mdntcallr
Oct 26, 11:04 AM
I am pretty excited about this, because if i read it right...
the new mac pro's will possibly come out at the same price point's as the higher end model's.
which when these come out... would mean that the ones out now may DROP in price. hey just a thought. a good one :p
the new mac pro's will possibly come out at the same price point's as the higher end model's.
which when these come out... would mean that the ones out now may DROP in price. hey just a thought. a good one :p
Apple OC
Mar 15, 10:01 PM
I did a little reading and now am a one minute expert... :p
I've read these reactors did auto shut down when the earthquake hit. The problem is that the rods create tremendous persistent heat even after a shutdown, and it is the lack of cooling water that is causing the problem.
Could it be considered a myth that any nuclear reactor can be expected to automatically safely shutdown when power to all safety systems are lost no matter how it is designed?
And who was saying this could not be like Chernobyl??
Chernobyl was 25 years ago and Russia was not very open to outside help ... no matter how bad this escalades ... somehow this will be contained.
I've read these reactors did auto shut down when the earthquake hit. The problem is that the rods create tremendous persistent heat even after a shutdown, and it is the lack of cooling water that is causing the problem.
Could it be considered a myth that any nuclear reactor can be expected to automatically safely shutdown when power to all safety systems are lost no matter how it is designed?
And who was saying this could not be like Chernobyl??
Chernobyl was 25 years ago and Russia was not very open to outside help ... no matter how bad this escalades ... somehow this will be contained.
leekohler
Apr 15, 10:20 AM
Agreed. But you know what, some people deserve not one ounce of respect.
You would be one of them. It stings when the mirror is held up in front of you, doesn't it? I was like you at one time too, and I know where you are right now. At some point, you will come to understand that there is a difference between people who are simply trying to be themselves (us) and people who are trying to keep us from being ourselves (social conservatives). One deserves respect, one does not.
You would be one of them. It stings when the mirror is held up in front of you, doesn't it? I was like you at one time too, and I know where you are right now. At some point, you will come to understand that there is a difference between people who are simply trying to be themselves (us) and people who are trying to keep us from being ourselves (social conservatives). One deserves respect, one does not.
Gelfin
Mar 24, 11:59 PM
Subtract the individuals affiliated with gangs and the mentally unstable and we're staring at a long list of homosexuals murdered by "mainstream" individuals, many of whom attended church on a regular basis and were in fact catholic. That their religious affiliations are not immediately telegraphed is not evidence of absence, but rather of the fact that 76% of the population self-identifies as Christian.
To stretch my own analogy, it also ignores that the men who put on white hoods and terrorized black people were not "mainstream" white people either, but they were nevertheless acting on the attitudes held by "mainstream" white people. They were radical, but saw themselves as the ones with the strength of will to enforce the true will of the "mainstream." It's all very well to believe that the darkies should keep their place, but somebody's got to do the work of keeping them there when they step out of line.
However, I will return to what I touched on before: the Catholic Church (and Christian churches generally in the United States) currently have no need for terrorist thugs. They have great political influence and have convinced a significant plurality (seemingly no longer a majority, I am gratified to point out) that they are entitled to subjugate others bloodlessly and anonymously through the democratic process.
At least this is so until the courts clearly state once and for all that this is incompatible with our law and our society. Incidentally, that's also when the thugs will really come out, and you watch how many of them claim to be doing the Lord's work.
To stretch my own analogy, it also ignores that the men who put on white hoods and terrorized black people were not "mainstream" white people either, but they were nevertheless acting on the attitudes held by "mainstream" white people. They were radical, but saw themselves as the ones with the strength of will to enforce the true will of the "mainstream." It's all very well to believe that the darkies should keep their place, but somebody's got to do the work of keeping them there when they step out of line.
However, I will return to what I touched on before: the Catholic Church (and Christian churches generally in the United States) currently have no need for terrorist thugs. They have great political influence and have convinced a significant plurality (seemingly no longer a majority, I am gratified to point out) that they are entitled to subjugate others bloodlessly and anonymously through the democratic process.
