On the other hand, given a number of inorganic processes can also produce microscopic spherical and tubular shapes, I wouldn't jump to any conclusions.
1638 posts • joined 5 Mar 2007
On the other hand, given a number of inorganic processes can also produce microscopic spherical and tubular shapes, I wouldn't jump to any conclusions.
Hell is a profanity, though not a blasphemy, and by strict definitions not a swear as it doesn't invoke but merely names.
I recall they got a sound thrashing after trying to prove that headers were copyrightable.
Not enough american military hardware involved for him to have any real opinion on it.
I'll drink to that!
Secular means, amongst other things, an event that lasts a long time or that happens, or is celebrated, once within a century (or other long period).
What Apothekar means is that, within the consumer PC space, there is a movement that is at once long-term, highly notable and has nothing to do with relig- wait...
The motivations for the EU were post world war 1, and the solution to preventing war was to make sure that no European nation (or, more accurately, Germany - the EU was proposed by a frenchman, never forget that) could have all the necessary resources to make war. However, in the aftermath of world war 2 most of the justification quickly disappeared, as Europe transformed from a series of fortresses into an open market almost overnight. The EU is late to the game and, on current form, trying to implement a counter-productive solution.
The EU is not like the US. The US constitution specifically states that any powers not granted to the federal government by the constitution are retained by the states or the people which, until relatively recently, meant that the federal government had very little actual power. Strictly speaking it still has very little actual power, but it has arrogated a great deal to itself following the american civil war and the subsequent war powers acts and various inter-war acts that granted it "temporary" power during the world wars. Nevertheless, the states are still able to legislate freely in all areas except foreign affairs and, to a lesser extent, military spending. They can't create legislation that interferes with inter-state commerce, but that doesn't actually prevent much. Meanwhile, federal laws become laws the moment they are signed by the president, without any froo-farah or re-implementation by the states.
In the EU, the situation is quite different. Member-states have very little sovereignty these days. Instead here there is a concept of subsidiarity: When a directive is created in a specific legislative area, that entire area becomes off-limits to member-states, except where the EU specifically allows them to continue legislating. An example is road safety. The EU has created certain directives on road safety in order to harmonise road safety practices across the entire union. The up-shot of that is that member-states are no longer allowed to legislate in that area, with the result that when, several years ago, a proposal was put forward in Parliament to require more and more visible reflective markers on trucks in the UK, it was shot down because that area of legislation was an EU competence.
Were the EU to allow member-states to exercise subsidiarity in that area, it would have included wording to that effect in the directives that had granted it competence over that area of legislation.
Also worth remembering that, unlike US federal legislation, directives (not including technical and regulatory directives) have to be implemented into law by the member-states' own legislatures, which leads to what may be politely referred to as fuck-ups, as amendments and translation issues introduce little caveats and minor but significant differences - and worth remembering, too, that each country has it's own legal system that has to be taken in to account when drafting legislation to implement a directive, which leads to some instances of law that directly conflicts with existing legislation.
Now, of course the issue is a german court, rather than the german legislature. The courts are also rather peculiar. There are no equivalents of the US federal court circuits, nor any direct equivalent of the supreme court, with the closest being the European Court of Justice (and please remember that the European Court of Human Rights is not an EU institution - something I often forget in my rantings). Member-state courts function as both "state" and "federal" courts, but there is a horrible amount of overlap due to the aforementioned subsidiarity and competence issue. If a german court were to rule on a purely german legal issue, it would have no effect outside of germany. If, however, a german court ruled on an issue that had become an EU competence, there is currently no clear measure of where that court's jurisdiction ends. Does it merely rule on the german law implementing the directive, or against the directive itself? Do directives grant german courts jurisdiction over the entire EU when ruling on that particular competence? It hasn't been decided yet
Then the issue becomes, what to do? On one side you'll have people who say "the system must be clarified, streamlined and simplified". They would favour tighter integration and harmonisation, with the EU becoming more of a unitary state. Another side would say "we need to loose, and rationalise", turning the EU into a federal model similar to the United States circa 1880, with very little power residing in the central government. A third group would say "lets call the whole thing off", desiring an admittedly messy divorce and a restoration of national sovereignty, along more holding our own politicians to account. All three would solve the issue of lack of clarity in different ways. I favour the latter, though I'd also be able to live with the second option, but whichever side of the issue you stand on it's pretty clear that the way things are at the moment is a complete and utter mess and that some clarity would go a long way.
There are other arguments too (one being that the EU is largely useless, as the majority of it's activity is to be merely a rather meddlesome middle-man between the member-states and the various ISO committees) but this post is going on far too long.
Merits or otherwise of the EU aside, the question was how did a German court arrive at the conclusion that it had the right to set an injunction across the entire EU, when the EU itself says probably not, not whether such a right would be desirable.
