The current international law is just a collection of all the contracts and agreements that have proved to either work well enough to be enforced or to be of so theoretical nature that no one ever had a reason to challenge it.
So whenever a situation occurs that was never part of the considerations around those rules, the rules will be written anew. There is no Supreme World Court (ok., there is the International Criminal Court, but it is ignored by the U.S.), which decides case law and provides some sort of continous interpretation and development of the rules.
And how do you know that the people you shoot are those ominous "you and yours"? You seem to adhere to the "kill them all, let God sort them out" school of warfare.
But the Facebook call to smash Norwich didn't result in violent acts. Norwich stayed calm. And so did Warrington. The call could have been fit to incite violence, albeit it didn't.
Definitely no. I remember, that it was always a hassle on VGA cards to get a 4x3 resolution with enough colors. Only some cards supported it in a non "standard" way. There actually never was a standard, only some popular choices which were supported by several cards. When VGA cards started to support 640x480x256, the lower resolutions vanished.
DOS-era VGA at 320x240 doesn't exist. There is either the black-white resolution (720x348), or the CGA-resolution (640x200 two color, 320x200 four color), both in EGA again, but this time 16 colors, native EGA (640x350) and VGA (640x480). QVGA (Quarter VGA) actually has 320x240 resolution, but this one was defined much later, for... tada!... mobile devices.
That's just because they don't give credit to their customers, so there is no foreclosure. As far as I know B.A.R.T. also never has foreclosed on a single customer either.
The population density in the U.S. (32 inhabitants per km) is much lower than in the EU.(116/km). So the price for real estate is much lower too, which makes houses cheaper.
Stay calm! I didn't bring the gunfire argument, I just said that just because an event has a probability to get rid of certain people, we shouldn't make this event a good thing. My example was the volcano eruption.
It's the "standing on the shoulders of giants" argument in reverse. Basicly the author complains that today, we don't have giants anymore. But only in the future we will be able to find out the few giants of our generation, because then we will see how long their shadow really is. If you get into science history and read about those famous giants like Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, Galileo Galilei, Pythagoras or Sun Tsu, you see that they actually floated in a large pond of similar ideas. They just knew or worked out which of those ideas actually made sense. If you ask someone who invented the steam engine, the answer will more often than not be "James Watt", totally disregarding the fact that for instance Thomas Savary patented a steam engine years before James Watt even was born! Today James Watt seems like a giant to us, but what he actually invented was not the steam engine, but the separate condensor, the epicyclic gear (to avoid patent hassle about the crank drive), the parallel motion linkage, the double action engine and the centrifugal governor (and a letter copying machine;) ). While most of them are tightly coupled with the steam engine, they are not the invention of the steam engine, they are very successful improvements upon it. From the author's point of view, James Watt was a "small ideas man", going for ideas easily to monetize. But today he looks like a giant, because his inventions, which made the steam engine fit for the purposes of the industrial revolution, overshadowed all the other inventors contributing to the steam engine like Thomas Newcomen, Denis Papin, Heron of Alexandria or the above mentioned Thomas Savary. We create giants by forgetting the shoulders the dwarfs are standing on.
A volcano eruption at the right place also gets us rid of a lot of people we definitely should get rid of. Does that mean we should build our homes only in the calderae of volcanos? If you regularily get rid of 10% of the towns people due to gunfights, you'll get rid of 10% of the mobsters too - just by chance.
Fun part is that in Germany, there is no work for hire comparable to the anglo-american counterpart. Even if you create something as an employee for a company, you still have the Urheberrecht (even if you have to give the distribution rights to your employer per contract). An exception only exists for computer programs (69b UrhG).
There are also the Ruwenzori Mountains at the border of Congo and Ruanda, which have glaciers. The mountains lie about 23' north of the equator, while Mt. Kenya at 9' south already lost most of its glaciers. Neither one of the three mountaintops (Kibo at the Kilimanjaro, the Ruwenzori and Mt. Kenya) lies exactly at the equator. In the Andes the exact equator actually touched ice at Cayambe, but since 2006 the glacier has retracted so far to the north that there is no completely white point on the equator anymore.
