Problem is: The (now ex) CEO Martin Winterkorn is at the same time the head of the Volkswagen R&D. So while the CEO Martin Winterkorn might not have known, the R&D boss Martin Winterkorn probably has.
It's not totally false. The only reason why the companies could transfer personal data (that is data which enables one to identify an individual) to the U.S. was the Safe Harbour provision, which basicly stated that the EU Commission trusted the U.S. to have similar data protection schemes in place. And exactly this is now called in question. If the EU High Court follows the opinion of the Attorney General, then no personal data is allowed anymore to be transferred out of the protection of EU law. And that means everything, starting with e-mails sent from EU citizens to other EU citizens, from personal profiles on social media plattforms (except they get individually requested by U.S. residents, then they are allowed to be sent, but have to be erased on U.S. soil as soon as the U.S. resident is no longer looking at them), includes cloud data of European customers, up to health care data processed abroad. It means that most business plans which include storing or processing data in U.S. facilities are now called in question, as the provider of the storing and processing has to actually prove first that he follows EU law as long as he is processing EU data. Until now he just could ask the U.S. to certify him without any EU institution doubting the certification.
Actually, what you're saying is false. The case stems from a complaint brought by an Austrian citizen against Facebook. That constitutes bringing a claim against a US organization. The Irish Data Protection Commissioner ruled against the claim, so it was appealed to the European Court of Justice.
That might be the origin, but that's not the question the Attorney General issued an opinion about. The Irish High Court refused to hear a claim about Facebook's transfer of data and referred to the Safe Harbour treaty, and thus there was the question to the European High Court if the Irish High Court has to consider if the actual conditions of the Safe Harbour provisions were met. And now the Attorney General opinionated that the U.S. does not met the the regulations for the Safe Harbour treaty because European citizens have no legal recourse against the wholesale spying performed by the NSA and other organisations in the U.S.. The NSA spying was called unspecific and without clear goal and thus in violation of the privacy rights of European citizens. This is the first time that an European institution actually took the Snowden allegations as fact (until now most courts opinionated that the allegations have not been proven yet), and thus issued a statement that the U.S. is not adhering to the provisions and thus the European Commission can't declare the U.S. a safe harbour, thus all treaties with the U.S. about data protections are void.
This was and has ever been the case for public domain works. Bach's Toccata and Fugue d-Minor is in the public domain, but performances of them are in general not.
The age is quite undisputed, but the actual nature of the fossils is unclear: Are they really remainings of multicellular life, are they just some strange type of bacterial colonies, ore are are they abiotic anyway and thus don't belong in the TOL at all?
I've been at the exhibition in the Naturhistorisches Museum Wien, and I've seen the fossils (or at least quite convincing replicas of them), and they looked like some type of small, round pillows with large braids. So to a non-palaeontologist like me, they looked like some type of seabed dwelling animals.
I have a four cylinder 1.6l TDI in my car (it's a Skoda, an appearently Europe-only subdivision of VW), and I sometimes get below 4 liter/100 km, which is about 60 mpg(US). And this is normal driving to a customer site about 60 km from my company. So yes, if a sticker advertised 60 mpg (actually, the sticker advertised less than 99 g/km carbon dioxide, which is about the same), I could agree in real world driving.
And yes, it's easily possible to drive the fuel consumption up to 10 l/100 km (about 25 mpg) by inapprobriate driving.
Actually, a polygraph will do nothing of the above. All it does is enforcing the prejudices of the people involved. If you are under stress, you are under stress. May it be because of the situation, the nature of the questions, the fear of the outcome or the need to lie. The polygraph will not tell anyone what the reasons for the stress are, and it's purely guesswork of the operator to attribute it to any of the possible reasons.
Actually, the model is not outdated, only some interpretations of it.
From a 19th century point of view (when Genetics were still unknown), there was no difference between mutation and horizontal gene transfer. It was a small change in one individuum, which could be transfered to the offspring (if it didn't transfer to the offspring, it wasn't evolution at all). And this change wasn't acquired by experience and learning, as the Lamarckism postulates.
When Genetics was discovered, and the mechanism of the DNA and replication was understood, it was clear that this was the main mechanism of transferring information from one generation to the next, and that errors in transcribing allowed for a slow gene drift and thus for the acquiring of new properties. It was never claimed that this was the sole mechanism, it was just the one that was well understood and studied.
Horizontal gene transfer has been known for a long time, moreso, the mechanics of transfering a gene via retroviral DNA- or RNA-fragments into a cell came first, and only then there was the idea, that we could transfer arbitrary genes via the same mechanism. Thus GMO is a result of discovering the mechanism of horizontal gene transfer.
