The problem here is that any argument (I hesitate to call it debate or even discussion) involving evolution vs creation is that it immediately degrades into an "us" vs "them" fight.
Well, yes, humans have an instinct to be tribal, and humans may act in a tribal way around any social disagreement that is large enough to partition society.
Modern science is built around the idea that you can never actually prove a theory, only disprove it and build a better theory. When you stop trying to disprove your models and accept them as truth, you stop being a scientist and step into the realm of faith.
Here you seem to be adopting the standard anti-science argument - that since "science can't prove anything", then we should accept all hypothesis as equally valid. And that is the problem. All hypotheses are not equally valid. The entire fields of modern genetics and molecular biology is built around the theory of evolution. The evidence for evolution is so strong that it is literally inconceivable to people who are educated in these fields that people outside the field could dismiss it. And let's be clear: the dismissals of evolution are not scientific - they do not propose an alternative testable hypothesis, they just wave their hands in the air and claim that a mystical magical man did it. That is not science. That is why scientists and other educated people dismiss it. It is not scientists who have adopted their models as absolute truth, it those who have rejected science who claim that they have the absolute truth - the mystical magical man. Come to think of it, I've actually never, ever, met a creationist who would even admit that they might be wrong. And that says it all, really.
There are also plenty of creationists who will firmly state that individual species don't change and adapt: God created all animals to be the way that they are, forever. Inconveniently for them, we have observed speciation happening.
This is possibly one of the most useless quotes ever. Does it take zero time to build and deploy a solution on Windows? No. Does it take zero time to build and deploy a solution on any other platform? No. Building and deploying a solution on any platform takes time. So what is the point of this quote? If it is to state that building and deploying software takes time, then it is stating the obvious, and needlessly singles out one platform, when the principle applies to all. If the point of the quote is to suggest that Linux based solutions require more time than those of other systems, then the evidence suggests otherwise, as studies have shown that the average Linux admin is able to support a greater number of servers than a similarly qualified Windows admin.
Linux is free. You can download it for free. You can run it on as many servers, with as many CPUs and users as you want, and you don't have to pay anything to anybody. That is what free (in this context) means: "Free: Without cost or payment." Nobody ever claimed that by choosing Linux you would have no work to do - that somehow, amazingly, your servers and systems would get built and deployed by magical Linux elves, who do your job for free. It's an absolute strawman argument.
From the first article regarding the relative size of human impacts, this quote (and it is in context)
No, it isn't in context. The full quote is:
Ice cores show that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have remained between 180 and 300 parts per million for the past half-a-million years. In recent centuries, however, CO2 levels have risen sharply, to at least 380 ppm
So what's going on? It is true that human emissions of CO2 are small compared with natural sources. But the fact that CO2 levels have remained steady until very recently shows that natural emissions are usually balanced by natural absorptions. Now slightly more CO2 must be entering the atmosphere than is being soaked up by carbon "sinks".
Context bolded for clarity. It is clear what they are referring to in your quote: being bounded for 500,000 years and rising sharply beyond those bounds in only a few hundred years. This is only two sentences before your quote. It's difficult to miss.
The article about doing something about climate change is the usual destroy the economy stuff.
The article suggests political deals involving finance and technology transfer to encourage the developing world to adopt low-carbon industry. They point out that this approach has already been successful in dealing with ozone layer depletion. Nowhere do they mention destroying the economy.
Given that the article does not differentiate between human caused climate change and natural climate change gives one pause.
"Where water is a limiting factor, all plants could benefit."
and
"These experiments suggest that higher CO2 levels could boost the yields of non-C4 crops by around 13 per cent."
Again, this quote is out of context. If you continued the quote only one paragraph further you see:
The regional climate changes that higher CO2 will bring, and their effect on these limiting factors on plant growth, such as water, also have to be taken into account. These indirect effects are likely to have a much larger impact than CO2 fertilisation.