At least this is so until the courts clearly state once and for all that this is incompatible with our law and our society. Incidentally, that's also when the thugs will really come out, and you watch how many of them claim to be doing the Lord's work.
appleguy123
Apr 22, 07:50 PM
This makeup of this forum's members intrigues mean slightly. Why are most of the posters here Atheists? Is it part of the Mac using demographic, the Internet in general's demographic, or are Atheists just the most interested in Politics, Religon, and Social Issues?
flopticalcube
Apr 24, 10:43 AM
That's true. I think, though, if anything, the hatred of another religion was a pretty strong motivational force in the US armed forces since 9/11. Especially right after, when many people joined up to fight the Muslims who attacked the USA.
Would attribute that to a personal religious motivation as opposed to an institutional one. Muslims serve in the US forces as well.
Would attribute that to a personal religious motivation as opposed to an institutional one. Muslims serve in the US forces as well.
spaceballl
Mar 18, 09:25 AM
To be honest, I'm not too upset by this. I've used an iPhone for tethering via jailbreak long before the official support came. I did that fully knowing that I was breaking the rules, and that ATT might mess with me, but they didn't offer an official plan so I knew the risks. I still jailbreak my phone and use MyWi, but I pay for an official tethering plan so I'm not breaking the rules.
R.Perez
Mar 13, 06:52 PM
Did you even read the article you posted? The stored solar energy is drained after 8 hours. Which means if you have a day where the sun is obstructed, your city will black out.
did you actually read my post? Centralized solar would just be one part.
did you actually read my post? Centralized solar would just be one part.
mjstew33
Jul 12, 01:23 AM
Or maybe instead of a Mac pro mini, it might be a Mac mini Extreme? :cool:
Daveoc64
Apr 15, 11:32 AM
But it's not *hateful*. I don't see how a rational being could find that hateful. That's just something that shuts down discussion and mischaracterizes an opponent.
The stance itself isn't rational (i.e. based on anything empirical), so it's hard to take it seriously as anything other than "hateful" as you put it.
The stance itself isn't rational (i.e. based on anything empirical), so it's hard to take it seriously as anything other than "hateful" as you put it.
UWF404
Jul 7, 09:51 PM
My very first call dropped and when I grip the phone as one would naturally hold the phone I lose 3 bars. The phone looks cooler than the older 3GS. However, the sharper edges make it uncomfortable to hold compared to old phone. The supposed upgraded screen seems to me only marginally better. That said, who here who has a 3GS ever said "geez, if only the screen was better" :rolleyes:
The glass on both sides to me is just down right stupid. Just because you it looks cooler does not mean it's functionally better. It only makes the phone more delicate and prone to damage. This phone is a case study of design not in sync with engineering.This phone feels delicate and no as sturdy like the 3GS. All in all I'd give it a thumbs down and I'm baffled at Apple for putting out this phone.
The glass on both sides to me is just down right stupid. Just because you it looks cooler does not mean it's functionally better. It only makes the phone more delicate and prone to damage. This phone is a case study of design not in sync with engineering.This phone feels delicate and no as sturdy like the 3GS. All in all I'd give it a thumbs down and I'm baffled at Apple for putting out this phone.
flopticalcube
Apr 24, 01:31 PM
The Eastern Orthodox church is the oldest church, yet I think anyone would be hard-pressed to label it as fundamentalist.
Have a look at St. John Chrysostom's Easter homily:
Eastern Orthodox celebrates life and downplays the "fire and brimstone" of hell, which isn't even in the Bible anyway, all that came later. In the Old Testament hell was being denied the presence of God and feeling shame, not eternal torment at the hands of demons.
Great for the Eastern Orthodox church. What does that have to do with what I said? :confused:
Have a look at St. John Chrysostom's Easter homily:
Eastern Orthodox celebrates life and downplays the "fire and brimstone" of hell, which isn't even in the Bible anyway, all that came later. In the Old Testament hell was being denied the presence of God and feeling shame, not eternal torment at the hands of demons.
Great for the Eastern Orthodox church. What does that have to do with what I said? :confused:
Doctor Q
Mar 18, 03:54 PM
I'm not pleased with this development, because Apple's DRM is necessary to maintain the compromise they made with the record labels and allow the iTunes Music Store to exist in the first place. If the labels gets the jitters about how well Apple is controlling distribution, that threatens a good part of our "supply" of music, even though I wouldn't expect a large percentage of mainstream customers to actually use a program like PyMusique.
Will Apple be able to teach the iTunes Music Store to distinguish the real iTunes client from PyMusique with software changes only on the server side? If not, I imagine that only an iTunes update (which people would have to install) could stop the program from working.
