I for one, and this might just be my superstitious self, would be concerned about the prospect of my bodily fluids interacting with biological material that has been, so to speak, "immortalized."
I admit the whole gitmo thing isn't an ideal example, how about this one, from when the man clinched the nomination:
"We can look back and tell our children this is the moment when the seas began to fall and the earth began to heal"
If you believe he is promising to reverse global warming, you're a sucker, plain and simple. It's not pedantry, it's the fact of the matter; it's not a promise, a completely subjective and poetic expression. Do you believe in this? March with me!
Literal pedantry is the least critical kind of thinking you can do with language... with lies to manipulate the public, so long as their was some semantic pedantic bullshit that lets them weasel out of it
You say 'literal pedantry' (no bias there) is the least critical kind of thinking, yet no one seems to do it... I can't concede there is any lie here, because the plain hermeneutic reading of the language indicates no falsehood, as a matter of fact there is no factual claim to speak of. I think you want there to be a falsehood because you are personally invested in the belief that politicians are liars, and you'd rather believe the country is being destroyed by a few bad apples (or "sociopaths") than the fact that a big chunk of the population has bad deductive reasoning skills -- probably brought on by NCLB standardized testing;). I'm telling you to beware of what this politician says, and you keep saying people should be credulous! It really doesn't matter what somebody might want you to believe; if they don't say it they don't say it, period. If you buy a stock because the broker told you it "might going up 10% or might go up 20%" and it goes down 10% you're SOL. I'm sorry if you're a dupe but you fell for a pretty transparent linguistic feint and you let your greed do the thinking for you. I feel zero pity for anyone that hears "I want what you want!" and fills in the blanks with dollar-signs and $MY_FAVORITE_LIB_ISSUE (which is more than a few Obama voters).
As someone with politicos in the family, all I can tell you is that when they write the speeches, they're very careful not to promise things that are contingent on matters beyond their immediate control (which is just about everything), while at the same time offering a "vision" or "mission" for people to identify with. All you can do as a city councillor or state rep or president, is tell people what you want and what you believe in; promising shit guarantees you'll fail, because, angry politician-hating pricks (ahem) will take whatever you promised and define down your achievements in such a way that it's impossible for you to achieve them: you can never close Gitmo fast enough or fully enough.
I think you're arguing for complete solipcism in language, and that people should be held responsible for what their listeners conclude. and not what they themselves say.
It's not about natural language. You're arguing that voters shouldn't be required to think critically about the things they hear, and that everybody gets to just sorta "decide" all subjectively what the speaker meant. I think you're giving voters an out clause to claim at any time that "politicians lie" because they weren't able to deliver the fruits of the voters' own self-delusion.
Just open your ears and listen to what people are actually saying. It isn't a lie if you can tease the meaning of a sentence by reading it on the page. Anything less and you just turn into a mob singing slogans, like "Drill Baby Drill!" or "Yes We Can!" That's when people really begin to act like robots (speaking of programming languages...)
Relatedly, good administrators, in government, business, the military are able to consolidate the will of many into aspirational goals, in such a way that everyone marches together, and no one starts the backbiting and recriminations when some arbitrary marker is not crossed. Letting people know what you want and getting them to help you regardless of the setbacks is kinda the heart of leadership. Not everything in the world is some quid-pro-quo where the leader says "obey me and you'll get a chicken," and then if you don't get the chicken you get to toss the leader over (viz. France thru the 19th century, or Germany between the wars). That's pretty shitty political theory, and it's not how a healthy political system works.
Why doesn't your definition match the one at the end of your link:
A person who makes elaborate, fraudulent, and often voluble claims to skill or knowledge; a quack or fraud.
In any case, scientists shouldn't be making claims about the character of other individuals, only about the accuracy of their claims. The claims are under test, not the people. The language in the original title, assuming the translation is getting it right, is prejudicial and inflammatory, baldly assuming malice or fraud when the claims of the other scientists may only be inaccurate.
My point is that this isn't lying, it's the listener lying to himself about what he heard... When Reagan said, "Mr. Gorbachev, Tear Down this Wall!" he wasn't lying about his unwillingness to tear down the wall himself, he was just phrasing his position in such a way the made everyone hear "OMG Reagan promises to defeat teh sovs!" when in fact Reagan was taking responsibility for no action on his part.
