He calls himself christian, and I don't see any christian leader to step up and tell the world that Joseph Kony is not a christian, and that they denounce his claim to Christianity. But the same is routinely asked from the muslim world if someone who claims himself to be muslim commits an act of deadly violence.
There is no correlation between gun ownership of the people and the political system of the country. The theory, that guns in the hands of the people somehow keep the government in check is more or less an unproven hypothesis. In the case of the Independence of the New England states, it was a happy circumstance that enough people with guns were pro independence, but an example space of 1 does not make a good base for a statistic. Maybe for a very brief period of history, guns were some kind of equalizer, because they were cheap enough so everyone could buy one, and more money didn't buy you much of an advantage. We saw a similar pattern while the Bronze Age turned into the Iron Age, when suddenly a large population could arm themselves on the cheap with iron weapons and armor, and more money didn't buy much of an advantage. For a brief period of a few decades, some polei (cities) in Greece turned democratic, but the next big civil war (the Peloponnesian War) between Sparta and Athens brought everything to an end, and all the polei were either becoming kingdoms themselves or were conquered by the kingdom of Macedonia.
At the moment, enough money buys so overwhelmingly effective weapons that guns are no deterrence for anyone with the means and enough determination to maintain a dictatorship. Even in the Soviet Union, weapons were not forbidden. Communist East Germany had a gun ownership quote higher than West Germany. In most South American countries, gun ownership was not outlawed during their respective military dictatorships. As long as the respective government is seen by enough people as better for their personal life and especially protection of their property, compared to too much say for the people in the neighborhood, they will readily stabilize even the most brutal dictatorship.
It's just a band aid for a patch for a prothesis. Basicly it gives pause until the next lawsuit also invalidates Privacy Shield. The reason why Safe Harbor was deemed illegal was that European citizens had no legal standing when their data was requested from U.S. companies by the U.S. government. Privacy Shield now gives European citizens a pro forma legal standing, but now any U.S. governmental organization can deny the actual case going to court. I doubt that this will suffice in the eyes of the European Court.
Actually, the corpses are not much of a carbon emission problem, as they bound the carbon they emit during cremation just a few years ago. That's quite different from burning fossil carbon which was taken out of the atmosphere 200 million years ago.
It's not that the Saudi Oil would be cheap because the infrastructure is already in place. It's because you don't need much infrastructure at all to get it. The cost to get one barrel of crude ready for shipping in Saudi Arabia is about $3. Texan oil from oil wells cost about $16, shale oil and oil from oil sands about $60.
Saudi Arabia thus has complete control about the oil price because they can sell at prices that would bankrupt everyone else and still make a profit. And Saudi Arabia waited long enough for enough companies to invest much money into shale oil and only then lowered the oil price to drive them out of competition when much of the money was burnt, but not much revenue yet generated. Investors for the next future will be very wary to ever invest in alternative oil sources again.
Please explain what you mean with "manipulating" data. We all know that every method of measurement has a systematic bias. And we have to deal with that fact, and we do it by trying to determine the systematical bias and subtract it from the data. If that's "manipulating data" to you, then please elaborate a better way to deal with it.
When I learned laboratory work, one of the most important tasks was the "discussion of methods" in each protocol for each experiment, where you had to look at each measurement and give a list of reasons why this measurement could have been the way it was, and then determine the most likely explanations and add an error margin to the measurements to express possible bias and measurement errors.
And when climate scientists do this, suddenly it's a crime to you? Or are you just ignoring the "discussion of methods" chapter because "they do it willfully to prove their point" is an explanation that better fits your bias?
Yes, that's why Hinkley Point needs to secure 35 billion in subsidies just to get built, and still EdF and CGNP Group wonder if they can weasel out of the construction contract. Even nuclear friendly France, China and UK bound together seem not to be able to built a nuclear reactor that can compete with solar and wind on a free market.
We are controlling Nature. All the time. That's the whole point of being a planning, rationale being. We control the amount of rain water that hits our skin by staying indoors, or carrying an umbrella. We control the temperature of our environment by heating and air conditioning. We control the surface properties of the ground by laying tarmac along our often traveled paths. We control the species of plants growing around us by sowing, planting and weeding. We control the animals living near us by breeding them. As apes coming from a steppe landscape with sparse trees, we convert about any landscape we don't need for buildings, structures and food into a steppe landscape with sparse trees, and we call them parks, gardens and golf courses. We even control the functioning of our bodies by regular exercise and medicine.
What the whole discussion of anthropogenic climate change is about is thinking about the less immediate effects of our ways to control Nature. How we control Nature does not average out in the end, on the whole our changes shift Nature into a less diverse, hotter and less stable state.
It's not necessarily a concept of Good and Evil. Many religions have other concepts to differ between the Dos and the Don'ts, like honor and disgrace, stoa or karma. The good and evil dichotomy is common in religions which trace back to the early Zoroastrism, and of which Judaism, Christianity and Islam are the most common religions.
But even that is a very simplistic view. There are foods which are outright poisonous if eaten fresh, for instance most types of beans (especially red kidney beans). Raw meat easily catches different strains of bacteria (with Clostridium botulinum being one the most dangerous), and cooking or frying meat will reduce the most common hazards.
