If anyone in the U.S. is really interested in what helped to tear down the Wall, look at Helsinki and at the Helsinki Final Act. All the discussions and dissents in the former Communist bloc were based on the Helsinki Final Act, and on the signatures the East European countries put under the agreement on free speech and free travel. This is, what fueled the hope and the struggle. Not a propaganda show by the U.S. president who was in the same moment talking bad about the very documents that were so dear and important to us.
Innocent until proven guilty is a legal practice that only applies in criminal law, and nowhere else. In civil cases, there is no such concept als "guilt". If we are not talking about a criminal case, innocent until proven guilty does not apply.
Spoken as an East German: The Berlin Wall Speech was a gesture towards the own people in the U.S., nothing more, nothing less. It worked. The majority of the U.S. still believes this speech had a big impact on the East. We, the East Germans knew that the Berlin Wall was evil, we didn't need Ronald Reagan to point this out to us. We already had 200 shot dead who were trying to get over the Wall. We had thousands of people in prison who were caught planning to cross the Wall. We had singer-songwriter singing about the Wall, and how it cut us off most of the world. When those singer-songwrites sung about not being able to travel to Paris, we cheered, and we were looking up to them for having the braveness to do so. When Ronald Reagan did this, we were annoyed about the big posture and grandstanding and the arrogance of the most powerful man of the world, and we felt like he stole our symbol from us.
General Relativity was widely accepted four years after the initial publishing (after Sir Arthur Eddington published his fundamental Mathematical Theory of Relativity), and Special Relativity was a new mathematical approach to the Poincaré-Lorentz-cosmology of 1892, published more than a decade before (which in turn tried to incorporate the Maxwell equations from 1879 into Newtonian physics).
Quantum mechanics were proposed by Max Planck in 1900, 1905 it was used by Albert Einstein to explain the photoelectric effect (for which he got awarded the Nobel price in 1921), and by the 1920 it was already heavily reworked and modified by the works of people like Erwin Schroedinger, Werner Heisenberg, Louis de Broglie and Max Born.
So Relativity and Quantum mechanics are quite bad examples for what you want to say. They were adapted very quickly instead.
Maybe you know how to can food, if you have cans and food available. But do you know how to get the metal in exactly the right tin form to make cans in the first place? Do you know which types of tin you can use for food and which ones to avoid? How do you deal with the corrosion of iron, with poisonous ions from copper, lead and zinc?
But dark in this case is completely cromulent, as dark implicitely means no light, and in fact, dark matter (and also dark energy) doesn't emit any light or even interact with light. This matter really is dark in the original sense of the word, all later connotations not withstanding.
The fact that we need a court to decide that "embedding a copyrighted YouTube video in your site is not copyright infringement." is already a failure of the system as a whole.
No, that's one of the things a court is for: Clear up legal facts if they are not explicitely stated in the law. The E.U. copyright directive and the laws in different countries don't mention embedding, and thus a court decides when the question comes up. In this case, the system works exactly as it is supposed to be.
No. They both are angry about them. because Edward Snowden pointed out to the U.S. government how easy it is to get access to very important information at the NSA. Until them, they could get those information uninhibited by just having some contractors getting into the NSA and then go shopping. Now the NSA knows how vulnerable the agency actually is and probably has taken countermeasures.
As we travel up to modern times, we have gone from a society that has 1 working parent and 1 at home taking care of kids to both parents normally having to work just to make ends meet. This means that the majority of parents can't teach a whole lot to their kids and public schools can (there is some interesting investigation to be done on whether or not this was planned, I recommend doing some reading).
We actually never were in a society where 1 working parent ant 1 at home taking care parent were there for the children. For some time (actually only for about 20 years between the late 1940ies and the late 1960ies), this was an ideal that was propagated - nothing more. The core family of just the parents and the children is a quite new invention, for most of human history, people were living in large, multi-generational families, and whoever had the time, may it be the older brother or the grandma, the sister of the father or a farmhand, was taking care of the children. Rich people paid wet nurses to take care of the fresh born children because the wife had more important tasks at hand than being occupied with them. Ancient Greeks and Romans hat special slaves whose main task was to educate their children. Middle age aristocrats sent their children into the monastries to attend school or to close relatives to learn about the world.
Critical thinking means the ability to exercise critique - to evaluate objects, persons, actions and ideas. It has nothing to do with rejecting them or with badtalking them. Critical thinking means not that you have to come up with your own ideas or your own opinion or be able to think outside of the box, but that you are able to tell the difference between a good and a bad idea or a carefully balanced and a completely fringe opinion. Critical thinking does not mean that you refuse to follow orders. But it means that you will not get into problems because you were "just following orders".