If horizontal gene transfer happens, if affects only a single individuum, the one getting hit with the retrovirus carring the new DNA and thus acting as gene shuttle. In the most cases, the DNA transfer will not affect the offspring, as the gonades aren't hit by the virus, and thus the genetic modification will die with the individuum. Sometimes, the DNA transfer affects the gonades and either the individuum will become completely infertile, or it will not have viable offspring. Thus the gene transfer dies with the next generation. Only if the DNA proves to be advantageous for the individuum and its offspring, it will spread within the population, and it will take hundreds of generations until it has affected the whole population.
This is different from GMO, where millions of individua at the same time with the same genetic modification will be released at once, and we don't have hundreds of generations to watch the effects to the species itself and to its environment and biotopes.
As a side note: What if two patented crops from different companies crossbreed and carry both patented genes? Which company then has the right to sue the other for patent violation?
Jáchimov (today's Czech Republic) was determined to be the source of the Uranium ore German scientists were experimenting with, and it's nice that they added a "fun fact" for the town, but the most important fun fact, they omitted. Silver coins minted since 1519 in Jáchimov (called St. Joachimsthal at the time) were so common that the name Joachimsthaler for the coins got shortened to Thaler which eventually lead to the U.S. Dollar.
I don't want my kids to ever be at a school you are a teacher or a principal. I don't want to live ever in a district you have any saying in police proceedings. You have a deeply twisted mind just looking for trouble.
According to your logic, everything that contains an electrical power source, wires and a switch should be reason enough to handcuff people, arrest them and prosecute them. Because that's all you need to trigger the explosion of the bomb.
And no, all the boy said was that he build a clock. A clock. You know? That thing that tells you the time.
Honi soit qui mal y pense. If you have any problem with people building clocks, then you have a deeply troubled mind.
How many wires do you need on a bomb? One from the battery to the detonator, one from the detonator to the clock an one from the clock back to the battery. Three wires. And it's completely irrelevant in which direction they are connected, as long as all three components are connected to each other. All the clock does is closing the circuit after a preset time. If you can't do that without color coded wires, maybe you shouldn't be building bombs at all.
Critical thinking starts with knowing the meaning of "critic", which has a negative connotation in English, while in the original Greek, it means "evaluating" or "balancing". Many people thus get confused and think that "just doubting everything" is critical thinking.
Critical thinking is the ability not only to pose question, but also to accept answers. Critical thinking is the ability to pose interesting questions and to evaluate answers and compare them and give the answers different weight. And yes, critical thinking requires you to question everything and to doubt anything, but it requires you to even question your questions and doubt your doubts. And it requires you to work through and get to conclusions, and if everything is doubtful, then it requires you to at least enumerate your doubts and accept the less doubtful answers as a working hypothesis. Critical thinking requires your ability to accept any hypothesis per se as true for a moment to evaluate it in the what-if-manner: What if there really was an intelligent designer? What if there really were alien visitors on Earth? What if 9/11 really was a CIA-Mossad conspiracy? And then you have to find new questions that implicate the truth of the hypotheses and see where they lead to: How do you hide 500 metric tons of TNT in a building, as TNT has only 1/10 of the energy content of kerosene? How do you start the explosion exactly the moment a real airplane hits the building? Did the aliens land only once, or have they visited several times? Were they the same aliens for each visit, or can you tell which aliens were visiting which sites? Can we tell if the alien technology progressed from visit to visit?
According to my data, 238Pu has 0.54 W/g, while 90Sr has only 0.46 W/g. And 238Pu has extremely low gamma and neutron emission levels (mostly from spontaneous fission), and it is an alpha emitter, which is advantageous for shielding. 90Sr is a beta emitter with higher gamma emission, which requires much more shielding.
Thus, 238Pu is the most used RTG fuel, not only for spatial payloads.
I don't know about the U.S., but in regions with sane laws, there is a rule: If something is only "licensed" and not owned, the license giver is fully responsible for keeping things in order, and he's not even allowed to bill you for repairing it, except he can prove negligence or misuse on your side.
For terrestric applications, and where cost beats weight, 90Sr RTGs are preferable compared to 238Pu. But from an efficiency point of view, 90Sr has a very weak decay energy resulting in less than 0.5 Watts per gram energy density. For a spatial payload, you want a higher density, and you want minimal shielding requirements. Thus 238Pu, were a 2.5 mm lead shielding is sufficient, and the power density of 0.54 Watt per gram is still reasonable.
RTGs have been mass produced in the former Soviet Union since the 1960ies, and they were often used as power source in beacons in uninhabited regions - now often in a detoriated state, partly plundered and dismantled. There are estimates of about 1000 devices being deployed, and many of them in undocumented places.