Just the same, when Obama says "Yes we can close Guantanamo!" he isn't promising to do a goddamn thing, he's just phrasing his aspirations for what America could do in such a way that people hear "OMG Barack is gonna close gitmo!"
This is not lying, and treating it like it is is just victimology of the voter against eeeeeeevil politicians.
I can imagine someone taking a politicians speech and running it through this sort of analysis, especially since it can use recorded audio.
All it would do is sort the politicians by skill level; really really skillfull politicians and administrators generally construct their positions in such a way so that they are completely honest when the promise nothing, but leave enough room for your gestalt psychlogoy to fill in the blanks and hear promises all over the place.
"charlatanry" isn't an objective standard, testable with evidence. "False claims in forensic speech science" would have been just as descriptive and perfectly objective.
If we force people to buy marginally-expensive boxes, thus freeing up a huge band of VHF that we can then use for Internet service, it's not really comparable to broken windows. There's a difference between paying someone to break a window and paying someone to bulldoze a condemned building.
The palistinians agreed to split the land, then turned around and tried to kill every last jew in the region. They got what they deserved, and given the recent history before their disgusting betrayal, I think its amazing self-restraint that israel doesn't simply wipe out palistinians with neutron bombs.
I think I addressed this on another thread, though I was trying to avoid Israel/Palestine since there's a bit of contention over wether that's actually "Imperialism" or not. That said, I would consider it unacceptable to hold an entire people responsible for the actions of their leaders, their religious authorities, other nations claiming to act on their behalf, their forebears, or military formations among their number. I don't see the difference between this and the internationally recognized definition of "Collective Punishment." Abdullah of Jordan lying to Ben-Gurion in 1954 does not justify shooting a 22 year old today. There may be other acceptable reasons you might have to shoot him, but "the undying perfidy of the Arab race" is not one of them.
I think its amazing self-restraint that israel doesn't simply wipe out palistinians with neutron bombs.
I don't see the difference between this and "genocide," and Israel is as sensitive to the implications of that as anybody. Had their dirty little conflict happened in the 19th century, they would have done exactly that, in the way that the US or Australia handled their own natives. But, for the better, probably, Israel was founded after the complete discrediting of these ideas, and must resolve its land disputes without murdering lots and lots of people.
Deep thought: If the Lakota Souix had their own satellite news channel in 1870, what would it have looked like? PBS, or Al Jazeera?
Serbia's a great example, my point really has nothing to do with the intentions of the minor party. If the Human's somehow provoked the Cylons intentionally into a war the point still stands. Besides, I think it's still pretty debatable how high the plot went. I though the whole thing was run by Dragutin DimitrijeviÄ, and that no one has conclusively proved that it went any higher.
And the worse thing is that assassin is celebrated in Serbia even today - there are streets and schools named after him. (Trust me, I live in Serbia.)
That the Assassination in Sarajevo and Vidovdan happen on the same day probably doesn't help matters...
Ok, problems between Austro-Hungary and Serbia started long before, but during that period AH did not do anything even remotely savage to Serbian state,
although there was a trade war.
I'm specifically referring to the post-assassination period, when Austria-Hungary clearly had 'teaching a lesson" on its mind when it demanded nothing less than Serbia's sovereign rights. I'm aware. entire prewar period was very messy. Austria-Hungary didn't just want the murderer tried or extradited, as would be normal; they wanted a War, and they drafted a set of demands on Serbia that were designed to be unacceptable.
And, yet, oddly those whom we "taught a lesson" in WWII at the barrel of a gun have taken it to heart and are now great international citizens.
Only to add to my reply to the other poster, I would just offer that the "lesson" the Germans and Japanese took to heart after World War II had a lot more to do with the Marshall Plan than it did with Fat Man, and that the US's aggressive investiment in building up its former enemies against Communism in the 1940s and 50s was the prime mover in bringing these nations back into the fold of peace-loving nation states. If we had taken over Germany and run our sector like the Russians ran their sector, no "lesson" in the sense you mean would have been learned, even though the Russians were using their guns to teach a "lesson" just as effectively, if not more, than we were.
Violence and military supremacy may have been a necessary aspect of the World War 2 conflict, but it wasn't the essential aspect of the peace, and I find it diffifcult to accept that it's advisable given the myriad other conflicts that we've seen over the past century, their players, forces and outcomes. Germany still lost World War I, it's cultural superiority notwithstanding, and though Israel (or the UK or France) indisputably has a stronger civil society and healthier political culture than that-which-might-be Palestine (or Afghanistan, or Algeria), these "cultural superiors" found themselves in decades-long conflicts that they usually fought to stalemate, or just plain lost.
