Logic doesn't enter in to it at all. Neither in language generally, nor your explanation specifically.
Here, I'll give you an equally valid reason to place the sign in front: By placing the sign in front of the number, the reader immediately knows that the following is a monetary amount, eliminating any uncertainly before it begins. Therefore, it is only "logical" that it should be placed in front of the number. (See how silly it looks?)
Don't confuse your personal opinion with objective truth.
We're talking about the demarcation problem here. Still, I'll answer your sillyness.
Well when more then 1/2 of your studies and research can't be repeated, you lose.
Then I guess we should toss out the whole of modern medicine as well, eh? Don't be foolish. This is how science is supposed to work. What concerns me most is that when faced with a failed replication, your first reaction is to reject the original research. It could have easily been a failure on the part of the second experimenters. To sort that out, you need are more replications. Science is riddled with contradictory results. That's normal, which is why replication is so damned important. See, a single experiment doesn't often tell you very much. It sure as hell doesn't result in gospel truth. All you generally get is "this is what we did, this was the result".
For instance if I call myself the world best engineer and yet over 1/2 of everything i do is wrong and fails, that would be totally in disagreement.
Here's an interesting statistic: Ty Cobb has the highest batting average in Major League Baseball history. He is, put simply, the best batter in the history of the world. What was his batting average? 0.366 Let that sink in.
Ironically, what you're suggesting is decidedly anti-science -- replacing inquiry with dogmas and taboos.
You're doing far more harm that good to your cause. You've already done more to bring about the apocalyptic scenario you described than that one French judge by outright rejecting science in the name of science.
They haven't given up on extensions. On the contrary, they're giving their API a much-needed overhaul. Yes, you'll still be able to block ads and scripts.
(Slackware/1995 here..) and have ZERO problems with it.
Nostalgia has clouded your vision. I tried to run Linux on my primary system from around 1999 to 2002. (It as too flaky, prior to that, to be more than a curiosity) I spend far more time trying to get various things to work than actually using it. (Remember when getting sound to work was a major accomplishment?) It was a huge pain back then. It's a lot better today (my wife ran it with little trouble from 2008 to 2011) but it's still not quite ready for the desktop. (She abandoned it when she needed to use her computer for work.) The only reason to run it back in 1995 was because you enjoyed tinkering with it. It was completely unsuitable for daily use.
And with what a spyware-fest Windows 10 is, I suspect a LOT more people are gonna say "FUCK MS" and come over to the Linux side.
Given the popularity of Google Chrome, even among the privacy hawks on Slashdot, I'd bet against that.
There's no reason their numbers should correlate to each other at all on GitHub, especially considering neither is a programming language.
This will either interest or agitate you. HTML5 + CSS3 has been proven to be Turing complete. Just to drive the point home, someone's even made the effort to produce a desktop calculator app using only those two technologies.
Let's also not forget that Chrome comes bundled, Ask Toolbar style, with many popular applications. Naturally, it also sets itself as the default browser.
In your rush to complain, you missed a couple essential points. 1) They're extending Chrome's system, not simply cloning it. 2) They're working with developers to ensure they have all the essential API features necessary.
So we can have Chrome extensions which can't even do simple things like completely block Javascript or advertising.
Here's where the first point would have saved you some angst. They're extending Chrome's plugin API significantly.
Some of the most popular extensions have been actively developed for the better part of a decade, such as NoScript (over 8 years)
You'll be happy to discover that Mozilla are already working with NoScript's author to ensure his plugin will work long before legacy support is pulled.
Now that you're properly informed, do you have any legitimate complaints? I hope not, as this is an excellent move. No longer will plugin authors have to deal with an ever shifting API. They'll have a stable API to develop against, designed in part by other plugin authors. Chrome plugin developers will also have an easier time porting their plugins to FireFox. It's a pretty huge win all-around.
How is this informative? Further, this was thoroughly debunked in the earlier thread.
Mozilla is basing their new plugin architecture on Chrome's, but are extending it to ensure plugins like NoScript (which is specifically mentioned, btw) will still be possible.
Relax. Both NoScript users will be able to enjoy their favorite plugin for years to come.
FWIW I personally have never married and thus have been single my entire life (never dated either) so as a male on the outside looking in, I'm calling this as I see it.
