Hm... that's quite different from how I remember my learning days. There was always the authoritative learning, but the topics of this type of learning were about expectations from others: To say "please", and "thank you", not to eat too much sweets, and when to stay quiet for a moment. And then there was the learning about the nature of things: How the blade of a knife is sharp, and thus it might be better to act carefully when wielding a knife. That a sky full of dark clouds is a warning about rain, and thus wearing a jacket might be ok. That just nearly shortcutting the both poles of a battery will cause sparks, and the actual shortcutting will produce heat and cause the battery to run low very quickly. There is nothing wrong with teaching from authority. And there is a large difference between what an adult knows and what a child. This difference shows, it's called experience, and if you want to call the usage of the difference "authority"; be my guest. But in this case, authority is mainly a shortcut. It allows the adult to choose the right example, the right setting and the right lesson to draw. And it saves the child a whole lifetime of unsuccessfull experiments. There is in general no point in letting the child for himself find the ingredients of a Volta element. It's fully ok. to use your authority and stack different coins and paper soaked with lemonjuice and show that they produce a current.
Since 1999, 13 years are gone. 50% inflation in 13 years boils down to an average of 3.2% p.a.. While this is not a record low, it's still not galopping hyperinflation.
It starts with my first account at the university for a computer lab running AIX V3.2 and HP UX 7.1. It continues with me taking a C programming course, then diving deeply into MUD programming. It goes along with Linux 0.99.4, which a collegue of mine showed to me running an MWM like window manager. It sees me helping acquaintances compiling kernels for Slackware based distributions on their respective boxes. It has to do with my second position as a firewall administrator of firewalls running on Solaris and later FreeBSD based machines. It gets me to owning my own Solaris box along with a Linux box running several Linux distributions installed on top of each other. It accompagnies me to a short stint as a system administrator at a research institute for distributed computing. And now it sees me administer phone switches based on Linux and applications plugging into the phone switches and running on Linux too.
That was pure speculation on Australian diplomats' part.
No. The Sydney Morning Herald states that: 'American responses to the embassy's representations have been withheld from release on the grounds that disclosure could "cause damage to the international relations of the Commonwealth".' So we know mainly Australia's side of the conversation, but that doesn't mean that they consist purely of speculation. And why does Fred Burton of Stratfor then claims that the U.S. has a sealed indictment against Julian Assange?
In Sweden, it is about setting an example. Sweden is the Saudi Arabia of feminism.
This is mainly calling people names.
Because it's Ecuador; who gives a shit? The UK has had this law for a while now, and all embassies in London should be quite aware of it. I sincerely doubt other nations will 'pull their business' if the UK storms the Ecuadorian embassy.
It's not about other nations pulling their business. It's about protecting UK embassies everywhere in the world. Who will for instance hinder the Russian police in the next Litvinenko-like case to storm the UK embassy in Moscow, citing the London precedent? That's the main reason why the UK retracted so fast from their bold statements - it would endanger the UK more than anyone else.
If he's so unimportant, why does the U.S. ambassador to Australia negotiate the terms of an extradition - just in case? If he's so unimportant, why insists Sweden on a witness statement given on swedish soil? (Yes, the extradition request is for a witness! It's not as if the state attorney already has filed charges.) If he's so unimportant, why does the UK government threats to storm the Ecuadorian embassy over him?
Somehow none of this sounds as if there is something completely unimportant happening. And somehow it doesn't sound as if Julian Assange is the one trying to inflate the importance.
You just critisized the repressive government of China (by calling them repressive), and you are still breathing. See, how easy that is? How much courage did it take you? Nothing! It just came out of your fingers without much thinking.
And that's exactly your problem. You demand from WikiLeaks things, that happens everywhere anyway. Atrocities in Syria? Open the next newspaper! Torture in Iranian prisons? Switch on the TV evening news! Propaganda trials against critical voices in Russia? Read it up on the Internet! So what's the point for WikiLeaks to repeat that? What's the unique selling point for WikiLeaks to publish that? WikiLeaks publishes stuff it deems genuine, and which are not published everwhere else. Mostly this is stuff many other people in the Western world don't want to see published.
Only a person like Julian Assange would have the balls to lead WikiLeaks. People who better fit into society tend to... yes... rather try to fit into society.
