Yes, First-to-file avoids all the inconvenience of buying a stack of lab notebooks and ballpoint pens every year, and "distressing" them, so that when you want to file an invention you can write about it in notebooks of the proper age with the proper ink. (Macaulay remarks that in Bombay in the 19th century there were whole companies dedicated to keeping stocks of old parchment, paper and ink, often for official documents, for when someone needed a suitably dated forgery.)
The Journal of Social Media Interactive Dynamics, staffed by Facebook employees and reviewed by a few professors at the various new Facebook-funded University Chairs of Social Media Interactive Dynamics, would cost less than lawyers.
I am over 60 and yes, I do know what a static IP is. You, however, apparently don't know what a straw man argument is. Hint: how long has IP been around now? Possibly from before you were born.
I don't need to ask you to get off my lawn, the dog does that.
It is much cheaper than an iPad, portable, and the PDF reader works perfectly. I have large numbers of technical documents on mine. The battery life is obviously not as good as an e-reader, but there is available a fast charger with a magnetic connector which means I have no worries about damaging a small and fragile connector with frequent plugging in.
It is also possible to minimise documents while doing calculations, for instance, and switch quickly between spreadsheets, calculator and documents. And there is a micro-HDMI output socket as standard. More solid than a Nexus 7, usable camera, and an eventual upgrade to BB 10 is promised. Mine is over a year old and there is still nothing to touch it at the price (just don't buy from Amazon). It is a product whose owners know about it, but negative publicity has kept buyers away. This means you can buy one in the UK for under $200 with our 20% VAT, and the same in the US.
Chirs has said it, but I take issue with your "even to you", especially as you seem to lack a basic understanding of criminal law. Murder is killing with intent to kill, and my entire post was about the significance of intent.
For overconfident pronouncement on things you know nothing about, and your assumption that anyone who disagrees with you is stupid, I appoint you to my foes list. Love K.
Though I agree with many of your posts, on this one I think you have missed a point. The operative verb is "use" as in "use a carriage service...to cause offence".
There is a difference between posting something on a website that somebody has to go and look at - clearly I don't expect to find rational and polite criticism of, say, Obama on Fox News - and if Rush Limbaugh was to obtain Obama's private email address and send him a torrent of racist abuse.
Clearly many US citizens disagree with this; there's a lot of hatred bottled up in an awful lot of people all over the world. But I tend to agree that there should be an offence of deliberately sending messages intended to upset someone. In English law we have a saying "You take your victim as you find him". This means that if someone deliberately knocks over a person with brittle bone syndrome and they die, it is manslaughter because when you decided to behave violently, you became responsible for all possible consequences. If you send poisonous abuse to someone who, as a result of whatever problems, then commits suicide, you should be prosecuted because you did something wrong and must accept the consequences.
It is only a slippery slope if the word "deliberately" is omitted or the law is ridiculously extended (as in the Paul Chambers case, where the Lords of Appeal criticised the lower court.)
Seriously, your straw man won't stand up for a microsecond. If Muslim terrorists in the UK managed to lob a missile to the US, they could be tried in this country and the question of extradition to a country with a backward judicial system would not arise. Even with Abu Hamza, the real issue is whether the US has got a case or not. The suspicion is that, just like the invasion of Iraq, they are just thrashing around trying to find someone they can punish for something - a popular mode of expression in the more backward parts of the US, from where we get "Lynching".
Your use of "Pal" (an Americanism) and "bed wetting lefty" - a popular term with the American Right - goes rather to sustain my thesis. I'm prepared to believe that you have dual nationality, though, given some of the people they give citizenship to nowadays. Unfortunately
I very much doubt you are a UK citizen. Nobody other than Tony Blair, Mandelson and Alastair Campbell thought that treaty was a good idea; didn't John McCain say it was too one-sided?
Blair would have handed over the UK to the US lock, stock and barrel in exchange for a word from Bush iii (and some lucrative "consultancy" from a US bank). And the others...while there are libel laws in the UK I can't trust myself to write about Campbell or Mandelson.
Be carted off the the US without the US court having to show even prima facie evidence? There was a time and a place where foreign nationals could be extradited like that, but the time was prior to 1990 and the place was the satellite states of the Soviet Union.
You do not seem to understand the difference between a reversing prop, a gearbox, and a prop driven by a triple expansion steam engine.
A reversing prop has variable pitch and can be put into reverse as fast as the strength of the gearing and the power of the reversing motor allows. An engine with a gearbox, like most modern small boat engines, is reversed by slowing the engine, reversing the gear, and speeding up again. But with an old steam design the entire engine must be reversed, and this does not happen quickly. The engine must be brought to a stop and the valve timing reversed, and each valve chest has its own set of reversing gear which must be securely interlocked. This is considerably the slowest of the three options, though not quite as bad as direct drive Diesels where the engine had to be actually restarted in reverse, rendering them rather useless for many naval purposes.
There was no "All back" because the telegraph commands were "Stop" and "Full astern" (I have pictures of the telegraph). The spoken command in a small ship would be "Hard astern" and would require acknowledgement: "Hard Astern, aye aye Sir".
