For a threadlike substance? It couldn't possibly be tensile strength. Nah, it has to be one of those far less frequently used, unmeasurable-in-this-case values like toughness.
The mechanism that keeps his clients from cheating him is presumably the same mechanism that operates in every black market. Threat of retaliation. As for why they don't just follow the money, my guess is that it goes through some completely unregulated bank with a quickly opened then closed account for each transaction, in combination with hush money to appropriate government officials.
To be fair, in this case, he's an unambiguously right, because what is in the quotation marks is a complete sentence. Pretty much every style guide tells you to then. My mistake.
Let's talk the fundamentals. The deadly part of a gun is not the gun at all, but the small charge in each round of ammunition. The whole rest of the device is just a convenience to direct that energy. You can't put an encrypted lock on gun-powder.
I've re-read both our comments carefully, and I can't find a reasonable plural noun to which "they" might be a back-reference. Could you tell me who you mean?
You seem to not understand the idea of colloquial grammar. "And" at the beginning of a sentence can communicate information that isn't necessarily directly dependent on the previous independent clause. It can, for example, represent the notion of building on a previous assertion in the same paragraph. And that is why colloquial grammar should be understood, and not edited for no better reason than "I say so".
I'm trying to contain my urge to treat you like a moron, because your response is willfully unrepresentative of my arguments, while at the same time invoking the word "strawman". That's an extraordinary lack of self-awareness.
1. Yes, plenty of idiots do in fact do exactly that without being: quite popular website expressing exactly that stupid sentiment wattsupwiththat.com. I should point out this is one of the most popular climate change related blogs on the internet. 2. Denialism includes your brand of silliness too. It's not substantiated because:
a. The first derivative of temperatures today is unprecedented in the last several hundred million years.
b. The second derivative of temperatures today is even more unprecedented.
It isn't a matter of what I think "smart people" know. It's a matter of incredibly basic mathematical and physical principals that seem to be inexplicably beyond people.
Engineering seems to house all the really adamant climate change denialists. Anyone who a: knows basic statistics and b: has even remote exposure to the data would be explicitly a moron to be one, but they're all over.
Could you not clearly see that I delineated C's attributes as completely different than bash's? Come on now. And I do use bash. Once in a while. As a small on top of real programs I write.
Yep, they use frequency of search on the internet for the language to estimate. Which means confusing, and easily broken languages like C, and infrequently used(and thus easily forgotten) languages like bash get a huge leg-up.
It's not an opinion to say "girls do X". If they widely do, then it's a fact, if they widely don't it's a lie that has the kicker of being sexist-as-hell.
No, that is in fact exactly the idea he was responding to. What you didn't answer was his actual question. You know, who the supposed backers with something to gain were.
Yes, I agree. Sequestration is the more accurate term that was used when the idea was first proposed.
However: the 24 hour media engine needs it's narrative, both major parties need something that "went wrong" that can conveniently be blamed on the other, and the wealthy really want to keep their excessively low effective tax rates(not that we're fixing capital gains). This stupid "emergency" is a natural consequence of a bunch of people with something to gain.
That is not to say the particulars of the "debate" are all completely OK. For example, those in congress who wish block the debt ceiling again can indeed crash the bond market, if they push it too far.
I don't believe I do ignore the others. The drift towards lower violent crime in first world countries is quite noticeable, for example, and has a positive impact on my life. The drift towards a wider percentage of the world being educated and skilled workers has a dramatic influence on my salary, but is also fundamentally positive. The drift towards ownership of capital representing a greater proportion of dividends of work has definitely not escaped my notice.
Climate change is still critically important because it affects the global food supply.
No because in the preceding decades to that: -New york city's subway is flooded a third of the time -Tornadoes cause ten billion damages per season -Tropical diseases kill hundreds in those region -Northern Europe gets new England climate -Let's be honest they will have been fighting for decades already.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes. There is. You can't measure it for thread.
For a threadlike substance? It couldn't possibly be tensile strength. Nah, it has to be one of those far less frequently used, unmeasurable-in-this-case values like toughness.
Counter-point: a setup can be engineered such that a gun will fire when cable is pulled, which can be done mechanically. It can still be deadly.