Suppose iTunes is updated to use a new "secret handshake" with the iTunes Music Store in order to stop other clients from spoofing iTunes. Will iTunes have any way to distinguish tunes previously purchased through PyMusique from tunes acquired from other sources, i.e., ripped from CDs? Perhaps the tags identify them as coming from iTMS and iTunes could apply DRM after the fact. Then again, tags can be removed.
Will Apple be able to teach the iTunes Music Store to distinguish the real iTunes client from PyMusique with software changes only on the server side? If not, I imagine that only an iTunes update (which people would have to install) could stop the program from working.
Suppose iTunes is updated to use a new "secret handshake" with the iTunes Music Store in order to stop other clients from spoofing iTunes. Will iTunes have any way to distinguish tunes previously purchased through PyMusique from tunes acquired from other sources, i.e., ripped from CDs? Perhaps the tags identify them as coming from iTMS and iTunes could apply DRM after the fact. Then again, tags can be removed.
WestonHarvey1
Apr 15, 12:23 PM
No. I am not blaming my confusion on semantics� ;)
So, according to your interpretation of the CCC:
unmarried straight couples are having "sinful" sex.
unmarried same-sex couples are having "sinful" sex.
married (but not in a church) straight couples are having sinful sex.
married (but not in a church) same-sex couples are having sinful sex.
married (Catholics) are having sinful sex, if not purely for reproduction.
Which leaves us with�
married (Catholics) are having righteous sex, but only if for reproduction.
Such fun!
Your list is almost right, but one thing to clarify, it's not "only for reproduction". Merely that it has to be open to the possibility of reproduction - i.e., no contraception. Also note that doesn't mean infertile people can't have sex. It just means the nature of the act itself isn't being deliberately subverted.
Catholics are not puritans and the sensual nature of sex is celebrated as well as the procreative nature.
So, according to your interpretation of the CCC:
unmarried straight couples are having "sinful" sex.
unmarried same-sex couples are having "sinful" sex.
married (but not in a church) straight couples are having sinful sex.
married (but not in a church) same-sex couples are having sinful sex.
married (Catholics) are having sinful sex, if not purely for reproduction.
Which leaves us with�
married (Catholics) are having righteous sex, but only if for reproduction.
Such fun!
Your list is almost right, but one thing to clarify, it's not "only for reproduction". Merely that it has to be open to the possibility of reproduction - i.e., no contraception. Also note that doesn't mean infertile people can't have sex. It just means the nature of the act itself isn't being deliberately subverted.
Catholics are not puritans and the sensual nature of sex is celebrated as well as the procreative nature.
Lemonsoon
Jun 7, 02:21 PM
I have 12 cells above my roof (loft) that were installed by att in Feb/March. Even since they put those up I am still getting dropped calls EVERYDAY. Lately 3G has also been jumping to EDGE a lot.
I can not stand ATT, this is the last company I want to work with but because of Apple I am forced to. I can not wait to see if I can grab an unlocked iphone 4 from Australia and use it here on another network. I ll even fly to australia to grab on myself. It is not a question of price as I would pay $1000 if the phone and the service was working as I expect. But dropped calls piss me off the most.
I can not stand ATT, this is the last company I want to work with but because of Apple I am forced to. I can not wait to see if I can grab an unlocked iphone 4 from Australia and use it here on another network. I ll even fly to australia to grab on myself. It is not a question of price as I would pay $1000 if the phone and the service was working as I expect. But dropped calls piss me off the most.
coochiekuta
Mar 13, 02:21 PM
surely other forms need to be developed more so their cost can go down but nuclear power i think is very much needed. after an oil spill do you give up on oil? there is risk in most things.
yg17
Mar 24, 07:20 PM
Awww....boo ****ing hoo.
AlligatorBloodz
Apr 9, 07:13 PM
But is it the right content?
The sort of games that will make the iphone a legitimate threat to the competitors' products just aren't coming out in any sort of timely manner, if at all. So the devices will continue to cater to different parts of the market.. But if we want more "proper" games on iOS Apple have a hell of a lot of work to do.. They haven't set up a perfect platform for it yet.
1. Define a proper game. I think there are a lot of proper games on iOS. But I think I get your point. Do you mean hardcore? Halo, elder scrolls, call of duty etc.
