The difference being that if that had turned out, it would have been a good thing. The reason that I believe that those who seized power in the Arab Spring will keep power is because they are the same sorts as those they displaced, only more brutal.
I am quite confident that the "Arab Spring" governments will last for a while and will successfully impose their interpretation of Islamic law on the countries in which they have taken power (Egypt and Libya at least, I am less sure of the outcome in Tunisia).
Except that in those cases the failure to live up to hopes was because those who led the revolutions failed to create a governing coalition, whereas the "failure" of the Arab Spring is a result of those who led the revolutions being successful in forming a governing coalition.
The clarity I am looking for is that he is no longer an elected member of the U.S. government and is now being openly paid by the MPAA (as opposed to when he was an elected member of the U.S. government and was being not-so-secretly paid by big bankers to write banking laws).
I'm confused, what does this have to do with the U.S. assistance to the Muslim Brotherhood and other fascistic Islamic groups in overthrowing governments in the Middle East this past year?
Just out of curiosity, roughly how many fifths of a person would you say Arabs are?
That would depend on how many slaves he is voting for. Perhaps you are unaware that it was the slave owners who wanted slaves counted as whole people so that they could use the number of slaves they owned to increase their own political power.
You mean the ones that acted as the catalyst for oppressive Arab governments to be overthrown and replaced by even more oppressive Arab governments? Maybe you didn't find them that interesting, but some of us did.
Putting men on the moon and the A-bomb project were also limited by a need to keep a significant amount of the information secret. The more modern projects you listed had no such constraint. That does not mean that a project done at the time of the Manhattan Project or the Apollo Program could have harnessed more without the constraints of secrecy those had, just that even if those two projects were initiated today they would be unlikely to use more people.
That being said, it will be interesting to see how the tendency of those with power to exert control will interact with the technology that allows both the accumulation and processing of vast amounts of information as well as allowing loosely associated people to coordinate fairly complex actions.
No, everybody is fucked then, because we currently have no replacement for fossil fuels. Unless we can develop practical fusion generators the time of having sufficient energy sources to meet our needs is limited.
As for smelling, they do not smell as much as those people who truly believe that it is stupid to burn fossil fuels. Now most people who say that are hypocrites because if they really believed it they would live differently than they do (for example, they would not be posting on slashdot, as that is a non-essential energy use...energy that should be saved for more important activities).
Unfortunately, they can (although I think the Framers intended to prevent this as well) charge you with something else for the same crime...or, at least, if you are found not guilty of charges in state court for a crime federal prosecutors can still follow up and charge you with a different crime for the same action. I do not know if any prosecutor has yet tried to bring separate charges for the same crime after losing the first case in court.
That reminds me of a vacation my family went on some years back. We lived near Philadelphia, Pa and my siblings and I had sent my parents to Mexico City to visit a cousin earlier that year. We were in Michigan at a "castle" that was celebrating its 150 year anniversary. The tour guide was so impressed by something that was "150 years old!" until my dad mentioned that we were from Philadelphia which had recently celebrated its 300th anniversary, which he followed up with by saying that pales in comparison with the age of the ruins in Mexico City. I kind of felt bad for the guide. It was a very neat building, but what made it interesting was the architecture and the fact that someone from that time period, in that location went to the effort to build such a structure, not its "antiquity".
The kid who was killed had been 29 times by the time he was killed at the age of 16 and had just been released that day on bail for another burglary. May I suggest that the people responsible for his death were the members of the English judicial system who failed to administer sufficient punishment to him to convince him that committing burglary and assault were a bad idea? What reason did Tony Martin have to believe that they would not return and assault him on another occasion?
It seem that Apple has no rights for the iPad brand in China
If this was a case being decided in the U.S. about someone who bought the trademark from a U.S. company, and if statements by other posters here are correct, there is a good chance that Apple would win. According to another poster the Chairman of the company (subsidiary of the parent company) that sold the trademark to Apple was (and is?) the same person of the Chairman of the company (alternate subsidiary of the same parent company) that owned the trademark for use in mainland China. Additionally, yet another poster said that the lawyers for the company that sold the trademark were brought in from the alternate subsidiary that the parent company is now claiming owned the trademark for mainland China. As I said, in U.S. courts those two facts combined with the fact that the documents of sale clearly state that the trademark rights for mainland China were being sold would lead the courts to rule that the trademark rights for mainland China were indeed sold.
Correct, and Proview may have legally sold the rights in mainland China as well even though they are claiming otherwise. Of course given that that would be adjudicated in a Chinese court and Proview is a Chinese (read partially owned by the government and/or politically powerful people) company and Apple is not, it is likely that Apple will lose that case in court, no matter what the actual law says.
Except that the legal counsel signed the paperwork knowing whether or not Taiwan had the authority to sell the China rights. This means that they are unlikely to be able to collect any damages from Apple (even if they can get an injunction telling Apple they can no longer use the Ipad trademark in China).
