Those are still plans, just short term. Even "Hey, let's go get a drink." on the phone is a plan. And if you can't keep a calendar clear two weeks for a outing that requires more than grab your wallet preparation you shouldn't be making those kinds of plans.
People that dork me on those kinds of things (w/out *good* reason) get one pass. Second time and I never make plans with them again because they're unreliable.
Translates to "conducive to happiness happiness" - People who use uncommon words that poorly are just using them to try to obscure that the activities they're trying to maintain as a living are not-worth-anything activities. Basically the entire purpose of sociologists.
When it comes to products like food (pet or human), the almighty price tag rules...
Yeah, hence the huge number of brands of dog food at $5 a can just because they've got a cute Yorkshire on them and the aisles of "natural" produce. There's a hole in that logic of yours somewhere.
When you can tell your digital home assistant to turn your lights on and off, a toaster that isn't connected will seem out of place.
Then *those* people will buy connected devices. The remaining hundreds of thousands of houses w/o said DHA will not give a crap. How, pray tell, are you going to go about jamming those DHA's into those hundreds of thousands of houses?
Rhetoric from a mold. Those are false statements but they fit the writer's narrative. If there's any answer to your question forthcoming at all it will be something along the lines of the technology available to the aggressor allowed it to start. Ignoring of course all the political and social crap which actually started it and the fact that the aggressor(s) had no problem starting things with lesser technology previously.
Bzzt!! Incorrect. I know a number of working families with one income that earn enough to live just fine. What inflated those hours is peoples' desire for more stuff. Those households I mentioned aren't loaded with lots of unnecessary crap. Hence their ability to live comfortably on less.
I just checked WalMart. Their low-end toaster is EIGHT FRIGGIN' DOLLARS. That's for two slices, the four slice model is seventeen. Do you seriously think a toaster with the necessary circuitry and software to connect will cost the same? *Much* less that to gather the data you're implying. Check out the prices of a simple USB wifi connector. Now add that to the price of the low-end two slice model and buy yourself the four slice model w/o wifi.
And so far, all of the major catastrophes on this planet had a devastating effect on whatever animal was the top dog back then. Simply due to them needing vast amounts of resources for survival, and resources being scarce during catastrophic times.
Those vast amounts of resources were prey animals, which we don't require. We are not like those animals. We, for instance, have technology. If we ran around on all fours killing things with our teeth I would agree with you, but we are nowhere near that type of animal.
Slashdot Mirror
Those are still plans, just short term. Even "Hey, let's go get a drink." on the phone is a plan. And if you can't keep a calendar clear two weeks for a outing that requires more than grab your wallet preparation you shouldn't be making those kinds of plans.
People that dork me on those kinds of things (w/out *good* reason) get one pass. Second time and I never make plans with them again because they're unreliable.
Using an argument other than you believe so, why?
I have a domain. In fact, five of them. I use one of them to upload stuff to so it will be centrally located. Hard, eh what?
No it doesn't. "proximity of function" is a nonsense phrase. Try explaining that in biological instead of social science terms.
Translates to "conducive to happiness happiness" - People who use uncommon words that poorly are just using them to try to obscure that the activities they're trying to maintain as a living are not-worth-anything activities. Basically the entire purpose of sociologists.
At least he has the balls to post his smugness by name Mr AC.
I certainly hope the people who are actually trying to implement this understand math better than the summary writer.
Speaking of "isn't as simple"... If you undercut by any profit you'd make, you've incurred work that is completely unnecessary.
Yeah, hence the huge number of brands of dog food at $5 a can just because they've got a cute Yorkshire on them and the aisles of "natural" produce. There's a hole in that logic of yours somewhere.
Then *those* people will buy connected devices. The remaining hundreds of thousands of houses w/o said DHA will not give a crap. How, pray tell, are you going to go about jamming those DHA's into those hundreds of thousands of houses?
Rhetoric from a mold. Those are false statements but they fit the writer's narrative. If there's any answer to your question forthcoming at all it will be something along the lines of the technology available to the aggressor allowed it to start. Ignoring of course all the political and social crap which actually started it and the fact that the aggressor(s) had no problem starting things with lesser technology previously.
'Cause, narrative.
Bzzt!! Incorrect. I know a number of working families with one income that earn enough to live just fine. What inflated those hours is peoples' desire for more stuff. Those households I mentioned aren't loaded with lots of unnecessary crap. Hence their ability to live comfortably on less.
Not what he said. But, good dodge on his point.
Yes, it's working so well for them. What makes you think it will work any better here?
I just checked WalMart. Their low-end toaster is EIGHT FRIGGIN' DOLLARS. That's for two slices, the four slice model is seventeen. Do you seriously think a toaster with the necessary circuitry and software to connect will cost the same? *Much* less that to gather the data you're implying. Check out the prices of a simple USB wifi connector. Now add that to the price of the low-end two slice model and buy yourself the four slice model w/o wifi.
Those vast amounts of resources were prey animals, which we don't require. We are not like those animals. We, for instance, have technology. If we ran around on all fours killing things with our teeth I would agree with you, but we are nowhere near that type of animal.
We can live on plant matter alone. Did not dispute any hardships, just said we weren't apex predators in that sense.
Sarcasm, like facetiousness, does not translate well into print.
Temperature over the ages:
here.
It has mostly been much warmer from mid-Carboniferous to now.
No, it wouldn't. We're not predators in that sense. We're omnivores.
Read some scifi. They've **always** be rehashed stories from before.
And now suddenly you "care" about something you just learned about. I smell a faux.
Which part? I didn't see any.
That last line is the main failing of all social science.
Baldfaced bullshit.