Actually, they kinda did commercialise their tech, and were even involved in an ugly patent war that ended up damaging their reputations, and was only truly resolved by government intervention during WWI. Shows that this isn't the first time this kind of stuff has happened.
ah, my apologies, I mis-read your earlier comment and assumed you were talking about exploiting the energy stored in the coal, not about using the sun's energy directly in place of the coal.
The thermal energy is already there and is going to waste otherwise.
"Waste" is probably the wrong word here - the thermal energy is stored as potential energy, the question of "waste" is a purely economical concern, relevant only if you view all available resources as there to be exploited.
However, the study does identify other regions, such as the western tropical Pacific, where global warming does cause the environment to become more favorable for hurricanes.
So yes, less hurricanes hitting the US, but more hurricanes likely aimed at the Phillipines, China, Taiwan, Japan and Indonesia. Not exactly lowly populated areas.
Actually, no he's not. Verizon recently signed a partnership with Microsoft for search. Shortly afterwards, search done on the Droid phone was handled by Bing instead of Google.
The AC made it up, then. My Droid, with the latest (2.0.1) Verizon-issued firmware, uses Google by default for everything involving network search.
AC & GP are wrong, you are correct - partially. Verizon pushed this change on Blackberry users, with many asking if the Droid was next. As you're stating, it's not as yet.
Americans don't want government "interfering". They claim the market will decide the best approach. It does not. It picks best short term profitability for one company (Qualcom in this case).
The ATSC is not a government organisation - it's a consortium of commercially-interested companies agreeing on a standard. The US government has never mandated a particular standard to be implemented, merely ratified, through the FCC, the most popular one for wide-spread use. This is an example of the market in action - and what the cellphone carriers do with that has also been left up to the market, though this isn't operating at peak efficiency for consumers, it is likely producing fat profits for the cellphone companies and Qualcomm.
If I can't be expected to understand the laws as a normal human, then I can't reasonably be expected to follow them either.
Then what the hell do we have lawyers for? The fact of the matter is that the system is a complex one, and precedent shows there's a certain level of detail that is needed to ensure a law holds up without significant loopholes.
Maybe once upon a time the full code of laws and common law judgements could be understood by the average educated person, but unless you've got an interest or are law-qualified it's unlikely that the average educated person these days would be able to fully grasp a particular law without some assistance. I'm not suggesting that legislators shouldn't understand at least somewhat more than the average person, but that's what they should have legal staff for, practically speaking.
A single bill, however, is most closely analogous to a patch -- or at most a patch series -- and no open source OS would accept a patch that no one claims to understand.
I think you'll need to extend that analogy a little - no open source OS would accept a patch no-one qualified claims to understand. You wouldn't extend that umbrella to those unqualified - and it should be similar for the laws. Just because they're written in English, albeit verbose and oft-times needlessly complex, doesn't mean the ordinary person should be expected to understand - unless you're a lawyer.
Although they did also put it mainly on flat land.
Someone should tell the Japanese and the Europeans that they should have built their high-speed rail only where they have flat land. They'd be even faster!
The biggest risk is a rogue nation acquiring detailed schematics on how to build a warhead from a country that already possesses the technology... Right now, Russia and former USSR member-states are the only plausible sources for this scenario being realized.
Err... have you forgotten about Pakistan? They've got nukes already, and would be far more like to be unstable and also inclined to share with the "rogue states". And if you do some research, you'll find that they were allegedly helped to that point by China (for more details see the background on A.Q. Khan of Pakistan), which might indicate that the threat is not so much from Russia but from China.
India has the raw resources, it's unlikely for cultural and economic reasons that they will develop a nuclear weapons program in the immediate future.
... errrrrr I think you need to do your research again: India's already got a nuclear weapons program.. India's had a nuclear program since 1974. Indeed, it's in reaction too India's nuclear program that Pakistan did whatever it could to develop its own nuclear arsenal, as detailed in the link above.
If by "flatlining" you mean a 20% increase during the chart period, sure. The percentages were 26.86 in the beginning and 32.12 in the end.
What was your point? That Firefox market share needs to double every 18 months to be considered to be slowly climbing?
TFS focuses on Firefox 3.5 overtaking IE; growth in the total Firefox market since Firefox 3.5 came out is merely 30.39% to 32.12%, 5% growth over 6 months - yes, slow growth, but not as impressive as Chrome. Chrome in the same period has gone from 2.83% to 5.47% - a 93% increase, and that's just looking at it linearly. It looks far more like exponential than linear to me, although that is of course unsustainable even in the short-term.
