Given that the Diablo 3 beta has been around for a while on PC, I would expect that the console version will be ported from the PC rather than the other way round.
If there are people alive today who don't know that they should be skeptical about advertising, they probably aren't watching American cosmetics ads anyway.
In the United States, the federal government has sovereign immunity and may not be sued unless it has waived its immunity or consented to suit. See Gray v. Bell, 712 F.2d 490, 507 (D.C. Cir. 1983). The United States has waived sovereign immunity to a limited extent, mainly through the Federal Tort Claims Act, which waives the immunity if a tortious act of a federal employee causes damage, and the Tucker Act, which waives the immunity over claims arising out of contracts to which the federal government is a party. The Federal Tort Claims Act and the Tucker Act are not as broad waivers of sovereign immunity as they might appear, as there are a number of statutory exceptions and judicially fashioned limiting doctrines applicable to both. Title 28 U.S.C. 1331 confers federal question jurisdiction on district courts, but this statute has been held not to be a blanket waiver of sovereign immunity on the part of the federal government.
http://www.scotusblog.com/2011/12/argument-recap-for-want-of-a-good-hypothetical/...Over and over, the Court puzzled over how one could start with a law of nature, which is not eligible for a patent, and then find a way to expand on it that is creative enough to earn a patent. It is an inquiry, one of the Justices said early on, that might lend itself to the conjuring of “millions of hypotheticals.” But the hypotheticals that were forthcoming were not very helpful.
Those are just entirely different shots, sometimes even shot on different days. It occasionally shows up in continuity errors between the two shots. (I got that from the Nitpicker's Guide to Star Trek).
The researchers used a set of before-and-after pairs to determine what kinds of image statistics would best correlate with the human observers' ratings of how drastically the pictures had been altered. Now that those stats have been decided, it's possible to apply the evaluation procedure to any picture of the same general content and get back a rating number which should correlate with the amount of alteration done.
For instance, in the case of bin Laden, we knew for a fact that he was in Afghanistan at the time. We asked them to extradite him, all in accordance with the treaty that both the USA and Afghanistan had signed. The Taliban government refused to honor that treaty. So diplomacy had already broken down, and war was basically the only option.
In your other example, we have good relations with all of those countries, and we hope that their governments are not (very) belligerent towards us, at least not to where they would deny us our rights under extradition treaties. So we go through diplomatic channels, we get them to bust the guy and ship him to us for trial. All nice and peaceful diplomacy. Would we go to war with Canada over one criminal whom they refused to extradite? Probably not.
Now if, let's say, there was some large organized gang operating out of, say, Mexico, which routinely attacked and killed Americans, even up to American police officers, then the Mexican government better damn well be cooperating with our military and law enforcement. And if American government officials got involved in smuggling weapons to that big Mexican criminal gang, maybe for some misguided political reason, and our Justice Department knew about that smuggling and tried to stonewall and refused to deal with that problem and punish the officials who were responsible, well, that would definitely be an act of war against Mexico, as well a a violation of their oath of office by those government officials. And if high officials in our Executive branch not only let it happen, but continued to cover up for the crimes, they would deserve to be extradited to Mexico, and I hope the Mexicans would punish them to the fullest extent of the law.
"Whatever way you choose to read the text [of the paper by Pusey et al], it makes no sense whatsoever. How they suddenly jump to the conclusion that there is a problem with the probabilistic meaning of the wave function remains completely mysterious."
" The current version of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) poses a threat to the civil liberties of the millions of Americans who use computers and the Internet. As interpreted by the Justice Department, many if not most computer users violate the CFAA on a regular basis. Any of them could face arrest and criminal prosecution.
In the Justice Department’s view, the CFAA criminalizes conduct as innocuous as using a fake name on Facebook or lying about your weight in an online dating profile. That situation is intolerable. Routine computer use should not be a crime. Any cybersecurity legislation that this Congress passes should reject the extraordinarily broad interpretations endorsed by the United States Department of Justice.
In my testimony, I want to explain why the CFAA presents a significant threat to civil liberties. I want to then offer two narrow and simple ways to amend the CFAA to respond to these problems. I will conclude by responding to arguments I anticipate the Justice Department officials might make in defense of the current statute."
DOJ (Department of Justice) is part of the Executive Branch. The US Attorneys act as prosecutors in trying federal crimes. Eric Holder is the Attorney General.
That's what ordinary non-government employees do, perhaps. Government parasite unions, on the other hand, "negotiate" their pay and benefits with the same politicians who they're supporting with campaign contributions, which conveniently are kicked back from the "dues" collected from their inflated government paychecks.
Everybody has different goals, that's the nature of the human species.
But Iceland isn't the bad example you make it out to be - their economy is doing much better since they wrung out the bad finance, while the Euros keep digging themselves a deeper hole trying to bail out the PIIGS.
Slashdot Mirror
Given that the Diablo 3 beta has been around for a while on PC, I would expect that the console version will be ported from the PC rather than the other way round.
Probably lousy seeing due to proximity to Swansea, and made worse by the "new lighting" on the "promenade between the observatory and Civic Centre".
If there are people alive today who don't know that they should be skeptical about advertising, they probably aren't watching American cosmetics ads anyway.
