Amych, would "we should be able to predict" work as well for you? Because that works better for me.
'Bushwhacked'
Natter 62: The 62nd Natter
Off-topic discussion. Wanna talk about corsets, duct tape, or physics? This is the place. Detailed discussion of any current-season TV must be whitefonted.
I really don't like 15. It's sneaky. (Billytea's reasoning makes much more sense to me than the one given by the quiz.)
Okay, but if the hypothetical future observation of "water" reveals a different chemical composition, then it's not water (as per premise #1), and doesn't apply to the problem.
Debet, nope. "should" and "can" are totally different statements here -- the question is asking for absolute confidence, but common sense and normal English want us to read it as something more like your "should" construction, which incidentally I totally agree with in the real world. Logic gets weird sometimes. But it's absolutely a sneaky question -- Jess is right.
Well, I don't feel so bad getting #15 wrong now. I got the rest right.
Israel says it's willing to discuss with Hamas on the base of the Egyptian truce suggestion!
Well who's going to top THAT for Joe's birthday?
::tacklehugs Miracleman::
Israel says it's willing to discuss with Hamas on the base of the Egyptian truce suggestion!
I feel bad, though, because I didn't get Israel anything for its birthday. Mental note: Send Israel nice fruit basket.
Dude... so that's why he hasn't been working on that transporter.
He's been brokering world peace. Or else slipping roofies into the drinks of high ranking officials.
You say these things as though they are not one and the same.
Happy birthday, MM!
In your honor, I present this Overheard in NY exchange, which I swear I do not identify with at all. Really.
BWAH!!
Thank you, Jessica, for the new tagline.
If we're already asking for blender hands, I think a minor change in the laws of physics would be workable.
Isn't that the basic philosophy of the Stargate writers?