For instance, while higher temperatures will boost plant growth in cooler regions, in the tropics they may actually impede growth. A two-decade study of rainforest plots in Panama and Malaysia recently concluded that local temperature rises of more than 1C have reduced tree growth by 50 per cent
and
What's more, even if plant growth does rise overall, the direct and indirect effects of higher CO2 levels will be disastrous for biodiversity. Between 20 to 30% of plant and animal species face extinction by the end of the century, according to the IPCC report.
Growth reduced by 50% in some areas and a collapse in biodiversity: these are part of the "context" of the article. You can't just pick two sentences out of an entire article and then claim that the quotes are "in context". You are missing the entire context: the rest of the article.
Water stores an immense amount of heat compared with air. It takes more than 1000 times as much energy to heat a cubic metre of water by 1 degree Celsius as it does the same volume of air. Since the 1960s, over 90% of the excess heat due to higher greenhouse gas levels has gone into the oceans, and just 3% into warming the atmosphere (see figure 5.4 in the IPCC report (PDF)).
Globally, this means that if the oceans soak up a bit more heat energy than normal, surface air temperatures can fall even though the total heat content of the planet is rising.
I'm just not convinced that 1) humans are making a measurable effect on the climate
You can believe whatever you want, but at least admit that your approach is completely unscientific. Here's how science works:
1. Observe some data.
2. Note error between existing accepted model and observed data.
3. Propose new model that explains the observed data with lower error.
4. New model becomes accepted.
5. Goto step 1.
We have a model (increase of CO2) that explains the observed temperature increase and is accepted by the vast majority of climatologists and scientists in general. If you want to propose a new model that discounts CO2 levels as driving the observed temperature increase, then you have to explain not only where the temperature increase is coming from, but also your model needs to fit the observed data better than the existing one. You also have to explain why the observed increase in CO2 - a known greenhouse gas - isn't causing the expected increase in temperature that it should be causing. Waving your hands in the air and saying "I just don't believe it" is not an option.
As for your other points, they have been refuted many times over:
Proofs are for mathematicians. You can't make a "proof" that we aren't living in some Matrix-style virtual world, where the climate is controlled by The Architect. What scientists can do, however, is to establish the most likely hypothesis to explain some observed data, and provide error bars for acceptance of said hypothesis. And that's pretty important.
Warmer temperatures cause greater evaporation and greater precipitation. Period.... anybody who is predicting more droughts, on average, due to warmer temperatures is -- ahem -- all wet.
Not really, because as you point out changes are regional in scope. That means that it is possible for some regions to get hotter, some colder, some wetter, some drier. If the regions that already have a large rainfall get a lot more rain (enough to significantly increase the global average), and regions that are on the drought boundary get slightly less rain, then the number of droughts will increase, even though the global average rainfall has also increased. I'm not saying that is what will or won't happen, but logically the two outcomes of "greater global rainfall" and "increased drought" are not mutually exclusive.
The manufacturer says they are: "Working in close cooperation with the Department of Defense, Vanguard is responding to the needs of today’s warfighter to field an unmatched UAS. Available to DoD components are the MK III-T, MK IV-T, MK III-P and MK IV-P. These aircraft offer not only extended ISR capabilities but all four variants can be weaponized with select payloads to include but not limited to 40mm grenade launchers, full and semi-automatic small arms, as well as a multitude of SIGINT collection units." - Vanguard Defense.
"Weaponizable" just means that you can add a weapon, not that the vehicle has one. Police departments already have plenty of "weaponizable" things, you can add rocket launchers to patrol car
In the context of military procurement, "weaponizable" means that the equipment has been specifically designed to enable weapons to be added relatively quickly and easily in a modular way. It does not mean "this thing is hypothetically capable of attaching weapons if you are the A-Team", because as you point out everything is "hypothetically weaponizable" if you are willing to modify it. To counter your example, patrol cars would not be described as "weaponizable" procurement items unless they had specific features that made them so, such as reinforced chassis mount points that had been designed for attaching and firing artillery.