This particular revelation came as a surprise to absolutely no one...
See, most of their customers, including their largest customers, are very likely to be unaffected by the change as they're not buying off-brand or foreign toner cartridges. (Possibly due to service contracts or vendor related issues.) Smaller companies are stuck for years with expensive equipment; even if they're upset, that anger will fade (or the person in-change of that decision long replaced) by the time they upgrade. Worse, if Xerox is successful, and region locking turns out to make sense financially, others will follow suit quickly.
In short, the market *can't* fix this.
If Xerox drops this initiative, it's because the cost of implementing region locking starts to exceed the projected losses from resold cartridges. It's not going to come from consumer rebellion, as the free market fanatics would have you believe, as consumers in this case are almost universally either powerless or apathetic.
You're in a very tiny minority. Most people want more than a mostly dry place to sleep and a box of ramen to keep them alive until the end of month.
Parents typically want more for their children than the minimum it takes to keep them from starving or dying from exposure.
If you're a bit more cynical: Men like women, and women simply aren't interested in worthless, lazy, men who think it's okay to live in near poverty. You'll find that's pretty motivating.
I'll bet that if you had the liberty something like this basic income could provide, you'd quickly seek out work. Very likely, you'd seek out more fulfilling work. Something you enjoy doing, or could find some personal satisfaction through your contributions. As it stands now, you're little more than a slave, forced to work a job you clearly dislike just so you won't starve. That's a terrible way to live.
It's a very common assumption. It's repeated endlessly on a certain cable news channel. It's implied in countless statements from various political figures.
You don't make that assumption. I don't make that assumption. That's fine, but an awful lot of other people do.
Slashdot Mirror
Logic doesn't enter in to it at all. Neither in language generally, nor your explanation specifically.
Here, I'll give you an equally valid reason to place the sign in front: By placing the sign in front of the number, the reader immediately knows that the following is a monetary amount, eliminating any uncertainly before it begins. Therefore, it is only "logical" that it should be placed in front of the number. (See how silly it looks?)
Don't confuse your personal opinion with objective truth.
We're talking about the demarcation problem here. Still, I'll answer your sillyness.
Well when more then 1/2 of your studies and research can't be repeated, you lose.
Then I guess we should toss out the whole of modern medicine as well, eh? Don't be foolish. This is how science is supposed to work. What concerns me most is that when faced with a failed replication, your first reaction is to reject the original research. It could have easily been a failure on the part of the second experimenters. To sort that out, you need are more replications. Science is riddled with contradictory results. That's normal, which is why replication is so damned important. See, a single experiment doesn't often tell you very much. It sure as hell doesn't result in gospel truth. All you generally get is "this is what we did, this was the result".
For instance if I call myself the world best engineer and yet over 1/2 of everything i do is wrong and fails, that would be totally in disagreement.
Here's an interesting statistic: Ty Cobb has the highest batting average in Major League Baseball history. He is, put simply, the best batter in the history of the world. What was his batting average? 0.366 Let that sink in.
Only if you promise to live in some remote location, away from the rest of civilized society, like the woman in the article.
Ironically, what you're suggesting is decidedly anti-science -- replacing inquiry with dogmas and taboos.
You're doing far more harm that good to your cause. You've already done more to bring about the apocalyptic scenario you described than that one French judge by outright rejecting science in the name of science.
That's not how language works.
A third-party documentary? Aren't they all?
Prove it.
I'm going to guess that you don't have a formal science background.
They haven't given up on extensions. On the contrary, they're giving their API a much-needed overhaul. Yes, you'll still be able to block ads and scripts.
If they're fakes, you've either been taken or you'll need to pay extra.
That's hard to imagine. Either I'm old, or that's really stupid.
(Slackware/1995 here..) and have ZERO problems with it.
Nostalgia has clouded your vision. I tried to run Linux on my primary system from around 1999 to 2002. (It as too flaky, prior to that, to be more than a curiosity) I spend far more time trying to get various things to work than actually using it. (Remember when getting sound to work was a major accomplishment?) It was a huge pain back then. It's a lot better today (my wife ran it with little trouble from 2008 to 2011) but it's still not quite ready for the desktop. (She abandoned it when she needed to use her computer for work.) The only reason to run it back in 1995 was because you enjoyed tinkering with it. It was completely unsuitable for daily use.