You don't get it, don't you? Lets say, you have some important information to reveal. If they make the Republicans look bad, put it into the NY Times! If they make the Democrats look bad, put it in the Wall Street Journal! If they make the lower classes look bad, put it into !Forbes. If they make the upper class look bad, put it in the Daily News!
You see the pattern? Whenever you find a larger group in the U.S. who likes the information to be known, you will find a news outlet to publish it. Only if no news outlet in the U.S. will publish it, because it makes nearly everyone look bad, where do you go? - Tada! Whichever news outlet will publish it, to the U.S. as a whole it will look as if it has an anti-american agenda - just because it publishes the stuff, no other news outlet will publish, because they fear the anger of nearly all groups in the U.S.
No, a news outlet like WikiLeaks will always look as if it was anti-american. If the news was somehow neutral or pro-american, it would have been published in the U.S. already. So your "anti-american agenda" just turns into "I don't like the information to be known, because they make me look bad."
The "not a good idea" is pretty uninformed. Why exactly should the injection be a bad idea?
1. Not all vaccines are injected. Polio-antigenes for instances are swalloed and thus they take the "natural" way to the body. 2. The vaccines have to reach the immune system, so the immune system can create the antibodies for the antigenes contained in the vaccine. So we have to warrant that the antigenes are not destroyed for instance by the digestive system before they reach the actual lymphocytes. There is no point in vaccination if there are no antibodies created.
But that's the same with immunity aquired by a real infection. It also wears off with time, and sometimes you need another vaccination to get immune again, or you can get sick from an infection again and need to develop the right immunisation again. It doesn't change the general concept of vaccination: Having the body undergo some "model infection", which is guaranteed (for medical values of "guaranteed") not to harm the body, but to cause the immune system to develop the right immune response. Differently than the injection of a medication, a vaccine consists of antigenes, that are the substances the immune system reacts on by developing specific antibodies which couple to the antigenes and turn them inactive.
Your post could be shortened to "I don't know how vaccination works".
Almost every person with a healthy natural immune system exposed to Poliovirus will brush it off with no symptoms and gain additional lifelong protection.
That's the only slightly correct sentence in your post. But all the conclusions you draw are wrong. Immunization via vaccination is based on exactly that fact: Given an healthy immune system, an exposition to the Poliovius will create an immune answer which a) stops the Poliovirus from spreading and b) gives you a lifelong protection. And that's how vaccination works. Your body gets a dose of dead or at least deactivated Poliovirus, your healthy immune system creates the immune answer, and you gain lifelong protection -- and that without the risk of actually catching Poliomyelitis, which an exposition to the real thing would yield.
Vaccination is not a 100% success. Some people are vaccinated and still not immune, because their immune system was not able to create the right immune answer to the vaccine. Those people are especially at risk, because if someone catches the real thing and infects them, their immune system again will probably not answer sufficiently. Other people can't get vaccination because of allergies or other contraindications. Normally herd immunity (the fact that around you most people are immune anyway and thus not carrying any infectants your immune system failed to create an immune answer to) protects those people. Unvaccinated people dillute the herd immunity, and if it falls beyond a certain threshold, the protection wears off.
If you are really interested in seeing the Uranium mine still in operation, get out any online map with satellite view and look for "Koenigstein/Saechsische Schweiz (Deutschland)", zoom into the map until you can see the Fortress Königstein. About one mile west of the fortress, you see the mine. It might be labelled "Wismut NL Königstein".
Hm... The next Uranium mine from my birthplace was about 10 mls, the next one still in operation is about 30 mls. And I grew up in a region which hasn't seen any armed conflicts since World War II. The next Uranium deposit from where I live now is 20 mls, although it doesn't get mined.
Uranium is plenty, and you can get it nearly everywhere. If there is an old silver mine nearby, you can be pretty sure that you found the next Uranium deposit. The problem is not so much the finding and mining of Uranium, the problem is to get all necessary papers to do so, and to get all the permits and clearances for refining the Uranium.
Implications...IMPLICATIONS? It's not implied that Thou Shalt Not Steal...It's COMMANDED. Why couldn't the God of the Bible COMMAND men to NOT RAPE.Implications...
I wouldn't put too much importance into the actual wording, because the wording of the King James Bible is just that - it's the wording the translators working under the request of King James used. In the original hebrew bible, it's not commanded. Instead of the equivalent of "shall", the word hebrew word for "will" is used.