For a true army in every sense of the word, where 50 caliber pistols are considered the low end, you have to exceed, or at least match the firepower, and that is where these come in.
The smart thing is to cool the situation down rather than escalate it. Reduce the money flowing to the cartels, and you reduce their power. History has shown that increasing the amount of firepower that the state uses, to the point of using the military against the people, seldom works. Extreme violence is only a symptom of the Mexico problem, not the cause. Solving the problem will require adopting new political policies that reflect the underlying social reality. Unfortunately politicians have shown that they are unable or unwilling to do this. When what you are doing is not working, then you should do something else: "Insanity is when you keep doing the same things expecting different results"
There is no such thing as a free phone. The phone is supplied as part of a legally binding credit contract. The cost of the phone is incorporated into a monthly payment on that agreement.
Possibly on Android. Remote DOS attack. No code execution. Attacker needs to be able to get the kernel to query his DNS server which sends an invalid response.
CVE-2011-1776
Not on Android (Android does not support EFI). Not remote. Requires physical access.
CVE-2011-2723... CVE-2011-1576
Not on Android (Android does not support Generic Receive Offload).
any memory corruption bug is potentially an arbitrary code execution vulnerability
Many memory corruption bugs do not enable arbitrary code execution. That is why the impact is classified as "DOS attack" or similar rather than "remote code execution".
That's four that I found in the Linux kernel (not counting any userland stuff) just by looking at the last couple of months of NVD logs. I'm sure you can find more if you check a whole year, let alone the lifetime of a mobile phone.
Only one of your examples would affect Android, and it is a DOS, not remote code exploit, that is unlikely to be exploited in the real world. Obviously it should be (and has been) fixed, but it is hardly a threat to the legions of Android phones in the wild.
As of yet, not one single iPhone has been sold that has not been supported for the entire 2-year contract.
Not true. The iPhone 3G was being sold internationally until superceded by the 3GS in June-August 2009. The last 3G update was November 2010. That's 15 to 17 months of updates for people who bought in the month before the 3GS was released. If they bought on a 24 month contract they were out of luck.
iPhone 3GS: "It was released in the U.S., Canada and six European countries on June 19, 2009,[3] in Australia and Japan on June 26, and internationally in July and August 2009."
iPhone 3G: "The last release of iOS to support the 3G was 4.2.1, which was released on November 22, 2010."
Are you sure? It's a pretty long [wikipedia.org] list.
That is a list of "military operations". Military operations are not the same thing as a "war". If you want a list of wars, grep for "war" in this list. Also note that "war" has a legally recognised status in international law. A war ends when one side is defeated, one side surrenders, or both sides sign a peace treaty. None of those apply to North Korea.
The thing is, not only has the provider already implemented a system for filtering out illegal fish, they have also bragged about it in public. So turning around now and saying that they can't do it means either they are lying about blocking child porn sites, or they are lying about not being able to block newzbin. It's was a bit disingenuous to say that they can do one but not the other, and I'm not surprised the judge decided they were full of it.
Bad news for you: Copyright has been included in the law since the founding of the country. There has been no major movement to remove it (AFAIK) in the 200+ year history of this country.
That doesn't mean it won't happen. There was no major movement to let ethnic minorities vote since the founding of the country until the 1960s, but then there was a movement, and things changed. Until the rise of the internet, we never had tens of millions of people who disregarded copyright laws on a daily basis. Now, we do. The nation needs to adapt to either 1) build more prisons and put those millions of people behind bars, or 2) don't enforce non-commercial copyright infringement. Despite official efforts to the contrary, we seem to be heading towards 2. (btw I disregard choice 3 - blocking technology - as unworkable.)
I'm sure the MPAA would be happy to pay for the cost of a block list. But that isn't even necessary - BT has already implemented Cleanfeed for handling the IWF blocklist, which is updated every day. There are lots of problems with BT's internet filtering, but the cost of adding a URL to the system isn't one of them.
