Webster's Unabridged: (world)
20. : a planet or other celestial body; especially : one that is inhabited and the scene of interests analogous to those of earth dwellers.
That's as close as it gets and no, the moon does not qualify.
Thank you for that nice novelette utterly devoid of detail and completely supporting one side of the debate, submitted anonymously.
Although less strident that the usual SocSci puppeting, it follows the same boilerplate: I'm (race to disparage), I'm (class to disparage) and I've gotten (cause supporting). So, since I match that demographic I can tell you that whatever *you* are saying isn't true but your delusions, for I suffer none of my own.
I'll follow the whole thing with a caveat that, though I am of the disparaged demographic now, I indeed started at the other end of the scale and so I can speak for those people *as well*. Leaving this discussion with me conveniently providing both sides.
"Trust is a required ingredient for any business." No it isn't. I can and have made business dealings with no thought of trusting my opposite at all. That's what contracts are all about.
I believe you misread. They're not saying *science* is a sham, they're saying *these guys* (generic) were a sham. Sometimes they *do* hang on to bad ideas for that research money. If you deny that, you're saying scientists are not prone to human foible.
And, with the size of the expense, it's valid to weigh whatever benefits may possibly come against said expense. It's a noteworthy point that the money is seldom, if ever, out of the scientist's pocket.
How about, like QM, it simply doesn't work on the macro level? That while the photon may have been looped back in time (although another explanation might be forthcoming), massive objects cannot.
"Calling theories"... Hypothesis was used in the quote. In fact "theory" doesn't appear at all. So you're arguing against some other statement.
"... the simple fact is that much of the modern world would simply not work if the words "hypothesis" and "guess" were equivalent." Incorrect. Reality doesn't give a crap how words are used. You apparently do and are taking umbrage. Fine, just don't act like what you're writing is fact. It isn't.
"... rather than mysticism and magical thinking." Or hypothesis.
Got nothin' to do with bein' an old timer. My gaming mouse has a clickable scroll wheel and a set of twelve side buttons. It's simply a can't adapt thing.
Bad phrasing on your part. There is no incremental cost of enabling IoT on a device. There is replacing said device. I'm past 60. I still have my grandmother's waffle iron and it works fine, cotton wrapped cord and all. Many, many things have lifespans that will make the IoT very difficult to integrate into a current someone's life without great expense and waste and so they simply won't. The "ubiquitous" IoT will be late this century at best.
Do you honestly believe that having a higher commit count indicates anything at all about "playing well with others"? From the article:
We measure team productivity by the number of commits by team developers recorded in either the main repository or any of its forks in a given quarter.
It could just as easily be argued that it indicates sloppy technique or a battle of egos.
Slashdot Mirror
I can see from your attitude you're from Quebec.
Webster's Unabridged: (world)
20. : a planet or other celestial body; especially : one that is inhabited and the scene of interests analogous to those of earth dwellers.
That's as close as it gets and no, the moon does not qualify.
Plastic only in the sense of its consistency. Your description of it's manufacture is bull.
Thank you for that nice novelette utterly devoid of detail and completely supporting one side of the debate, submitted anonymously.
Although less strident that the usual SocSci puppeting, it follows the same boilerplate: I'm (race to disparage), I'm (class to disparage) and I've gotten (cause supporting). So, since I match that demographic I can tell you that whatever *you* are saying isn't true but your delusions, for I suffer none of my own.
I'll follow the whole thing with a caveat that, though I am of the disparaged demographic now, I indeed started at the other end of the scale and so I can speak for those people *as well*. Leaving this discussion with me conveniently providing both sides.
Sprinkle lightly with Marxism at the end.
Meaning all you have to do is imagine that they were and you'd enforce some equalization to benefit your cause célÃbre. Unless of course, you mean *proving* said steerage with evidence. Is that what you meant, a "beyond a shadow of a doubt" thing instead of "going by my gut feelings"?
No, but good attempt at "look over there".
"Trust is a required ingredient for any business." No it isn't. I can and have made business dealings with no thought of trusting my opposite at all. That's what contracts are all about.
I see the SJW's are out in force spewing BS 'facts' from their pie holes.
In the lobby? Right. YAAFM
I believe you misread. They're not saying *science* is a sham, they're saying *these guys* (generic) were a sham. Sometimes they *do* hang on to bad ideas for that research money. If you deny that, you're saying scientists are not prone to human foible.
And, with the size of the expense, it's valid to weigh whatever benefits may possibly come against said expense. It's a noteworthy point that the money is seldom, if ever, out of the scientist's pocket.
How about, like QM, it simply doesn't work on the macro level? That while the photon may have been looped back in time (although another explanation might be forthcoming), massive objects cannot.
Nicely done. That kind of self-loathing crap is always irritating to come across.
"Calling theories"... Hypothesis was used in the quote. In fact "theory" doesn't appear at all. So you're arguing against some other statement.
"... the simple fact is that much of the modern world would simply not work if the words "hypothesis" and "guess" were equivalent." Incorrect. Reality doesn't give a crap how words are used. You apparently do and are taking umbrage. Fine, just don't act like what you're writing is fact. It isn't.
"... rather than mysticism and magical thinking." Or hypothesis.
Says someone who isn't getting any.
Got nothin' to do with bein' an old timer. My gaming mouse has a clickable scroll wheel and a set of twelve side buttons. It's simply a can't adapt thing.
Bad phrasing on your part. There is no incremental cost of enabling IoT on a device. There is replacing said device. I'm past 60. I still have my grandmother's waffle iron and it works fine, cotton wrapped cord and all. Many, many things have lifespans that will make the IoT very difficult to integrate into a current someone's life without great expense and waste and so they simply won't. The "ubiquitous" IoT will be late this century at best.
"Why wouldn't they?" Most are non-OCD.
That understanding was based on a scare program. The truth is quite the opposite.
Ghost it. Besides, your translation is just a manifestation of your supposition, not what will happen.
Pajama Boy and posse aren't very in sync either, you know.
It could just as easily be argued that it indicates sloppy technique or a battle of egos.
You are incorrect. Patents and copyrights done on your own time and not relating to company assets are yours.
My guess is he consulted any number of alchemy texts trying to figure out how to transmute gold.
Who exactly is this "we"?
I do not have Java on my machine and I use OpenOffice.