You will not steal.
So in the original bible, the ten commandments are not considered commandments, but descriptions of the behaviour of a true believer. A true believer will not steal. No, never. It won't even get to his mind that stealing is worthwile. He just won't lure for his neighbor's wife. No mention of women outside of the neighborhood. Or women who "don't belong to someone" (except to herself). The only protection against rape a biblical woman has is being owned by a man and then only against the neighoring true believers. Serfmaids? No protection. The own brother, father, husband? No protection. Living in a shabby neighborhood? No protection. Living for yourself? No protection either.
Those previews are like movie trailers. If you can't get interested by the movie trailers, no one will get you to watch the movie then, protecting revenue be pissed.
The case roots somewhat deeper. The Perlentaucher ("pearl diver") site was compiling links to interesting articles and providing excerpts from them, and got sued for copyright infringment because the excerpts were too verbose for some of the original publishers. Perlentaucher prevailed, the courts found the excerpts to be within the "quoting" limits. So now the publishers want to get compensated for those excerpts, especially if they are automatically generated like Google's link results.
So 200 years ago, people conveniently ignored Iceland (the Althing was the parliament of Iceland for more than 300 years), the Isle of Man (the Tynwald is the parliament of the island since 979, more than 1000 years of democracy!), San Marino (republic since 366 - more than 1600 years ago!) and Switzerland (democracy since 1291), just to make a point.
Time to visit might work fine, if you live nearby. For me, a visit is a seven hours drive. Twice. It will take me the whole weekend. There is no direct flight connection, the flight connections which exist, will take (inclusive changing planes) five hours single trip and are prohibitively expensive (I just checked, $785 is the cheapest offer for next weekend). For some people "just schedule a visit" is not an easy solution.
I do think Tesla is given the historical credit he deserves. Moreso, about everyone in the U.S. you ask will probably say that Nicola Tesla is not given the historical credit he deserves. How can there be more credit as when everyone believes that Nicola Tesla doesn't get enough of it?;)
Slashdot Mirror
Hm... that's quite different from how I remember my learning days.
There was always the authoritative learning, but the topics of this type of learning were about expectations from others: To say "please", and "thank you", not to eat too much sweets, and when to stay quiet for a moment.
And then there was the learning about the nature of things: How the blade of a knife is sharp, and thus it might be better to act carefully when wielding a knife. That a sky full of dark clouds is a warning about rain, and thus wearing a jacket might be ok. That just nearly shortcutting the both poles of a battery will cause sparks, and the actual shortcutting will produce heat and cause the battery to run low very quickly.
There is nothing wrong with teaching from authority. And there is a large difference between what an adult knows and what a child. This difference shows, it's called experience, and if you want to call the usage of the difference "authority"; be my guest. But in this case, authority is mainly a shortcut. It allows the adult to choose the right example, the right setting and the right lesson to draw. And it saves the child a whole lifetime of unsuccessfull experiments. There is in general no point in letting the child for himself find the ingredients of a Volta element. It's fully ok. to use your authority and stack different coins and paper soaked with lemonjuice and show that they produce a current.
Since 1999, 13 years are gone. 50% inflation in 13 years boils down to an average of 3.2% p.a.. While this is not a record low, it's still not galopping hyperinflation.
You missed the point where this was a completely electric car.
Yes. And its predecessor LPC.
It starts with my first account at the university for a computer lab running AIX V3.2 and HP UX 7.1.
It continues with me taking a C programming course, then diving deeply into MUD programming.
It goes along with Linux 0.99.4, which a collegue of mine showed to me running an MWM like window manager.
It sees me helping acquaintances compiling kernels for Slackware based distributions on their respective boxes.
It has to do with my second position as a firewall administrator of firewalls running on Solaris and later FreeBSD based machines.
It gets me to owning my own Solaris box along with a Linux box running several Linux distributions installed on top of each other.
It accompagnies me to a short stint as a system administrator at a research institute for distributed computing.
And now it sees me administer phone switches based on Linux and applications plugging into the phone switches and running on Linux too.
It's not going to America, the money will be sent to Apple. It's damages, not penalties.
And how successful have those sites been so far?
Then have the baggage being a metal case. No X-ray.
That was pure speculation on Australian diplomats' part.
