I don't think your point generalizes like you claim, certainly not to history classes. The only skills you pick up in history classes are 1) memorizing factoids, and 2) predicting what form of BS your teacher wants to see in an essay.
Now, there are certainly real skills required to do historical research (eg, looking at different sources and inferring what actually happened). And there are good reasons to teach history even with these failings (eg, so students can put events and news in context, learn the origin of traditions). But history most certainly does not help you hone useful skills the way that algebra does -- unless you agree history is the "practice BSing" course.
I migrated to Mint because of Unity (and other warnings that it would just get worse), but Mint has its own problems, like being flaky about not sleeping when you close your laptop, or being finicky about when it will show you the battery life.
I always have to wonder about interpretations of quantum mechanics that are able to believe those ideas at the same time:
"Yes, the information propagates faster than light, but in just the right way that we could never use it for communication" --> isn't that the same thing as "The information doesn't propagate faster than light"?
One time I actually had this bizarre dream about "luck-o'-the-Irish" brand Irish condoms whose "selling feature" was that some of them would explode when used, but you have to "expect" that it won't happen to you because "by some bizarre logic", you "got lucky".
Disallowing patent holders from the jury would be just as unfair as requiring all jurors to hold a patent. (Thought in the latter case it'd be a lot harder to find 12 qualified, available people!)
Yes, owning patents will tend to make you favor patent-prosecuting plaintiffs, but the reverse is also true. What they should do is ensure that a patent holder is not unduly biased or opportunistic in favor of patents (or a non-patent-holder is not unduly hateful of patents), as seems to be the case here, not keep patent holders off of patent cases entirely.
What I'm saying is that if he had (all along) been affiliated with some viral marketing campaign, and this was a way of promoting some new movie, they government would probably let it slide, despite making people fear just as much for their lives.
Will they be able to sue you over your children, the way Monsanto sues people over corn?
Um, if you find children growing out of you due to accidental scattering of some else's "seed", you've got much bigger problems than a patent lawsuit...
Generally, yes, usefulness depends on context. But you don't need gendered pronouns to communicate someone's gender when that's what you want to do. And even in traditional cultures and whatnot, the fraction of cases where the pronoun communicates a persons gender when the speaker doesn't already know it is a tiny fraction of usage.
That's why I say it adds complexity overhead while doing nothing for expressive power, and this remains true in the contexts you mention.
So all that's left is "reduce error rates of a noisy signal". But if you want that, you should use universal parity check terms, not ones that only check parity for certain words.
With those numbers in mind, it almost seems like a better question is whether it's possible to have notably *lower* concentrations of caffeine without significant energy input?
Also, how recently were we even able to detect such tiny traces?
And do modern wastewater filter systems reduce this level?
Wow, that's a really good point there. So why don't you write up how we would observationally distinguish between the brain's "antenna/cable" (that receives signals from the soul) being broken, as opposed to its "CRT/LCD" being broken, and then we'll go look for instances of the former and see if we can find any!
Sound good?
No? You just wanted to lean back and sagely claim that there's a super-secret thing *really* generating the brains output that we just happen to be stubbornly refusing to see while also not saying what it would look like to see it?
Well, then I guess we don't have a lot to talk about...
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think your point generalizes like you claim, certainly not to history classes. The only skills you pick up in history classes are 1) memorizing factoids, and 2) predicting what form of BS your teacher wants to see in an essay.
Now, there are certainly real skills required to do historical research (eg, looking at different sources and inferring what actually happened). And there are good reasons to teach history even with these failings (eg, so students can put events and news in context, learn the origin of traditions). But history most certainly does not help you hone useful skills the way that algebra does -- unless you agree history is the "practice BSing" course.
I migrated to Mint because of Unity (and other warnings that it would just get worse), but Mint has its own problems, like being flaky about not sleeping when you close your laptop, or being finicky about when it will show you the battery life.
Well, it would, if it didn't interpret half my right-clicks as left-clicks in a bizarre attempt to avoid admitting the merit of a second button.
I always have to wonder about interpretations of quantum mechanics that are able to believe those ideas at the same time:
"Yes, the information propagates faster than light, but in just the right way that we could never use it for communication" --> isn't that the same thing as "The information doesn't propagate faster than light"?