2. What do you mean make a legitimate threat? I would bet money there are more iDevices in peoples homes and hands than Nintendo or Sony devices (of similar purposes) I watched a friends kid for a week in January while she was on a business trip. The kid loved his DS to death. For Christmas he got an iPad. He didn't even know where his DS was anymore, it was old news. Plus when apple has enough money to buy either company out, I think that makes them a legitimate threat.
The sort of games that will make the iphone a legitimate threat to the competitors' products just aren't coming out in any sort of timely manner, if at all. So the devices will continue to cater to different parts of the market.. But if we want more "proper" games on iOS Apple have a hell of a lot of work to do.. They haven't set up a perfect platform for it yet.
1. Define a proper game. I think there are a lot of proper games on iOS. But I think I get your point. Do you mean hardcore? Halo, elder scrolls, call of duty etc.
2. What do you mean make a legitimate threat? I would bet money there are more iDevices in peoples homes and hands than Nintendo or Sony devices (of similar purposes) I watched a friends kid for a week in January while she was on a business trip. The kid loved his DS to death. For Christmas he got an iPad. He didn't even know where his DS was anymore, it was old news. Plus when apple has enough money to buy either company out, I think that makes them a legitimate threat.
pdjudd
Oct 7, 04:57 PM
Have you actually READ the link you posted?
Times have changed a bit since then, you know ...
Yes, I have. Several times. Things have changed, but the base premise of the article still applies - Microsoft Got Lucky - there is no way to suggest that Apple can pull that off in this day in age when the world depends too much on Microsoft. The article deals with past actions affecting the present. Its very relevant. Its point is that MS got successful because of how it parlayed successes over time, not because it embraced an "open strategy". They did that years ago. Read the whole thing. Grueber makes a point that still applies today because marketshare in the OS world has changed very little.
Due to Apple's grown popularity (if not ubiquity) it can be safely assumed that quite a few more people would install Mac OS if it were officially supported on non-Mac hardware. A highly significant number of people? Good question. To Apple's benefit? Probably not.
Popularity is irrelevant. Going up against Microsoft is suicide. Period. Their market share is too large and Apple's success is too dependent on hardware sales. Microsoft's objective is to rule the roost. They did that way back in the early 90's and they are too well entrenched to be taken out directly. They are just too big. You are simply conjecturing without any basis in reality. Apple tried the cloning market and it failed because people by in large do not want to undertake the massive pains to go to a completely different platform without somewhat of a safety platform. People want Windows because the stuff they run on depend on it. Thant and competing with Microsoft directly is a folly - going up against MS is going to be very bloody. You have better luck elephant hunting with a pea shooter.
Take a look at any other market that involves hardware and software. The article makes a good point about video games. They are totally incompatible with each other and are very closed systems. They remain successful because they can take one success and transition it to another - like the Mario franchise. MS did the same thing with computers years ago (with the objective of being really lucky thanks to boneheaded decisions by IBM). Apple did not. Of course Apple's objectives were far different back then, but Apple operates differently than MS does.
While Apple could get a few more customers, it just wouldn't last. There is no reason to think that it would or that they could sustain it. Its about making a good choice.
You cannot say that Apple's market strategy would gain them more money from copying MS business strategy, you just can't because they aren't the same. You cannot make a flawed assumption and think that Microsoft got achieved success by doing things the way the market was meant to be. They didn't. Microsoft got real lucky and rode on the coat tails of IBM business mentality and got massive market share because of that - way back in the 80's. That's just how things ended up. Doesn't mean that it works that way all the time and there is no reason to suggest that Apple is gonna want to chance it.
At this point in the game Microsoft has won - Jobs has admitted that years ago. Microsoft makes billions from the business market that by in large has no interest in making a risky and expensive change that going to Mac entails. Microsoft provides a very prediction, safe route that has massive industry support. Apple would have needed this kind of success really early on - but back in that day, they were adopting practices that were fundamentally different.
It doesn't matter that Apple's system is better - the lions share of the market made their choice years ago and that market doesn't tolerate direct competition. In Microsoft's world - they are the only game in town. And I say that the reason is that Apple is still around because they don't encroach into Microsoft's big markets. They don't license their software out to Microsoft's partners, they don't sell office software to PC's. There is a reason - Microsoft is far too big.
Times have changed a bit since then, you know ...