There never was a time when money was not fiat money. The value of gold is just that of agreement. There is no reason to prefer gold over any other rare material. Platinum is about as abundant as gold in the crust of the earth (both clock in at 0,005 ppm), and yet the price of platin and gold have very different curves. So was the price of platinum at more than US$2000 in 2008, and is now down to US$1700, while the price for gold was less than US$1000 in 2008 and is now also at US$1700. So why is it that products, whose properties haven't changed in the last three years, are similar in availability and have similar uses (electronics, catalysators and jewelry), have such a diamentral price development? Because the perceived values of them are just an agreement between us. We agreed in 2008, that platinum was very important, and the price skyrocketted, and when the housing bubble bursted, the price of platinum dropped to the bottom and has not fully recovered yet. We agreed also in 2008, that gold was a steady investment, and the price of gold went through the housing bubble relatively unscathed and is continously growing since then. So what makes gold so different from platinum that one is "currency proof" and the other is not? It's just our perception. And you want to base your money on a pure perception of value?
There is one free market, it's called politics. Every state is a free agent, and there is no world order or supergovernmental entity that regulates all states. Yes, there are contracts where most of the states of the world agreed to, but still every state is able to leave the contract at will. And still in that market monopolies existed, and often existed for a very long time. The roman empire existed for 1000 years and was a monopoly of power around the Mediterran. China exists since 2500 years and was a monopoly of power in East Asia for most of its existence. The U.S. are the most powerful monopoly in politics that ever existed in history.
Slashdot Mirror
Too much legalese.
The current international law is just a collection of all the contracts and agreements that have proved to either work well enough to be enforced or to be of so theoretical nature that no one ever had a reason to challenge it.
So whenever a situation occurs that was never part of the considerations around those rules, the rules will be written anew. There is no Supreme World Court (ok., there is the International Criminal Court, but it is ignored by the U.S.), which decides case law and provides some sort of continous interpretation and development of the rules.
JavaScript (which is definitely NOT Ajax)
I wonder why AJAX is an abbreviation for Asynchronous JavaScript and XML then.
It's not called "legal protection program", it's called "applying for citizenship/residental status and paying taxes", but you get the general idea.
Ok, basically your take is "I don't understand them, so I can shoot them all."
You don't lose your rights by being a pain in the ass. The legitimacy of her case is untouched by her being a loud protester of all trades.
And how do you know that the people you shoot are those ominous "you and yours"? You seem to adhere to the "kill them all, let God sort them out" school of warfare.
Every crisis also has its winners, and there never was a crisis where total luxury was grinding to an halt.
Just because some people can afford a 500 dollar gimmick, there still can be a crisis.
The Quantum Bigfoot was a 2GB-drive, if I remember correctly.
Actually no. Stocks often have a geometrical distribution, with a large group slightly below the average, and a few very high.
But the Facebook call to smash Norwich didn't result in violent acts. Norwich stayed calm. And so did Warrington.
The call could have been fit to incite violence, albeit it didn't.
Definitely no. I remember, that it was always a hassle on VGA cards to get a 4x3 resolution with enough colors. Only some cards supported it in a non "standard" way. There actually never was a standard, only some popular choices which were supported by several cards. When VGA cards started to support 640x480x256, the lower resolutions vanished.
DOS-era VGA at 320x240 doesn't exist. There is either the black-white resolution (720x348), or the CGA-resolution (640x200 two color, 320x200 four color), both in EGA again, but this time 16 colors, native EGA (640x350) and VGA (640x480). QVGA (Quarter VGA) actually has 320x240 resolution, but this one was defined much later, for... tada!... mobile devices.
That's just because they don't give credit to their customers, so there is no foreclosure. As far as I know B.A.R.T. also never has foreclosed on a single customer either.
The population density in the U.S. (32 inhabitants per km) is much lower than in the EU.(116/km). So the price for real estate is much lower too, which makes houses cheaper.
Ah... here is another good counter example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manfred_von_Ardenne
(I've been at the von Ardenne institute only once during school, they were showing us some cool stuff with titanium they were currently working on.)
Oh... that's why the Bay of Pigs has worked out so perfectly well :)
No. My father owned his own patents. Patents were owned by their respective inventors, as everywhere else.
