't meant to be. How was it any different to the "treatment" that they gave to the anti-homeopathy side (which was also just quotes)?
Wait until they get the opposing parties on Newsnight, then you might see what kind of a "ride" each gets.
Apparently that's "balance".
Yes, yes it is.