Yes, I have. Several times. Things have changed, but the base premise of the article still applies - Microsoft Got Lucky - there is no way to suggest that Apple can pull that off in this day in age when the world depends too much on Microsoft. The article deals with past actions affecting the present. Its very relevant. Its point is that MS got successful because of how it parlayed successes over time, not because it embraced an "open strategy". They did that years ago. Read the whole thing. Grueber makes a point that still applies today because marketshare in the OS world has changed very little.
Due to Apple's grown popularity (if not ubiquity) it can be safely assumed that quite a few more people would install Mac OS if it were officially supported on non-Mac hardware. A highly significant number of people? Good question. To Apple's benefit? Probably not.
Popularity is irrelevant. Going up against Microsoft is suicide. Period. Their market share is too large and Apple's success is too dependent on hardware sales. Microsoft's objective is to rule the roost. They did that way back in the early 90's and they are too well entrenched to be taken out directly. They are just too big. You are simply conjecturing without any basis in reality. Apple tried the cloning market and it failed because people by in large do not want to undertake the massive pains to go to a completely different platform without somewhat of a safety platform. People want Windows because the stuff they run on depend on it. Thant and competing with Microsoft directly is a folly - going up against MS is going to be very bloody. You have better luck elephant hunting with a pea shooter.
Take a look at any other market that involves hardware and software. The article makes a good point about video games. They are totally incompatible with each other and are very closed systems. They remain successful because they can take one success and transition it to another - like the Mario franchise. MS did the same thing with computers years ago (with the objective of being really lucky thanks to boneheaded decisions by IBM). Apple did not. Of course Apple's objectives were far different back then, but Apple operates differently than MS does.
While Apple could get a few more customers, it just wouldn't last. There is no reason to think that it would or that they could sustain it. Its about making a good choice.
You cannot say that Apple's market strategy would gain them more money from copying MS business strategy, you just can't because they aren't the same. You cannot make a flawed assumption and think that Microsoft got achieved success by doing things the way the market was meant to be. They didn't. Microsoft got real lucky and rode on the coat tails of IBM business mentality and got massive market share because of that - way back in the 80's. That's just how things ended up. Doesn't mean that it works that way all the time and there is no reason to suggest that Apple is gonna want to chance it.
At this point in the game Microsoft has won - Jobs has admitted that years ago. Microsoft makes billions from the business market that by in large has no interest in making a risky and expensive change that going to Mac entails. Microsoft provides a very prediction, safe route that has massive industry support. Apple would have needed this kind of success really early on - but back in that day, they were adopting practices that were fundamentally different.
It doesn't matter that Apple's system is better - the lions share of the market made their choice years ago and that market doesn't tolerate direct competition. In Microsoft's world - they are the only game in town. And I say that the reason is that Apple is still around because they don't encroach into Microsoft's big markets. They don't license their software out to Microsoft's partners, they don't sell office software to PC's. There is a reason - Microsoft is far too big.
SimD
Apr 12, 11:00 PM
I'm out of this thread.
Avid/Final Cut bashing is useless. Both have their place in the industry. Heck, both are sometimes used together...
Same goes for Adobe. It has its uses.
No need to boast about one being better than the other. Coppola's editor uses Final Cut, the Coen Bros use Final Cut, Fincher's editor uses Final Cut. And a **** load of editors use Avid. Is one film better because of the editing software? Not in my eyes.
Anyway, the update looks promising. I'm excited.
Happy editing. Ciao.
Avid/Final Cut bashing is useless. Both have their place in the industry. Heck, both are sometimes used together...
Same goes for Adobe. It has its uses.
No need to boast about one being better than the other. Coppola's editor uses Final Cut, the Coen Bros use Final Cut, Fincher's editor uses Final Cut. And a **** load of editors use Avid. Is one film better because of the editing software? Not in my eyes.
Anyway, the update looks promising. I'm excited.
Happy editing. Ciao.
Edge100
Apr 15, 12:38 PM
I've never understood this. Do you really think there are Catholics in Africa who are saying "I really want to have pre-marital sex/sleep with this prostitute/rape this woman, but oh darn, the Pope says condoms are a sin"? Do you not see why that's a little strange?
This brand of obfuscation, while par for the course, is growing tiresome. The Catholic church has actively discouraged the distribution of condoms, even to couples where one partner is HIV sero-positive, and the other is HIV sero-negative.