Actually, they wanted their work featured on Google News and get paid for it. Google said that they will only show so much of their work as they can do freely according to the law. But now the conundrum for the publishers came up: If Google shows the snippets including a thumbnail of the featured picture, the publishers fear people will just skim that and not click through to their site to read the article. That's why they wanted to be compensated for those people just skimming. But if Google only shows the headline, which it could for free, it might not be enough to get people interested to click through to the article. So they don't get people click through to their article either -- so no money again.
It's not called fair use, it's called Schranken des Urheberrechts (limits to the Author's rights). It serves a similar purpose than the fair use doctrine though.
Google is in fact handling everyone the same. You want to get listed by Google? Don't demand money from Google. This goes for everyone. The publishers were trying to conjure up some alleged violation of antitrust law because Google was actually threatening to comply with the law and show only as much as they can according to the said law without infringing on the publisher's rights to their content, and it would have been looking differently for content the respective publisher wants money for - this content is only shown as headline without any pictures or thumbnails by Google, as anything more is reserved by law.
Actually (if you read the article), the displaying of snippets and thumbnails was to go into effect today, Oct 23. The publishers folded in the evening of Oct 22.
But here around (Austria in Europe), we have providers that actually offer such services: An hotspot device hooked on LTE and a quite generous data plan. The device itself is not supposed to be mobile (needs a wall socket for power), but all the other components are there: see this or that.
If they are so cheap, why do they need subsidies not only for the capital to built (which would cover the initial costs), but also for the energy they produce (which would cover operating cost)? Appearently, nuclear power is only cheap in theory, but not in practice. And we are talking here about a chinese-french partnership, both nations which don't have many issues with nuclear power in general, and they are building in the UK, a country with not much of an opposition to nuclear power.
It has nothing to do with the U.S. in this case. Take this new nuclear power plant slated to be built in the UK:
The subsidaries necessary to get this project off ground include a 17 billion pound warranty by the government and a guaranteed price for the energy about 50% above the current market prices.
I use the 100 EUR bill all the time. My average weekend shopping tops 100 EUR easily (we are a family of four), and then paying with the 100 EUR bill and additional cash just makes sense. And yes, I prefer paying cash. Maybe you are the exception?
It is also very interesting that coal and nuke plants only spring up where there are subsidies. Deal with it: negotiations about the site of large industry projects are always influenced by local or global subsidies.
As a matter of fact: many birds of prey are pretty bad at avoiding obstacles. Not only wind farms are a danger to them, also solitary trees, towers or even large rocks. Because of the wind noise of the rotary wings, wind turbines actually are less dangerous to birds than for instance telegraph poles.
Slashdot Mirror
If anyone in the U.S. is really interested in what helped to tear down the Wall, look at Helsinki and at the Helsinki Final Act. All the discussions and dissents in the former Communist bloc were based on the Helsinki Final Act, and on the signatures the East European countries put under the agreement on free speech and free travel. This is, what fueled the hope and the struggle. Not a propaganda show by the U.S. president who was in the same moment talking bad about the very documents that were so dear and important to us.
Yay to Cladistics! ;)
Innocent until proven guilty is a legal practice that only applies in criminal law, and nowhere else. In civil cases, there is no such concept als "guilt". If we are not talking about a criminal case, innocent until proven guilty does not apply.
It is not forbidden to discover fossils or gold. It is forbidden to excavate them or mine it without a license. That's quite a difference.
Spoken as an East German: The Berlin Wall Speech was a gesture towards the own people in the U.S., nothing more, nothing less. It worked. The majority of the U.S. still believes this speech had a big impact on the East. We, the East Germans knew that the Berlin Wall was evil, we didn't need Ronald Reagan to point this out to us. We already had 200 shot dead who were trying to get over the Wall. We had thousands of people in prison who were caught planning to cross the Wall. We had singer-songwriter singing about the Wall, and how it cut us off most of the world. When those singer-songwrites sung about not being able to travel to Paris, we cheered, and we were looking up to them for having the braveness to do so. When Ronald Reagan did this, we were annoyed about the big posture and grandstanding and the arrogance of the most powerful man of the world, and we felt like he stole our symbol from us.
The name of the guy is Pater Georges Lemaître, a belgian Jesuit.
Quantum mechanics were proposed by Max Planck in 1900, 1905 it was used by Albert Einstein to explain the photoelectric effect (for which he got awarded the Nobel price in 1921), and by the 1920 it was already heavily reworked and modified by the works of people like Erwin Schroedinger, Werner Heisenberg, Louis de Broglie and Max Born.
So Relativity and Quantum mechanics are quite bad examples for what you want to say. They were adapted very quickly instead.
Maybe you know how to can food, if you have cans and food available. But do you know how to get the metal in exactly the right tin form to make cans in the first place? Do you know which types of tin you can use for food and which ones to avoid? How do you deal with the corrosion of iron, with poisonous ions from copper, lead and zinc?