What if they change name? Or country? Or whatever?
Do that judge understand the meaning of this sentence?
Yes, the arguments have been thoroughly discussed in court. It is pretty clear that the judge means "block newzbin at any address it moves to", and that what future judges in future courts cases are going to understand the judgement as.
And is it possible in the UK to head a bill in the name of someone because of a judge rule
Your English does not make sense here. If you are asking whether judges can determine law, then yes, of course, that is one of their primary functions - to determine how the written laws are to be applied to real court cases.
To accommodate all the variety of our environment, we've evolved many degrees of freedom in our foot, ankle, pelvis, etc. So, if we want a robot that can do the same degrees of tasks as us, we need to add back those degrees of freedom to this robot, which in turn will make it fall over, thus defeating its purpose.
The point of the robot is to develop low-energy gaits similar to those that humans use. They can add the extra stuff back in and still maintain the same gaits. Why would it fall over? We don't.
What on earth does solar have to do with their reliance on oil? Those are two very different segments of the energy industry (transportation and electricity distribution).
You are correct in that oil is unique in being used as the dominant transportation fuel, but the relationship is more complex than that. Cost of all energy production tracks global cost of oil. There are various reasons for this, including supply and demand, and competitive demand-side price link since they compete in the same market for electricity generation. This is why when the global oil price rises consumer gas and electric prices rise. In energy market, solar prices also rise and will tend to track oil. But expansion of solar capacity should decrease the correlation with oil cost, and provide a way to anchor energy costs from oil shocks. At least, that is the theory.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem here is that any argument (I hesitate to call it debate or even discussion) involving evolution vs creation is that it immediately degrades into an "us" vs "them" fight.
Well, yes, humans have an instinct to be tribal, and humans may act in a tribal way around any social disagreement that is large enough to partition society.
Modern science is built around the idea that you can never actually prove a theory, only disprove it and build a better theory. When you stop trying to disprove your models and accept them as truth, you stop being a scientist and step into the realm of faith.
Here you seem to be adopting the standard anti-science argument - that since "science can't prove anything", then we should accept all hypothesis as equally valid. And that is the problem. All hypotheses are not equally valid. The entire fields of modern genetics and molecular biology is built around the theory of evolution. The evidence for evolution is so strong that it is literally inconceivable to people who are educated in these fields that people outside the field could dismiss it. And let's be clear: the dismissals of evolution are not scientific - they do not propose an alternative testable hypothesis, they just wave their hands in the air and claim that a mystical magical man did it. That is not science. That is why scientists and other educated people dismiss it. It is not scientists who have adopted their models as absolute truth, it those who have rejected science who claim that they have the absolute truth - the mystical magical man. Come to think of it, I've actually never, ever, met a creationist who would even admit that they might be wrong. And that says it all, really.
There are also plenty of creationists who will firmly state that individual species don't change and adapt: God created all animals to be the way that they are, forever. Inconveniently for them, we have observed speciation happening.
"Linux is free if your time is worthless".
This is possibly one of the most useless quotes ever. Does it take zero time to build and deploy a solution on Windows? No. Does it take zero time to build and deploy a solution on any other platform? No. Building and deploying a solution on any platform takes time. So what is the point of this quote? If it is to state that building and deploying software takes time, then it is stating the obvious, and needlessly singles out one platform, when the principle applies to all. If the point of the quote is to suggest that Linux based solutions require more time than those of other systems, then the evidence suggests otherwise, as studies have shown that the average Linux admin is able to support a greater number of servers than a similarly qualified Windows admin.
Linux is free. You can download it for free. You can run it on as many servers, with as many CPUs and users as you want, and you don't have to pay anything to anybody. That is what free (in this context) means: "Free: Without cost or payment." Nobody ever claimed that by choosing Linux you would have no work to do - that somehow, amazingly, your servers and systems would get built and deployed by magical Linux elves, who do your job for free. It's an absolute strawman argument.
