So, you are saying that if disagrees with the age of consent then he should join a street gang and kill someone?
Here you go, pal. You'll find free and fair elections as a central principle.
Also, doesn't Apple have a duty to shareholders to cough up as little in taxes as legally possible?
You should trying asking that to Tim Cook at a shareholders meeting and see what kind of response you get. Last time he was described as "visibly angry".
One that is clear, however, is that most mathematicians have no fscking clue what the word "obvious" means. There are some brilliant, dead authors that I would love to punch in the face.
I think that they know exactly what it means, but that you are confusing it with the non-technical meaning. In maths it generally means "I have managed to work this out, and I suspect that you will be able to (eventually) without my help. If you cannot, that I presume that you are an idiot and that you do not deserve my help". Contrast the meaning with the technical use of non-obvious: "Oh fuck, we're boned".
In general you should treat obvious things with care, and only skip past the trivial.
It's not particularly hard to fix: spin the viewpoint around the country. For the southern forecast a view from across the channel (pretty much what it is now). For Scotland spin round to viewing from the north, Wales from the west etc. This then has the benefit that whatever region is being discussed takes up most of the screen and the rest of the UK drops away in perspective.
Whoever they outsourced to is not just less smart that they think they are. They have gone full-retard.
And so the point of maintaining the blockchain with a record of where each coin goes is....
Not exactly. Speed is of the essence.
I'm not sure if Science is phrenology by another name, but they certainly look similar at your level of detail:
a) Part of the task under study is definitely linguistic
b) No effort has been made to separate this linguistic part from the rest of the task
c) The study has not produced evidence because of a validity threat: namely the confounding factor that the task has been presented in a linguistic form.
I wouldn't want the terminology to get in the way of the original point: the task has been phrased in textual form, areas of the brain used in text recognition lit up, the researchers concluded that programming was the same as language skills. Their conclusion was bogus because presenting a non-programming task to the participants would have provoked the same response if it was done in written form. Obviously this would be impossible to fix in the study design.... without replicating the results on a non-textual experiment, such as a graphical language.
But on the bright side, it is unlikely that your negative views on continuing the human race will be passed onto another generation.
Hate to be a grammar nazi but you really can't say that, you mean "2nd biggerest". The root of the word is old british, but the cardinal extension is derived from hobbitish.
Yup. I didn't get much time to play it over the past year, but now that my schedule is finally calming down Civ 5 is proving to be a bit moorish. I need to beat it a few more times on Vanilla before I get the two expansions.
I found it highly improbable that an article on that topic could be boring. It explained to me in laborious detail why I was wrong.
The problem would be that the equation models net population growth i.e. births - deaths. When resource limits are reached the birth rate does not drift down gracefully of its own accord. Lots of people die as the system reaches a new equilibrium. Typical methods are wars over resources, famine from lack of resources or widespread disease due to a lack of resources to treat them. As the equation is only a model (an approximation) it does not cover the difference between hitting hard resource limits softly, or sharply. There is of course no natural reason that resource starvation would not kill off the entire population, as a barren lifeless world is also an equilibrium.
It seems quite obvious from the summary that what they propose is not arbitrage - it is fraud. It's caught by the rule that you state, but more generally they are using a single ticket to make two journeys. In the case of the two hypothetical commuters crossing the city they are both paying for 1/2 journey and then it is being made twice. That is not a price difference between two assets, it is double-spending.
I've been here about 11 years and this will make me leave. Screw whether or not it looks nice - this new interface is functionally broken. I can't see what selection of comments has been loaded or not loaded. There is no indication of parts of the tree that are not shown. The load more button gives no feedback about where it is inserting comments, or how many.
If I wanted to see a flashy rendering of the headlines with no context then I would read the site over RSS. If I wanted to see some random selection of the comments instead of (an outline) of the whole tree then I would just ask somebody else to read slashdot and give me a badly organised summary of their interpretation of the daily feeling of slashdot.
This interface does not work on a mobile device. It does not work on a desktop. It does not work. The final insult is that I had to switch to classic to post, because that doesn't work properly on the new interface either. Complete shite. So this is how slashdot died.