BBC3 is really a sandbox for new programmes they would have only ever previously piloted on BBC2. Hence there is a lot of rubbish, but also a few real gems that now are mostly on BBC2. I don't know if it is a worthwhile use of the license fee or not, but some of my favourite comedy programmes in years have started out on BBC3. BBC4 is the Radio4 of TV, and I guess it has a very specific target audience, but the programming is generally good. Obviously both have a lot of repeats too, which most of the time makes them not worth watching.
meh, nanowires have been around for ages. Great, they've found a nice way of gating it, but really that's it. This is just a press release... When they find a way of doing this without e-beam then it might be useful in industry.
What I can't stand is when people start playing semantics and twisting science to support a political point of view. Don't dehumanize a person by calling them collateral damage to make killing them easier to accept. Admit that they're human but that you want to the convenience and the choice.
I'd say after we try to stop killing walking and talking humans for convenience we can focus on stopping late term abortions.
Why even focus on humans? If you've got some threshold for killing, apply it to all animals...
if you did an undergraduate physics degree, I'd be surprised if you didn't know what all of those words mean. They can all be wikid (not sure I like that word)...
I may be mistaken, but common law essentially incorporates precedent. i.e. bills are passed in the commons but have to be interpreted by the judiciary. If a law is untested then a precedent is certainly set in common law when a judgement is made.
Well, for starters I would have thought it obvious from the statement I was making (and my signature) that I consider myself agnostic. I mean agnostic in the sense coined by Thomas Huxley, that is I believe in the fundamental lack of evidence for a deity (strong agnosticism) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_agnosticism .
If there really were no talk of proof or evidence then you really are as fundamentally unsound as any other religion. I mainly mean by atheism, what seems to be the most outspoken version at the moment, strong athiesm. i.e. the assertion that deities do not exist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_atheism. Anything else seems to be a weaker version of that viewpoint, or a dishonest dressing up of weak agnosticism.
Even the original greek word atheos, came to mean something like atheistic in the modern interpretation.
well we suppose it is there to explain anomalous gravitational effects. The main problem is that there are lots of ideas about what this dark matter could be - WIMPs or black holes etc...
technically dark matter is matter we can't detect. i.e. if there is dark matter it is weakly interacting - which obviously is a real pain if you are trying to work out if it exists.
Oh please, the prosecution had to drop half the charges because their evidence was useless. Not until after, let it be added TPB showed them the technical intricacies of why they were wrong.
The fact that I pay nothing for it shows it worth that - nothing. It is a sad fact (or is it?), but that is the reality. Of course the physical media themselves may be worth something, as well as a live performance, or many other associated things. However, if a piece of information is available for free it is worthless, because who am I going to sell it to? Of course it enriches us in ways money can't, but strictly that is not monetary value.
well I do not agree with your analysis of whether they are service providers - but that is why we have courts - to interpret the law. As the media have been saying all week, this was a major test case in Sweden; I believe most of the Swedish lawyers thought what they were doing was possibly pushing the boundaries of what was legal, but there was no real consensus. So when you say they "so obviously cherry-picked parts of the law and ignored so much", I find it hard to believe you.
If their intent is to act within the law regardless of their views on copyright then the question is rather irrelevant. Their answer could have been something like, "I hate copyright and I will do everything within the law to subvert it".
If we are making it a crime to hate copyright then that is a very slippery, orwellian slope
I'd agree. In the trial itself the prosecutors asked the defendants their views on copyright. Their response? "I thought this wasn't a political trial?".
I think it is a shame they didn't openly state their opinions about it whilst still arguing they are within the law, either way it was a political trial and maybe they should have met it more head-on.
Slashdot Mirror
BBC3 is really a sandbox for new programmes they would have only ever previously piloted on BBC2. Hence there is a lot of rubbish, but also a few real gems that now are mostly on BBC2. I don't know if it is a worthwhile use of the license fee or not, but some of my favourite comedy programmes in years have started out on BBC3. BBC4 is the Radio4 of TV, and I guess it has a very specific target audience, but the programming is generally good. Obviously both have a lot of repeats too, which most of the time makes them not worth watching.
meh, nanowires have been around for ages. Great, they've found a nice way of gating it, but really that's it. This is just a press release...