From the first article regarding the relative size of human impacts, this quote (and it is in context)
No, it isn't in context. The full quote is:
Ice cores show that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have remained between 180 and 300 parts per million for the past half-a-million years. In recent centuries, however, CO2 levels have risen sharply, to at least 380 ppm So what's going on? It is true that human emissions of CO2 are small compared with natural sources. But the fact that CO2 levels have remained steady until very recently shows that natural emissions are usually balanced by natural absorptions. Now slightly more CO2 must be entering the atmosphere than is being soaked up by carbon "sinks".
Context bolded for clarity. It is clear what they are referring to in your quote: being bounded for 500,000 years and rising sharply beyond those bounds in only a few hundred years. This is only two sentences before your quote. It's difficult to miss.
The article about doing something about climate change is the usual destroy the economy stuff.
The article suggests political deals involving finance and technology transfer to encourage the developing world to adopt low-carbon industry. They point out that this approach has already been successful in dealing with ozone layer depletion. Nowhere do they mention destroying the economy.
Given that the article does not differentiate between human caused climate change and natural climate change gives one pause.
It differentiates between historic climate change (ice ages/hothouse earth), climate change caused by the Sun and Milankovitch cycles, co2 from human and natural activities (including volcanoes), the Little Ice Age, and the Medieval Warm Period. What "natural change" skeptic arguments did they miss?
"Where water is a limiting factor, all plants could benefit." and "These experiments suggest that higher CO2 levels could boost the yields of non-C4 crops by around 13 per cent."
Again, this quote is out of context. If you continued the quote only one paragraph further you see:
The regional climate changes that higher CO2 will bring, and their effect on these limiting factors on plant growth, such as water, also have to be taken into account. These indirect effects are likely to have a much larger impact than CO2 fertilisation. For instance, while higher temperatures will boost plant growth in cooler regions, in the tropics they may actually impede growth. A two-decade study of rainforest plots in Panama and Malaysia recently concluded that local temperature rises of more than 1C have reduced tree growth by 50 per cent
and
What's more, even if plant growth does rise overall, the direct and indirect effects of higher CO2 levels will be disastrous for biodiversity. Between 20 to 30% of plant and animal species face extinction by the end of the century, according to the IPCC report.
Growth reduced by 50% in some areas and a collapse in biodiversity: these are part of the "context" of the article. You can't just pick two sentences out of an entire article and then claim that the quotes are "in context". You are missing the entire context: the rest of the article.
Water stores an immense amount of heat compared with air. It takes more than 1000 times as much energy to heat a cubic metre of water by 1 degree Celsius as it does the same volume of air. Since the 1960s, over 90% of the excess heat due to higher greenhouse gas levels has gone into the oceans, and just 3% into warming the atmosphere (see figure 5.4 in the IPCC report (PDF)). Globally, this means that if the oceans soak up a bit more heat energy than normal, surface air temperatures can fall even though the total heat content of the planet is rising.
I'm just not convinced that 1) humans are making a measurable effect on the climate
You can believe whatever you want, but at least admit that your approach is completely unscientific. Here's how science works:
We have a model (increase of CO2) that explains the observed temperature increase and is accepted by the vast majority of climatologists and scientists in general. If you want to propose a new model that discounts CO2 levels as driving the observed temperature increase, then you have to explain not only where the temperature increase is coming from, but also your model needs to fit the observed data better than the existing one. You also have to explain why the observed increase in CO2 - a known greenhouse gas - isn't causing the expected increase in temperature that it should be causing. Waving your hands in the air and saying "I just don't believe it" is not an option.
As for your other points, they have been refuted many times over:
these papers don't prove anything
Proofs are for mathematicians. You can't make a "proof" that we aren't living in some Matrix-style virtual world, where the climate is controlled by The Architect. What scientists can do, however, is to establish the most likely hypothesis to explain some observed data, and provide error bars for acceptance of said hypothesis. And that's pretty important.
