Of course. The law is what it is. Unless you are large bank then if you suspect such a thing of one of you customers then you need to not trade with that customer until they provide documentation to show the money/etc isn't the product of criminal enterprise or else you are facing decades in prison if you annoy the wrong police officer/prosecutor.
Of course he shouldn't have told that story to anyone. However, when they are wiretapping the suspected criminal and you turn up on the recordings things can spin out of control. Again, especially if you piss off the wrong cop. And of course jurors, for reasons you'd have to ask them about, seem to take the word of convicted criminals who make unsupported claims to incriminate others that contradict their previous claims only after being offered something in exchange for such statements that happen to support the case of those offering the something in exchange.
Yes that is the only difference between meth and cigarettes.
20 million people use marijuana, yet it is also prohibited and so by your logic should have the same usage rates as meth - so why are there 20x the numbers of users?
That he freaked out and said told them to remove the money and “I don’t want to know about this. I don’t want any problems.” Seems like a good indication that he did in fact think it was likely the result of some sort of criminal activity. That he then took another job from them to build a hidden compartment in another vehicle puts him pretty clearly in the breaking the law category (you can argue the law is stupid, but it is what it is).
Of course this guy gets 24 years in prison for indirectly helping out drug traffickers move millions of dollars around. HSBC helps drug traffickers move billions of dollars around and all the people involved get a total of 0 days in prison.
Nope. There's no argument about whether or not backward compatibility is a valid marketing tactic (it clearly is). The argument is whether something can succeed without it. The DVD replacing VHS tapes - we can ignore those Asian markets which went via VCD if that makes you feel better - the *vast* bulk of DVD players sold in America were sold to someone "upgrading" (quotes due to no record capability in the early days so a VHS is objectively better in at least one criteria) from VHS not VCD - is pretty good evidence it is possible. If you must include Asian markets then the VCD itself is evidence that backwards compatibility isn't essential.
The CD is also evidence.
Backwards compatibility is always better for the user. Unless it raises the price (or size or whatever metric might also be cared about) of course in which case different people will value it differently. That doesn't mean it's required.
Then [sometime after 2000], there was an addition to the theory handed down that explained that the extra energy caused more extreme weather, both hotter in the summer and colder in the winter
Note that is not saying you didn't hear about it until after 2000. It is not saying that most people didn't see those claims until after the bad winters. That is clearly saying the theory was added to to include an explanation of observed cold winters in the 2000s.
You posted that in a thread that has a reference to a publication from the 1983 a few posts back that contains "Scenarios for Europe in a warmer world, such as may result from increased atmospheric carbon dioxide levels... Increased temperature variability combined with a general cooling during winter over north and northwestern Europe suggests a greater frequency of severe winters" in the abstract.
And it's not a passing reference, it's the paper you responded to with "this idea only became part of AGW theory after the effect was observed". You are claiming that a paper published in 1983 was written to explain something observed "sometimes after 2000". Other than time travel how am I supposed to understand that claim?
If you have a video camera constantly recording on your car dash you are going to end up recording a traffic offense you have committed (unless you never commit any of course, but most people make the occasional mistake). Not wanting a police officer who pulls you over for fun to be able to access the video and look for such cases doesn't seem like that strange a desire.
Looking good in a court of law isn't the issue, it's not getting there in the first place. Though I can't help but notice that the amazing coincidence that the dash cam in a police car just happened to not be working when the police are alleged to have beaten the guy now charged with resisting arrest that seems to happen over and over again hasn't made anyone look bad yet...
So just to make sure, your claim is that extra cold winters sometimes after 2000 causes changes to the theory to be handed down and sent back in time 20 years to be published?
Assuming they don't package multiple shipments into one package and split them at the other end.
Assuming they don't use their own delivery service to deliver huge numbers of packages from one source to one destination. I doubt walmart uses fedex to send their stock to their stores after all...
That their "athiest branding" sometimes gums some automated processing step and hence kicks the package out to a manual sort could also explain it. If their athiest packaging tape sometimes covers part of the address label or something. Of course you would expect the non-US shipments to have the same profile in that case and they didn't.
And along with their motivations you should also note that they've stopped using their athiest branding on US packages and delivery times have improved.
Right. The one time they ruled to restrict government power according to the constitution. That's the one that made you lose all your confidence in them.
