Fair use, a limitation and exception to the exclusive right granted by copyright law to the author of a creative work, is a doctrine in United States copyright law that allows limited use of copyrighted material without acquiring permission from the rights holders. Examples of fair use include commentary, criticism, news reporting, research, teaching, library archiving and scholarship.
Its public info, frankly I'm glad that people are boycotting their businesses because they are bigots. I dont want to support any business which feels it has a right to say what I do when it affects only myself.
Thanks for the boycott list though, Ill doubly make sure I don't buy from any of those businesses.
Your right I think... I don't know I cant find anything definition either way. I do know that other os was hobbled to some extent. The graphics card is often better at very parallel tasks then the processor(IIRRC)... thats why you see all the distributed computing clients that can use them. So Ill stand by my point that its very likely the air force isn't using the same other os feature that we all know and love.
I'm sure they have full access regardless of the other os feature. The other os was crippled to using only one of the cells of the processor, I'm willing to bet they are using all 8 in this super computer.
They either have a special license from Sony, or they've cracked it a long time ago.
Because the politicians are paid well by the pharmaceutical companies, and the private prison industries to keep it illegal.
The budget works like this, if you send money (aka bribe) to a politician then they protect all the budget items that are good for you. The problem is all the big players have paid their protection monies to the government, the only place to cut is from the little man. The government is actively trying to cut the little people out of the budget, why not they havn't paid their bribe.
Expect every single cut to services for the individual to be explained away with "budgetary reasons".
My comments were aimed more at the active component of the military needing congressional approval.
Your absolutely right that the NG can act on orders from the state government. If I'm not mistaken the enlistment oath for the NG even reflects that. The reasoning for that (I believe) is because the NG doesn't act as a standing army, but more of a state militia. They are also funded in a large part by the state (IIRC).
I spent my time active, so I only have a passing familiarity with the way the reservists and NG work. The point I was trying to make though was that if its not on federal land then active duty needs some sort of approval for doing pretty much anything.
Yes we can train, I always trained on federal land. I dont know how much training they do elsewhere, but the best I can remember I never saw it. Yes there may be combat operations, if congress approves it. Yes there may be Disaster Relief, usually only reservists and NG. Intelligence Operations? Expand on that please.
The military can do pretty much everything, but it all boils down to congressional approval in most cases. There were big concerns with standing armies in the early days of our country so alot of restrictions have been placed on how the military can act especially on home turf.
In Japan it was likely someone called up the US airbase and was like, hey can you help? Well in that situation depending on the SOFA agreement, they could probably scramble the planes right away. If it happened in the US and the base was called, most likely they would be getting approval from far up the chain of command to act.
The Act prohibits members of the Army, and Air Force, from exercising nominally state law enforcement, police, or peace officer powers that maintain "law and order" on non-federal property (states and their counties and municipal divisions) within the United States.
The statute prohibits Army and Air Force personnel and units of the National Guard under federal authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within the United States, except where expressly authorized by the Constitution or Congress. The Navy, and Marine Corps are prohibited by Department of Defense Directive, not by the Act itself.[1][2] The Coast Guard, under the Department of Homeland Security, is exempt from the Act.
The table labeled "Comparison of CO2 Production per GWh. Net Lifetime Energy Output for Various Electric Power Technologies (metric tons of CO2 )"
Or read the paragraphs before it that explained the table and how they included the costs of manufacturing the plants, and how they got the numbers?
You obviously didn't, because I think this is exactly what was being requested.
Here is a quote from page 31:
This report compares CO2 production per unit energy output during a 30-year lifetime from a fluidized-bed, coal-fired power plant, a small and a large solar photovoltaic plant, and a solar thermal centralreceiver power plant. The approach used in making these calculations starts with an energy analysis that accounts for the energy embodied in all of the components of the plants, the energy required fox the operation and maintenance of the plants, and the fossil-fuel energy used to operate them.
Its an older study but the first I found on google. I'm sure there are much better sources out there though. Page 33 of the pdf shows a chart I think boils it all down.
Most people? He doesn't even deny the translation. The Palestinians even told him it was wrong to say. How did you get your head shoved that far up your rear end? Your going with your gut feeling without looking at any of the sources that have been posted. Good job.
Who has the obvious slant? The one who posts sources to back up his ascertation. Sources that are regarded as at the very least generally truthful. Or the one who cannot provide a source, or can only provide a source that most people have never heard of.
None of my sources has an obvious slant, unless you would like to expand on the BBC, CNN, NYT, and Washington Post. Do you believe they have a slant?
You don't seem to understand either what I was saying, which is his source has an obvious slant. Which isn't Ironic because none of my sources has an obvious slant. Or you don't seem to understand the word irony.
The translation came from the Iranian state news agency, leaders from around the world decried the quote, he admitted/defended the quote, Palestinians have been quoted as saying he should not have said that. That is enough evidence for most reasonable people to assume that that is at the very least what he meant.
Your source has a obvious slant (not saying it isnt an admirable goal) but that slant is to stop wars. So someone with a obvious stated slant like that does not make them a good source.
Slashdot Mirror
Correction, I meant "Ever hear of fair use?"
Ever here of fair use?
Fair use, a limitation and exception to the exclusive right granted by copyright law to the author of a creative work, is a doctrine in United States copyright law that allows limited use of copyrighted material without acquiring permission from the rights holders. Examples of fair use include commentary, criticism, news reporting, research, teaching, library archiving and scholarship.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
This could easily count as commentary, criticism, or maybe even news reporting.
thank you
Its public info, frankly I'm glad that people are boycotting their businesses because they are bigots. I dont want to support any business which feels it has a right to say what I do when it affects only myself.
