Comment Resharper (Score 1) 430
Resharper does this for you. Learn the standards. Set them. Autoformat. Done.
Resharper does this for you. Learn the standards. Set them. Autoformat. Done.
Nope. In the 80's and 90's scientists and politicians were saying that we were in an ice age and needed to prepare. Lots of money went into research and plans for reducing the smog that was causing the ice age. I know that here in Georgia we still miss out on the Federal money for this as our smog levels are too high in Atlanta.
Here's a link.
I'm just glad we're out of that ice age we had in the 80's and 90's.
I used to think this was a joke, but I have been on a plane where it did prevent us from landing. Apparently there was a short somewhere in the grounding. This allowed enough interference from a handheld device to prevent the landing navigation system from working. We ended up circling until they found the man a couple rows in front of me playing on his device.
In a properly grounded plane, I can't see this being an issue. Also, for takeoff there shouldn't be a problem. Having to manually land a plane when the pilots are used to certain instruments working...issue. That being said, I don't see why they shouldn't allow the devices to be on. If there is an issue, simply ask at that point to turn them off.
So to sum up the summary, global warming is causing cooling that is reducing gravity and making satellites more efficient.
"Global warming" has "a cooling effect" that is "reducing the pull that Earth's atmosphere has" and "exerting less drag on satellites."
What great news!
I am saying that you do not have to see the initial stage of something to start the scientific process, which you implied. You can look at life today and want to work backwards, and it is just an valid.
From observation today, we see life. We also see extinction. Tens of thousands of species go extinct each year. We have not observed any new species evolving. That leads to a downward trend, not the upward the evolution implies and requires.
Let's just take mammals so that we can deal with understandable numbers. There are approximately 5000 known species of mammals alive today. In the past 400 years, 89 species have gone extinct. No new species have evolved. From this observation we can work backwards and see that there used to be more species of mammals alive, not less as evolution states. If evolution were true, we would constantly see new life, an upward trend. The facts show that the opposite is true.
I see your problem, you dont even understand science. You assume it has to be an observation of the life being created, if that was the case there would be no science at all in this world.
Science does require observation, but it can be anywhere in the link. If it starts in the beginning, great, if not then we have to sides we work on, one going backwards to the origin, and one going outward to the conclusions.
So you're saying that by our observation that there is life, evolution is true? What observation are you referring to that we are using to work sidewards, backwards, and outwards?
Beware of Programmers who carry screwdrivers. -- Leonard Brandwein