Upon what do you base the statement that Volkswagon would make their own batteries? I was unaware that VW had done any significant battery research. Elon Musk controls the patents on what are currently the best batteries for an electric car.
Elon Musk wants to sell VW batteries. His only real interest in electric cars is in selling batteries. Greater availability and acceptance of electric vehicles means a bigger market for his batteries, and he has very little competition in THAT market.
Um, you do realize that the security company could set the VPN to work in the OTHER direction?
They could set it so that the security system in their client's locations opened a VPN to their network (one suitably firewalled so as to not give the client actual access to anything) rather than connecting via VPN to the client's network.
Except of course for the fact that the 97% number comes from a study of the position on AGW taken by papers on climate in peer reviewed journals, not from a study of the opinions of scientists. In addition, The study in question concluded that any paper which did not explicitly state that it disagreed with AGW supported AGW, even when it was on a topic not related to warming at all.
The FDA defines "sugar" as sucrose ONLY for the purpose of the ingredient list on the label. However, the FDA defines sugar to include all sugars (glucose, fructose, lactose, dextrose, etc) when the label is stating the total amount of "sugar" in the product. It is true that MOST people are too stupid to realize that fructose is scientifically sugar just as much as sucrose is (especially considering that sucrose is fructose chemically bound with glucose).
Technically, any chemical for which the chemical name ends in "ose" is a sugar (that is what that ending MEANS).
It wasn't rammed through, no matter how much spin is spun to portray it that way, the fact is, it was highly debated and discussed over decades. And it was full of compromises and such, and didn't differ greatly from the plans proposed by numerous others.
The Republicans just took political cover and refused to stand up and vote for it, so almost all the Democrats did instead.
Except that, at the last minute, they passed it under reconciliation because Massachusetts elected Scott Brown to the seat that had been held by Ted Kennedy on the platform of being the vote that would block it being passed. The Senate bill did not exactly match the House bill, so the House had to go back and pass it again. I forget the exact shenanigans, but in order to get it passed the House inserted a rider into the bill they voted on that "deemed" part of it as passed without ever voting on that part.
If that is not ramming the bill through, I am not sure what they would have to do for you to consider a bill rammed through (I am guessing that you would only consider a bill rammed through if the Republicans were putting it through).
A couple of points. First, the UN does not have the legal authority to renounce Israel's sovereignty. Second, the only way to impose peace on Palestine/Israel would be to convince both sides that they are willing to accept anything to end the conflict. At this moment, the Israelis have indicated a willingness to accept anything short of losing sovereignty over the bulk of the territory which they are currently considered to be sovereign in order to attain peace.(whether or not they are truly willing to do so is unknown because of the other side). On the other hand, the Arabs have indicated that they are only willing to accept peace on the basis of the dissolution of Israel (with some indications that this would involve the death or expulsion of all Jews, although whether that is genuine or just a posture by some is open to debate. If I was an Israeli, I would be inclined to believe that it was genuine.).
I did not say that no Christian would be pining for the end of the world (as a matter of fact, Christians should be doing so). I said that orthodox Christian theology holds that nothing we do can bring it about. On the other hand, orthodox Muslim theology holds that it is the duty of every Muslim to attempt to bring about the end of the world.
There exist fringe Christians who believe that they can bring about the end of the world, just as there are fringe Muslims who believe that it is not their job to do so. The difference being which group is the fringe.
They are not really the equivalent, since orthodox Christian theology teaches that Armageddon is not something we can bring about. It will happen when it happens (and the times leading up to it will be pretty horrific, so only an idiot would desire to live in them--repeat, this is the perspective of orthodox Christian theology concerning Armageddon). On the other hand, orthodox Muslim theology teaches that it is every Muslim's duty to do whatever he can to bring about Armageddon (although various strains suggest that, if you are not living in the times leading up to Armageddon it is OK to live a peaceful life) and that Armageddon is something which can be hurried.
The number error is significant, but the distinction between the British colonies and the southern U.S. which they became is minor (although it would probably be worth adding a parenthesis mentioning the fact that most were brought before Independence).
More importantly, using the word "workers" signals that these slaves did work that would otherwise need to be done by free labor. It tells you something about the economics of the slave trade.
It is also worth noting that not all workers are slaves and not all slaves are workers (for example, almost all gladiators in ancient Rome were slaves, but we would not normally class gladiators as workers).
They may have been 100% confident, but that was solely their opinion. If they had had the ability to demonstrate the reliability of what they claimed they would have gone through traditional investment channels.
A "complete protein" is one which provides all of the amino acids which the human body is unable to manufacture from other substances. As a general rule (I am unaware of any exceptions, but there may be a very few), foods derived from plants are missing one or more of those amino acids.