Stay calm! I didn't bring the gunfire argument, I just said that just because an event has a probability to get rid of certain people, we shouldn't make this event a good thing. My example was the volcano eruption.
It's the "standing on the shoulders of giants" argument in reverse. ;) ).
Basicly the author complains that today, we don't have giants anymore.
But only in the future we will be able to find out the few giants of our generation, because then we will see how long their shadow really is.
If you get into science history and read about those famous giants like Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, Galileo Galilei, Pythagoras or Sun Tsu, you see that they actually floated in a large pond of similar ideas. They just knew or worked out which of those ideas actually made sense.
If you ask someone who invented the steam engine, the answer will more often than not be "James Watt", totally disregarding the fact that for instance Thomas Savary patented a steam engine years before James Watt even was born! Today James Watt seems like a giant to us, but what he actually invented was not the steam engine, but the separate condensor, the epicyclic gear (to avoid patent hassle about the crank drive), the parallel motion linkage, the double action engine and the centrifugal governor (and a letter copying machine
While most of them are tightly coupled with the steam engine, they are not the invention of the steam engine, they are very successful improvements upon it. From the author's point of view, James Watt was a "small ideas man", going for ideas easily to monetize.
But today he looks like a giant, because his inventions, which made the steam engine fit for the purposes of the industrial revolution, overshadowed all the other inventors contributing to the steam engine like Thomas Newcomen, Denis Papin, Heron of Alexandria or the above mentioned Thomas Savary.
We create giants by forgetting the shoulders the dwarfs are standing on.
A volcano eruption at the right place also gets us rid of a lot of people we definitely should get rid of. Does that mean we should build our homes only in the calderae of volcanos?
If you regularily get rid of 10% of the towns people due to gunfights, you'll get rid of 10% of the mobsters too - just by chance.
Begging the question is, what the TV show Jeopardy is about.
Fun part is that in Germany, there is no work for hire comparable to the anglo-american counterpart. Even if you create something as an employee for a company, you still have the Urheberrecht (even if you have to give the distribution rights to your employer per contract). An exception only exists for computer programs (69b UrhG).
There are also the Ruwenzori Mountains at the border of Congo and Ruanda, which have glaciers. The mountains lie about 23' north of the equator, while Mt. Kenya at 9' south already lost most of its glaciers. Neither one of the three mountaintops (Kibo at the Kilimanjaro, the Ruwenzori and Mt. Kenya) lies exactly at the equator. In the Andes the exact equator actually touched ice at Cayambe, but since 2006 the glacier has retracted so far to the north that there is no completely white point on the equator anymore.
There never was a time when money was not fiat money. The value of gold is just that of agreement. There is no reason to prefer gold over any other rare material. Platinum is about as abundant as gold in the crust of the earth (both clock in at 0,005 ppm), and yet the price of platin and gold have very different curves. So was the price of platinum at more than US$2000 in 2008, and is now down to US$1700, while the price for gold was less than US$1000 in 2008 and is now also at US$1700.
So why is it that products, whose properties haven't changed in the last three years, are similar in availability and have similar uses (electronics, catalysators and jewelry), have such a diamentral price development? Because the perceived values of them are just an agreement between us. We agreed in 2008, that platinum was very important, and the price skyrocketted, and when the housing bubble bursted, the price of platinum dropped to the bottom and has not fully recovered yet. We agreed also in 2008, that gold was a steady investment, and the price of gold went through the housing bubble relatively unscathed and is continously growing since then.
So what makes gold so different from platinum that one is "currency proof" and the other is not? It's just our perception. And you want to base your money on a pure perception of value?
There is one free market, it's called politics. Every state is a free agent, and there is no world order or supergovernmental entity that regulates all states. Yes, there are contracts where most of the states of the world agreed to, but still every state is able to leave the contract at will.
And still in that market monopolies existed, and often existed for a very long time. The roman empire existed for 1000 years and was a monopoly of power around the Mediterran. China exists since 2500 years and was a monopoly of power in East Asia for most of its existence. The U.S. are the most powerful monopoly in politics that ever existed in history.