In any case the analogy to WW2 is defective, because our actions were clearly not imperial, for the same reasons I stated above.
I don't necessarily dispute you here, but what can be done when you are faced with such a lesson, other than learn it?
I would probably argue that in the case of WW2, the "lesson" the Germans learned wasn't that "Americas guns are better than yours, therefore suck it for eternity," which is the "lesson" the Germans were trying to teach France, the Austrians, Serbia, the Israelis, Palestine etc. (I guess there's a lot of room to argue about the last one, but I find the intents of both parties completely out of joint with their actions so its hard to debate it reasonably.) The lesson the Germans learned in both world wars was "We the world won't tolerate your hegemony and will fight to stop it," which is something most Germans already knew in their moral hearts but the principle required demonstration.
Either way, turning "killing for political purposes" into "teach a lesson" is pretty Orwellian and I'd like to avoid the whole construction, since it's a literary trope masquerading as an ethical principle.
Sure, I'd sign the cease-fire, even though it would lead to 100 deaths because the Islamic savages don't abide by treaties and cease-fires anyway. I wouldn't be responsible for the other side breaking the pact.
I think the operative comparison would be to Jewish collaborators throughout occupied Europe in WW2, who were forced, sometimes at gunpoint, sometimes with mere words, to compile lists of people to be shipped for "resettlement," form police forces of their own people to round them up, etc.
It's not about being technologically inferior, it's about being culturally inferior. Grow up kids, quit kicking Israel in the shins! If the islamic savages choose to behave like deviant youth then the only thing they will understand is a spanking.
Yes, everybody knows that all you need to do is "teach people a lesson," and if only the "shin-kickers" would get out of the way, the little peoples of the Earth would learn their lesson faster. After all, it worked for Germany in 1914 when the inferior and decadent cultures of France and Russia dared to oppose them, or Austria when immature Serbia tried to oppose them, or France when the barbaric Algerians opposed them, or England when the Mesopotamian Arabs and Afghans opposed them, and on and on. The "lesson" is that "uncultured" people probably have as much a right to live as anyone else, and the only "lesson" you teach from the barrel of a gun is that gun-barrels are for teaching lessons.
This troll is an imperialist, of a hundred-year-old vintage, but the ideas STILL have remarkable currency and need to be deconstructed, as BSG does.
It does, but I think the OP point was that "nil" effectively implements all methods and returns 0, nil, or 0XDEADBEEF1374, like a bottom class without the semantic consistency of languages with true bottom types.
Nice. Some of us DO try to pay for things with cash, particularly those of us that are trying to pay down their credit cards (like I was after school), and sometimes the thing you're trying to buy won't fit on a credit card like a car.
Yes, I've bought a car outright with a check; try it sometime if you're really curious about what it's like to be treated like a criminal by somebody who supposedly wants to sell you something.
That sounds like a credible description of Quantum Gravity, or rather the big question of quantum gravity, namely, IS gravity a continuous force or is it quantized? Nobody knows if "gravitons" exist.
The issue in this article is that these discontinuous "blurry" fluctuations are much (much much much) larger than a planck length, and this agrees with the assumptions of the so-called holographic principle, and this experiment may not be picking up gravitons so much as it's detecting the blurryness you would expect from a 2-dimensional hologram projected into 3-space. Since the 2-dimensional "horizon" of the universe can only encode information on the scale of a planck length, thus the projection in 3-space within is going to have a much lower information density. I think. I'm not a physicist...
Sorta, but there's a pretty good chance, as others have pointed out, that Apple will probably have a very good earnings report in the next few months. You can trade on the news, but the signal to noise ratio on this bit of information is very low. It doesn't give you a good leading indication of where Apple's business is actually going. It's not predictive in the way that something more disruptive, like iPhone sales crashing.
Slashdot Mirror
I for one, and this might just be my superstitious self, would be concerned about the prospect of my bodily fluids interacting with biological material that has been, so to speak, "immortalized."
Wow, that's a troll?
I admit the whole gitmo thing isn't an ideal example, how about this one, from when the man clinched the nomination:
"We can look back and tell our children this is the moment when the seas began to fall and the earth began to heal"
If you believe he is promising to reverse global warming, you're a sucker, plain and simple. It's not pedantry, it's the fact of the matter; it's not a promise, a completely subjective and poetic expression. Do you believe in this? March with me!