You have the option on Windows of not running as Administrator. And starting with Vista, if the user gets infected it is only that user profile that is infected (unless they were running as Administrator) and knowledgeable users will not get the entire system infected.
I do not care what his rationale for supporting infanticide is. Infanticide is evil. Any "ethics" which supports infanticide is evil. Therefore Peter Singer's ethics are evil.
So, rather than take advantage of something that would opportunity to get a leg up on the competition and give them a great PR boost, they chose to spend the money to advance the research on bio-fuels so that they could sit on the patent until technology that has no relevance to their core competence makes it obsolete? Yeah, that makes sense from a business perspective. I'm guessing that the guy who made this decision is in his 80s and that's why he doesn't care that someone else might take advantage of the technology they developed in less than 20 years when the patents expire.
One of the things that technological changes since the mid-70s have taught us is that the most efficient organization size and structure changes as technology changes. There are two things that exist in dynamic and as the relationship between them changes, the efficiency point of organizations changes. One of those factors is speed of communication. As we become able to communicate faster over long distances, the most efficient organization tends towards a more centralized, larger organization. However, as we become able to process information faster and more efficiently, a smaller, more distributed organization becomes more efficient. There are probably other factors that affect this dynamic as well.
Right, because neither one of them is capable of learning the lesson of Kodak. Oh, except that both of them have demonstrated a willingness to get into new ventures (for example, BP is heavily invested in wind turbines).
If BP and DuPont hold patents on technology to cost-effectively produce a bio-fuel, those patents will expire. When those patents expire, somebody else can (and will) take those techniques and use them. BP and DuPont will have given up their chance to get a headstart on everybody else. All they do by not using those patents is delay the advent of this new technology a few years. How old are those patents you believe they hold? Also, BP is one of those companies paying a fine (that goes up every year) for not including sufficient bio-fuels in their fuel sales. Finally, why would they give up the value of the PR of being the first company to mass produce bio-fuels? Especially since both of them spend quite a bit of money to be perceived as "green" companies?
If it is cost effective to produce butanol, why would BP and Dupont not be doing so? And making money off of the research they invested in developing the patent (even if tax dollars paid part of that cost).
I doubt it, because there are many people who bathe daily who understand that we currently have no replacement for burning fossil fuels to meet our energy needs. Considering the OWS crowd seems to be anti-fossil fuel and only have a limited experience with bathing, my suspicion is that you have it backwards.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, that would work for me (although it is hardly fair to all the other pricks out there, many of whom are likable in comparison with Dodd).
He, also, received several special loans from various banks.
The difference being that if that had turned out, it would have been a good thing. The reason that I believe that those who seized power in the Arab Spring will keep power is because they are the same sorts as those they displaced, only more brutal.
I am quite confident that the "Arab Spring" governments will last for a while and will successfully impose their interpretation of Islamic law on the countries in which they have taken power (Egypt and Libya at least, I am less sure of the outcome in Tunisia).
Except that in those cases the failure to live up to hopes was because those who led the revolutions failed to create a governing coalition, whereas the "failure" of the Arab Spring is a result of those who led the revolutions being successful in forming a governing coalition.
The clarity I am looking for is that he is no longer an elected member of the U.S. government and is now being openly paid by the MPAA (as opposed to when he was an elected member of the U.S. government and was being not-so-secretly paid by big bankers to write banking laws).
I'm confused, what does this have to do with the U.S. assistance to the Muslim Brotherhood and other fascistic Islamic groups in overthrowing governments in the Middle East this past year?
However, for purposes of clarity, the summary should point out both that he is a former Senator and that he is now CEO of the MPAA.
Just out of curiosity, roughly how many fifths of a person would you say Arabs are?
That would depend on how many slaves he is voting for. Perhaps you are unaware that it was the slave owners who wanted slaves counted as whole people so that they could use the number of slaves they owned to increase their own political power.
You mean the ones that acted as the catalyst for oppressive Arab governments to be overthrown and replaced by even more oppressive Arab governments? Maybe you didn't find them that interesting, but some of us did.
FTFY
Putting men on the moon and the A-bomb project were also limited by a need to keep a significant amount of the information secret. The more modern projects you listed had no such constraint. That does not mean that a project done at the time of the Manhattan Project or the Apollo Program could have harnessed more without the constraints of secrecy those had, just that even if those two projects were initiated today they would be unlikely to use more people.
That being said, it will be interesting to see how the tendency of those with power to exert control will interact with the technology that allows both the accumulation and processing of vast amounts of information as well as allowing loosely associated people to coordinate fairly complex actions.
No, everybody is fucked then, because we currently have no replacement for fossil fuels. Unless we can develop practical fusion generators the time of having sufficient energy sources to meet our needs is limited.
As for smelling, they do not smell as much as those people who truly believe that it is stupid to burn fossil fuels. Now most people who say that are hypocrites because if they really believed it they would live differently than they do (for example, they would not be posting on slashdot, as that is a non-essential energy use...energy that should be saved for more important activities).
