Molecular oxygen was only released when the first living beings were able to either chemo- or to photosynthese oxygen. Until then the atmosphere was mainly nitrogen, water and carbondioxide.
No, I only pay for outgoing calls. And calls within the same carrier are free for me too. SMS is not included. I never got the hang of SMS anyway, so it doesn't make a difference for me. If I was interested in SMS too, I would upgrade to a 19 € plan which includes 1000 free SMS and 1 GByte of data.
I wonder why the prices are so high in the U.S. when it comes to mobile phones. Currently I am on a plan for 12 €/month incl. taxes (~US$17) with 2000 minutes free.
Completely offtopic, but Dollar comes from "Joachimsthaler", whit Joachimsthal (today Jáchymov) being a small miner's town at the czech-german border where a silver coin called "the Joachimsthaler" was minted. Later on the name was shortened to "thaler", and that's where all the other languages (slovenian: tolar, english: dollar etc.pp.) got it from.
It's because the original claim from Righthaven, that the publishing of the whole article would diminish its value on the market was thrown out because Righthaven does in fact not publish the article, but solely files suits against other people publishing it. So republishing an article with currently no value at all on the market by a non profit was considered fair use.
I guess, because all the other movies (with the exception of Modern Times) are not US-made movies, they fall though the filter of US-critics;). Additionally, they are silent movies, so they are different than contemporary movies. And if you don't count silent movies, then you have to put the beginning of cinema much later than 1896, and the 50 years (ok, actually only 45 years) don't hold.
(The criterion that you can reshoot Citizen Kane with todays settings without it feeling out of place is no criterion at all. A middle age illustration, remade today would feel definitely out of place today, but still the old drawings are masterpieces.)
If you consider Citizen Kane the first masterpiece of film, then you don't know much about older movies. Watch "Nosferatu" (1922), "Battleship Potemkin" (1925), "Metropolis" (1927), "Modern Times" (1936)...
And here lies the problem. Most of the places and names in the Iliad are real, and the people at the end of the 19th century knew some them. Ithaka is real, and Mykene is real, the Hellespont is real, and so is Boeotia. One can take a map of the Mediterran and draw Ulysses' voyage. The only place one couldn't put a finger on was Troy, and that's probably because Troy was not a part of the hellenic world. Actually it was a lydian settlement, called Wilusa, which the Greek pronounced Ilyos or Ilyon and the Romans Ilium. So it always looked strange in context to the later generations. But then the archeologist at the end of the 19th century started to find one town after another mentioned in the antique texts. They discovered Ur, Ninive and Babylon. Suddenly the mood changed. One started to believe that any place ever mentioned in the antique texts would be real, even those never meant to be real to begin with. Plato's report about Atlantis doesn't mention any wellknown places. Even the description of the location as "beyond the pillars of Hercules" just puts it outside of the contemporary ship lines, but doesn't fix any place. There is no reason why it should be real.
For "Communism not working", Wikipedia works remarkably well, don't you think? Or -- what an heretical thought! -- maybe Wikipedia has nothing to do with Communism? (The way some US-americans label anything and everything not adhering to some very strange voodoo economic theories as "communist" has striked me always as some odd personality trait. Probably because US-americans have never directly experienced the real existant communism, and have no clue what they are talking about.)
The idea to only have those articles in Wikipedia someone actually cares for (e.g. maintaining it and incorporate new facts and sources), and of those editors so many, that there is actually a peer review of the articles in question has something for it, don't you think?
Same goes for the democratic domino, it might have taken some time to get rolling, but we're seeing its effects now.
I would rather say that the Iraq War prolonged the status quo in the other countries for another five years. With the low oil price at the beginning of the 21th century most autocrats in the Middle East would not have been able to sustain their rule. The Soviet Union broke down to the low oil price at the midst and end of the 1980ies, and the same would have happened in the oil rich states of the Middle East in the early 2000s. Ever wondered why the non-oil-states Tunisia and Egypt are the ones breaking down while the oil rich Libya currently seems not to be able to finally topple al-Gaddaqi? No, the high oil price following the Iraq War was a boon to the autocrats. It increased the oil price and allowed the autocrats to amass enough money to buy time from their population and weapons from us.
I like the german system, where the sum you have to pay is depending on the sum you are claiming as damages and the damages you get finally awarded. The difference is then considered your "loss" in that case. If you ask for ridiculoulsy high sums of damages and get only a tenth out of the case, you lose 90% of your case, so you have to pay 90% of the whole cost.
Oh, but it was Science which discovered it and declared the Piltdown Man as a hoax. Every knowledge is preliminary, until we know better. A scientist knows that. And that's why he is always wary to declare something true - moreso, a large part of a scientific paper is a discussion what could be wrong with the measurements, the results and the conclusions.