Without having the stats on hand, I'm guessing it's like Firefox's early growth - a strong rise in the more technical community that likes to live on the bleeding edge. Not that I'm complaining or siding with either - I couldn't have imagined 5 years ago that total IE share would have been down to 55% and the alternatives being robust and fast browsers that render websites beautifully.
Considering most Firefox users are more tech savvy than average and many of them are likely to have already blocked StatCounter altogether, this is impressive.
Statcounter uses an image as a fallback for getting stats where the cookie is blocked or Javascript cannot be run, so unless you've blocked all third party images (how's the text web going for you, tinfoil hat man?) it still shows up.
Mod parent up, please: it's ridiculous to say that "Firefox 3.5 is the most popular browser!" when the IEs combined make up 55% of the market and the FFs combined make up 32%. Individual browser versions do not make a web designer's life easier, unfortunately.
Seriously - it takes a lot longer than 1 or 2 years after a presidents term to be able to see how they did in terms of history. We're still feeling the ramifications of Clinton; some would argue Carter or Reagan too.
I'd say that assertion would only apply to those attempt to put a yardstick alongside Obama - Bush's 8 years have given us plenty of time to see stuff in a little bit more context. You might argue that policies and actions of Carter, Reagan and Clinton are still influencing events today, but it's hard to say that their relative place in history can't be determined to some extent, and is unlikely to be changed significantly.
As for Bush and why he's so quickly dissected, when you're on the brink of bankruptcy, you tend to look back and try to identify what exactly has caused your current parlous state - given at the time of Clinton's departure there was a budget surplus, and eight years later America found itself up to its eyeballs in debt with two wars encroaching on the public purse and the idea of taxes to pay for them a total anathema to the very people who cheered loudest for them... you tend to have a fairly good idea of where that particular president has left the country.
(*Australian posting here - pardon any missed details.)
Euro & Japanese manufacturers are less influenced by the US fuel lobby.
My main issue with your argument above is that the oil lobby is somehow colluding with the US auto industry to maintain the primacy of the four-stroke engine, which is simply not true. The oil lobby is more overtly acting to discourage high efficiency standards legislation in concert with the (former) Big 3 because they don't want to put in the extra effort.
The taxation strategy indirectly subsidises (it's not quite a subsidy, of course, but to the end user making one fuel cheaper than the other is akin to subsidy even if the difference is the level of taxation)
A subsidy is a reduction below market price; this is a case of a preferential tax rate. I'm being pendantic, but it's a difference in end-user behaviour - Venezuela has a subsidy for political purposes, while European countries encourage certain usage patterns through differential tax schemes.
Agree in part with behaviour patterns in Europe, but I've seen roads from Fort Worth & surroundings to Dallas clogged with large vehicles mostly used for a less than 20 mile daily commute...
People tend to buy for worst-case instead of average-case scenarios - just in case they ever take that holiday to Disneyland, they don't want to pack in to a compact. Europeans on the other hand take a train.
Various theories hint at the interests of the oil lobby to continue four-stroke dominance (just look at the low mpg of most american manufacturers in general) and perceived customer comfort being the most widely used trump. High fuel efficiency does not usually provide sporty acceleration, low engine noise, and high torque at low revs.
Uh... explain then why European & Japanese manufacturers can make high mpg with the same four-stroke engine technology? Oil lobby aside, the technology has more efficiency possible.
And irrespective of that, two-stroke doesn't necessarily mean less fuel consumption - and is far more likely to mean higher lubrication oil consumption.
In reality, noisy diesels have sold well in Europe (thanks in part to diesel fuel subsidies)
Where on earth did you get the idea that Europe subsidises diesel?
and customers have bought poor performing, smaller cars for everyday use.
That's more likely to be a pattern of behaviour - distances between cities and key locations are smaller due to higher density, and roads are narrower in Europe, so having a massive car is more likely to be an inconvenience.
Can't help with the reason for why it's relevant to USSR's coastal access, but in 196x China wasn't exactly in a position to sponsor a proxy war, having just taken a bit of a misguided jump. The proxy war was still between the USA and USSR.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, they kinda did commercialise their tech, and were even involved in an ugly patent war that ended up damaging their reputations, and was only truly resolved by government intervention during WWI. Shows that this isn't the first time this kind of stuff has happened.
Boxee's a fork of XBMC, with "a new look and social flair". Kinda like Flock vs Firefox (anyone remember Flock?)
(which sites an article behind a login)
For those confused, it cites a site that requires a login.