But dark in this case is completely cromulent, as dark implicitely means no light, and in fact, dark matter (and also dark energy) doesn't emit any light or even interact with light. This matter really is dark in the original sense of the word, all later connotations not withstanding.
The fact that we need a court to decide that "embedding a copyrighted YouTube video in your site is not copyright infringement." is already a failure of the system as a whole.
No, that's one of the things a court is for: Clear up legal facts if they are not explicitely stated in the law. The E.U. copyright directive and the laws in different countries don't mention embedding, and thus a court decides when the question comes up. In this case, the system works exactly as it is supposed to be.
No. They both are angry about them. because Edward Snowden pointed out to the U.S. government how easy it is to get access to very important information at the NSA. Until them, they could get those information uninhibited by just having some contractors getting into the NSA and then go shopping. Now the NSA knows how vulnerable the agency actually is and probably has taken countermeasures.
As we travel up to modern times, we have gone from a society that has 1 working parent and 1 at home taking care of kids to both parents normally having to work just to make ends meet. This means that the majority of parents can't teach a whole lot to their kids and public schools can (there is some interesting investigation to be done on whether or not this was planned, I recommend doing some reading).
We actually never were in a society where 1 working parent ant 1 at home taking care parent were there for the children. For some time (actually only for about 20 years between the late 1940ies and the late 1960ies), this was an ideal that was propagated - nothing more. The core family of just the parents and the children is a quite new invention, for most of human history, people were living in large, multi-generational families, and whoever had the time, may it be the older brother or the grandma, the sister of the father or a farmhand, was taking care of the children. Rich people paid wet nurses to take care of the fresh born children because the wife had more important tasks at hand than being occupied with them. Ancient Greeks and Romans hat special slaves whose main task was to educate their children. Middle age aristocrats sent their children into the monastries to attend school or to close relatives to learn about the world.
Critical thinking means the ability to exercise critique - to evaluate objects, persons, actions and ideas. It has nothing to do with rejecting them or with badtalking them. Critical thinking means not that you have to come up with your own ideas or your own opinion or be able to think outside of the box, but that you are able to tell the difference between a good and a bad idea or a carefully balanced and a completely fringe opinion. Critical thinking does not mean that you refuse to follow orders. But it means that you will not get into problems because you were "just following orders".
Actually, they wanted their work featured on Google News and get paid for it. Google said that they will only show so much of their work as they can do freely according to the law. But now the conundrum for the publishers came up: If Google shows the snippets including a thumbnail of the featured picture, the publishers fear people will just skim that and not click through to their site to read the article. That's why they wanted to be compensated for those people just skimming. But if Google only shows the headline, which it could for free, it might not be enough to get people interested to click through to the article. So they don't get people click through to their article either -- so no money again.
It's not called fair use, it's called Schranken des Urheberrechts (limits to the Author's rights). It serves a similar purpose than the fair use doctrine though.
Google is in fact handling everyone the same. You want to get listed by Google? Don't demand money from Google. This goes for everyone. The publishers were trying to conjure up some alleged violation of antitrust law because Google was actually threatening to comply with the law and show only as much as they can according to the said law without infringing on the publisher's rights to their content, and it would have been looking differently for content the respective publisher wants money for - this content is only shown as headline without any pictures or thumbnails by Google, as anything more is reserved by law.
Actually (if you read the article), the displaying of snippets and thumbnails was to go into effect today, Oct 23. The publishers folded in the evening of Oct 22.
But here around (Austria in Europe), we have providers that actually offer such services: An hotspot device hooked on LTE and a quite generous data plan. The device itself is not supposed to be mobile (needs a wall socket for power), but all the other components are there: see this or that.
If they are so cheap, why do they need subsidies not only for the capital to built (which would cover the initial costs), but also for the energy they produce (which would cover operating cost)? Appearently, nuclear power is only cheap in theory, but not in practice. And we are talking here about a chinese-french partnership, both nations which don't have many issues with nuclear power in general, and they are building in the UK, a country with not much of an opposition to nuclear power.
The subsidaries necessary to get this project off ground include a 17 billion pound warranty by the government and a guaranteed price for the energy about 50% above the current market prices.
I use the 100 EUR bill all the time. My average weekend shopping tops 100 EUR easily (we are a family of four), and then paying with the 100 EUR bill and additional cash just makes sense. And yes, I prefer paying cash. Maybe you are the exception?
It is also very interesting that coal and nuke plants only spring up where there are subsidies. Deal with it: negotiations about the site of large industry projects are always influenced by local or global subsidies.
As a matter of fact: many birds of prey are pretty bad at avoiding obstacles. Not only wind farms are a danger to them, also solitary trees, towers or even large rocks. Because of the wind noise of the rotary wings, wind turbines actually are less dangerous to birds than for instance telegraph poles.
So are in Torino (Turin for the non-italian people). You were saying?
You are forgetting that you are trying to defend an asshole by demonizing the victim.