You are wrong in your contention. Hitchens did not need to panic, merely forget in the heat of the moment the difference between steam and sail practice. And the surviving officers would hardly want to admit that they had failed to notice the wheel turning the wrong way or the change of course. The officer is responsible for ensuring the correct performance of commands. It was a monumental cock-up.
No...Titanic sank because, although the command to turn was actually given in good time, the wheel was turned the wrong way. The sad story has come out in recent years.
There was no "All back" in those days. Props did not reverse. The Titanic had old technology triple expansion steam engines and could not manoeuvre quickly. The telegraph, I believe, had to go to stop and then full reverse when the command was acknowledged from the engine room.
Indeed. Maintaining operational efficiency on a sub in peacetime must be really quite difficult. And it would be excellent practice for action against the Iranian small-boat flotillas in the Persian Gulf.
For what? First, AFAIK, most subs have more tubes forward facing than rear facing. And second, the idea is to aim a torpedo broadside as it makes a much bigger target. For missiles, as one sub commander observed, the best place to be in relation to the target is the other side of a large island - like Great Britain.
Plays merry Hell with your buoyancy and stability calculations, unfortunately. But it's a nice idea. For extra lols, use old battleships and fire giant paintballs out of the main armament. A 450mm paint shell would be worth good money to watch.
My father, who dropped a lot of depth charges on Japanese submarines during WW2, begs to differ with your last sentence. As does a former colleague who took the surrender of a German submarine in WW2, and commented that he had never seen men so happy at becoming nice, safe prisoners of war.
It worked, conspiracy theorists are now two a penny. Tolkien has created whole generations of fruitbats. Why are people so prepared to believe conspiracy rather than incompetence? Because in fantasy worlds nobody ever screws up because they were on the sauce, but because of vast conspiracies.
That's largely what the US did until Pearl Harbor. Even after, King was more concerned with ensuring the end of the British Empire and defeating Japan than destroying totalitarianism. Both Germany and Russia bought US goods.
You make my case. The most you can do is call them "irrational". Which is only an insult if you believe that "rationality", i.e. the belief that the universe has fixed rules that everything obeys, that they are discoverable, and that we should then modify all our behaviour to optimise our interaction with those fixed rules, has the answer to everything.
C S Lewis has the answer to this one: that people who claim to be totally rational merely cannot see the irrational components of their own behaviour. A complete rationalist would not engage in "ethical" behavior until it was scientifically demonstrated that to do so conferred clear benefits in measurable units. But many people who claim to be rationalists do things without any such justification.
I will simply point out that the the best approach to Scientologists and Mormons is simply to tell people what they actually believe, something that they are themselves rather good at not doing. Ambrose Bierce was very good at this.
Now, what are the reasonable but insulting things you could say about Reform Judaism, Zen Buddhism, or the Society of Friends (Quakers)?
When I'm waiting for a delivery I look down the drive and see a truck pull up on the opposite side of the road, then wait to see if the driver gets out and looks puzzled. Then I have to go and direct them. It's a small thing but remarkably annoying.
Slashdot Mirror
Ayn Rand is dead. Deal with it.
Yes, First-to-file avoids all the inconvenience of buying a stack of lab notebooks and ballpoint pens every year, and "distressing" them, so that when you want to file an invention you can write about it in notebooks of the proper age with the proper ink. (Macaulay remarks that in Bombay in the 19th century there were whole companies dedicated to keeping stocks of old parchment, paper and ink, often for official documents, for when someone needed a suitably dated forgery.)
The Journal of Social Media Interactive Dynamics, staffed by Facebook employees and reviewed by a few professors at the various new Facebook-funded University Chairs of Social Media Interactive Dynamics, would cost less than lawyers.
I don't need to ask you to get off my lawn, the dog does that.
It is also possible to minimise documents while doing calculations, for instance, and switch quickly between spreadsheets, calculator and documents. And there is a micro-HDMI output socket as standard. More solid than a Nexus 7, usable camera, and an eventual upgrade to BB 10 is promised. Mine is over a year old and there is still nothing to touch it at the price (just don't buy from Amazon). It is a product whose owners know about it, but negative publicity has kept buyers away. This means you can buy one in the UK for under $200 with our 20% VAT, and the same in the US.
For overconfident pronouncement on things you know nothing about, and your assumption that anyone who disagrees with you is stupid, I appoint you to my foes list. Love K.
There is a difference between posting something on a website that somebody has to go and look at - clearly I don't expect to find rational and polite criticism of, say, Obama on Fox News - and if Rush Limbaugh was to obtain Obama's private email address and send him a torrent of racist abuse.
Clearly many US citizens disagree with this; there's a lot of hatred bottled up in an awful lot of people all over the world. But I tend to agree that there should be an offence of deliberately sending messages intended to upset someone. In English law we have a saying "You take your victim as you find him". This means that if someone deliberately knocks over a person with brittle bone syndrome and they die, it is manslaughter because when you decided to behave violently, you became responsible for all possible consequences. If you send poisonous abuse to someone who, as a result of whatever problems, then commits suicide, you should be prosecuted because you did something wrong and must accept the consequences.