Literal pedantry is the least critical kind of thinking you can do with language... with lies to manipulate the public, so long as their was some semantic pedantic bullshit that lets them weasel out of it
You say 'literal pedantry' (no bias there) is the least critical kind of thinking, yet no one seems to do it... I can't concede there is any lie here, because the plain hermeneutic reading of the language indicates no falsehood, as a matter of fact there is no factual claim to speak of. I think you want there to be a falsehood because you are personally invested in the belief that politicians are liars, and you'd rather believe the country is being destroyed by a few bad apples (or "sociopaths") than the fact that a big chunk of the population has bad deductive reasoning skills -- probably brought on by NCLB standardized testing ;). I'm telling you to beware of what this politician says, and you keep saying people should be credulous! It really doesn't matter what somebody might want you to believe; if they don't say it they don't say it, period. If you buy a stock because the broker told you it "might going up 10% or might go up 20%" and it goes down 10% you're SOL. I'm sorry if you're a dupe but you fell for a pretty transparent linguistic feint and you let your greed do the thinking for you. I feel zero pity for anyone that hears "I want what you want!" and fills in the blanks with dollar-signs and $MY_FAVORITE_LIB_ISSUE (which is more than a few Obama voters).
As someone with politicos in the family, all I can tell you is that when they write the speeches, they're very careful not to promise things that are contingent on matters beyond their immediate control (which is just about everything), while at the same time offering a "vision" or "mission" for people to identify with. All you can do as a city councillor or state rep or president, is tell people what you want and what you believe in; promising shit guarantees you'll fail, because, angry politician-hating pricks (ahem) will take whatever you promised and define down your achievements in such a way that it's impossible for you to achieve them: you can never close Gitmo fast enough or fully enough.
I think you're arguing for complete solipcism in language, and that people should be held responsible for what their listeners conclude. and not what they themselves say.
It's not about natural language. You're arguing that voters shouldn't be required to think critically about the things they hear, and that everybody gets to just sorta "decide" all subjectively what the speaker meant. I think you're giving voters an out clause to claim at any time that "politicians lie" because they weren't able to deliver the fruits of the voters' own self-delusion.
Just open your ears and listen to what people are actually saying. It isn't a lie if you can tease the meaning of a sentence by reading it on the page. Anything less and you just turn into a mob singing slogans, like "Drill Baby Drill!" or "Yes We Can!" That's when people really begin to act like robots (speaking of programming languages...)
Relatedly, good administrators, in government, business, the military are able to consolidate the will of many into aspirational goals, in such a way that everyone marches together, and no one starts the backbiting and recriminations when some arbitrary marker is not crossed. Letting people know what you want and getting them to help you regardless of the setbacks is kinda the heart of leadership. Not everything in the world is some quid-pro-quo where the leader says "obey me and you'll get a chicken," and then if you don't get the chicken you get to toss the leader over (viz. France thru the 19th century, or Germany between the wars). That's pretty shitty political theory, and it's not how a healthy political system works.
Why doesn't your definition match the one at the end of your link:
A person who makes elaborate, fraudulent, and often voluble claims to skill or knowledge; a quack or fraud.
In any case, scientists shouldn't be making claims about the character of other individuals, only about the accuracy of their claims. The claims are under test, not the people. The language in the original title, assuming the translation is getting it right, is prejudicial and inflammatory, baldly assuming malice or fraud when the claims of the other scientists may only be inaccurate.
My point is that this isn't lying, it's the listener lying to himself about what he heard... When Reagan said, "Mr. Gorbachev, Tear Down this Wall!" he wasn't lying about his unwillingness to tear down the wall himself, he was just phrasing his position in such a way the made everyone hear "OMG Reagan promises to defeat teh sovs!" when in fact Reagan was taking responsibility for no action on his part.
Just the same, when Obama says "Yes we can close Guantanamo!" he isn't promising to do a goddamn thing, he's just phrasing his aspirations for what America could do in such a way that people hear "OMG Barack is gonna close gitmo!"
This is not lying, and treating it like it is is just victimology of the voter against eeeeeeevil politicians.
I can imagine someone taking a politicians speech and running it through this sort of analysis, especially since it can use recorded audio.