Especially when there never was a period in time when 99% of people believed the Earth was flat. Most people never thought about the actual shape of the Earth. Of course there were some religious concepts about the shape of the Earth, but not all religions had one, and some believed in very strange shapes like an Earth tree. Do you really think that norse vikings thought about the treelike shape of the Earth when they were sailing the Atlantic, or the rivers of Europe?
There was always a difference between the way people experienced the shape of the Earth (for most of them, this shape consisted of known roads and sea routes connecting places, towns and harbours), and some philosophical concepts how a "whole Earth" would look like.
As I said: They will fine your customers for your misdeeds, because of doing business with a known criminal organisation. How many customers you will retain? And if you can't indemnify them, will they sue you? You can try to weasel out of a direct confrontation with a french court. But your french customers can't. And they will be angry at you, and they will sue you, trying to get back the money they had to pay to France.
You have no phantasy, that's your problem. The location of your servers is completely irrelevant here. If you do business with french customers, you are subject to french law. Either because the french court will go after your money, or because it will go after your customers, if you run afoul french law. And if they go after your customers, they in turn can sue you in an U.S. court for causing them financial loss due to your lawless behaviour.
No, your servers don't matter, but your money does. If you get money from french companies for advertising, you are heading into trouble if you run afoul french law. Either the french court will take your money directly or it will go for the companies that paid you for advertising with you if you are hiding in the U.S.. And if the french court went after your paying customers, they in turn have standing in an U.S. court against you for causing them financial loss.
If you do business with french customers, however you do it, better follow french law. Or you are in the shit, your personal opinion about french courts notwithstanding.
There is no universal right that a company must be allowed to do business in every country on the planet.
But there are negotiations under way to allow exactly that. They are called TPP and TTIP and similar, and they are basicly about how to protect multinational corporations from national courts and those pesky citizens and their ideas how the law of the country should be.
See, that's the mistake you make here. Facebook does business in France and has a french version of itself, targeted at french customers. And that's the reason why the french judge decided it is also subject to french laws. If you don't do business with french customers, if you don't target french customers, and if you never intend to create a french version of your website, you will not have any problems with the french court system.
And that's exactly what TPP and TTIP and similar contracts are about. Multinational corporations want to have the most comfortable laws to them being applyable wherever they do business. And when they aren't, they want to have the right to sue in a private court not accessible and not responsible to anyone else.
It's basicly the removal of the right of individual countries to have their own laws if they are in the way of multinational corporations.
Pagers were never that great here around, only hospitals used it, and about two years ago, I was within a project to lay to rest the last pager system at a hospital I know of. The other hospitals use DECT phones since ages and have the whole campus covered with DECT repeaters. Pagers are clumsy as you have to find the next phone and call from there. DECT phones can be called directly.
It is more complicated than that. It's not "I'm a fast runner", that seems to trigger the cheating. It's the "I'm a faster runner than others". In the article at the Washington Post, there is a description of the experimental set-up. Games that are a battle against yourself (like a trivia game or playing the lottery) don't let people cheat afterwards. Games that are a battle against an opponent do.
It seems the experience of winning against someone else which causes you to feel entitled and to cheat the next time to ensure your next win. And then you get into a spiral of cheating, winning, cheating, winning etc.pp., we know so well from professional sports or successful businessmen with shady ethics.
That's why in many countries, there exists the concept of "money worth advantages". They get taxed as income. Company provided dental insurance? Higher taxes. Company car? Higher taxes. Company provided lunch? Higher taxes.
Facebook has strict rules how the buttons have to be implemented, and thus they are liable for anything caused by those buttons.
It would be different if Facebook didn't have those rules in place, then they could claim innocence for the data arriving at their servers.
And if would be different if EU law didn't explicitly forbid collecting data without the consent of the ones creating the data. And no, it's not the responsibility of the users to take care to not create the data in the first place. It's always the fault of the one collecting it afterwards without consent. "But it is out there and can easily be collected" is not a valid argument in the view of EU law.,
Slashdot Mirror
He calls himself christian, and I don't see any christian leader to step up and tell the world that Joseph Kony is not a christian, and that they denounce his claim to Christianity. But the same is routinely asked from the muslim world if someone who claims himself to be muslim commits an act of deadly violence.
At the moment, enough money buys so overwhelmingly effective weapons that guns are no deterrence for anyone with the means and enough determination to maintain a dictatorship. Even in the Soviet Union, weapons were not forbidden. Communist East Germany had a gun ownership quote higher than West Germany. In most South American countries, gun ownership was not outlawed during their respective military dictatorships. As long as the respective government is seen by enough people as better for their personal life and especially protection of their property, compared to too much say for the people in the neighborhood, they will readily stabilize even the most brutal dictatorship.
Tell that to Joseph Kony!
Astronomically, winter ends March 21. For weather forecasts, Winter ends March 1.