What's worse is that the Catholic church has actively discouraged the distribution of condoms to non-married people, with the notion that because the invisible creator of the universe has a distaste for latex, an agonizing death from HIV/AIDS is an appropriate punishment for pre-marital sex.
The Catholic church doesn't care about people; it cares about sex. A group that cared about people would say "You should consider not having sex with multiple partners. However, human nature being what it is, if you do have sex with multiple partners, use a condom so that you don't end up dying from a horrible disease."
THAT would be a reasonable message.
If someone in the church actually lied about the efficacy of condoms, then shame on them, but I don't see what the point would be.
Not just "someone" in the church; we're talking about the Pope here.
I'm sure abstinence-only education doesn't "work" if you define "working" as guaranteeing no one will have sex before marriage then I'm sure you're right. But teaching kids that sex is serious and not a game might have positive effects you're not considering.
I absolutely agree with the last statement. Sex is serious, but not because an invisible god says so; because it is, in reality, serious.
Teach abstinence; but also teach that if you choose not to be abstinent, you should protect yourself. To do the former without the latter is inexcusably stupid.
You misunderstood, but maybe I could have worded it better. A person being raped makes an effort to resist, assuming they are conscious and able to resist. A person willfully having sex isn't going to resist. That passage eliminates the possibility of a person having willful sex and then claiming that they were raped in order to avoid the consequences.
One is actually rape, the other isn't.
No, rape is rape.
But even if I grant you this point, the Bible still instructs us to kill adulterers. Do you support that?
This brand of obfuscation, while par for the course, is growing tiresome. The Catholic church has actively discouraged the distribution of condoms, even to couples where one partner is HIV sero-positive, and the other is HIV sero-negative.
What's worse is that the Catholic church has actively discouraged the distribution of condoms to non-married people, with the notion that because the invisible creator of the universe has a distaste for latex, an agonizing death from HIV/AIDS is an appropriate punishment for pre-marital sex.
The Catholic church doesn't care about people; it cares about sex. A group that cared about people would say "You should consider not having sex with multiple partners. However, human nature being what it is, if you do have sex with multiple partners, use a condom so that you don't end up dying from a horrible disease."
THAT would be a reasonable message.
If someone in the church actually lied about the efficacy of condoms, then shame on them, but I don't see what the point would be.
Not just "someone" in the church; we're talking about the Pope here.
I'm sure abstinence-only education doesn't "work" if you define "working" as guaranteeing no one will have sex before marriage then I'm sure you're right. But teaching kids that sex is serious and not a game might have positive effects you're not considering.
I absolutely agree with the last statement. Sex is serious, but not because an invisible god says so; because it is, in reality, serious.
Teach abstinence; but also teach that if you choose not to be abstinent, you should protect yourself. To do the former without the latter is inexcusably stupid.
You misunderstood, but maybe I could have worded it better. A person being raped makes an effort to resist, assuming they are conscious and able to resist. A person willfully having sex isn't going to resist. That passage eliminates the possibility of a person having willful sex and then claiming that they were raped in order to avoid the consequences.
One is actually rape, the other isn't.
No, rape is rape.
But even if I grant you this point, the Bible still instructs us to kill adulterers. Do you support that?
crees!
Aug 29, 11:46 AM
Greenpeace can suck my left toe.
milozauckerman
Jul 13, 11:16 AM
So Dell has a system with dirt-cheap CPU and that vaunted Dell-"designed" case for under $1000. And you are now expecting to get an Apple-system with kick-ass case and considerably more expensive CPU with just $200 extra?
Well, well, some wicked-awesome case design is what matters most! Is it tough to say that with a straight face?
Isn't this just the wannabe design-snob version of l33t kiddos outfitting their computers with neon and other assorted garbage?
Well, well, some wicked-awesome case design is what matters most! Is it tough to say that with a straight face?
Isn't this just the wannabe design-snob version of l33t kiddos outfitting their computers with neon and other assorted garbage?
Eraserhead
Mar 27, 04:30 PM
But no one here has proved that Nicolosi is an unreliable representative of his field. If someone proves that Nicolosi is mistaken, maybe no one will need to attack him.
Has he published anything in a peer-reviewed scientific journal of high (or even average) standing?
Has he published anything in a peer-reviewed scientific journal of high (or even average) standing?
No comments:
Post a Comment