Having multiple addresses in the "To" field is useful, though.
Often I might need to send an email that is explicitly intended for more than one person, while other people might need a copy of it simply so that they are "in the loop" for some reason or other. In that case, I would put the people who I was addressing in the "To" field and the others in the "CC" field.
What if Chevy were advertising how many legally owned DVDs you could fit in there, but people still went on transporting pirated copies of Free Willy?
A similar argument would be could the RIAA et al sue, say, companies who produce blank dvds?
What about apple? Apple advertise how many songs you can fit on an iPod... and I can fit the same number of songs* whether they are pirated or not.
*Ignoring all the inherent flaws in using "X amount of songs" as a measure of hard disk capacity
It wouldn't be illogical for a physicist or chemist not to believe a theory which explains biology beautifully, because that is outside their discipline. I disagree slightly.
If a biologist came out with some beautifully elegant theory of biology it would not be illogical for a physicist or chemist to say "You know what, I don't really know enough about biology for me to say that I believe in this" but it would be illogical for them to say, assuming (as you said) that the subject matter is outside their expertise, to say outright "I do not bevlieve this".
I am a student of science (currently doing Honours in Space Science) and, to be perfectly honest, no part of my motivation for studying science is to disprove religion.
I like things to make sense, and understand why they make sense. I like mathematical rigor (granted, physics doesn't necessarily have that same rigor - Newtons laws are stated without proof, for example). I could read a religious text (eg: the bible) in order to "make sense of things" but things are NOT clearly explained. Things (generally things which are pretty obviously not correct in the literal sense) are claimed to be "non-literal" and hence left open to interpretation.
A science books doesn't do that. It will clearly explain all its key points so that there is only the intended interpretation available. If a scientific theory no longer seems to make sense, it is reviewed rather than reinterpreted.
Exactly! I was at a seminar last year, where some guy was developing some sort of "green energy". I forget what it was, but I do remember him saying something about doing it because of the need for 'green energy' etc and then he stopped him self and said "No, that isn't why we are doing it at all - we are doing it because it is interesting"
Slashdot Mirror
I'll fuckin', I'll fuckin' pull your fuckin' tongue out your fuckin' mouth and stab the shit with a rusty screwdriver, BLAOWW!!
Or pirate it, which is likely why Warner are appealing.
Having multiple addresses in the "To" field is useful, though.
Often I might need to send an email that is explicitly intended for more than one person, while other people might need a copy of it simply so that they are "in the loop" for some reason or other. In that case, I would put the people who I was addressing in the "To" field and the others in the "CC" field.
What if Chevy were advertising how many legally owned DVDs you could fit in there, but people still went on transporting pirated copies of Free Willy? A similar argument would be could the RIAA et al sue, say, companies who produce blank dvds? What about apple? Apple advertise how many songs you can fit on an iPod... and I can fit the same number of songs* whether they are pirated or not. *Ignoring all the inherent flaws in using "X amount of songs" as a measure of hard disk capacity
makes the LHC safety assurances more or less invalid
Lets hope it makes it less invalid!
You just found the "???"!!!
150GB capped Australian here also. TPG?
Your life probably will not end if you're not online 24x7x365.
But why risk it?
Troll or not, I agree... Especially since the word "excessive" is actually used...
My boss using "u" and "2" and such as words when she emails me. It really shits me.
Having to enter your list online and then swipe a card - on its own - isn't particularly 'in your face'...
If a biologist came out with some beautifully elegant theory of biology it would not be illogical for a physicist or chemist to say "You know what, I don't really know enough about biology for me to say that I believe in this" but it would be illogical for them to say, assuming (as you said) that the subject matter is outside their expertise, to say outright "I do not bevlieve this".
I am a student of science (currently doing Honours in Space Science) and, to be perfectly honest, no part of my motivation for studying science is to disprove religion.
I like things to make sense, and understand why they make sense. I like mathematical rigor (granted, physics doesn't necessarily have that same rigor - Newtons laws are stated without proof, for example). I could read a religious text (eg: the bible) in order to "make sense of things" but things are NOT clearly explained. Things (generally things which are pretty obviously not correct in the literal sense) are claimed to be "non-literal" and hence left open to interpretation. A science books doesn't do that. It will clearly explain all its key points so that there is only the intended interpretation available. If a scientific theory no longer seems to make sense, it is reviewed rather than reinterpreted.
Exactly! I was at a seminar last year, where some guy was developing some sort of "green energy". I forget what it was, but I do remember him saying something about doing it because of the need for 'green energy' etc and then he stopped him self and said "No, that isn't why we are doing it at all - we are doing it because it is interesting"