No. The Sydney Morning Herald states that: 'American responses to the embassy's representations have been withheld from release on the grounds that disclosure could "cause damage to the international relations of the Commonwealth".' So we know mainly Australia's side of the conversation, but that doesn't mean that they consist purely of speculation. And why does Fred Burton of Stratfor then claims that the U.S. has a sealed indictment against Julian Assange?
In Sweden, it is about setting an example. Sweden is the Saudi Arabia of feminism.
This is mainly calling people names.
Because it's Ecuador; who gives a shit? The UK has had this law for a while now, and all embassies in London should be quite aware of it. I sincerely doubt other nations will 'pull their business' if the UK storms the Ecuadorian embassy.
It's not about other nations pulling their business. It's about protecting UK embassies everywhere in the world. Who will for instance hinder the Russian police in the next Litvinenko-like case to storm the UK embassy in Moscow, citing the London precedent? That's the main reason why the UK retracted so fast from their bold statements - it would endanger the UK more than anyone else.
If he's so unimportant, why does the U.S. ambassador to Australia negotiate the terms of an extradition - just in case?
If he's so unimportant, why insists Sweden on a witness statement given on swedish soil? (Yes, the extradition request is for a witness! It's not as if the state attorney already has filed charges.)
If he's so unimportant, why does the UK government threats to storm the Ecuadorian embassy over him?
Somehow none of this sounds as if there is something completely unimportant happening. And somehow it doesn't sound as if Julian Assange is the one trying to inflate the importance.
You just critisized the repressive government of China (by calling them repressive), and you are still breathing. See, how easy that is? How much courage did it take you? Nothing! It just came out of your fingers without much thinking.
And that's exactly your problem. You demand from WikiLeaks things, that happens everywhere anyway. Atrocities in Syria? Open the next newspaper! Torture in Iranian prisons? Switch on the TV evening news! Propaganda trials against critical voices in Russia? Read it up on the Internet! So what's the point for WikiLeaks to repeat that? What's the unique selling point for WikiLeaks to publish that? WikiLeaks publishes stuff it deems genuine, and which are not published everwhere else. Mostly this is stuff many other people in the Western world don't want to see published.
Only a person like Julian Assange would have the balls to lead WikiLeaks. People who better fit into society tend to... yes... rather try to fit into society.
You don't get it, don't you? Lets say, you have some important information to reveal. If they make the Republicans look bad, put it into the NY Times! If they make the Democrats look bad, put it in the Wall Street Journal! If they make the lower classes look bad, put it into !Forbes. If they make the upper class look bad, put it in the Daily News!
You see the pattern? Whenever you find a larger group in the U.S. who likes the information to be known, you will find a news outlet to publish it. Only if no news outlet in the U.S. will publish it, because it makes nearly everyone look bad, where do you go? - Tada! Whichever news outlet will publish it, to the U.S. as a whole it will look as if it has an anti-american agenda - just because it publishes the stuff, no other news outlet will publish, because they fear the anger of nearly all groups in the U.S.
No, a news outlet like WikiLeaks will always look as if it was anti-american. If the news was somehow neutral or pro-american, it would have been published in the U.S. already. So your "anti-american agenda" just turns into "I don't like the information to be known, because they make me look bad."
The "not a good idea" is pretty uninformed. Why exactly should the injection be a bad idea?
1. Not all vaccines are injected. Polio-antigenes for instances are swalloed and thus they take the "natural" way to the body.
2. The vaccines have to reach the immune system, so the immune system can create the antibodies for the antigenes contained in the vaccine. So we have to warrant that the antigenes are not destroyed for instance by the digestive system before they reach the actual lymphocytes. There is no point in vaccination if there are no antibodies created.
But that's the same with immunity aquired by a real infection. It also wears off with time, and sometimes you need another vaccination to get immune again, or you can get sick from an infection again and need to develop the right immunisation again.
It doesn't change the general concept of vaccination: Having the body undergo some "model infection", which is guaranteed (for medical values of "guaranteed") not to harm the body, but to cause the immune system to develop the right immune response. Differently than the injection of a medication, a vaccine consists of antigenes, that are the substances the immune system reacts on by developing specific antibodies which couple to the antigenes and turn them inactive.
Your post could be shortened to "I don't know how vaccination works".
Almost every person with a healthy natural immune system exposed to Poliovirus will brush it off with no symptoms and gain additional lifelong protection.