There's nothing wrong with charging for something that has an extremely low (or even zero) marginal cost to you. Me watching a movie at the local cinema in a session that isn't booked out costs exactly nothing (well ok wear and tear on the seat...). I take it you also consider them charging me for a ticket to be a scam?
SMS users subsidized non-SMS users. Big deal.
And if SMS truly costs nothing, then setup your own SMS system. After all the spectrum for those messages that cellphone's always send and those towers you'll have to build to receive them don't cost you anything, right?
If you take their claims at face value, then then there's a couple of facts:
* T-mobile's support lied to them about the services being a third-party - twice by two different representatives. * T-mobile's support lied to them about the signup date - giving a date that usually would make sense and might be written of as a mistake.
Now sure it might have been a left over subscription from a previous incarnation of the phone number. Which just happened to match the customer's star sign and just happened to be recorded as being signed up on a date after the new line was in service. However, it does seem rather convenient...
Because Google would hate the free advertising, right?
They've already ticked the boxes for defending their trademark, if they get the free publicity they had to sacrifice in order to do so anyway they'll be delighted.
Which is why I said "large enough to be useful" since that restricts both the minimum and maximum size to what it practical for an airship (or whatever) - well it really just restricts the maximum, you can just use multiple copies of something "too small"...
Though you are wrong anyway, since you can't make a self supporting structure of arbitrary size out of any given material (let alone one also having to handle the pressure in this scenario) so there's a limit there which could very well be smaller than the minimum sized cube (or more likely sphere).
If it's rigid you don't need any hydrogen, that's the point.
1 liter of *nothing* is lighter than 1 liter of hydrogen. We don't have a material (that I know of anyway) that can both support the 1 atmosphere pressure difference of the inside and the outside of a large enough to be useful surface area while also not weighing so much that it's pointless.
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/underweb-anger-as-silk-road-seller-does-a-runner-20130226-2f36q.html
Of course. The law is what it is. Unless you are large bank then if you suspect such a thing of one of you customers then you need to not trade with that customer until they provide documentation to show the money/etc isn't the product of criminal enterprise or else you are facing decades in prison if you annoy the wrong police officer/prosecutor.
Of course he shouldn't have told that story to anyone. However, when they are wiretapping the suspected criminal and you turn up on the recordings things can spin out of control. Again, especially if you piss off the wrong cop. And of course jurors, for reasons you'd have to ask them about, seem to take the word of convicted criminals who make unsupported claims to incriminate others that contradict their previous claims only after being offered something in exchange for such statements that happen to support the case of those offering the something in exchange.
How is sending the money and then not getting the product any different from being "robbed"?
Yes that is the only difference between meth and cigarettes.
20 million people use marijuana, yet it is also prohibited and so by your logic should have the same usage rates as meth - so why are there 20x the numbers of users?
That he freaked out and said told them to remove the money and “I don’t want to know about this. I don’t want any problems.” Seems like a good indication that he did in fact think it was likely the result of some sort of criminal activity. That he then took another job from them to build a hidden compartment in another vehicle puts him pretty clearly in the breaking the law category (you can argue the law is stupid, but it is what it is).
Of course this guy gets 24 years in prison for indirectly helping out drug traffickers move millions of dollars around. HSBC helps drug traffickers move billions of dollars around and all the people involved get a total of 0 days in prison.
Nope. There's no argument about whether or not backward compatibility is a valid marketing tactic (it clearly is). The argument is whether something can succeed without it. The DVD replacing VHS tapes - we can ignore those Asian markets which went via VCD if that makes you feel better - the *vast* bulk of DVD players sold in America were sold to someone "upgrading" (quotes due to no record capability in the early days so a VHS is objectively better in at least one criteria) from VHS not VCD - is pretty good evidence it is possible. If you must include Asian markets then the VCD itself is evidence that backwards compatibility isn't essential.
The CD is also evidence.
Backwards compatibility is always better for the user. Unless it raises the price (or size or whatever metric might also be cared about) of course in which case different people will value it differently. That doesn't mean it's required.
DId your Laserdisc play VHS/Betamax tapes?
Did your VCD play Laserdiscs?
What do you play your PS3 games on then? And why would that method stop working because a PS4 was connected to your TV?
I didn't put words in your mouth you said:
Note that is not saying you didn't hear about it until after 2000. It is not saying that most people didn't see those claims until after the bad winters. That is clearly saying the theory was added to to include an explanation of observed cold winters in the 2000s.