And with what a spyware-fest Windows 10 is, I suspect a LOT more people are gonna say "FUCK MS" and come over to the Linux side.
Given the popularity of Google Chrome, even among the privacy hawks on Slashdot, I'd bet against that.
So, so sad...
Here we go:
All Presidents wore black pants :. Bill Clinton was President
Bill Clinton wore black pants
Both premises are true and the conclusion is true. The argument itself, however, is not valid.
This is basic logic, folks. It's not complicated.
There's no reason their numbers should correlate to each other at all on GitHub, especially considering neither is a programming language.
This will either interest or agitate you. HTML5 + CSS3 has been proven to be Turing complete. Just to drive the point home, someone's even made the effort to produce a desktop calculator app using only those two technologies.
It's Medium.com spam, what did you expect?
Let's also not forget that Chrome comes bundled, Ask Toolbar style, with many popular applications. Naturally, it also sets itself as the default browser.
In your rush to complain, you missed a couple essential points. 1) They're extending Chrome's system, not simply cloning it. 2) They're working with developers to ensure they have all the essential API features necessary.
So we can have Chrome extensions which can't even do simple things like completely block Javascript or advertising.
Here's where the first point would have saved you some angst. They're extending Chrome's plugin API significantly.
Some of the most popular extensions have been actively developed for the better part of a decade, such as NoScript (over 8 years)
You'll be happy to discover that Mozilla are already working with NoScript's author to ensure his plugin will work long before legacy support is pulled.
Now that you're properly informed, do you have any legitimate complaints? I hope not, as this is an excellent move. No longer will plugin authors have to deal with an ever shifting API. They'll have a stable API to develop against, designed in part by other plugin authors. Chrome plugin developers will also have an easier time porting their plugins to FireFox. It's a pretty huge win all-around.
How is this informative? Further, this was thoroughly debunked in the earlier thread.
Mozilla is basing their new plugin architecture on Chrome's, but are extending it to ensure plugins like NoScript (which is specifically mentioned, btw) will still be possible.
Relax. Both NoScript users will be able to enjoy their favorite plugin for years to come.
^^ This is what a good flamebait post looks like.
FWIW I personally have never married and thus have been single my entire life (never dated either) so as a male on the outside looking in, I'm calling this as I see it.
This particular revelation came as a surprise to absolutely no one...
See the article linked in the summary.
That's funny!
See, most of their customers, including their largest customers, are very likely to be unaffected by the change as they're not buying off-brand or foreign toner cartridges. (Possibly due to service contracts or vendor related issues.) Smaller companies are stuck for years with expensive equipment; even if they're upset, that anger will fade (or the person in-change of that decision long replaced) by the time they upgrade. Worse, if Xerox is successful, and region locking turns out to make sense financially, others will follow suit quickly.
In short, the market *can't* fix this.
If Xerox drops this initiative, it's because the cost of implementing region locking starts to exceed the projected losses from resold cartridges. It's not going to come from consumer rebellion, as the free market fanatics would have you believe, as consumers in this case are almost universally either powerless or apathetic.
You're in a very tiny minority. Most people want more than a mostly dry place to sleep and a box of ramen to keep them alive until the end of month.
Parents typically want more for their children than the minimum it takes to keep them from starving or dying from exposure.
If you're a bit more cynical: Men like women, and women simply aren't interested in worthless, lazy, men who think it's okay to live in near poverty. You'll find that's pretty motivating.
I'll bet that if you had the liberty something like this basic income could provide, you'd quickly seek out work. Very likely, you'd seek out more fulfilling work. Something you enjoy doing, or could find some personal satisfaction through your contributions. As it stands now, you're little more than a slave, forced to work a job you clearly dislike just so you won't starve. That's a terrible way to live.
It's a very common assumption. It's repeated endlessly on a certain cable news channel. It's implied in countless statements from various political figures.
You don't make that assumption. I don't make that assumption. That's fine, but an awful lot of other people do.
Believe it or not, the overwhelming majority of people are not shiftless, lazy, opportunistic criminals.
Would you quit your job and steal from your neighbors if you were guaranteed a basic income?