That's the only slightly correct sentence in your post. But all the conclusions you draw are wrong.
Immunization via vaccination is based on exactly that fact: Given an healthy immune system, an exposition to the Poliovius will create an immune answer which a) stops the Poliovirus from spreading and b) gives you a lifelong protection. And that's how vaccination works. Your body gets a dose of dead or at least deactivated Poliovirus, your healthy immune system creates the immune answer, and you gain lifelong protection -- and that without the risk of actually catching Poliomyelitis, which an exposition to the real thing would yield.
Vaccination is not a 100% success. Some people are vaccinated and still not immune, because their immune system was not able to create the right immune answer to the vaccine. Those people are especially at risk, because if someone catches the real thing and infects them, their immune system again will probably not answer sufficiently. Other people can't get vaccination because of allergies or other contraindications. Normally herd immunity (the fact that around you most people are immune anyway and thus not carrying any infectants your immune system failed to create an immune answer to) protects those people. Unvaccinated people dillute the herd immunity, and if it falls beyond a certain threshold, the protection wears off.
If you are really interested in seeing the Uranium mine still in operation, get out any online map with satellite view and look for "Koenigstein/Saechsische Schweiz (Deutschland)", zoom into the map until you can see the Fortress Königstein. About one mile west of the fortress, you see the mine. It might be labelled "Wismut NL Königstein".
Hm... The next Uranium mine from my birthplace was about 10 mls, the next one still in operation is about 30 mls. And I grew up in a region which hasn't seen any armed conflicts since World War II. The next Uranium deposit from where I live now is 20 mls, although it doesn't get mined.
Uranium is plenty, and you can get it nearly everywhere. If there is an old silver mine nearby, you can be pretty sure that you found the next Uranium deposit. The problem is not so much the finding and mining of Uranium, the problem is to get all necessary papers to do so, and to get all the permits and clearances for refining the Uranium.
Implications...IMPLICATIONS? It's not implied that Thou Shalt Not Steal...It's COMMANDED.
Why couldn't the God of the Bible COMMAND men to NOT RAPE.Implications...
I wouldn't put too much importance into the actual wording, because the wording of the King James Bible is just that - it's the wording the translators working under the request of King James used. In the original hebrew bible, it's not commanded. Instead of the equivalent of "shall", the word hebrew word for "will" is used.
You will not steal.
So in the original bible, the ten commandments are not considered commandments, but descriptions of the behaviour of a true believer. A true believer will not steal. No, never. It won't even get to his mind that stealing is worthwile. He just won't lure for his neighbor's wife. No mention of women outside of the neighborhood. Or women who "don't belong to someone" (except to herself). The only protection against rape a biblical woman has is being owned by a man and then only against the neighoring true believers. Serfmaids? No protection. The own brother, father, husband? No protection. Living in a shabby neighborhood? No protection. Living for yourself? No protection either.
Those previews are like movie trailers. If you can't get interested by the movie trailers, no one will get you to watch the movie then, protecting revenue be pissed.
The case roots somewhat deeper. The Perlentaucher ("pearl diver") site was compiling links to interesting articles and providing excerpts from them, and got sued for copyright infringment because the excerpts were too verbose for some of the original publishers. Perlentaucher prevailed, the courts found the excerpts to be within the "quoting" limits. So now the publishers want to get compensated for those excerpts, especially if they are automatically generated like Google's link results.
So 200 years ago, people conveniently ignored Iceland (the Althing was the parliament of Iceland for more than 300 years), the Isle of Man (the Tynwald is the parliament of the island since 979, more than 1000 years of democracy!), San Marino (republic since 366 - more than 1600 years ago!) and Switzerland (democracy since 1291), just to make a point.
Time to visit might work fine, if you live nearby. For me, a visit is a seven hours drive. Twice. It will take me the whole weekend. There is no direct flight connection, the flight connections which exist, will take (inclusive changing planes) five hours single trip and are prohibitively expensive (I just checked, $785 is the cheapest offer for next weekend).
For some people "just schedule a visit" is not an easy solution.
How is that any different than Apple in this case (except that Apple did patent where nothing was to patent)?
I do think Tesla is given the historical credit he deserves. Moreso, about everyone in the U.S. you ask will probably say that Nicola Tesla is not given the historical credit he deserves. How can there be more credit as when everyone believes that Nicola Tesla doesn't get enough of it? ;)