reasoning

I learned to think outside the box, and the power of reasoning and discussion. All the credit in the world to my teacher for having an open mind.

He cited his values and reasoning for doing so. He took care to make sure his work wouldn't damage their physical resources or break the letter of the law.

I have a similar conclusion but slightly different reasoning. And I want to defend liberal arts majors a bit, since I'm one of them.

It did not validate the Federal Circuit's reasoning or analysis. It did not weigh in against patent trolls.

Read what we're doing to improve the security of accessible encryption and our reasoning for publishing these audits. I'll be grateful for you taking the time to read on what we're doing and I am more than happy to discuss with you and answer your questions.

That is, at best, negligently poor reasoning. At worst, it's a contemptuous disrespect for the other party you're engaging in business with, which is pretty good grounds for them exercising their option to terminate that business relationship.

One of them proceeded to tell me that this can't possibly work, backing up his argument with "reasoning" based on off-the-cuff remarks about the way air and physics "must" work. The fact that Intel had actually done this seemed to have no effect on his eagerness to continue the "debate" about this scientific fact.

The kinds of logic, planning and reasoning skills, plus the attention to detail required to be even a half-assed developer, can be extremely valuable in other fields. Lots of developers go into Systems security, Business Analysis, Hardware, etc.

It's an unfortunate thing that happened where the reasoning wasn't relayed entirely in commit messages, and you're right -- it was dropped in a seemingly unrelated commit. But that's after intentions changed -- a broken port to new tech with the intention to fix it, then that changed, and thus it got dropped under the guise of "Remove dead code" me: fair enough.

I agree with you guys, I just think the reasoning and rationale should be taken in the context of current nutrition research and not some demagogue's book that is obsessed with a dietary aesthetic rather than data.

Management's stated reasoning goes something like: * It's silly to force users to have separate accounts for\n Google services because most users would prefer to have\n Gmail, Docs/Drive, YouTube, Calendar, and so on under the\n same account/identity. \n\n * Users who want to have separate public identities will\n create pseudonymous "Pages" for each of their identities.

The rest of the article explains the author's psychopathy the way the author wants you to view it: As "a highly trained perception, ability to adapt, and a lack of judgment borne of pragmatic and flexible moral reasoning." He goes on to say that he "enjoy[s] a reputation of being someone of intense understanding and observation with a keen strategic instinct."

They almost invariably consist of reasoning I disagree and conclusions I disagree with in support of user interface decisions that make my experience as a user worse. Ubuntu Unity is pretty much an anthology of user interface decisions that are exactly wrong by my perception, and "lets get rid of quit" is just another one.

Yet, while doing just that and limiting his ruling to the particular facts before him, Judge Alsup has provided a definitive and logically compelling approach to how such issues are to be decided where they concern APIs and copyright and such reasoning is, in my view, destined to be widely applied throughout the court system going forward. Lower court rulings can have a powerful impact through the sheer force of their reasoning.

This is a soundly reasoned decision that is a highlight of modern law not so much because of any deep legal reasoning as such but because it profoundly captures and applies the spirit of the law in ways that comport with modern technological advancement. The decision protects innovators such as Google while upholding in every fundamental the legitimate interests of copyright holders.

Taking that line of reasoning to its conclusion, there can only be one worst thing that happened to someone in the history of the world, and every other person's problems pale in comparison and are therefore inconsequential and should be brushed off as first-world problems.

-When discussing something with some one there are occasions when I'm genuinely curious as to why they have a certain line of reasoning. I want to ask "why do you think that?" but it always comes off condescending. This is especially true when perhaps we are discussing a problem and I know the solution and they do not. I want to know what the reasoning behind their solution is rather than just telling them it's wrong or what the correct solution is--however when trying to ask them their reasoning I can't come up with a way to do it without sounding condescending.