You yourself quoted the original sentence properly before:
The response to this has been that these scientists are motivated by partisan considerations and are trying to create a political issue.
The original poster was not claiming that there was partisan motivation, and is therefore under no obligation to prove something that he did not assert. He claimed that the response stated that there was partisan motivation. This is true, as can be verified by, um... reading the response?
I believe his scientific basis was reading the slashdot headline... although he may have actually read the article, too.
Generally, finding scientific proof that someone is saying something isn't much harder than going to news.google.com, in the worst case. Let me know if you need help.
Speaking as one who has two smaller sticks, I agree.. having one larger stick would do wonders for my social life, and probably get me out of this damn medical textbook too.
A jury will think exactly what the most authoritative-sounding person tells them to think, just like always. Your legal guilt is 100% divorced from your actual actions. Do what you want with your life; you're fucked (if you're poor) or you're fine (if you're rich) regardless.
The only argument I've ever heard against using 'i' is that it's harder to search for. Certainly, the intent is incredibly clear. For searching, just tokenize the source and search that... perfectly easy to search for i, or j, or even 1 or 0, with no false positives. There are more programs out there that do this than that check e-mail, I suspect. If your tools are restricting your ability to name variables, the problem is with your tools, not your naming.
Just tokenize the source and search that... perfectly easy to search for i, or j, or even 1 or 0, with no false positives. There are more programs out there that do this than that check e-mail, I suspect.
Freeze distillation can be done, and it kills certain flavors a lot less than normal distillation... but it really is distillation, it's no longer a 'natural' wine. It's also a pain in the ass for little result; you can get to 40% if you try really really hard, but you'll be throwing away half of the good stuff. If you want a few percent more, get a better yeast. If you want a significant difference, distill properly.
16.8% is absolutely not a hard limit. Yes, most champagne yeasts poop out around 16%... but then, most ale yeasts give up before 12%. With a slow fermentation and a good yeast, a mead can easily hit 18%... and rice wines (which have lower initial sugar concentration, it's really a much more complex process) can hit 20%, 22% with skill.
Slashdot Mirror
You yourself quoted the original sentence properly before:
The response to this has been that these scientists are motivated by partisan considerations and are trying to create a political issue.
The original poster was not claiming that there was partisan motivation, and is therefore under no obligation to prove something that he did not assert. He claimed that the response stated that there was partisan motivation. This is true, as can be verified by, um... reading the response?
Try it yourself. apt-get and have fun.
I believe his scientific basis was reading the slashdot headline... although he may have actually read the article, too.
Generally, finding scientific proof that someone is saying something isn't much harder than going to news.google.com, in the worst case. Let me know if you need help.
Wow. That's, uh, not good. Ya see, your registrar doesn't own it in the first place, so they can't transfer ownership to you...
Speaking as one who has two smaller sticks, I agree.. having one larger stick would do wonders for my social life, and probably get me out of this damn medical textbook too.
I repost previous +5's in later SCO stories. If caught, I claim they were mine or an unauthorized derivative but I never actually show proof.
Excuse me, but that was my post! Plagiarism!
i think you just inspired the next ad campaign for mobile athlon's. "It flies, but not for as long as the plane you're on."
Right... and there's no way to work around this, huh? For someone with a user id under 700k, you ain't so bright.
Disrespectful to whom, exactly? Or if you prefer, to what?
I think he's calling me fat... I'm above average!
And of course, TextEdit.app, free with every mac, can read and write Office files just fine.
Why not just grep your dictionary file?
A jury will think exactly what the most authoritative-sounding person tells them to think, just like always. Your legal guilt is 100% divorced from your actual actions. Do what you want with your life; you're fucked (if you're poor) or you're fine (if you're rich) regardless.
The only argument I've ever heard against using 'i' is that it's harder to search for. Certainly, the intent is incredibly clear. For searching, just tokenize the source and search that... perfectly easy to search for i, or j, or even 1 or 0, with no false positives. There are more programs out there that do this than that check e-mail, I suspect. If your tools are restricting your ability to name variables, the problem is with your tools, not your naming.
Just tokenize the source and search that... perfectly easy to search for i, or j, or even 1 or 0, with no false positives. There are more programs out there that do this than that check e-mail, I suspect.
Freeze distillation can be done, and it kills certain flavors a lot less than normal distillation... but it really is distillation, it's no longer a 'natural' wine. It's also a pain in the ass for little result; you can get to 40% if you try really really hard, but you'll be throwing away half of the good stuff. If you want a few percent more, get a better yeast. If you want a significant difference, distill properly.
iAgree.
16.8% is absolutely not a hard limit. Yes, most champagne yeasts poop out around 16%... but then, most ale yeasts give up before 12%. With a slow fermentation and a good yeast, a mead can easily hit 18%... and rice wines (which have lower initial sugar concentration, it's really a much more complex process) can hit 20%, 22% with skill.
5% is a harder number to understand. This is a presentation for managers; 10% is what these people tip.
That's not a leg, you insensitive clod!
It takes guts to say, on slashdot, that your mom got hocked.
Regardless of what it means.
Or, uh, RAM.
But who has that?
Or 200, and tell them you're using 10% of the line's capacity. Clearly the presentation is for people who have no idea what bandwidth is, so why not?
Why the heck was this modded funny? Why don't I ever get crack with my mod points?
kontributions to the iOpen iSource kommunity?