Wikiquote gets you a step closer, but still requires payment to access the paper.
ah, my apologies, I mis-read your earlier comment and assumed you were talking about exploiting the energy stored in the coal, not about using the sun's energy directly in place of the coal.
Some is used to move air but that moving air eventually slows down due to friction ... which generates heat.
I'd like you to explain how moving air creates heat during the next blizzard.
The thermal energy is already there and is going to waste otherwise.
"Waste" is probably the wrong word here - the thermal energy is stored as potential energy, the question of "waste" is a purely economical concern, relevant only if you view all available resources as there to be exploited.
To quote from your link:
So yes, less hurricanes hitting the US, but more hurricanes likely aimed at the Phillipines, China, Taiwan, Japan and Indonesia. Not exactly lowly populated areas.
The AC made it up, then. My Droid, with the latest (2.0.1) Verizon-issued firmware, uses Google by default for everything involving network search.
AC & GP are wrong, you are correct - partially. Verizon pushed this change on Blackberry users, with many asking if the Droid was next. As you're stating, it's not as yet.
Americans don't want government "interfering". They claim the market will decide the best approach. It does not. It picks best short term profitability for one company (Qualcom in this case).
The ATSC is not a government organisation - it's a consortium of commercially-interested companies agreeing on a standard. The US government has never mandated a particular standard to be implemented, merely ratified, through the FCC, the most popular one for wide-spread use. This is an example of the market in action - and what the cellphone carriers do with that has also been left up to the market, though this isn't operating at peak efficiency for consumers, it is likely producing fat profits for the cellphone companies and Qualcomm.
Dude, there's a temple with porn carved into statues on the outside.
(And there were many more before they were destroyed by the Mughals.)
If I can't be expected to understand the laws as a normal human, then I can't reasonably be expected to follow them either.
Then what the hell do we have lawyers for? The fact of the matter is that the system is a complex one, and precedent shows there's a certain level of detail that is needed to ensure a law holds up without significant loopholes.
Maybe once upon a time the full code of laws and common law judgements could be understood by the average educated person, but unless you've got an interest or are law-qualified it's unlikely that the average educated person these days would be able to fully grasp a particular law without some assistance. I'm not suggesting that legislators shouldn't understand at least somewhat more than the average person, but that's what they should have legal staff for, practically speaking.
Not quite - it's not over the pole directly, so it moves, but it's fairly easy to use it to approximate south. See Wikipedia for more info.
A single bill, however, is most closely analogous to a patch -- or at most a patch series -- and no open source OS would accept a patch that no one claims to understand.
I think you'll need to extend that analogy a little - no open source OS would accept a patch no-one qualified claims to understand. You wouldn't extend that umbrella to those unqualified - and it should be similar for the laws. Just because they're written in English, albeit verbose and oft-times needlessly complex, doesn't mean the ordinary person should be expected to understand - unless you're a lawyer.
Although they did also put it mainly on flat land.
Someone should tell the Japanese and the Europeans that they should have built their high-speed rail only where they have flat land. They'd be even faster!
The biggest risk is a rogue nation acquiring detailed schematics on how to build a warhead from a country that already possesses the technology... Right now, Russia and former USSR member-states are the only plausible sources for this scenario being realized.
Err... have you forgotten about Pakistan? They've got nukes already, and would be far more like to be unstable and also inclined to share with the "rogue states". And if you do some research, you'll find that they were allegedly helped to that point by China (for more details see the background on A.Q. Khan of Pakistan), which might indicate that the threat is not so much from Russia but from China.
India has the raw resources, it's unlikely for cultural and economic reasons that they will develop a nuclear weapons program in the immediate future.
... errrrrr I think you need to do your research again: India's already got a nuclear weapons program.. India's had a nuclear program since 1974. Indeed, it's in reaction too India's nuclear program that Pakistan did whatever it could to develop its own nuclear arsenal, as detailed in the link above.
In fact just make sure you take a look at which countries have nukes before you comment on this again.
If by "flatlining" you mean a 20% increase during the chart period, sure. The percentages were 26.86 in the beginning and 32.12 in the end.
What was your point? That Firefox market share needs to double every 18 months to be considered to be slowly climbing?
TFS focuses on Firefox 3.5 overtaking IE; growth in the total Firefox market since Firefox 3.5 came out is merely 30.39% to 32.12%, 5% growth over 6 months - yes, slow growth, but not as impressive as Chrome. Chrome in the same period has gone from 2.83% to 5.47% - a 93% increase, and that's just looking at it linearly. It looks far more like exponential than linear to me, although that is of course unsustainable even in the short-term.