Warmer temperatures cause greater evaporation and greater precipitation. Period.... anybody who is predicting more droughts, on average, due to warmer temperatures is -- ahem -- all wet.
Not really, because as you point out changes are regional in scope. That means that it is possible for some regions to get hotter, some colder, some wetter, some drier. If the regions that already have a large rainfall get a lot more rain (enough to significantly increase the global average), and regions that are on the drought boundary get slightly less rain, then the number of droughts will increase, even though the global average rainfall has also increased. I'm not saying that is what will or won't happen, but logically the two outcomes of "greater global rainfall" and "increased drought" are not mutually exclusive.
The manufacturer says they are: "Working in close cooperation with the Department of Defense, Vanguard is responding to the needs of today’s warfighter to field an unmatched UAS. Available to DoD components are the MK III-T, MK IV-T, MK III-P and MK IV-P. These aircraft offer not only extended ISR capabilities but all four variants can be weaponized with select payloads to include but not limited to 40mm grenade launchers, full and semi-automatic small arms, as well as a multitude of SIGINT collection units." - Vanguard Defense.
"Weaponizable" just means that you can add a weapon, not that the vehicle has one. Police departments already have plenty of "weaponizable" things, you can add rocket launchers to patrol car
In the context of military procurement, "weaponizable" means that the equipment has been specifically designed to enable weapons to be added relatively quickly and easily in a modular way. It does not mean "this thing is hypothetically capable of attaching weapons if you are the A-Team", because as you point out everything is "hypothetically weaponizable" if you are willing to modify it. To counter your example, patrol cars would not be described as "weaponizable" procurement items unless they had specific features that made them so, such as reinforced chassis mount points that had been designed for attaching and firing artillery.
For a true army in every sense of the word, where 50 caliber pistols are considered the low end, you have to exceed, or at least match the firepower, and that is where these come in.
The smart thing is to cool the situation down rather than escalate it. Reduce the money flowing to the cartels, and you reduce their power. History has shown that increasing the amount of firepower that the state uses, to the point of using the military against the people, seldom works. Extreme violence is only a symptom of the Mexico problem, not the cause. Solving the problem will require adopting new political policies that reflect the underlying social reality. Unfortunately politicians have shown that they are unable or unwilling to do this. When what you are doing is not working, then you should do something else: "Insanity is when you keep doing the same things expecting different results"
So phone sales should only be counted for the quarter of a phone's initial release?
There is no such thing as a free phone. The phone is supplied as part of a legally binding credit contract. The cost of the phone is incorporated into a monthly payment on that agreement.
Exactly. A better idea would be to figure out whether owners of those phones actually care about getting software updates...
The Samsung i5500 [wikipedia.org] is pre-loaded with Android v2.1, in the summer of 2011. That's 2 major releases behind!
No it isn't. The current major release of Android for phones is v2. v3 was for tablets. v4 hasn't actually shipped yet.
the one that came to mind was CVE-2009-0065
Not on Android. Android doesn't support SCTP.
CVE-2011-1076
Possibly on Android. Remote DOS attack. No code execution. Attacker needs to be able to get the kernel to query his DNS server which sends an invalid response.
CVE-2011-1776
Not on Android (Android does not support EFI). Not remote. Requires physical access.
CVE-2011-2723 ... CVE-2011-1576
Not on Android (Android does not support Generic Receive Offload).
any memory corruption bug is potentially an arbitrary code execution vulnerability
Many memory corruption bugs do not enable arbitrary code execution. That is why the impact is classified as "DOS attack" or similar rather than "remote code execution".
That's four that I found in the Linux kernel (not counting any userland stuff) just by looking at the last couple of months of NVD logs. I'm sure you can find more if you check a whole year, let alone the lifetime of a mobile phone.
Only one of your examples would affect Android, and it is a DOS, not remote code exploit, that is unlikely to be exploited in the real world. Obviously it should be (and has been) fixed, but it is hardly a threat to the legions of Android phones in the wild.