Are they publishing it because (1) they have something better, (2) they have figured out a way to beat it and hope we will use it, or (3) they were simply incompetent?
Or, perhaps, they have decided they want to let someone else work out the engineering...then steal the design back.
I see this all the time...basically what this guy is saying is that if someone claims to be a Scotsman, then we must accept that they are a Scotsman...even if they have never been to Scotland and none of their ancestors had been there either.
The Koch bros must be mighty pissed off right about now.
Maybe it'll pop your bubble, but they're probably delighted, given that they have big investments in the rail transport system that's profiting hugely from transporting oil. As someone once said, "If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine."
Which is both true and interesting, since, despite having investments which profit from not building the pipeline, the Koch brothers did lobby for it being built. This is not the first example of where the Koch brothers lobbied against their "interests". They have, overall, followed an investment strategy where they will profit if the U.S. government follows what they claim to believe is best for the country, without being so foolish as to follow an investment strategy where they will be hurt by their preferred policy not being enacted.
That is because Shadowrun is a "dangerous" world where people become "adventurers" or die. D&D is a world where ordinary people live ordinary lives (except for the fact that there is magic and monsters). Average people do not generally become adventurers...but every town of any significant size would have several NPCs of sufficiently high level to put start off PCs in their place rather easily.
If the PCs can get away with raping and pillaging in the local town, that is the DMs fault. If the PCs start to get out of line in that way, it is a simple matter to introduce a group of NPCs sufficiently powerful to put them down.
Perhaps you should look at the rules again, because there are indeed rules for disengaging. It has been a while since I have played 2nd edition, but I am pretty sure that it was in 2nd edition when they first stated that players did not need to kill the monsters to get experience, merely "successfully" emerge from the encounter.
I have been playing D&D for quite some time, even running campaigns. I have never found it necessary to have homebrew rules. I have played in several campaigns where the DM had introduced homebrew rules and generally found those rules to be distractions from the game rather than improvements(although the DMs in those cases were good enough story tellers that it was worth playing anyway).
Slashdot Mirror
Upon what do you base the statement that Volkswagon would make their own batteries? I was unaware that VW had done any significant battery research. Elon Musk controls the patents on what are currently the best batteries for an electric car.
Elon Musk wants to sell VW batteries. His only real interest in electric cars is in selling batteries. Greater availability and acceptance of electric vehicles means a bigger market for his batteries, and he has very little competition in THAT market.
Um, you do realize that the security company could set the VPN to work in the OTHER direction?
They could set it so that the security system in their client's locations opened a VPN to their network (one suitably firewalled so as to not give the client actual access to anything) rather than connecting via VPN to the client's network.
You have just given the title of the next IT management best seller.
Except of course for the fact that the 97% number comes from a study of the position on AGW taken by papers on climate in peer reviewed journals, not from a study of the opinions of scientists. In addition, The study in question concluded that any paper which did not explicitly state that it disagreed with AGW supported AGW, even when it was on a topic not related to warming at all.
I always thought that Foster's is Australian for Budweiser with less taste (which is actually an improvement because the missing taste is foul.
The FDA defines "sugar" as sucrose ONLY for the purpose of the ingredient list on the label. However, the FDA defines sugar to include all sugars (glucose, fructose, lactose, dextrose, etc) when the label is stating the total amount of "sugar" in the product. It is true that MOST people are too stupid to realize that fructose is scientifically sugar just as much as sucrose is (especially considering that sucrose is fructose chemically bound with glucose). Technically, any chemical for which the chemical name ends in "ose" is a sugar (that is what that ending MEANS).
It wasn't rammed through, no matter how much spin is spun to portray it that way, the fact is, it was highly debated and discussed over decades. And it was full of compromises and such, and didn't differ greatly from the plans proposed by numerous others. The Republicans just took political cover and refused to stand up and vote for it, so almost all the Democrats did instead.
Except that, at the last minute, they passed it under reconciliation because Massachusetts elected Scott Brown to the seat that had been held by Ted Kennedy on the platform of being the vote that would block it being passed. The Senate bill did not exactly match the House bill, so the House had to go back and pass it again. I forget the exact shenanigans, but in order to get it passed the House inserted a rider into the bill they voted on that "deemed" part of it as passed without ever voting on that part.
If that is not ramming the bill through, I am not sure what they would have to do for you to consider a bill rammed through (I am guessing that you would only consider a bill rammed through if the Republicans were putting it through).