Two words: sovereign immunity. It's almost impossible to prove the conditions required to successfully sue the government.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity_in_the_United_States
In the United States, the federal government has sovereign immunity and may not be sued unless it has waived its immunity or consented to suit. See Gray v. Bell, 712 F.2d 490, 507 (D.C. Cir. 1983). The United States has waived sovereign immunity to a limited extent, mainly through the Federal Tort Claims Act, which waives the immunity if a tortious act of a federal employee causes damage, and the Tucker Act, which waives the immunity over claims arising out of contracts to which the federal government is a party. The Federal Tort Claims Act and the Tucker Act are not as broad waivers of sovereign immunity as they might appear, as there are a number of statutory exceptions and judicially fashioned limiting doctrines applicable to both. Title 28 U.S.C. 1331 confers federal question jurisdiction on district courts, but this statute has been held not to be a blanket waiver of sovereign immunity on the part of the federal government.
http://www.scotusblog.com/2011/12/argument-recap-for-want-of-a-good-hypothetical/ ...Over and over, the Court puzzled over how one could start with a law of nature, which is not eligible for a patent, and then find a way to expand on it that is creative enough to earn a patent. It is an inquiry, one of the Justices said early on, that might lend itself to the conjuring of “millions of hypotheticals.” But the hypotheticals that were forthcoming were not very helpful.
Those are just entirely different shots, sometimes even shot on different days. It occasionally shows up in continuity errors between the two shots.
(I got that from the Nitpicker's Guide to Star Trek).
The researchers used a set of before-and-after pairs to determine what kinds of image statistics would best correlate with the human observers' ratings of how drastically the pictures had been altered. Now that those stats have been decided, it's possible to apply the evaluation procedure to any picture of the same general content and get back a rating number which should correlate with the amount of alteration done.
That's probably from the smoke machines for the laser show. God, I hate those things.
For instance, in the case of bin Laden, we knew for a fact that he was in Afghanistan at the time. We asked them to extradite him, all in accordance with the treaty that both the USA and Afghanistan had signed. The Taliban government refused to honor that treaty. So diplomacy had already broken down, and war was basically the only option.
In your other example, we have good relations with all of those countries, and we hope that their governments are not (very) belligerent towards us, at least not to where they would deny us our rights under extradition treaties. So we go through diplomatic channels, we get them to bust the guy and ship him to us for trial. All nice and peaceful diplomacy. Would we go to war with Canada over one criminal whom they refused to extradite? Probably not.
Now if, let's say, there was some large organized gang operating out of, say, Mexico, which routinely attacked and killed Americans, even up to American police officers, then the Mexican government better damn well be cooperating with our military and law enforcement. And if American government officials got involved in smuggling weapons to that big Mexican criminal gang, maybe for some misguided political reason, and our Justice Department knew about that smuggling and tried to stonewall and refused to deal with that problem and punish the officials who were responsible, well, that would definitely be an act of war against Mexico, as well a a violation of their oath of office by those government officials. And if high officials in our Executive branch not only let it happen, but continued to cover up for the crimes, they would deserve to be extradited to Mexico, and I hope the Mexicans would punish them to the fullest extent of the law.
So what?
http://motls.blogspot.com/2011/11/nature-hypes-anti-qm-crackpot-paper-by.html
"Whatever way you choose to read the text [of the paper by Pusey et al], it makes no sense whatsoever. How they suddenly jump to the conclusion that there is a problem with the probabilistic meaning of the wave function remains completely mysterious."
You can't tell anything to those guys.
http://volokh.com/2011/11/14/my-congressional-testimony-on-the-need-to-narrow-the-computer-fraud-and-abuse-act/
http://cdn.volokh.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Testimony-of-Orin-S-Kerr.pdf
" The current version of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) poses a threat to the civil liberties of the millions of Americans who use computers and the Internet. As interpreted by the Justice Department, many if not most computer users violate the CFAA on a regular basis. Any of them could face arrest and criminal prosecution.
In the Justice Department’s view, the CFAA criminalizes conduct as innocuous as using a fake name on Facebook or lying about your weight in an online dating profile. That situation is intolerable. Routine computer use should not be a crime. Any cybersecurity legislation that this Congress passes should reject the extraordinarily broad interpretations endorsed by the United States Department of Justice.
In my testimony, I want to explain why the CFAA presents a significant threat to civil liberties. I want to then offer two narrow and simple ways to amend the CFAA to respond to these problems. I will conclude by responding to arguments I anticipate the Justice Department officials might make in defense of the current statute."
DOJ (Department of Justice) is part of the Executive Branch. The US Attorneys act as prosecutors in trying federal crimes. Eric Holder is the Attorney General.
That's what ordinary non-government employees do, perhaps. Government parasite unions, on the other hand, "negotiate" their pay and benefits with the same politicians who they're supporting with campaign contributions, which conveniently are kicked back from the "dues" collected from their inflated government paychecks.
Yes, why should taxpayers have to pay for both their own health plans AND those of government parasites?
Oh, yeah, I forgot to mention public employees unions' pensions and health care plans.
If only they spent money of those things instead of pouring it down the bottomless holes of bailouts and subsidies.
Umm, no. Switzerland is a federal republic. National referendums are not "direct democracy".
Because the Occupiers are a public nuisance?
http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=occupy+crime
http://www.lmgtfy.com?q=occupy+unsanitary
Everybody has different goals, that's the nature of the human species.
But Iceland isn't the bad example you make it out to be - their economy is doing much better since they wrung out the bad finance, while the Euros keep digging themselves a deeper hole trying to bail out the PIIGS.
What purpose does it serve to deny the truth?
Never mind the irony of demanding the right to assemble and seek redress from the government when you're trying to reject its authority.
They couldn't even get enough dough from Soros for porta-potty and dumpster service? Pitiful indeed.