As of yet, not one single iPhone has been sold that has not been supported for the entire 2-year contract.
Not true. The iPhone 3G was being sold internationally until superceded by the 3GS in June-August 2009. The last 3G update was November 2010. That's 15 to 17 months of updates for people who bought in the month before the 3GS was released. If they bought on a 24 month contract they were out of luck.
iPhone 3GS: "It was released in the U.S., Canada and six European countries on June 19, 2009,[3] in Australia and Japan on June 26, and internationally in July and August 2009."
iPhone 3G: "The last release of iOS to support the 3G was 4.2.1, which was released on November 22, 2010."
Please list the wars won by America since 1946.
Are you sure? It's a pretty long [wikipedia.org] list.
That is a list of "military operations". Military operations are not the same thing as a "war". If you want a list of wars, grep for "war" in this list. Also note that "war" has a legally recognised status in international law. A war ends when one side is defeated, one side surrenders, or both sides sign a peace treaty. None of those apply to North Korea.
The thing is, not only has the provider already implemented a system for filtering out illegal fish, they have also bragged about it in public. So turning around now and saying that they can't do it means either they are lying about blocking child porn sites, or they are lying about not being able to block newzbin. It's was a bit disingenuous to say that they can do one but not the other, and I'm not surprised the judge decided they were full of it.
Bad news for you: Copyright has been included in the law since the founding of the country. There has been no major movement to remove it (AFAIK) in the 200+ year history of this country.
That doesn't mean it won't happen. There was no major movement to let ethnic minorities vote since the founding of the country until the 1960s, but then there was a movement, and things changed. Until the rise of the internet, we never had tens of millions of people who disregarded copyright laws on a daily basis. Now, we do. The nation needs to adapt to either 1) build more prisons and put those millions of people behind bars, or 2) don't enforce non-commercial copyright infringement. Despite official efforts to the contrary, we seem to be heading towards 2. (btw I disregard choice 3 - blocking technology - as unworkable.)
I'm sure the MPAA would be happy to pay for the cost of a block list. But that isn't even necessary - BT has already implemented Cleanfeed for handling the IWF blocklist, which is updated every day. There are lots of problems with BT's internet filtering, but the cost of adding a URL to the system isn't one of them.
What if they change name? Or country? Or whatever? Do that judge understand the meaning of this sentence?
Yes, the arguments have been thoroughly discussed in court. It is pretty clear that the judge means "block newzbin at any address it moves to", and that what future judges in future courts cases are going to understand the judgement as.
And is it possible in the UK to head a bill in the name of someone because of a judge rule
Your English does not make sense here. If you are asking whether judges can determine law, then yes, of course, that is one of their primary functions - to determine how the written laws are to be applied to real court cases.
To accommodate all the variety of our environment, we've evolved many degrees of freedom in our foot, ankle, pelvis, etc. So, if we want a robot that can do the same degrees of tasks as us, we need to add back those degrees of freedom to this robot, which in turn will make it fall over, thus defeating its purpose.
The point of the robot is to develop low-energy gaits similar to those that humans use. They can add the extra stuff back in and still maintain the same gaits. Why would it fall over? We don't.
What on earth does solar have to do with their reliance on oil? Those are two very different segments of the energy industry (transportation and electricity distribution).
You are correct in that oil is unique in being used as the dominant transportation fuel, but the relationship is more complex than that. Cost of all energy production tracks global cost of oil. There are various reasons for this, including supply and demand, and competitive demand-side price link since they compete in the same market for electricity generation. This is why when the global oil price rises consumer gas and electric prices rise. In energy market, solar prices also rise and will tend to track oil. But expansion of solar capacity should decrease the correlation with oil cost, and provide a way to anchor energy costs from oil shocks. At least, that is the theory.
$50 a week for 100 hours. $200 per month for 400 hours.
Most developers I know who are using laptops have switched to SSDs. Access times and bandwidth should be much the same as SSD on desktop.