The EU is often said to run on a franco-german motor. They are both equally up to their necks in it: Germany provides the money, political will and organisational skills and France provides the histrionics.
... that's all I got.
Brown, sticky and with a funny smell?
I, er... what? The UI copies what? The iphone? How? The iphone UI is a touch-screen filled with little icons that you can, er, move around a bit. The Android UI is a touch-screen filled with a very flexible and configurable space for widgets, icons and all sorts of things. That counts as "copying"?
The tablet identifies itself as a tablet, the sites response is at fault.
That should be "humble". Stupid tablet.
See this is why they'll never replace the PC. :D
It's worth repeating the observation that there is no such thing as a bubble opinion.
You can have background tasks on most tablets and phones these days, though why anyone would want to use such a limited device as a general purpose computer is beyond me.
Postulate a hypothesis
Generate possible experiments to test the validity of the hypothesis
Run the experiments
Measure the results
Reject or adapt the hypothesis based on the results.
The interesting part is that the results are not actually 100% predictable; a working scientific theory is simply a hypothesis that has not yet met a negative result. This DARPA experiment is entirely scientific, as it is attempting to experimentally verify the hypothetical behaviour of a particular design of craft at extremely high speeds. They've made a prediction of its behaviour based on their hypothesis of how this particular design might behave, and the prediction has... well, failed. But that's good science, as it has provided a large amount of empirical data to refine their hypothesis (in this case, the design of the craft) and update their predictions.
You mentioned prior information. Where did that prior information come from? The only place it can have come from is experimentation, and given that this project is dealing with a field that is still largely hypothetical, they have to make these grand experiments to provide the necessary data to make their predictions with.
They could wear a paramilitary-style uniform and be drawn from the civilian population. They could maintain the peace, enforce the common law and apprehend trouble-makers. I suggest they be called Urban Officials.
@martin owens Assumption? When patents were first created the system worked just fine - it was properly applied, requiring models, actual inventions and not just vague, broad ideas and legalese. Calling historical facts "assumption" either proves you know nothing, or that you're willing to ignore reality when it goes against your argument.
@ac, you obviously didn't read my post. this is an example of why the patent system is broken now, it has no bearing on the *concept* of patents, as ypu are attempting to argue.
A properly applied patent system works. This is not an example of a properly applied patent system, but of a fundamentally broken one. It cannot be used as an example of why patents are wrong, merely as an example of why the current system - which allows patenting of things that are neither obvious, nor novel, nor strictly even "inventions" - is wrong.
She's not left or right, she's the Axis Mundi.
What Mrs Jones (Miss? Ms? I don't know.) fails to understand is that, even if we had a completely private healthcare system, she wouldn't have been able to just waltz in to her doctor's office the day before leaving and demand jabs without providing medical records.
She's actually a very good example of the entitlement mentality that causes so much trouble.
Regular fission turns an appreciable amount of matter into energy in the form of gamma rays, other high-energy electromagnetic radiation and a great deal of heat. The energy that matter is turned in to would be, similarly, gamma rays and other high energy electromagnetic radiation, the difference being that the conversion would be complete.
The current assumption is either that matter and anti-matter were produced in equal proportions during the big bang, but that they quickly segregated from each other, OR that anti-matter isn't quite as stable as matter, so it was less likely to form.
Tempting as it no doubt is to declare this a sign that android is a failure, it is nevertheless the very open nature of the android 'ecosystem' that makes it a success.
This presents a problem. An open system can be exploited, which some seize on as 'proof' that the open system is destined to fail and that the apple walled garden approach is the only viable solution. I don't think it's a binary case.
I lile the open model. I also think there's room for a closed, guaranteed market operating alongside it. A two-tiered approach, where both a walled-off area and an open caveat emptor market exist alongside each other would provide both trusted apps and access to the apps that don't meet specific requirements, but which still provide value, without restricting the owner of the device in ways they don't like.
... how much of the news we get is actually true, and how much is regurgitated bullshit? Given how must news is just re-titled and slightly edited copypasta from press releases - especially government and NGO press releases - it's hard not to believe that there's very little actually done by journalists these days, *except* swallowing and regurgitating bullshit.
But the upside is, we don't need truck nuts.
The definition of free speech, per the US Bll of Rights, runs: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
There's no specific clause that says "as long as it's about things deemed important". Free speech is free speech, there's no iff nor but, it is the freedom to express yourself however you see fit. In the public sphere you have no right to not see anatagonist immature shit. The minute you exercise that particular "right", you impinge on the free expression of another.
This being trivial has no direct bearing on the issues you raised. They are important. However, the fact that this is a silly, trivial little thing is precisely why it is also important. If we let the State begin to take away trivial aspects of a fundamental right, they can salami-slice their way through it until that right is gone.
He's just blowing smoke.