Unfortunately, they can (although I think the Framers intended to prevent this as well) charge you with something else for the same crime...or, at least, if you are found not guilty of charges in state court for a crime federal prosecutors can still follow up and charge you with a different crime for the same action. I do not know if any prosecutor has yet tried to bring separate charges for the same crime after losing the first case in court.
That reminds me of a vacation my family went on some years back. We lived near Philadelphia, Pa and my siblings and I had sent my parents to Mexico City to visit a cousin earlier that year. We were in Michigan at a "castle" that was celebrating its 150 year anniversary. The tour guide was so impressed by something that was "150 years old!" until my dad mentioned that we were from Philadelphia which had recently celebrated its 300th anniversary, which he followed up with by saying that pales in comparison with the age of the ruins in Mexico City. I kind of felt bad for the guide. It was a very neat building, but what made it interesting was the architecture and the fact that someone from that time period, in that location went to the effort to build such a structure, not its "antiquity".
The kid who was killed had been 29 times by the time he was killed at the age of 16 and had just been released that day on bail for another burglary. May I suggest that the people responsible for his death were the members of the English judicial system who failed to administer sufficient punishment to him to convince him that committing burglary and assault were a bad idea? What reason did Tony Martin have to believe that they would not return and assault him on another occasion?
It seem that Apple has no rights for the iPad brand in China
If this was a case being decided in the U.S. about someone who bought the trademark from a U.S. company, and if statements by other posters here are correct, there is a good chance that Apple would win. According to another poster the Chairman of the company (subsidiary of the parent company) that sold the trademark to Apple was (and is?) the same person of the Chairman of the company (alternate subsidiary of the same parent company) that owned the trademark for use in mainland China. Additionally, yet another poster said that the lawyers for the company that sold the trademark were brought in from the alternate subsidiary that the parent company is now claiming owned the trademark for mainland China. As I said, in U.S. courts those two facts combined with the fact that the documents of sale clearly state that the trademark rights for mainland China were being sold would lead the courts to rule that the trademark rights for mainland China were indeed sold.
Correct, and Proview may have legally sold the rights in mainland China as well even though they are claiming otherwise. Of course given that that would be adjudicated in a Chinese court and Proview is a Chinese (read partially owned by the government and/or politically powerful people) company and Apple is not, it is likely that Apple will lose that case in court, no matter what the actual law says.
Except that the legal counsel signed the paperwork knowing whether or not Taiwan had the authority to sell the China rights. This means that they are unlikely to be able to collect any damages from Apple (even if they can get an injunction telling Apple they can no longer use the Ipad trademark in China).
You have the option on Windows of not running as Administrator. And starting with Vista, if the user gets infected it is only that user profile that is infected (unless they were running as Administrator) and knowledgeable users will not get the entire system infected.
I do not care what his rationale for supporting infanticide is. Infanticide is evil. Any "ethics" which supports infanticide is evil. Therefore Peter Singer's ethics are evil.
So, rather than take advantage of something that would opportunity to get a leg up on the competition and give them a great PR boost, they chose to spend the money to advance the research on bio-fuels so that they could sit on the patent until technology that has no relevance to their core competence makes it obsolete? Yeah, that makes sense from a business perspective. I'm guessing that the guy who made this decision is in his 80s and that's why he doesn't care that someone else might take advantage of the technology they developed in less than 20 years when the patents expire.
One of the things that technological changes since the mid-70s have taught us is that the most efficient organization size and structure changes as technology changes. There are two things that exist in dynamic and as the relationship between them changes, the efficiency point of organizations changes. One of those factors is speed of communication. As we become able to communicate faster over long distances, the most efficient organization tends towards a more centralized, larger organization. However, as we become able to process information faster and more efficiently, a smaller, more distributed organization becomes more efficient. There are probably other factors that affect this dynamic as well.
Right, because neither one of them is capable of learning the lesson of Kodak. Oh, except that both of them have demonstrated a willingness to get into new ventures (for example, BP is heavily invested in wind turbines).
If BP and DuPont hold patents on technology to cost-effectively produce a bio-fuel, those patents will expire. When those patents expire, somebody else can (and will) take those techniques and use them. BP and DuPont will have given up their chance to get a headstart on everybody else. All they do by not using those patents is delay the advent of this new technology a few years. How old are those patents you believe they hold? Also, BP is one of those companies paying a fine (that goes up every year) for not including sufficient bio-fuels in their fuel sales. Finally, why would they give up the value of the PR of being the first company to mass produce bio-fuels? Especially since both of them spend quite a bit of money to be perceived as "green" companies?
If it is cost effective to produce butanol, why would BP and Dupont not be doing so? And making money off of the research they invested in developing the patent (even if tax dollars paid part of that cost).
I doubt it, because there are many people who bathe daily who understand that we currently have no replacement for burning fossil fuels to meet our energy needs. Considering the OWS crowd seems to be anti-fossil fuel and only have a limited experience with bathing, my suspicion is that you have it backwards.