Thanks for the boycott list though, Ill doubly make sure I don't buy from any of those businesses.
It's wireless bandwidth scarcity that hes referring to... what brain dead moron modded you up?
I have every intention of borrowing your hypothesis.
+1 Informative
Your right I think... I don't know I cant find anything definition either way. I do know that other os was hobbled to some extent. The graphics card is often better at very parallel tasks then the processor(IIRRC)... thats why you see all the distributed computing clients that can use them. So Ill stand by my point that its very likely the air force isn't using the same other os feature that we all know and love.
I'm sure they have full access regardless of the other os feature. The other os was crippled to using only one of the cells of the processor, I'm willing to bet they are using all 8 in this super computer.
They either have a special license from Sony, or they've cracked it a long time ago.
No prob, your suggestion got me to learn something new today.
Remember how AMD got into the x86 biz? No? Go look it up.
Excellent suggestion, link for anyone interested.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amd#Processor_market_history
Relevant quote for those not interested. Seems like good planning on IBMs part.
IBM wanted to use the Intel 8088 in its IBM PC, but IBM's policy at the time was to require at least two sources for its chips.
+5 Funny
Because the politicians are paid well by the pharmaceutical companies, and the private prison industries to keep it illegal.
The budget works like this, if you send money (aka bribe) to a politician then they protect all the budget items that are good for you. The problem is all the big players have paid their protection monies to the government, the only place to cut is from the little man. The government is actively trying to cut the little people out of the budget, why not they havn't paid their bribe.
Expect every single cut to services for the individual to be explained away with "budgetary reasons".
My comments were aimed more at the active component of the military needing congressional approval.
Your absolutely right that the NG can act on orders from the state government. If I'm not mistaken the enlistment oath for the NG even reflects that. The reasoning for that (I believe) is because the NG doesn't act as a standing army, but more of a state militia. They are also funded in a large part by the state (IIRC).
I spent my time active, so I only have a passing familiarity with the way the reservists and NG work. The point I was trying to make though was that if its not on federal land then active duty needs some sort of approval for doing pretty much anything.
Lol I was in the military.
Yes we can train, I always trained on federal land. I dont know how much training they do elsewhere, but the best I can remember I never saw it.
Yes there may be combat operations, if congress approves it.
Yes there may be Disaster Relief, usually only reservists and NG.
Intelligence Operations? Expand on that please.
The military can do pretty much everything, but it all boils down to congressional approval in most cases. There were big concerns with standing armies in the early days of our country so alot of restrictions have been placed on how the military can act especially on home turf.
In Japan it was likely someone called up the US airbase and was like, hey can you help? Well in that situation depending on the SOFA agreement, they could probably scramble the planes right away. If it happened in the US and the base was called, most likely they would be getting approval from far up the chain of command to act.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act
The Act prohibits members of the Army, and Air Force, from exercising nominally state law enforcement, police, or peace officer powers that maintain "law and order" on non-federal property (states and their counties and municipal divisions) within the United States.
The statute prohibits Army and Air Force personnel and units of the National Guard under federal authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within the United States, except where expressly authorized by the Constitution or Congress. The Navy, and Marine Corps are prohibited by Department of Defense Directive, not by the Act itself.[1][2] The Coast Guard, under the Department of Homeland Security, is exempt from the Act.
I didn't advocate any type of power generation whatsoever in any post in this thread/page/today/this week/probably much further beyond that, OK?
I posted a study that answered a request, thats it.
Did you look at the table on page 33?
The table labeled "Comparison of CO2 Production per GWh. Net Lifetime Energy Output for
Various Electric Power Technologies (metric tons of CO2 )"
Or read the paragraphs before it that explained the table and how they included the costs of manufacturing the plants, and how they got the numbers?
You obviously didn't, because I think this is exactly what was being requested.
Here is a quote from page 31:
This report compares CO2 production per unit energy output during a
30-year lifetime from a fluidized-bed, coal-fired power plant, a small
and a large solar photovoltaic plant, and a solar thermal centralreceiver
power plant. The approach used in making these calculations
starts with an energy analysis that accounts for the energy embodied in
all of the components of the plants, the energy required fox the
operation and maintenance of the plants, and the fossil-fuel energy used
to operate them.
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/legosti/old/3772.pdf
Its an older study but the first I found on google. I'm sure there are much better sources out there though. Page 33 of the pdf shows a chart I think boils it all down.
NREL is part of the DOE btw.
Be less interesting to read thats for sure though.
Yea but is "Henry Ford" a valid trademark?
LMAO
Most people? He doesn't even deny the translation. The Palestinians even told him it was wrong to say. How did you get your head shoved that far up your rear end? Your going with your gut feeling without looking at any of the sources that have been posted. Good job.
Who has the obvious slant? The one who posts sources to back up his ascertation. Sources that are regarded as at the very least generally truthful. Or the one who cannot provide a source, or can only provide a source that most people have never heard of.
NYT:
Admadinejad said, "As the imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map."
I don't know how that doesn't count as a direct quote.
Same NYT source I listed earlier.
None of my sources has an obvious slant, unless you would like to expand on the BBC, CNN, NYT, and Washington Post. Do you believe they have a slant?
You don't seem to understand either what I was saying, which is his source has an obvious slant. Which isn't Ironic because none of my sources has an obvious slant. Or you don't seem to understand the word irony.
The translation came from the Iranian state news agency, leaders from around the world decried the quote, he admitted/defended the quote, Palestinians have been quoted as saying he should not have said that. That is enough evidence for most reasonable people to assume that that is at the very least what he meant.
Your source has a obvious slant (not saying it isnt an admirable goal) but that slant is to stop wars. So someone with a obvious stated slant like that does not make them a good source.