All it would do is sort the politicians by skill level; really really skillfull politicians and administrators generally construct their positions in such a way so that they are completely honest when the promise nothing, but leave enough room for your gestalt psychlogoy to fill in the blanks and hear promises all over the place.
"charlatanry" isn't an objective standard, testable with evidence. "False claims in forensic speech science" would have been just as descriptive and perfectly objective.
If we force people to buy marginally-expensive boxes, thus freeing up a huge band of VHF that we can then use for Internet service, it's not really comparable to broken windows. There's a difference between paying someone to break a window and paying someone to bulldoze a condemned building.
Now we know why the Pacific Coast Highway has so many traffic fatalities...
Open-source iPhone development?
The palistinians agreed to split the land, then turned around and tried to kill every last jew in the region. They got what they deserved, and given the recent history before their disgusting betrayal, I think its amazing self-restraint that israel doesn't simply wipe out palistinians with neutron bombs.
I think I addressed this on another thread, though I was trying to avoid Israel/Palestine since there's a bit of contention over wether that's actually "Imperialism" or not. That said, I would consider it unacceptable to hold an entire people responsible for the actions of their leaders, their religious authorities, other nations claiming to act on their behalf, their forebears, or military formations among their number. I don't see the difference between this and the internationally recognized definition of "Collective Punishment." Abdullah of Jordan lying to Ben-Gurion in 1954 does not justify shooting a 22 year old today. There may be other acceptable reasons you might have to shoot him, but "the undying perfidy of the Arab race" is not one of them.
I think its amazing self-restraint that israel doesn't simply wipe out palistinians with neutron bombs.
I don't see the difference between this and "genocide," and Israel is as sensitive to the implications of that as anybody. Had their dirty little conflict happened in the 19th century, they would have done exactly that, in the way that the US or Australia handled their own natives. But, for the better, probably, Israel was founded after the complete discrediting of these ideas, and must resolve its land disputes without murdering lots and lots of people.
Deep thought: If the Lakota Souix had their own satellite news channel in 1870, what would it have looked like? PBS, or Al Jazeera?
Serbia's a great example, my point really has nothing to do with the intentions of the minor party. If the Human's somehow provoked the Cylons intentionally into a war the point still stands. Besides, I think it's still pretty debatable how high the plot went. I though the whole thing was run by Dragutin DimitrijeviÄ, and that no one has conclusively proved that it went any higher.
And the worse thing is that assassin is celebrated in Serbia even today - there are streets and schools named after him. (Trust me, I live in Serbia.)
That the Assassination in Sarajevo and Vidovdan happen on the same day probably doesn't help matters...
Ok, problems between Austro-Hungary and Serbia started long before, but during that period AH did not do anything even remotely savage to Serbian state, although there was a trade war.
I'm specifically referring to the post-assassination period, when Austria-Hungary clearly had 'teaching a lesson" on its mind when it demanded nothing less than Serbia's sovereign rights. I'm aware. entire prewar period was very messy. Austria-Hungary didn't just want the murderer tried or extradited, as would be normal; they wanted a War, and they drafted a set of demands on Serbia that were designed to be unacceptable.
And, yet, oddly those whom we "taught a lesson" in WWII at the barrel of a gun have taken it to heart and are now great international citizens.
Only to add to my reply to the other poster, I would just offer that the "lesson" the Germans and Japanese took to heart after World War II had a lot more to do with the Marshall Plan than it did with Fat Man, and that the US's aggressive investiment in building up its former enemies against Communism in the 1940s and 50s was the prime mover in bringing these nations back into the fold of peace-loving nation states. If we had taken over Germany and run our sector like the Russians ran their sector, no "lesson" in the sense you mean would have been learned, even though the Russians were using their guns to teach a "lesson" just as effectively, if not more, than we were.
Violence and military supremacy may have been a necessary aspect of the World War 2 conflict, but it wasn't the essential aspect of the peace, and I find it diffifcult to accept that it's advisable given the myriad other conflicts that we've seen over the past century, their players, forces and outcomes. Germany still lost World War I, it's cultural superiority notwithstanding, and though Israel (or the UK or France) indisputably has a stronger civil society and healthier political culture than that-which-might-be Palestine (or Afghanistan, or Algeria), these "cultural superiors" found themselves in decades-long conflicts that they usually fought to stalemate, or just plain lost.
In any case the analogy to WW2 is defective, because our actions were clearly not imperial, for the same reasons I stated above.
