Who here could pass a grammar test of Middle English?

By and large, the distinction between the middle versions of language and the modern versions of languages is around the time of the invention and proliferation of the printing press which widely changed how information was distributed and consumed. This has become and is still considered the norm.

Now, with instant short messaging becoming a reality, new, more abbreviated ways of communicating are becoming the norm as it is no longer necessary to pen out a long letter to communicate to someone at a distance... even email is becoming a bit passe for casual conversation. Thus, people's standards of communication are changing and that is bleeding over into other areas. The context of communication is changing, not the content.

It is sad that this may cause a lessening in what people would consider a more formal structure of communication but that is just an authoritarian and stodgy viewpoint I believe. I do believe that proper written grammar has its place and should be taught to students but it should also be stressed as seperate from the more casual forms of communication.

The original poster is already too confused to be able to do much with science if he puts Mathematics into that category.

What we consider math is a group of widely divergent philosophies sharing certain basic symbols for their expression. Of course, science is also in a similar state but it usualy has the additional characteristic of being applied to a physical universe in order to classify data.

Even though the application of math in science does allow for usable approximations of physical universe phenomenon, it has no direct relation to the physical universe itself.

This analysis of TCP is extremely flawed.

TCP doesn't limit the amount of data sent if there is packet loss. This will only limit the amount of new data sent. TCP will continue resending data that hasn't been acknowledged as being received.

When there is network connection, the server doesn't send you less data, it only appears you are receiving less data per unit of time due to the packet loss.

The technical analysis of how TCP works is a bit flawed. Dropped packets from the server to the client show up as unacked bits in the stream being sent. The server will have a limit of how many bits it will send from the previous acked bit. Thus, if it stops receiving acks, it will continue to resend data that was sent previously but un-acked. Thus, the server does not reduce the number of packets it is sending, it just keeps re-sending data that has not been acked. The only rate limiting in TCP is the rate of 'new' data sent.

There are also other conditions that occur that break this assumption that TCP will slow everyone down equally. Any effects of TCP self-limiting its rate of transfer will only impact long connections, not connections that are established for a short period... such as an http get/response on a small file, DNS requests, etc.

It is actually pretty simple. There are very popular economic theories that indicate that you control the flow of money by controlling what people are afraid of. Climate science would be a much smaller field with a lot less attention, money for grants and political debates if it wasn't sensationalized.

Also, look at how scientific data (data obstensibly gained through competent scientists following the scientific methods we learned in high school) winds up being consumed by the public. Being able to say you are green is a huge factor in marketing consumer products, without any regulations to explain exactly how your product impacts the climate less.

The real truth of the matter is that climatologists actually understand very little and are operating off modeling systems that can't track all factors and do not accurate predict results. I have yet to hear of a computer model that can take data from the 80s and accurately roll it forward to mirror today's climate.

Over the last few months, I have heard a lot about what is causing microtransaction games such a hard time and what is preventing them from being profitable; either through the lack of a solid microtransaction method, such as with mobile app based games to things like this where it is scammers that are affecting the market. My experiences playing Evony pointed out something to me. In order for a microtransaction game to succeed, it has to have #1) enjoyable game play regardless of whether someone chooses to engage in microtransactions and #2) not implement microtransactions so that it just over-balances the gameplay in favor of those willing to spend money.

This can be extended out to any game that has in-game currency that can be potentially traded for real life currency, including WoW, even though Blizzard strictly frowns upon it. In WoW, you can make your character stronger with less effort but not in a way that changes the game for you or for others other than you will have to spend less time 'farming' for stuff yourself.

In Evony, there was a ranking system that controlled how many cities you could control. You were able to move up the ranks by finding medals and turning them in to complete quests to get the next ranks. You can get these medals in game but they were extremely rare. There were other things you could buy to speed up various aspects of the game or do other minor things, like changing your name but the main draw were the medals. So, finally I put some money into it and stopped playing the game all together shortly after because I discovered that having more cities didn't fix the aspect of the game that was disappointing me. It was a PvP game that heavily favored defense over offense so the best strategy was to just build up your defenses and appear strong enough to not get attacked. You would need to be roughly 5x - 10x stronger than an enemy to be able to knock out their defenses, assuming equal knowledge in what to build... not a fun system and not one fixed by microtransactions.

Many people continue to make massive amounts of profit through selling gold in WoW despite many games trying to monetize off similar transactions as part of their systems. Problems with microtransactions aren't what is killing them... it is the lack of a compelling game in the first place.