As someone who does streaming for a living: Protocol overhead (including the container for the raw stream) is between 10 and 25 percent. Not 300 as you claim. If your connection has an MTU of 1492 (typical for IPv4 tunneled via IPv6), the IP packet header is less than 0,3% of the payload. With IPSec tunneling you typically have 1408 bytes left, and the overhead is still less than 7%.
Slashdot Mirror
Problem is: The (now ex) CEO Martin Winterkorn is at the same time the head of the Volkswagen R&D. So while the CEO Martin Winterkorn might not have known, the R&D boss Martin Winterkorn probably has.
It's not totally false. The only reason why the companies could transfer personal data (that is data which enables one to identify an individual) to the U.S. was the Safe Harbour provision, which basicly stated that the EU Commission trusted the U.S. to have similar data protection schemes in place. And exactly this is now called in question. If the EU High Court follows the opinion of the Attorney General, then no personal data is allowed anymore to be transferred out of the protection of EU law. And that means everything, starting with e-mails sent from EU citizens to other EU citizens, from personal profiles on social media plattforms (except they get individually requested by U.S. residents, then they are allowed to be sent, but have to be erased on U.S. soil as soon as the U.S. resident is no longer looking at them), includes cloud data of European customers, up to health care data processed abroad. It means that most business plans which include storing or processing data in U.S. facilities are now called in question, as the provider of the storing and processing has to actually prove first that he follows EU law as long as he is processing EU data. Until now he just could ask the U.S. to certify him without any EU institution doubting the certification.
Actually, what you're saying is false. The case stems from a complaint brought by an Austrian citizen against Facebook. That constitutes bringing a claim against a US organization. The Irish Data Protection Commissioner ruled against the claim, so it was appealed to the European Court of Justice.
That might be the origin, but that's not the question the Attorney General issued an opinion about. The Irish High Court refused to hear a claim about Facebook's transfer of data and referred to the Safe Harbour treaty, and thus there was the question to the European High Court if the Irish High Court has to consider if the actual conditions of the Safe Harbour provisions were met. And now the Attorney General opinionated that the U.S. does not met the the regulations for the Safe Harbour treaty because European citizens have no legal recourse against the wholesale spying performed by the NSA and other organisations in the U.S.. The NSA spying was called unspecific and without clear goal and thus in violation of the privacy rights of European citizens. This is the first time that an European institution actually took the Snowden allegations as fact (until now most courts opinionated that the allegations have not been proven yet), and thus issued a statement that the U.S. is not adhering to the provisions and thus the European Commission can't declare the U.S. a safe harbour, thus all treaties with the U.S. about data protections are void.
Most terrorists are male, thus lets just routinely scan all men!
This was and has ever been the case for public domain works. Bach's Toccata and Fugue d-Minor is in the public domain, but performances of them are in general not.
For reference: That's the link to the actual exhibition page.
I've been at the exhibition in the Naturhistorisches Museum Wien, and I've seen the fossils (or at least quite convincing replicas of them), and they looked like some type of small, round pillows with large braids. So to a non-palaeontologist like me, they looked like some type of seabed dwelling animals.
Interestingly though, most moslems aren't terrorist either.
And yes, it's easily possible to drive the fuel consumption up to 10 l/100 km (about 25 mpg) by inapprobriate driving.
Will you have a building for the Gabonionta about 2 km from the room for the H. sapiens?
Actually, a polygraph will do nothing of the above. All it does is enforcing the prejudices of the people involved. If you are under stress, you are under stress. May it be because of the situation, the nature of the questions, the fear of the outcome or the need to lie. The polygraph will not tell anyone what the reasons for the stress are, and it's purely guesswork of the operator to attribute it to any of the possible reasons.
From a 19th century point of view (when Genetics were still unknown), there was no difference between mutation and horizontal gene transfer. It was a small change in one individuum, which could be transfered to the offspring (if it didn't transfer to the offspring, it wasn't evolution at all). And this change wasn't acquired by experience and learning, as the Lamarckism postulates.
When Genetics was discovered, and the mechanism of the DNA and replication was understood, it was clear that this was the main mechanism of transferring information from one generation to the next, and that errors in transcribing allowed for a slow gene drift and thus for the acquiring of new properties. It was never claimed that this was the sole mechanism, it was just the one that was well understood and studied.
Horizontal gene transfer has been known for a long time, moreso, the mechanics of transfering a gene via retroviral DNA- or RNA-fragments into a cell came first, and only then there was the idea, that we could transfer arbitrary genes via the same mechanism. Thus GMO is a result of discovering the mechanism of horizontal gene transfer.
