Le top 10 des fautes d'orthographe qu'on fait tous ! Certains auraient dû écouter la maîtresse à l’école au lieu de faire les cancres au fond de la classe pour amuser la galerie !
Résultat ? Un paquet de fautes d'orthographe récurrentes (et crispantes) qu'on retrouve un peu partout autour de nous. Allez, rien n’est perdu, on vous donne un petit coup de pouce pour ne plus tomber dans le panneau à l'avenir. Fautes d’inattention ou grosses lacunes ? Peu importe, ces erreurs-là il faut se les mettre dans le ciboulot une bonne fois pour toutes ! 1. Savez-vous que l’origine de cette expression est militaire ? Bien entendu, nous ne disons pas que « autant pour moi » n’existe pas. 2. Comment s’y retrouver dans les réseaux M2M ? 1/2. Les réseaux de télécommunications “machine to machine” (M2M) sont des réseaux dédiés à la communication entre objets connectés (IoT pour “Internet of Things”) et les infrastructures Internet (smartphones, serveurs, data-centers, cloud, etc) qui exploitent les données qu’ils génèrent voire les pilotent quand ils sont actifs.
Biologie de la prise de parole – 1/4. Qui n’a jamais eu le trac ?
Quasiment personne ! Du journaliste qui présente le journal télévisé sur TF1 ou France 2 à l’entrepreneur qui pitche sa startup devant des investisseurs en passant par le cadre qui intervient dans une conférence ou l’artiste sur scène. Pourtant, avec de l’expérience, celui-ci s’estompe parfois. Le web abonde de recettes pour vaincre le trac (comme ici). Watch Utopia Online. Go ahead, be sarcastic. “Black Man Given Nation’s Worst Job.”
That was how The Onion famously announced Barack Obama’s election as president in 2008. Rather than a feel-good story trumpeting the historic occasion, the satirical publication sarcastically detailed the economic and political mess Obama would inherit (and be expected to mop up) from his first day in office. It was an unexpected and cheeky inversion of the day’s events played for laughs, that also highlighted the sobering reality the nation still faced even after the momentary celebration was over. Implicit, too, was the worry that the ascendancy of an African-American man to a previously unattainable position of global power might turn out to be a hollow victory. Despite being the lingua franca of the Internet, sarcasm isn’t known as a sophisticated form of wit or a conversational style that wins friends. But new research by Francesca Gino of Harvard Business School, Adam Galinsky, the Vikram S.
Subscribe to the Daily Gazette. Big Surprise: Harvard Study Shows that Sarcasm is Actually Good for You. People who don’t like sarcasm are the best; such confident, agreeable, quick-witted folk.
More impressively, their negative conclusions regarding sarcasm are often founded upon strong analytic frameworks like raw emotion and insecurity, rather than notoriously unreliable approaches like rational observation and the scientific method. See what I did there? According to new research from Harvard Business School, Columbia Business School and INSEAD (“The Business School for the World”), that first paragraph just made you more creative. You’re welcome. Data from a recent study entitled, The Highest Form of Intelligence: Sarcasm Increases Creativity for Both Expressers and Recipients, suggests that the delivery and deciphering of sarcasm offers psychological benefits that have been largely underappreciated and long overlooked. In the study, participants were randomly rotated through simulated conversation tasks that had one of three conditions: neutral (control), sincere, and sarcastic.
The logic of Buddhist philosophy – Graham Priest. Western philosophers have not, on the whole, regarded Buddhist thought with much enthusiasm.
As a colleague once said to me: ‘It’s all just mysticism.’ This attitude is due, in part, to ignorance. But it is also due to incomprehension. When Western philosophers look East, they find things they do not understand – not least the fact that the Asian traditions seem to accept, and even endorse, contradictions. Thus we find the great second-century Buddhist philosopher Nagarjuna saying:The nature of things is to have no nature; it is their non-nature that is their nature. Popular now. Our quantum reality problem – Adrian Kent. In 1909, Ernest Rutherford, Hans Geiger and Ernest Marsden took a piece of radium and used it to fire charged particles at a sheet of gold foil.
They wanted to test the then-dominant theory that atoms were simply clusters of electrons floating in little seas of positive electrical charge (the so-called ‘plum pudding’ model). What came next, said Rutherford, was ‘the most incredible event that has ever happened to me in my life’. Despite the airy thinness of the foil, a small fraction of the particles bounced straight back at the source – a result, Rutherford noted, ‘as incredible as if you fired a 15-inch shell at a piece of tissue paper and it came back and hit you’.
Instead of whooshing straight through the thin soup of electrons that should have been all that hovered in their path, the particles had encountered something solid enough to push back. What is mathematics about? – James Franklin. What is mathematics about?
We know what biology is about; it’s about living things. Or more exactly, the living aspects of living things – the motion of a cat thrown out of a window is a matter for physics, but its physiology is a topic for biology. Oceanography is about oceans; sociology is about human behaviour in the mass long-term; and so on. When all the sciences and their subject matters are laid out, is there any aspect of reality left over for mathematics to be about? That is the basic question in the philosophy of mathematics. People care about the philosophy of mathematics in a way they do not care about, say, the philosophy of accountancy.