It's very simple: When it acts like a religion, it's not science. If it gets teached as irrefutible fact, then it's not science, it's boiled down for the unwashed masses to be done with it. It never gets teached as irrefutible fact to people who get trained as scientists. And of course science has a bias. What gets explored first, and which sits on the back burner is decided by bias. If one can get to a result on different paths, then the decision for one path shows bias. If two measures give different results, it shows bias which one is trusted more. But this bias averages out over time. Bias is not a problem with science in the long run. One can biased as much as one wants to the ptolemaic system of the world, but still calculate satellite orbits following Newton and Kepler. That's the difference between science and religion. Science is like a recipe. You don't need to like Irish Stew, but if you follow the recipe, you will get Irish Stew. You don't need to like Kepler and Newton, but if you follow their formulas, you get a valid description of the observable nightly sky. Religion doesn't work that way. Either you believe in religion and follow the rituals, then it will work. Or you don't believe, then it won't work, even if you follow the rituals. Or you believe, but don't follow the rituals. Then it won't work either.
I have one at 1920x1200 which was on sale for 159 €. A 24" at 1920x1200 currently sells for 225 € here around. It's not easy though to get a monitor with a decent ratio (4:3 or 5:4) though. Ironically it's cheaper to buy a 24" at 1920x1200 than a 20" at 1600x1200, even though the last one has about the same dpi and less pixels.
here was no WikiLeaks or global economic crisis impacting Eastern Europe in the late 1980s. They were all just sick and tired after a few decades of oppression, and did something about it.
I beg to differ. There was glasnost, which was mainly about being transparent about everything in the government and the industry. You could call (albeit with a stretch) glasnost a governmentally mandated WikiLeaks. But for the overly secret communist governments of the time, glasnost was a revolution. And there was a very low oil price causing the USSR to bleed because they couldn't earn enough for their crude oil to sustain the Afghan War, the overblown military in the satellite states and the social benefits which kept the soviet people mainly quiet. The same oil price low also hit East Germany, which made a fortune in the early 80ies by selling refined gasoil to Western countries, because the oil price within the COMECON was set as being the average oil price of the last five years. As long as the price was steadily climbing, this was a source of income for East Germany. But when the oil price started to tank, East Germany in average paid more for crude oil than the Western countries, and the business went sour.
So your theory about transparency and economic turmoil not influencing the Change in 1989 has some problems with the facts.
Slashdot Mirror
Molecular oxygen was only released when the first living beings were able to either chemo- or to photosynthese oxygen. Until then the atmosphere was mainly nitrogen, water and carbondioxide.
No, I only pay for outgoing calls. And calls within the same carrier are free for me too. SMS is not included. I never got the hang of SMS anyway, so it doesn't make a difference for me. If I was interested in SMS too, I would upgrade to a 19 € plan which includes 1000 free SMS and 1 GByte of data.
I wonder why the prices are so high in the U.S. when it comes to mobile phones. Currently I am on a plan for 12 €/month incl. taxes (~US$17) with 2000 minutes free.
From AT&T's side, yes. But why should T-Mobile sell it to AT&T in the first place, if it is so wonderful?
You are only looking at the AT&T side of the deal, while the article was looking at the side of T-Mobile.
Yes. The verdict was basicly the judge telling Righthaven: Your business model sucks.
Completely offtopic, but Dollar comes from "Joachimsthaler", whit Joachimsthal (today Jáchymov) being a small miner's town at the czech-german border where a silver coin called "the Joachimsthaler" was minted. Later on the name was shortened to "thaler", and that's where all the other languages (slovenian: tolar, english: dollar etc.pp.) got it from.
It's because the original claim from Righthaven, that the publishing of the whole article would diminish its value on the market was thrown out because Righthaven does in fact not publish the article, but solely files suits against other people publishing it. So republishing an article with currently no value at all on the market by a non profit was considered fair use.
But the defendant prevailed on Fair Use claims. The statute of Copyright is limited, and the judge was showing Righthaven the limits of the statute.
Why is it illegal? Have no idea, but it comes down to government sticking their noses into people's lives.
It comes down as your neighbours sticking their noses into people's lives.
There. Fixed that for you.
Germany didn't ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child yet. So it's not only the US and Somalia.
Here we go: http://atheism.about.com/b/2011/02/06/ayn-rand-welfare-queen-living-high-on-government-assistance.htm
I guess, because all the other movies (with the exception of Modern Times) are not US-made movies, they fall though the filter of US-critics ;). Additionally, they are silent movies, so they are different than contemporary movies. And if you don't count silent movies, then you have to put the beginning of cinema much later than 1896, and the 50 years (ok, actually only 45 years) don't hold.
(The criterion that you can reshoot Citizen Kane with todays settings without it feeling out of place is no criterion at all. A middle age illustration, remade today would feel definitely out of place today, but still the old drawings are masterpieces.)
If you consider Citizen Kane the first masterpiece of film, then you don't know much about older movies. Watch "Nosferatu" (1922), "Battleship Potemkin" (1925), "Metropolis" (1927), "Modern Times" (1936)...
I know, but the greater something parent was referring to the Litvinenko case.
You know, a pizza with a height of a and a radius of z has a volume of pi*z*z*a.
No. Po. The most prominent case of someone being poisoned by the russian secret service in the recent years was a Polonium poisoning.