When they find a way of doing this without e-beam then it might be useful in industry.
What I can't stand is when people start playing semantics and twisting science to support a political point of view. Don't dehumanize a person by calling them collateral damage to make killing them easier to accept. Admit that they're human but that you want to the convenience and the choice.
I'd say after we try to stop killing walking and talking humans for convenience we can focus on stopping late term abortions.
Why even focus on humans? If you've got some threshold for killing, apply it to all animals...
if you did an undergraduate physics degree, I'd be surprised if you didn't know what all of those words mean. They can all be wikid (not sure I like that word)...
weighted random walk
bah, it's unconfirmed [citation needed]. Russians aren't going to confirm or deny it yet...
hacked into DARPA's communications?
Don't count on Gibraltar, I'm sure the UK government would apply significant pressure to them.
If you think students are lazy these days, you should see the instructors..
Maybe that is the real problem...
I may be mistaken, but common law essentially incorporates precedent. i.e. bills are passed in the commons but have to be interpreted by the judiciary. If a law is untested then a precedent is certainly set in common law when a judgement is made.
Correlation != Causality.
And weak correlation at that...
Where is the content in this story? Slapping together two changes in expenditure is news?
the I in ITER stands for international...
Yes, I think you have, she can't afford to retain her lawyer. It is unlikely she is going to be able to pay $100,000 of lawyers fees.
you sound like a shill...
I think it's called a wiki.
Well, for starters I would have thought it obvious from the statement I was making (and my signature) that I consider myself agnostic. I mean agnostic in the sense coined by Thomas Huxley, that is I believe in the fundamental lack of evidence for a deity (strong agnosticism) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_agnosticism .
If there really were no talk of proof or evidence then you really are as fundamentally unsound as any other religion. I mainly mean by atheism, what seems to be the most outspoken version at the moment, strong athiesm. i.e. the assertion that deities do not exist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_atheism. Anything else seems to be a weaker version of that viewpoint, or a dishonest dressing up of weak agnosticism.
Even the original greek word atheos, came to mean something like atheistic in the modern interpretation.
well we suppose it is there to explain anomalous gravitational effects. The main problem is that there are lots of ideas about what this dark matter could be - WIMPs or black holes etc...
technically dark matter is matter we can't detect. i.e. if there is dark matter it is weakly interacting - which obviously is a real pain if you are trying to work out if it exists.
Does anyone else get an uneasy feeling about the use of the word debunk in the summary?
Oh please, the prosecution had to drop half the charges because their evidence was useless. Not until after, let it be added TPB showed them the technical intricacies of why they were wrong.
an infinite surplus...
I am willing to pay nothing because I can go elsewhere and get it for nothing. It is how a free market works. Why would I pay more than I have to?
The fact that I pay nothing for it shows it worth that - nothing. It is a sad fact (or is it?), but that is the reality. Of course the physical media themselves may be worth something, as well as a live performance, or many other associated things. However, if a piece of information is available for free it is worthless, because who am I going to sell it to? Of course it enriches us in ways money can't, but strictly that is not monetary value.
well I do not agree with your analysis of whether they are service providers - but that is why we have courts - to interpret the law. As the media have been saying all week, this was a major test case in Sweden; I believe most of the Swedish lawyers thought what they were doing was possibly pushing the boundaries of what was legal, but there was no real consensus. So when you say they "so obviously cherry-picked parts of the law and ignored so much", I find it hard to believe you.
If their intent is to act within the law regardless of their views on copyright then the question is rather irrelevant. Their answer could have been something like, "I hate copyright and I will do everything within the law to subvert it".
If we are making it a crime to hate copyright then that is a very slippery, orwellian slope
I'd agree. In the trial itself the prosecutors asked the defendants their views on copyright. Their response? "I thought this wasn't a political trial?".
I think it is a shame they didn't openly state their opinions about it whilst still arguing they are within the law, either way it was a political trial and maybe they should have met it more head-on.