The mechanism that keeps his clients from cheating him is presumably the same mechanism that operates in every black market. Threat of retaliation. As for why they don't just follow the money, my guess is that it goes through some completely unregulated bank with a quickly opened then closed account for each transaction, in combination with hush money to appropriate government officials.
That is where the whole "directing the energy" statement came from.
To be fair, in this case, he's an unambiguously right, because what is in the quotation marks is a complete sentence. Pretty much every style guide tells you to then. My mistake.
Let's talk the fundamentals. The deadly part of a gun is not the gun at all, but the small charge in each round of ammunition. The whole rest of the device is just a convenience to direct that energy. You can't put an encrypted lock on gun-powder.
Oh, well, then I find your position unreasonable.
I've re-read both our comments carefully, and I can't find a reasonable plural noun to which "they" might be a back-reference. Could you tell me who you mean?
You seem to not understand the idea of colloquial grammar. "And" at the beginning of a sentence can communicate information that isn't necessarily directly dependent on the previous independent clause. It can, for example, represent the notion of building on a previous assertion in the same paragraph. And that is why colloquial grammar should be understood, and not edited for no better reason than "I say so".
I'm trying to contain my urge to treat you like a moron, because your response is willfully unrepresentative of my arguments, while at the same time invoking the word "strawman". That's an extraordinary lack of self-awareness.
1. Yes, plenty of idiots do in fact do exactly that without being: quite popular website expressing exactly that stupid sentiment wattsupwiththat.com. I should point out this is one of the most popular climate change related blogs on the internet.
2. Denialism includes your brand of silliness too. It's not substantiated because:
a. The first derivative of temperatures today is unprecedented in the last several hundred million years.
b. The second derivative of temperatures today is even more unprecedented.
It isn't a matter of what I think "smart people" know. It's a matter of incredibly basic mathematical and physical principals that seem to be inexplicably beyond people.
How is this anything like institutionalizing suffering so that the state can be the only benefactor in the lives of its citizens?
Engineering seems to house all the really adamant climate change denialists. Anyone who a: knows basic statistics and b: has even remote exposure to the data would be explicitly a moron to be one, but they're all over.
Could you not clearly see that I delineated C's attributes as completely different than bash's? Come on now. And I do use bash. Once in a while. As a small on top of real programs I write.
How come BATCH (.BAT) isn't on there, then?
Because even MSCEs are smart enough to know better.
Yep, they use frequency of search on the internet for the language to estimate. Which means confusing, and easily broken languages like C, and infrequently used(and thus easily forgotten) languages like bash get a huge leg-up.
Yeah, I've noticed this as well. And whenever its brought up that the tech industry is widely considered sexist, we like to deny, deny, deny.
It's not an opinion to say "girls do X". If they widely do, then it's a fact, if they widely don't it's a lie that has the kicker of being sexist-as-hell.
I'm fairly sure people will be able to convert their pennies to dollars if they have anything approximating a useful amount.
No, that is in fact exactly the idea he was responding to. What you didn't answer was his actual question. You know, who the supposed backers with something to gain were.
Yes, I agree. Sequestration is the more accurate term that was used when the idea was first proposed.
However: the 24 hour media engine needs it's narrative, both major parties need something that "went wrong" that can conveniently be blamed on the other, and the wealthy really want to keep their excessively low effective tax rates(not that we're fixing capital gains). This stupid "emergency" is a natural consequence of a bunch of people with something to gain.
That is not to say the particulars of the "debate" are all completely OK. For example, those in congress who wish block the debt ceiling again can indeed crash the bond market, if they push it too far.
Are you a moron, Pakistan has been a nuclear nation for decades and are not run by the Taliban.
Yes, exactly.
I don't believe I do ignore the others. The drift towards lower violent crime in first world countries is quite noticeable, for example, and has a positive impact on my life. The drift towards a wider percentage of the world being educated and skilled workers has a dramatic influence on my salary, but is also fundamentally positive. The drift towards ownership of capital representing a greater proportion of dividends of work has definitely not escaped my notice.
Climate change is still critically important because it affects the global food supply.
No because in the preceding decades to that:
-New york city's subway is flooded a third of the time
-Tornadoes cause ten billion damages per season
-Tropical diseases kill hundreds in those region
-Northern Europe gets new England climate
-Let's be honest they will have been fighting for decades already.