It's just a band aid for a patch for a prothesis. Basicly it gives pause until the next lawsuit also invalidates Privacy Shield. The reason why Safe Harbor was deemed illegal was that European citizens had no legal standing when their data was requested from U.S. companies by the U.S. government. Privacy Shield now gives European citizens a pro forma legal standing, but now any U.S. governmental organization can deny the actual case going to court. I doubt that this will suffice in the eyes of the European Court.
Actually, the corpses are not much of a carbon emission problem, as they bound the carbon they emit during cremation just a few years ago. That's quite different from burning fossil carbon which was taken out of the atmosphere 200 million years ago.
Saudi Arabia thus has complete control about the oil price because they can sell at prices that would bankrupt everyone else and still make a profit. And Saudi Arabia waited long enough for enough companies to invest much money into shale oil and only then lowered the oil price to drive them out of competition when much of the money was burnt, but not much revenue yet generated. Investors for the next future will be very wary to ever invest in alternative oil sources again.
In France, 1 billion means 1 million million. (which is far more logical. A billion is a bi-million, million times a million).
When I learned laboratory work, one of the most important tasks was the "discussion of methods" in each protocol for each experiment, where you had to look at each measurement and give a list of reasons why this measurement could have been the way it was, and then determine the most likely explanations and add an error margin to the measurements to express possible bias and measurement errors.
And when climate scientists do this, suddenly it's a crime to you? Or are you just ignoring the "discussion of methods" chapter because "they do it willfully to prove their point" is an explanation that better fits your bias?
No. The Inquisition dealt with him by paying his pension until his death.
Yes, that's why Hinkley Point needs to secure 35 billion in subsidies just to get built, and still EdF and CGNP Group wonder if they can weasel out of the construction contract. Even nuclear friendly France, China and UK bound together seem not to be able to built a nuclear reactor that can compete with solar and wind on a free market.
What the whole discussion of anthropogenic climate change is about is thinking about the less immediate effects of our ways to control Nature. How we control Nature does not average out in the end, on the whole our changes shift Nature into a less diverse, hotter and less stable state.
It's not necessarily a concept of Good and Evil. Many religions have other concepts to differ between the Dos and the Don'ts, like honor and disgrace, stoa or karma. The good and evil dichotomy is common in religions which trace back to the early Zoroastrism, and of which Judaism, Christianity and Islam are the most common religions.
But even that is a very simplistic view. There are foods which are outright poisonous if eaten fresh, for instance most types of beans (especially red kidney beans). Raw meat easily catches different strains of bacteria (with Clostridium botulinum being one the most dangerous), and cooking or frying meat will reduce the most common hazards.
There was always a difference between the way people experienced the shape of the Earth (for most of them, this shape consisted of known roads and sea routes connecting places, towns and harbours), and some philosophical concepts how a "whole Earth" would look like.
As I said: They will fine your customers for your misdeeds, because of doing business with a known criminal organisation. How many customers you will retain? And if you can't indemnify them, will they sue you? You can try to weasel out of a direct confrontation with a french court. But your french customers can't. And they will be angry at you, and they will sue you, trying to get back the money they had to pay to France.
You have no phantasy, that's your problem. The location of your servers is completely irrelevant here. If you do business with french customers, you are subject to french law. Either because the french court will go after your money, or because it will go after your customers, if you run afoul french law. And if they go after your customers, they in turn can sue you in an U.S. court for causing them financial loss due to your lawless behaviour.
If you do business with french customers, however you do it, better follow french law. Or you are in the shit, your personal opinion about french courts notwithstanding.
There is no universal right that a company must be allowed to do business in every country on the planet.
But there are negotiations under way to allow exactly that. They are called TPP and TTIP and similar, and they are basicly about how to protect multinational corporations from national courts and those pesky citizens and their ideas how the law of the country should be.
See, that's the mistake you make here. Facebook does business in France and has a french version of itself, targeted at french customers. And that's the reason why the french judge decided it is also subject to french laws. If you don't do business with french customers, if you don't target french customers, and if you never intend to create a french version of your website, you will not have any problems with the french court system.
It's basicly the removal of the right of individual countries to have their own laws if they are in the way of multinational corporations.
Pagers were never that great here around, only hospitals used it, and about two years ago, I was within a project to lay to rest the last pager system at a hospital I know of. The other hospitals use DECT phones since ages and have the whole campus covered with DECT repeaters. Pagers are clumsy as you have to find the next phone and call from there. DECT phones can be called directly.
It seems the experience of winning against someone else which causes you to feel entitled and to cheat the next time to ensure your next win. And then you get into a spiral of cheating, winning, cheating, winning etc.pp., we know so well from professional sports or successful businessmen with shady ethics.
That's why in many countries, there exists the concept of "money worth advantages". They get taxed as income. Company provided dental insurance? Higher taxes. Company car? Higher taxes. Company provided lunch? Higher taxes.
It would be different if Facebook didn't have those rules in place, then they could claim innocence for the data arriving at their servers.
And if would be different if EU law didn't explicitly forbid collecting data without the consent of the ones creating the data. And no, it's not the responsibility of the users to take care to not create the data in the first place. It's always the fault of the one collecting it afterwards without consent. "But it is out there and can easily be collected" is not a valid argument in the view of EU law.,