To give you a nice, big, easy-to-reach key you can remap to Control.
Similarly, I'm currently working on a system that has commits from 1980 (in Fortran, or FORTRAN as it was then, I guess).
Come on, of course 100% detection rate is possible! We don't know about any threats it doesn't detect!
I have this explosives detector I'd like to know if you're interested in. It's used by the Iraqi government...
Link to Original Source
Such fast. Very speed. Wow.
I can't remember the last time I was in an airport that didn't have free WiFi. But then I don't travel in the USA much.
God, but they look young in that.
Was talking about the AC commenting, not Cook. Fool boy see me after class.
1. From inside the base of a wind turbine tower in rural Inner Mongolia province, China. Or, alternatively, from a caravan in the middle of a forest in Eastern Finland in the middle of winter - minus 30 C outside.
2. While nearly frozen to death (see 1b).
3. Wrote a program from? Or wrote a program for? The latter is probably a Danish PLC which I will not name here. It has an in-house OS with an in-house executable format which is based on ELF, loosely enough that none of the standard ELF tools work on it. A serial console is the only debugging interface available. An actual debugger is out of the question. All debugging output is truncated to 20 characters. The thing has a 100MHz CPU and all floating-point math is done in software (no FPU). Its reaction to almost any programming error is to hard reboot (and "programming error" here includes calling printf with any but the most basic formatting string). Perhaps most frustratingly, when it hard reboots it claims to write a stack trace of the faulting code; about 4 times in 5, this is truncated to some extent, often to only the first function in the stack.
4. A Windows programme to drive EtherCAT IO modules from a standard Ethernet socket.
Do I win?
Can you feel the self-awareness failure yet? Cook generalises about millions of users, but he's not the one at fault here; the commenter asks a question about one person (Cook) but apparently now he's "generalis[ing] about millions of people."
Fool boy, see me after class.
This is getting nearly incoherent. Is there 'no gold standard measure of "scientific literacy"'? Or do you know how to do it correctly? You make both arguments in the above comment.
No, you don't get to say, "That would seem to be an important factor in scientific literacy," in the face of the data - that's just assuming your conclusion. The point of the article is that this is not borne out - people who don't believe that evolution explains the development of species are nonetheless equally scientifically literate in all the other areas of science.
Um, you've just ignored the data in front of you - the data collected shows no correlation between "someone's inclination to believe religion over science" (ie their position on the evolution v creationism debate) and scientific literacy. There is no value in that measurement - it has no predictive power of the scientific literacy.
Typical, isn't it?