And here lies the problem. Most of the places and names in the Iliad are real, and the people at the end of the 19th century knew some them. Ithaka is real, and Mykene is real, the Hellespont is real, and so is Boeotia. One can take a map of the Mediterran and draw Ulysses' voyage. The only place one couldn't put a finger on was Troy, and that's probably because Troy was not a part of the hellenic world. Actually it was a lydian settlement, called Wilusa, which the Greek pronounced Ilyos or Ilyon and the Romans Ilium. So it always looked strange in context to the later generations. But then the archeologist at the end of the 19th century started to find one town after another mentioned in the antique texts. They discovered Ur, Ninive and Babylon. Suddenly the mood changed. One started to believe that any place ever mentioned in the antique texts would be real, even those never meant to be real to begin with.
Plato's report about Atlantis doesn't mention any wellknown places. Even the description of the location as "beyond the pillars of Hercules" just puts it outside of the contemporary ship lines, but doesn't fix any place. There is no reason why it should be real.
For "Communism not working", Wikipedia works remarkably well, don't you think? Or -- what an heretical thought! -- maybe Wikipedia has nothing to do with Communism?
(The way some US-americans label anything and everything not adhering to some very strange voodoo economic theories as "communist" has striked me always as some odd personality trait. Probably because US-americans have never directly experienced the real existant communism, and have no clue what they are talking about.)
The idea to only have those articles in Wikipedia someone actually cares for (e.g. maintaining it and incorporate new facts and sources), and of those editors so many, that there is actually a peer review of the articles in question has something for it, don't you think?
Same goes for the democratic domino, it might have taken some time to get rolling, but we're seeing its effects now.
I would rather say that the Iraq War prolonged the status quo in the other countries for another five years. With the low oil price at the beginning of the 21th century most autocrats in the Middle East would not have been able to sustain their rule. The Soviet Union broke down to the low oil price at the midst and end of the 1980ies, and the same would have happened in the oil rich states of the Middle East in the early 2000s. Ever wondered why the non-oil-states Tunisia and Egypt are the ones breaking down while the oil rich Libya currently seems not to be able to finally topple al-Gaddaqi?
No, the high oil price following the Iraq War was a boon to the autocrats. It increased the oil price and allowed the autocrats to amass enough money to buy time from their population and weapons from us.
I like the german system, where the sum you have to pay is depending on the sum you are claiming as damages and the damages you get finally awarded. The difference is then considered your "loss" in that case. If you ask for ridiculoulsy high sums of damages and get only a tenth out of the case, you lose 90% of your case, so you have to pay 90% of the whole cost.
Oh, but it was Science which discovered it and declared the Piltdown Man as a hoax. Every knowledge is preliminary, until we know better. A scientist knows that. And that's why he is always wary to declare something true - moreso, a large part of a scientific paper is a discussion what could be wrong with the measurements, the results and the conclusions.
It's very simple: When it acts like a religion, it's not science.
If it gets teached as irrefutible fact, then it's not science, it's boiled down for the unwashed masses to be done with it. It never gets teached as irrefutible fact to people who get trained as scientists.
And of course science has a bias. What gets explored first, and which sits on the back burner is decided by bias. If one can get to a result on different paths, then the decision for one path shows bias. If two measures give different results, it shows bias which one is trusted more.
But this bias averages out over time. Bias is not a problem with science in the long run. One can biased as much as one wants to the ptolemaic system of the world, but still calculate satellite orbits following Newton and Kepler. That's the difference between science and religion. Science is like a recipe. You don't need to like Irish Stew, but if you follow the recipe, you will get Irish Stew. You don't need to like Kepler and Newton, but if you follow their formulas, you get a valid description of the observable nightly sky. Religion doesn't work that way. Either you believe in religion and follow the rituals, then it will work. Or you don't believe, then it won't work, even if you follow the rituals. Or you believe, but don't follow the rituals. Then it won't work either.
I have one at 1920x1200 which was on sale for 159 €. A 24" at 1920x1200 currently sells for 225 € here around.
It's not easy though to get a monitor with a decent ratio (4:3 or 5:4) though. Ironically it's cheaper to buy a 24" at 1920x1200 than a 20" at 1600x1200, even though the last one has about the same dpi and less pixels.
here was no WikiLeaks or global economic crisis impacting Eastern Europe in the late 1980s. They were all just sick and tired after a few decades of oppression, and did something about it.
I beg to differ. There was glasnost, which was mainly about being transparent about everything in the government and the industry. You could call (albeit with a stretch) glasnost a governmentally mandated WikiLeaks. But for the overly secret communist governments of the time, glasnost was a revolution. And there was a very low oil price causing the USSR to bleed because they couldn't earn enough for their crude oil to sustain the Afghan War, the overblown military in the satellite states and the social benefits which kept the soviet people mainly quiet.
The same oil price low also hit East Germany, which made a fortune in the early 80ies by selling refined gasoil to Western countries, because the oil price within the COMECON was set as being the average oil price of the last five years. As long as the price was steadily climbing, this was a source of income for East Germany. But when the oil price started to tank, East Germany in average paid more for crude oil than the Western countries, and the business went sour.
So your theory about transparency and economic turmoil not influencing the Change in 1989 has some problems with the facts.