If horizontal gene transfer happens, if affects only a single individuum, the one getting hit with the retrovirus carring the new DNA and thus acting as gene shuttle. In the most cases, the DNA transfer will not affect the offspring, as the gonades aren't hit by the virus, and thus the genetic modification will die with the individuum. Sometimes, the DNA transfer affects the gonades and either the individuum will become completely infertile, or it will not have viable offspring. Thus the gene transfer dies with the next generation. Only if the DNA proves to be advantageous for the individuum and its offspring, it will spread within the population, and it will take hundreds of generations until it has affected the whole population.
This is different from GMO, where millions of individua at the same time with the same genetic modification will be released at once, and we don't have hundreds of generations to watch the effects to the species itself and to its environment and biotopes.
As a side note: What if two patented crops from different companies crossbreed and carry both patented genes? Which company then has the right to sue the other for patent violation?
Jáchimov (today's Czech Republic) was determined to be the source of the Uranium ore German scientists were experimenting with, and it's nice that they added a "fun fact" for the town, but the most important fun fact, they omitted. Silver coins minted since 1519 in Jáchimov (called St. Joachimsthal at the time) were so common that the name Joachimsthaler for the coins got shortened to Thaler which eventually lead to the U.S. Dollar.
I don't want my kids to ever be at a school you are a teacher or a principal. I don't want to live ever in a district you have any saying in police proceedings. You have a deeply twisted mind just looking for trouble.
And no, all the boy said was that he build a clock. A clock. You know? That thing that tells you the time.
Honi soit qui mal y pense. If you have any problem with people building clocks, then you have a deeply troubled mind.
With your logic, every science fair in every school in the whole U.S. should end in arrests and threats to prosecute for "making a hoax bomb", right?
How many wires do you need on a bomb? One from the battery to the detonator, one from the detonator to the clock an one from the clock back to the battery. Three wires. And it's completely irrelevant in which direction they are connected, as long as all three components are connected to each other. All the clock does is closing the circuit after a preset time. If you can't do that without color coded wires, maybe you shouldn't be building bombs at all.
Critical thinking is the ability not only to pose question, but also to accept answers. Critical thinking is the ability to pose interesting questions and to evaluate answers and compare them and give the answers different weight. And yes, critical thinking requires you to question everything and to doubt anything, but it requires you to even question your questions and doubt your doubts. And it requires you to work through and get to conclusions, and if everything is doubtful, then it requires you to at least enumerate your doubts and accept the less doubtful answers as a working hypothesis. Critical thinking requires your ability to accept any hypothesis per se as true for a moment to evaluate it in the what-if-manner: What if there really was an intelligent designer? What if there really were alien visitors on Earth? What if 9/11 really was a CIA-Mossad conspiracy? And then you have to find new questions that implicate the truth of the hypotheses and see where they lead to: How do you hide 500 metric tons of TNT in a building, as TNT has only 1/10 of the energy content of kerosene? How do you start the explosion exactly the moment a real airplane hits the building? Did the aliens land only once, or have they visited several times? Were they the same aliens for each visit, or can you tell which aliens were visiting which sites? Can we tell if the alien technology progressed from visit to visit?
Thus, 238Pu is the most used RTG fuel, not only for spatial payloads.
I don't know about the U.S., but in regions with sane laws, there is a rule: If something is only "licensed" and not owned, the license giver is fully responsible for keeping things in order, and he's not even allowed to bill you for repairing it, except he can prove negligence or misuse on your side.
For terrestric applications, and where cost beats weight, 90Sr RTGs are preferable compared to 238Pu. But from an efficiency point of view, 90Sr has a very weak decay energy resulting in less than 0.5 Watts per gram energy density. For a spatial payload, you want a higher density, and you want minimal shielding requirements. Thus 238Pu, were a 2.5 mm lead shielding is sufficient, and the power density of 0.54 Watt per gram is still reasonable.
RTGs have been mass produced in the former Soviet Union since the 1960ies, and they were often used as power source in beacons in uninhabited regions - now often in a detoriated state, partly plundered and dismantled. There are estimates of about 1000 devices being deployed, and many of them in undocumented places.
No one said you had to put all that information in the same request. Request only one information per attempt, and they are still disconnected.
As someone who does streaming for a living: Protocol overhead (including the container for the raw stream) is between 10 and 25 percent. Not 300 as you claim. If your connection has an MTU of 1492 (typical for IPv4 tunneled via IPv6), the IP packet header is less than 0,3% of the payload. With IPSec tunneling you typically have 1408 bytes left, and the overhead is still less than 7%.