You could specify the density of water at $PRESSURE and at its maximum density (somewhere around 4 C). The only problem with doing this for high-precision measurements is: what is water? Some fraction of the hydrogen will be deuterium, and that'll throw off the density. What fraction of the hydrogen should be deuterium for "standard water"?
We're giving a full refund -- as a credit card refund -- to everyone who ever bought a video. We'll need you to make sure we have your most recent credit card information, but once we know where to send the money, you'll get it.
Does this mean you need to jump through a couple hoops to get it?
It is a bit surprising that a place like PC World listed it (though they have since taken it down). I googled "awardmestars" and noticed that there was one other site that removed it in the first twelve site hits.
You seem to have missed the logic. I will try to explain it:
Option 1: Linux is infringing.
In this case, the Novell deal has real value for its customers, by the promise of indemnification. That is simple. Option 2: Linux is not infringing.
Sub-option A: A customer is afraid they might get sued anyway.
In this case, a customer wants to protect itself against spurious lawsuits that can chew up resources. Thus the deal still has value.
Sub-option B: A customer is not afraid of being sued.
In this case, the deal has no value, but is not harmful.
Therefore, Novell's customers have a better legal position with option 1, and a protection against loss of resources with option 2B. Novell is simply trying to position itself so it gets more customers, but is not actually doing anything evil.
You missed the more interesting part of Mundie's answer (besides misquoting Gates). Here are the complete two paragraphs (from How Microsoft conquered China, Fortune, by David Kirkpatrick, July 9, 2007):
So did Microsoft conquer China, or is it the other way around? Toward the end of Gates' trip, on the sidelines of China's Boao Forum, I sat down again with the Microsoft founder. One of the things I wanted to ask him was how he squares the company's "alignment" in China with its leaders' suppression of free speech on the Internet and what many consider to be their general disregard for human rights. Our conversation, which had been flowing freely, ground to a halt. He said nothing. His silence lasted so long I found myself piping up out of discomfort. "That's a very pregnant pause," I said. "I don't think I want to give an answer to that," he finally replied.
Mundie, however, gamely ventured an answer in a separate interview. He started by talking about the challenges of transforming a socialist planned economy into one based on the market, and noted that never before have leaders anywhere attempted such a huge transition. "Whether it's running a global company or a government," he says, "people have to sit there and make their own value judgments against what they deem to be the greater good all the time. I personally have found the Chinese leaders to be fairly thoughtful about these things. Each society makes choices to protect the rest of society. There are some aspects of that that happen here and in other countries that people would prefer didn't happen. But in the grand scheme of things, they're what people think is required to keep stability." When I asked him if he had discussed any of this with China's leaders, he answered, "No. It's not what they consider to be my field of expertise. Nor do I."
Here is the deleted material. The edit protection was due to the fact that there was an edit war going on about whether this material should be present, which can be seen by looking at the page history
Slashdot Mirror
It is a bit surprising that a place like PC World listed it (though they have since taken it down). I googled "awardmestars" and noticed that there was one other site that removed it in the first twelve site hits.
Or he believes in extra-terrestrial origin, which fits right in with the paper. Check out Wikipedia: Primitive extraterrestrial life, PAH World Hypothesis, and Panspermia.
You seem to have missed the logic. I will try to explain it:
Option 1: Linux is infringing.
In this case, the Novell deal has real value for its customers, by the promise of indemnification. That is simple.
Option 2: Linux is not infringing.
Sub-option A: A customer is afraid they might get sued anyway.
In this case, a customer wants to protect itself against spurious lawsuits that can chew up resources. Thus the deal still has value.
Sub-option B: A customer is not afraid of being sued.
In this case, the deal has no value, but is not harmful.
Therefore, Novell's customers have a better legal position with option 1, and a protection against loss of resources with option 2B. Novell is simply trying to position itself so it gets more customers, but is not actually doing anything evil.
You can get IPv6 addresses now. Try Freenet6. There are others out there too.
Here is the deleted material. The edit protection was due to the fact that there was an edit war going on about whether this material should be present, which can be seen by looking at the page history
It would have gotten covered, if version 3 existed when they made the decision. However, as mentioned in here, version 2 does not allow that.