It is only a slippery slope if the word "deliberately" is omitted or the law is ridiculously extended (as in the Paul Chambers case, where the Lords of Appeal criticised the lower court.)
Ouch. That really hurt. No, just kidding.
Seriously, your straw man won't stand up for a microsecond. If Muslim terrorists in the UK managed to lob a missile to the US, they could be tried in this country and the question of extradition to a country with a backward judicial system would not arise. Even with Abu Hamza, the real issue is whether the US has got a case or not. The suspicion is that, just like the invasion of Iraq, they are just thrashing around trying to find someone they can punish for something - a popular mode of expression in the more backward parts of the US, from where we get "Lynching".
Your use of "Pal" (an Americanism) and "bed wetting lefty" - a popular term with the American Right - goes rather to sustain my thesis. I'm prepared to believe that you have dual nationality, though, given some of the people they give citizenship to nowadays. Unfortunately
Blair would have handed over the UK to the US lock, stock and barrel in exchange for a word from Bush iii (and some lucrative "consultancy" from a US bank). And the others...while there are libel laws in the UK I can't trust myself to write about Campbell or Mandelson.
Be carted off the the US without the US court having to show even prima facie evidence? There was a time and a place where foreign nationals could be extradited like that, but the time was prior to 1990 and the place was the satellite states of the Soviet Union.
A reversing prop has variable pitch and can be put into reverse as fast as the strength of the gearing and the power of the reversing motor allows. An engine with a gearbox, like most modern small boat engines, is reversed by slowing the engine, reversing the gear, and speeding up again. But with an old steam design the entire engine must be reversed, and this does not happen quickly. The engine must be brought to a stop and the valve timing reversed, and each valve chest has its own set of reversing gear which must be securely interlocked. This is considerably the slowest of the three options, though not quite as bad as direct drive Diesels where the engine had to be actually restarted in reverse, rendering them rather useless for many naval purposes.
There was no "All back" because the telegraph commands were "Stop" and "Full astern" (I have pictures of the telegraph). The spoken command in a small ship would be "Hard astern" and would require acknowledgement: "Hard Astern, aye aye Sir".
You are wrong in your contention. Hitchens did not need to panic, merely forget in the heat of the moment the difference between steam and sail practice. And the surviving officers would hardly want to admit that they had failed to notice the wheel turning the wrong way or the change of course. The officer is responsible for ensuring the correct performance of commands. It was a monumental cock-up.
There was no "All back" in those days. Props did not reverse. The Titanic had old technology triple expansion steam engines and could not manoeuvre quickly. The telegraph, I believe, had to go to stop and then full reverse when the command was acknowledged from the engine room.
I've already posted on this thread...ewanm89 knows his marine architecture and makes much more sense than some of the armchair admirals above.
Indeed. Maintaining operational efficiency on a sub in peacetime must be really quite difficult. And it would be excellent practice for action against the Iranian small-boat flotillas in the Persian Gulf.
For what? First, AFAIK, most subs have more tubes forward facing than rear facing. And second, the idea is to aim a torpedo broadside as it makes a much bigger target. For missiles, as one sub commander observed, the best place to be in relation to the target is the other side of a large island - like Great Britain.
Plays merry Hell with your buoyancy and stability calculations, unfortunately. But it's a nice idea. For extra lols, use old battleships and fire giant paintballs out of the main armament. A 450mm paint shell would be worth good money to watch.
My father, who dropped a lot of depth charges on Japanese submarines during WW2, begs to differ with your last sentence. As does a former colleague who took the surrender of a German submarine in WW2, and commented that he had never seen men so happy at becoming nice, safe prisoners of war.
No it isn't. They don't. Iran is a straw man threat like Cuba. What they actually need is some serious ignoring.
It worked, conspiracy theorists are now two a penny. Tolkien has created whole generations of fruitbats. Why are people so prepared to believe conspiracy rather than incompetence? Because in fantasy worlds nobody ever screws up because they were on the sauce, but because of vast conspiracies.
That's largely what the US did until Pearl Harbor. Even after, King was more concerned with ensuring the end of the British Empire and defeating Japan than destroying totalitarianism. Both Germany and Russia bought US goods.
C S Lewis has the answer to this one: that people who claim to be totally rational merely cannot see the irrational components of their own behaviour. A complete rationalist would not engage in "ethical" behavior until it was scientifically demonstrated that to do so conferred clear benefits in measurable units. But many people who claim to be rationalists do things without any such justification.
Now, what are the reasonable but insulting things you could say about Reform Judaism, Zen Buddhism, or the Society of Friends (Quakers)?
As I recall, a company developed a flexible Kevlar bin but it was too expensive.
When I'm waiting for a delivery I look down the drive and see a truck pull up on the opposite side of the road, then wait to see if the driver gets out and looks puzzled. Then I have to go and direct them. It's a small thing but remarkably annoying.