A couple of points. First, the UN does not have the legal authority to renounce Israel's sovereignty. Second, the only way to impose peace on Palestine/Israel would be to convince both sides that they are willing to accept anything to end the conflict. At this moment, the Israelis have indicated a willingness to accept anything short of losing sovereignty over the bulk of the territory which they are currently considered to be sovereign in order to attain peace.(whether or not they are truly willing to do so is unknown because of the other side). On the other hand, the Arabs have indicated that they are only willing to accept peace on the basis of the dissolution of Israel (with some indications that this would involve the death or expulsion of all Jews, although whether that is genuine or just a posture by some is open to debate. If I was an Israeli, I would be inclined to believe that it was genuine.).
Unless humanity leaves the prison planet we will all die.
I have news for you, even if humanity leaves this planet, we will all die.
I did not say that no Christian would be pining for the end of the world (as a matter of fact, Christians should be doing so). I said that orthodox Christian theology holds that nothing we do can bring it about. On the other hand, orthodox Muslim theology holds that it is the duty of every Muslim to attempt to bring about the end of the world.
There exist fringe Christians who believe that they can bring about the end of the world, just as there are fringe Muslims who believe that it is not their job to do so. The difference being which group is the fringe.
They are not really the equivalent, since orthodox Christian theology teaches that Armageddon is not something we can bring about. It will happen when it happens (and the times leading up to it will be pretty horrific, so only an idiot would desire to live in them--repeat, this is the perspective of orthodox Christian theology concerning Armageddon). On the other hand, orthodox Muslim theology teaches that it is every Muslim's duty to do whatever he can to bring about Armageddon (although various strains suggest that, if you are not living in the times leading up to Armageddon it is OK to live a peaceful life) and that Armageddon is something which can be hurried.
The number error is significant, but the distinction between the British colonies and the southern U.S. which they became is minor (although it would probably be worth adding a parenthesis mentioning the fact that most were brought before Independence).
More importantly, using the word "workers" signals that these slaves did work that would otherwise need to be done by free labor. It tells you something about the economics of the slave trade.
It is also worth noting that not all workers are slaves and not all slaves are workers (for example, almost all gladiators in ancient Rome were slaves, but we would not normally class gladiators as workers).
They may have been 100% confident, but that was solely their opinion. If they had had the ability to demonstrate the reliability of what they claimed they would have gone through traditional investment channels.
A "complete protein" is one which provides all of the amino acids which the human body is unable to manufacture from other substances. As a general rule (I am unaware of any exceptions, but there may be a very few), foods derived from plants are missing one or more of those amino acids.
Are they publishing it because (1) they have something better, (2) they have figured out a way to beat it and hope we will use it, or (3) they were simply incompetent?
Or, perhaps, they have decided they want to let someone else work out the engineering...then steal the design back.
I see this all the time...basically what this guy is saying is that if someone claims to be a Scotsman, then we must accept that they are a Scotsman...even if they have never been to Scotland and none of their ancestors had been there either.
What government entity can possibly claim jurisdiction over asteroids or any other object in space?
The government entity with the ability to enforce that jurisdiction claim...the same as for any place here on earth.
Because the UN does not actually have the authority, as part of its charter, to actually pass anything binding concerning this.
Yes, because this is what results from those "unions and employment protections".
The Koch bros must be mighty pissed off right about now.
Maybe it'll pop your bubble, but they're probably delighted, given that they have big investments in the rail transport system that's profiting hugely from transporting oil. As someone once said, "If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine."
Which is both true and interesting, since, despite having investments which profit from not building the pipeline, the Koch brothers did lobby for it being built. This is not the first example of where the Koch brothers lobbied against their "interests". They have, overall, followed an investment strategy where they will profit if the U.S. government follows what they claim to believe is best for the country, without being so foolish as to follow an investment strategy where they will be hurt by their preferred policy not being enacted.
No, he is not retarded, but a couple of his cronies own big pieces of the railroads which are transporting that oil.
That is because Shadowrun is a "dangerous" world where people become "adventurers" or die. D&D is a world where ordinary people live ordinary lives (except for the fact that there is magic and monsters). Average people do not generally become adventurers...but every town of any significant size would have several NPCs of sufficiently high level to put start off PCs in their place rather easily. If the PCs can get away with raping and pillaging in the local town, that is the DMs fault. If the PCs start to get out of line in that way, it is a simple matter to introduce a group of NPCs sufficiently powerful to put them down.
Perhaps you should look at the rules again, because there are indeed rules for disengaging. It has been a while since I have played 2nd edition, but I am pretty sure that it was in 2nd edition when they first stated that players did not need to kill the monsters to get experience, merely "successfully" emerge from the encounter.
I have been playing D&D for quite some time, even running campaigns. I have never found it necessary to have homebrew rules. I have played in several campaigns where the DM had introduced homebrew rules and generally found those rules to be distractions from the game rather than improvements(although the DMs in those cases were good enough story tellers that it was worth playing anyway).