You posted that in a thread that has a reference to a publication from the 1983 a few posts back that contains "Scenarios for Europe in a warmer world, such as may result from increased atmospheric carbon dioxide levels ... Increased temperature variability combined with a general cooling during winter over north and northwestern Europe suggests a greater frequency of severe winters" in the abstract.
And it's not a passing reference, it's the paper you responded to with "this idea only became part of AGW theory after the effect was observed". You are claiming that a paper published in 1983 was written to explain something observed "sometimes after 2000". Other than time travel how am I supposed to understand that claim?
If you have a video camera constantly recording on your car dash you are going to end up recording a traffic offense you have committed (unless you never commit any of course, but most people make the occasional mistake). Not wanting a police officer who pulls you over for fun to be able to access the video and look for such cases doesn't seem like that strange a desire.
Looking good in a court of law isn't the issue, it's not getting there in the first place. Though I can't help but notice that the amazing coincidence that the dash cam in a police car just happened to not be working when the police are alleged to have beaten the guy now charged with resisting arrest that seems to happen over and over again hasn't made anyone look bad yet...
So just to make sure, your claim is that extra cold winters sometimes after 2000 causes changes to the theory to be handed down and sent back in time 20 years to be published?
Assuming they don't package multiple shipments into one package and split them at the other end.
Assuming they don't use their own delivery service to deliver huge numbers of packages from one source to one destination. I doubt walmart uses fedex to send their stock to their stores after all...
Because the concern is that the sd card contains video of you breaking the law and you'd rather the police not be able to view it.
That their "athiest branding" sometimes gums some automated processing step and hence kicks the package out to a manual sort could also explain it. If their athiest packaging tape sometimes covers part of the address label or something. Of course you would expect the non-US shipments to have the same profile in that case and they didn't.
And along with their motivations you should also note that they've stopped using their athiest branding on US packages and delivery times have improved.
Right. The one time they ruled to restrict government power according to the constitution. That's the one that made you lose all your confidence in them.
Is it opposite day or something?
There's nothing wrong with charging for something that has an extremely low (or even zero) marginal cost to you. Me watching a movie at the local cinema in a session that isn't booked out costs exactly nothing (well ok wear and tear on the seat...). I take it you also consider them charging me for a ticket to be a scam?
SMS users subsidized non-SMS users. Big deal.
And if SMS truly costs nothing, then setup your own SMS system. After all the spectrum for those messages that cellphone's always send and those towers you'll have to build to receive them don't cost you anything, right?
If you take their claims at face value, then then there's a couple of facts:
* T-mobile's support lied to them about the services being a third-party - twice by two different representatives.
* T-mobile's support lied to them about the signup date - giving a date that usually would make sense and might be written of as a mistake.
Now sure it might have been a left over subscription from a previous incarnation of the phone number. Which just happened to match the customer's star sign and just happened to be recorded as being signed up on a date after the new line was in service. However, it does seem rather convenient...
It's a US site moron. So even when the article is about a UK telecom the editorial is going to be from a US perspective.
If you were reading slashdot.org.au then "almost everyone" would mean "almost everyone in Australia" without any other context being provided.
All that money printing has to end up somewhere, some of it has made it to tech companies but it's hardly restricted to tech companies.
Because Google would hate the free advertising, right?
They've already ticked the boxes for defending their trademark, if they get the free publicity they had to sacrifice in order to do so anyway they'll be delighted.
Which is why I said "large enough to be useful" since that restricts both the minimum and maximum size to what it practical for an airship (or whatever) - well it really just restricts the maximum, you can just use multiple copies of something "too small"...
Though you are wrong anyway, since you can't make a self supporting structure of arbitrary size out of any given material (let alone one also having to handle the pressure in this scenario) so there's a limit there which could very well be smaller than the minimum sized cube (or more likely sphere).
When something is described as "extremely elastic, bouncing back after being compressed" then it's unlikely to be all that rigid...
If it's rigid you don't need any hydrogen, that's the point.
1 liter of *nothing* is lighter than 1 liter of hydrogen. We don't have a material (that I know of anyway) that can both support the 1 atmosphere pressure difference of the inside and the outside of a large enough to be useful surface area while also not weighing so much that it's pointless.
Because it is their money and that is how they want to use it.
Feel free to build your own and use it for whatever you want as well.
Do you know what volatile means?
That chart is a good example of high volatility, for example.