I don't necessarily dispute you here, but what can be done when you are faced with such a lesson, other than learn it?
I would probably argue that in the case of WW2, the "lesson" the Germans learned wasn't that "Americas guns are better than yours, therefore suck it for eternity," which is the "lesson" the Germans were trying to teach France, the Austrians, Serbia, the Israelis, Palestine etc. (I guess there's a lot of room to argue about the last one, but I find the intents of both parties completely out of joint with their actions so its hard to debate it reasonably.) The lesson the Germans learned in both world wars was "We the world won't tolerate your hegemony and will fight to stop it," which is something most Germans already knew in their moral hearts but the principle required demonstration.
Either way, turning "killing for political purposes" into "teach a lesson" is pretty Orwellian and I'd like to avoid the whole construction, since it's a literary trope masquerading as an ethical principle.
Sure, I'd sign the cease-fire, even though it would lead to 100 deaths because the Islamic savages don't abide by treaties and cease-fires anyway. I wouldn't be responsible for the other side breaking the pact.
I think the operative comparison would be to Jewish collaborators throughout occupied Europe in WW2, who were forced, sometimes at gunpoint, sometimes with mere words, to compile lists of people to be shipped for "resettlement," form police forces of their own people to round them up, etc.
It's not about being technologically inferior, it's about being culturally inferior. Grow up kids, quit kicking Israel in the shins! If the islamic savages choose to behave like deviant youth then the only thing they will understand is a spanking.
Yes, everybody knows that all you need to do is "teach people a lesson," and if only the "shin-kickers" would get out of the way, the little peoples of the Earth would learn their lesson faster. After all, it worked for Germany in 1914 when the inferior and decadent cultures of France and Russia dared to oppose them, or Austria when immature Serbia tried to oppose them, or France when the barbaric Algerians opposed them, or England when the Mesopotamian Arabs and Afghans opposed them, and on and on. The "lesson" is that "uncultured" people probably have as much a right to live as anyone else, and the only "lesson" you teach from the barrel of a gun is that gun-barrels are for teaching lessons.
This troll is an imperialist, of a hundred-year-old vintage, but the ideas STILL have remarkable currency and need to be deconstructed, as BSG does.
It does, but I think the OP point was that "nil" effectively implements all methods and returns 0, nil, or 0XDEADBEEF1374, like a bottom class without the semantic consistency of languages with true bottom types.
Are you a drug dealer without a bank account?
Nice. Some of us DO try to pay for things with cash, particularly those of us that are trying to pay down their credit cards (like I was after school), and sometimes the thing you're trying to buy won't fit on a credit card like a car.
Yes, I've bought a car outright with a check; try it sometime if you're really curious about what it's like to be treated like a criminal by somebody who supposedly wants to sell you something.
One of their VPs did get popped for embezzling $65 million to feed his gambling habit.
That sounds like a credible description of Quantum Gravity, or rather the big question of quantum gravity, namely, IS gravity a continuous force or is it quantized? Nobody knows if "gravitons" exist.
The issue in this article is that these discontinuous "blurry" fluctuations are much (much much much) larger than a planck length, and this agrees with the assumptions of the so-called holographic principle, and this experiment may not be picking up gravitons so much as it's detecting the blurryness you would expect from a 2-dimensional hologram projected into 3-space. Since the 2-dimensional "horizon" of the universe can only encode information on the scale of a planck length, thus the projection in 3-space within is going to have a much lower information density. I think. I'm not a physicist...
This is all, of course, impossible.
I trrrrrrrrrrrrrrranssssssssfer data betwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwween threads alllllll the time......
Sorta, but there's a pretty good chance, as others have pointed out, that Apple will probably have a very good earnings report in the next few months. You can trade on the news, but the signal to noise ratio on this bit of information is very low. It doesn't give you a good leading indication of where Apple's business is actually going. It's not predictive in the way that something more disruptive, like iPhone sales crashing.
No, Kirk. The game's not over. To the last I will grapple with thee!
No, you can't get away. From hell's heart, I stab at thee! For hate's sake, I spit my last breath at thee...
And I'll BUY BUY BUY tomorrow... do you seriously think anything has fundamentally changed in Apple's business? It still remains to be seen.
And if he wants to know Toot's recipe for Chicken Noodle Soup, I'm sure he has only but to ask.
She has passed on, you insensitive clod!