They don't have to rely on the US government for work, they're free to explore alternative possibilities for putting men in space. Retrieving or maintaining satellites, undercutting the current state operators for launching satellites and so forth, but Musk is reportedly keen on sending ships and possibly people to Mars, and presumably many other things that require a man-rated rockiet, but don't require a contract from the US government. If they aren't already working on a bigger goals than the ISS ferry I'll eat my shoes.
In termsof energy, getting fom low orbit to geo is nothing compared to getting to low orbit. Go look at a the old Saturn rockets they used for the moon launch. Over two thirds of that enormous rocket was used for getting into orbit low orbit, the rest was used for getting all the way to the moon. Getting to GEO equivalent from where the ISS is now would need almost nothing compared to that.
Support the Single European Tank!
To attack Murdoch for his alleged involvement in a media backing scandal, they're going to encourage the media to... get involved in another media hacking scandal.
Even with the rebate we pay far more into the EU than we get out of it. We could pay those subsidies directly, why do we need to have it administered by a remote bureaucracy that hasn't had its accounts signed off for the last decade or more?
The EU adds administrative costs and sucks up a load of money that we could use to benefit our own people instead of paying for other countries' failed economic policies.
Computer turn based is not an oxymoron. An oxymoron would be things like a non-computing computer, or a deadly game.
The phrase you're looking for is "I'm a twit who can't stand anything that doesn't fit my very narrowly defined idea of entertainment."
The process necessary to produce tin in reasonable quantities for making tin pots is would also produce far too much pollution, particularly carbon pollution of the worst sort, and the end result is such a terrible, tatty, *regressive* sort of thing with none of the charm of a north african raffia bond clay cooking urn. Tinpots have consequently been banned, but this is a good thing as it will create more job opportunities for the north african raffia makers, and all the associated urn producers, clay miners and so forth, and it provides a much needed boost to our own economy by creating a healthy tin recycling industry. As a result, it would be fair to say that we are a culturally inclusive non-discriminatory environmentally aware non-metallic (or indeed anti-metallic) single unitary source of law, morality, behaviour and sustenance.
"Dictatorship" is so 20th century darling...
The tiny dead hand of government.
Old and boring meme is ol-ALL HAIL THE HYPNOTOAD
The first amendment describes acts that the state absolutely cannot contravene. The constitution is a guarantee of fundamental rights that the state shall not abridge, it has no bearing on the acts of private individuals with each other, as long as both parties understand the agreement they are making.
If anything it would fall under breach of contract and passing off. Apple claims to provide a service. If they are deliberately hamstringing that service for political or social ends then they could be open to legal action.
Linking your phone to a google account is probably what they mean. That would activate your access to various bits and bobs such as the marketplace and their handy information slurping servers.
That sort of activation.
You know why so many cracker types are diagnosed with aspergers? Because it tends to produce cracker types. The combination of high intelligence, obsessive knowledge-seeking and reduced social awareness are classic symptoms of both aspergers and the stereotypical computer nerd. An aspergers brain is thought to have certain structures doubled up, making them highly sensitive to external stimuli, which essentially forces them to retreat into the most controlled environment they can find - one that doesn't have "real" people in it.
However, like adhd and bipolar disorder in the 90s, it's become something of a self-diagnosed "solution" for people who want cover for acting like arsholes on the internet. About half of anon probably self-diagnoses as aspergic when most of them are just pricks. Tough problem to crack, but you can usually tell the fake from the real deal. Aspies are obsessive by nature, as obsessive focus on a single task or subject is the only way they can filter out unwanted stimuli. The way to tell an aspie from a prick on the internet is to observe their behaviour: if they bore easily and constantly move from subject to subject, they probably aren't an aspie.
Bearing in mine much of this is, of course, subjective and based on observations of my wife and associates who have been officially diagnosed with aspergers.
You're right, aviation is not like the trains: it's run cheaply and efficiently, without any need for huge government subsidies to keep it going. And no, a low tax rate is not the same as a subsidy, before you try and make that argument: subsidy requires taking money from one entity and handing it to another. Low or zero tax means the government never gets its hands on it in the first place.
And, as explained, aviation is taxed on the demand - that is, on passengers flown. It's a sales tax rather than a resources tax, which is a much more equitable solution for all involved. If it were taxed on fuel it would simply source fuel where the tax wasn't applied. It can't source passengers were there is no tax, because there aren't any.
They're too busy stamping on our collective heads.
As they say in cliché land, plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
You know how language works, right? Nouns derive rom verbs, verbs derive from nouns, both derive from everything else. It's what language does as it evolves. People coplainin about this are trying to prevent the very thing that made their language what it is in the first place.
Single example from millions: hand. It is a verb (you hand a thing to a person) derived from the noun "hand", that wiggly thing you use to type. I have to hand a handy object, which I shall hand to you using my hand. The type of type I type is typical.
In other words, shut up, you're making yourself look dumb.