Now I'm more interested in getting a version of the bot holding it!
One time I actually had this bizarre dream about "luck-o'-the-Irish" brand Irish condoms whose "selling feature" was that some of them would explode when used, but you have to "expect" that it won't happen to you because "by some bizarre logic", you "got lucky".
Sounds like the perfect PR campaign: they have their usual array of scantily clad women with silicon tits, saying:
"We're so sorry we went down on you like that."
"We really didn' mean to suck alllll that ... hard work out of you."
"But rest assured, we'll be doing our very best in the future to help you keep it firmly up alllll the time."
What if I use a latex condom?
They say the computer virus gave them access to documents from Aramco's
Hey, maybe they can blackmail Aramco out of Bitcoins now!
What's with the name, though? I know they're all about "hacking", and this seems to be a cute publishing name hack, but ... seriously, what?
All the sophistry in the world can't magic up the list of anti-Semitic bullshit Ahmadinejad has promoted.
Was his Holocaust-denial conference another Western media conspiracy?
Yikes. That's going a bit far.
Disallowing patent holders from the jury would be just as unfair as requiring all jurors to hold a patent. (Thought in the latter case it'd be a lot harder to find 12 qualified, available people!)
Yes, owning patents will tend to make you favor patent-prosecuting plaintiffs, but the reverse is also true. What they should do is ensure that a patent holder is not unduly biased or opportunistic in favor of patents (or a non-patent-holder is not unduly hateful of patents), as seems to be the case here, not keep patent holders off of patent cases entirely.
And incidentally, it's sever, not severe
or a properly warrented search
Any correction is usually followed by the correct making a similar error. :-P
What I'm saying is that if he had (all along) been affiliated with some viral marketing campaign, and this was a way of promoting some new movie, they government would probably let it slide, despite making people fear just as much for their lives.
Totally. Free speech is only for saying pleasant stuff, or for saying murderous stuff when you're part of a viral marketing campaign.
He had help from M. C. Escher.
Will they be able to sue you over your children, the way Monsanto sues people over corn?
Um, if you find children growing out of you due to accidental scattering of some else's "seed", you've got much bigger problems than a patent lawsuit...
, it's bringing a suspected criminal to a place where he will be abducted, tortured, and likely killed
And if we're very, very lucky, they'll do that in reverse order.
I, for one, have no problem with blind people in the driver's position of a self-driving car. [/courageous stand]
Generally, yes, usefulness depends on context. But you don't need gendered pronouns to communicate someone's gender when that's what you want to do. And even in traditional cultures and whatnot, the fraction of cases where the pronoun communicates a persons gender when the speaker doesn't already know it is a tiny fraction of usage.
That's why I say it adds complexity overhead while doing nothing for expressive power, and this remains true in the contexts you mention.
So all that's left is "reduce error rates of a noisy signal". But if you want that, you should use universal parity check terms, not ones that only check parity for certain words.
English implements all sorts of biases, trade offs, and lacks features of other languages (gender, tone, irregular verbs, and many more).
In natural languages, gender is a bug, not a feature. More to remember, and zero (or negative) net expressive power added.
With those numbers in mind, it almost seems like a better question is whether it's possible to have notably *lower* concentrations of caffeine without significant energy input?
Also, how recently were we even able to detect such tiny traces?
And do modern wastewater filter systems reduce this level?
Just one comment: "Emergent property" as used by me here means "unexpected behavior that cannot readily be explained"
Why, though? I mean, we already have a standard term for that concept: it's called "I'm confused".
Wow, that's a really good point there. So why don't you write up how we would observationally distinguish between the brain's "antenna/cable" (that receives signals from the soul) being broken, as opposed to its "CRT/LCD" being broken, and then we'll go look for instances of the former and see if we can find any!
Sound good?
No? You just wanted to lean back and sagely claim that there's a super-secret thing *really* generating the brains output that we just happen to be stubbornly refusing to see while also not saying what it would look like to see it?
Well, then I guess we don't have a lot to talk about...
I'm holding it in my hands right now.