In the preface to the book "What Color is Your Parachute" (2003,2009 editions) the author addresses this, cites some other grammar analysis authors, which also agree. He points out that this is again common usage in the current vernacular (just as it has been in previous periods in history).
View the page here: https://books.google.com/books...
Low 6's here, and only because I waited 2 years before actually signing up--otherwise I'd be what, only 4 digits?
I have many friends that have deleted their FB profiles for various reasons. They are still social, active participants in the *real world*, which is what matters.
Seems that depending on your personality type, the relation between your FB activity and in-real-life activity is either directly proportional (you're already a social creature), or inversely proportional (and with a high coefficient)--because even if you're introverted you still seek social interaction--just preferrably via distance communication.
Regardless, attempting to infer any meaningful information from someone's online activity or lack thereof seems a stretch (unless they explicitly blog all of their activities and opinions--and assuming they are *truthful* about all of it).
I already have a Nexus 5--I'm not looking for a new phone--just want to make my old Photon 4G useful again. Recycle value last I checked was a whopping $17 because of this. It's got 2 1GHz cores and 8GB memory--it's still decent hardware. Shame to be deprecated so early.
I have a Motorola Photon 4G (pre LTE) that was infamously scheduled to receive ICS but then Motorola backpedaled and abandoned it, *right after* the last OTA shipped that locked the bootloader--so essentially it's stuck at gingerbread while fully capable of running kitkat or lollipop (with a much better experience).
It's not activated on my account to make calls anymore, but Sprint's system still sees it.
It's a world phone with both cdma and a sim card for gsm--would be a great travel phone if I could unlock it.
I'm available to help.
The point is that FF 34 didn't depend on this setting while FF 35 *does*--and no warning was issued to explain the sudden loss of functionality.
Discovered that session support is silently disabled in 35 if com.indexedDB.enabled = false.
And no, I did not set that to false myself--don't know what addon did it nor when.
FF provides no logging about the fact either.
I've been updating FF and successfully restoring my previous session for years.
Now sessions don't even work with a brand new, fresh profile.
Epic FAIL.
And it's not 100% possible. There's a non-0% chance that humanity* was created by a "god" external to the universe and the stuff that makes for intelligence can't be replicated with what we have in this universe. I admit that seems a rather large stretch and extremely unlikely, but the majority of humanity seems to believe in God, gods, spirits, and the like, clearly they don't think there is a proven 0% of such things.
* and other living beings if you want.
That is a very good point I hadn't considered. There could be a directional connection from a "higher" order of existence to ours that is responsible for intelligence. In that light, then yes, the odds may in fact be 0. Including this possiblity simply means that we cannot actually calculate a singular odds at all--it's two-fold now: either >0 or 0--a dependent outcome which is really unknowable.
It is not standalone. You're ignoring the referential pronoun object of the sentence, "it", which is contextual and refers directly to the topic at hand: something for which we *do* have active examples, is demonstrated and thus 100% possible.
This rebuttal is flawed. Obviously the odds of success of pursuing something impossible is always 0. You're equating the pursuit of things for which we have no model of possible existence with the pursuit of replicating something for which we have abundant, active examples of it's 100% possibility--over 7 billion intelligent, autonomous physical entities, not even counting other species which qualify.
I agree that there is no logic in attempting to predict a date for when someone will comprehend how to manufacture an entity that exhibits intelligence similar to our own. But there is likewise no logic in declaring we cannot or will not do so within any specific timespan either. However low the odds of success may be, they are still >0. The odds don't even go to 0 if not a single person is pursuing it directly--someone not in pursuit of it may have a realization that leads to it. We have historical examples of discoveries coming at us sideways.
In addition, even if multiple insights are required, that does not reduce the odds of them all occuring within X amount of time to 0 either. The fact that people are actively pursuing it still puts the odds at >0.
That does not compute.