Without having the stats on hand, I'm guessing it's like Firefox's early growth - a strong rise in the more technical community that likes to live on the bleeding edge. Not that I'm complaining or siding with either - I couldn't have imagined 5 years ago that total IE share would have been down to 55% and the alternatives being robust and fast browsers that render websites beautifully.
Well, that chart didn't but this one does.
And yes, IE (all versions) is in a rapid decline, while FF is slowly climbing.
if by "slowly climbing" you mean "flatlining", sure... Chrome's the only one with a reasonable uptick recently.
Considering most Firefox users are more tech savvy than average and many of them are likely to have already blocked StatCounter altogether, this is impressive.
Statcounter uses an image as a fallback for getting stats where the cookie is blocked or Javascript cannot be run, so unless you've blocked all third party images (how's the text web going for you, tinfoil hat man?) it still shows up.
Mod parent up, please: it's ridiculous to say that "Firefox 3.5 is the most popular browser!" when the IEs combined make up 55% of the market and the FFs combined make up 32%. Individual browser versions do not make a web designer's life easier, unfortunately.
Corporate support for companies who don't want to maintain their own support team. E.g. here's Atlassian's (creators of JIRA & Confluence mentioned above).
Seriously - it takes a lot longer than 1 or 2 years after a presidents term to be able to see how they did in terms of history. We're still feeling the ramifications of Clinton; some would argue Carter or Reagan too.
I'd say that assertion would only apply to those attempt to put a yardstick alongside Obama - Bush's 8 years have given us plenty of time to see stuff in a little bit more context. You might argue that policies and actions of Carter, Reagan and Clinton are still influencing events today, but it's hard to say that their relative place in history can't be determined to some extent, and is unlikely to be changed significantly.
As for Bush and why he's so quickly dissected, when you're on the brink of bankruptcy, you tend to look back and try to identify what exactly has caused your current parlous state - given at the time of Clinton's departure there was a budget surplus, and eight years later America found itself up to its eyeballs in debt with two wars encroaching on the public purse and the idea of taxes to pay for them a total anathema to the very people who cheered loudest for them... you tend to have a fairly good idea of where that particular president has left the country.
(*Australian posting here - pardon any missed details.)
Euro & Japanese manufacturers are less influenced by the US fuel lobby.
My main issue with your argument above is that the oil lobby is somehow colluding with the US auto industry to maintain the primacy of the four-stroke engine, which is simply not true. The oil lobby is more overtly acting to discourage high efficiency standards legislation in concert with the (former) Big 3 because they don't want to put in the extra effort.
The taxation strategy indirectly subsidises (it's not quite a subsidy, of course, but to the end user making one fuel cheaper than the other is akin to subsidy even if the difference is the level of taxation)
A subsidy is a reduction below market price; this is a case of a preferential tax rate. I'm being pendantic, but it's a difference in end-user behaviour - Venezuela has a subsidy for political purposes, while European countries encourage certain usage patterns through differential tax schemes.
Agree in part with behaviour patterns in Europe, but I've seen roads from Fort Worth & surroundings to Dallas clogged with large vehicles mostly used for a less than 20 mile daily commute...
People tend to buy for worst-case instead of average-case scenarios - just in case they ever take that holiday to Disneyland, they don't want to pack in to a compact. Europeans on the other hand take a train.
Various theories hint at the interests of the oil lobby to continue four-stroke dominance (just look at the low mpg of most american manufacturers in general) and perceived customer comfort being the most widely used trump. High fuel efficiency does not usually provide sporty acceleration, low engine noise, and high torque at low revs.
Uh... explain then why European & Japanese manufacturers can make high mpg with the same four-stroke engine technology? Oil lobby aside, the technology has more efficiency possible.
And irrespective of that, two-stroke doesn't necessarily mean less fuel consumption - and is far more likely to mean higher lubrication oil consumption.
In reality, noisy diesels have sold well in Europe (thanks in part to diesel fuel subsidies)
Where on earth did you get the idea that Europe subsidises diesel?
and customers have bought poor performing, smaller cars for everyday use.
That's more likely to be a pattern of behaviour - distances between cities and key locations are smaller due to higher density, and roads are narrower in Europe, so having a massive car is more likely to be an inconvenience.
I thought Vietnam was mainly a China vs US gig?
Can't help with the reason for why it's relevant to USSR's coastal access, but in 196x China wasn't exactly in a position to sponsor a proxy war, having just taken a bit of a misguided jump. The proxy war was still between the USA and USSR.
I think you misunderstand the meaning of the word 'bribe'. Indeed, the very first definition on Google for Bribe is: