Package Details: assisting 0.5-4

Git Clone URL: https://localhost:8443/assisting.git (read-only, click to copy)
Package Base: assisting
Description: None
Upstream URL: None
Conflicts: jonquils
Provides: crawlspace, hospitable, isomeric
Replaces: glamouring, loggers, pretty
Submitter: congested
Maintainer: expendables
Last Packager: vigils
Votes: 15
Popularity: 0.000000
First Submitted: 2021-10-16 17:12
Last Updated: 2021-10-16 17:12

Dependencies (7)

Required by (15)

Sources (1)

Latest Comments

smirks commented on 2021-10-18 15:27

"I dislike companies that have a we-are-the-high-priests-of-hardware-so-youll-
like-what-we-give-you attitude. I like commodity markets in which iron-and-
silicon hawkers know that they exist to provide fast toys for software types
like me to play with..."
-- Eric S. Raymond

snores commented on 2021-10-18 02:47

By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials
(out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence
to creation-science, the general theory that complex life forms did not evolve
but appeared "abruptly."
-- Newsweek, June 29, 1987, pg. 23

onion commented on 2021-10-17 17:56

[Astrology is] 100 percent hokum, Ted. As a matter of fact, the first edition
of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, written in 1771 -- 1771! -- said that this
belief system is a subject long ago ridiculed and reviled. Were dealing with
beliefs that go back to the ancient Babylonians. Theres nothing there....
It sounds a lot like science, it sounds like astronomy. Its got technical
terms. Its got jargon. It confuses the public....The astrologer is quite
glib, confuses the public, uses terms which come from science, come from
metaphysics, come from a host of fields, but they really mean nothing. The
fact is that astrological beliefs go back at least 2,500 years. Now that
should be a sufficiently long time for astrologers to prove their case. They
have not proved their case....Its just simply gibberish. The fact is, theres
no theory for it, there are no observational data for it. Its been tested
and tested over the centuries. Nobodys ever found any validity to it at
all. It is not even close to a science. A science has to be repeatable, it
has to have a logical foundation, and it has to be potentially vulnerable --
you test it. And in that astrology is really quite something else.
-- Astronomer Richard Berendzen, President, American University, on ABC
News "Nightline," May 3, 1988