The concept of "terms of service" has, sure, and so have a variety of claims put into ToSes, but you cannot put arbitrary claims in your ToS and expect them to actually be upheld. You can't even put arbitrary terms into negotiated, signed contracts.
Notably, they assert that they are not actually a bank and are not subject to any banking regulations. That, however, is not a matter that is up to them.
A: Bitcoins deposited with flexcoin will be stored on our secure servers. They will remain in your account, and your account only, unless you authorize a transaction with them.
Wishful thinking.
From the Terms of Service:
We have taken every precaution to defend your bitcoins from hackers and/or intruders. However, Flexcoin Inc is not responsible for insuring any bitcoins stored in the Flexcoin system. You are entering into this agreement with Flexcoin Inc. You agree to not hold Flexcoin Inc, or Flexcoin Inc's stakeholders, or Flexcoin Inc's shareholders liable for any lost bitcoins.
Uh, no it's not. Boiling water is always at the same temperature. (Except for the effects of altitude and pressure in a sealed vessel.) Steam, as the gaseous phase of water, can get almost arbitrarily hot.
I wondered that, too. I think they're actually trying to eliminate the off-brand K-cup market, though, which is pretty big. It seems that few people that have a Keurig actually use the My K Cup accessory, so that's a tiny market to try to eliminate.
Unfortunately, even with that accessory, the coffee sucks.
Typically coffee snobs go for Italian espresso which is far stronger.
It depends on if they want espresso. There are lots of coffee-snob-approved ways of making coffee that result in dramatically different flavors. Sometimes you want a less-concentrated form of coffee. Just not one that tastes like crap, as automatic drip does.
Off the top of my head, Aeropress, French press, Chemex, single-cup pourover, and cold brewing all make excellent cups of coffee.
Just because most Americans drink automatic drip, that Keurig nonsense, or crappy Starbucks candied beverages doesn't mean that there aren't lots of us who actually know how to make good coffee. I've been to Italy; I had a lot of espresso. I'm pretty sure Italians are just drinking slightly less shitty coffee in a different style.
He would not be a legal occupant, no. However, they could enter if they witnessed a hobo breaking in, since they have very good cause to believe that there is a crime in progress.
Actually, per a previous ruling -- and one that's explicitly mentioned in this ruling -- if one of the occupants that is present objects to the search, the search cannot be conducted. However, if the party that would object isn't present, they don't get a say in the matter. So in your example, Wanda could not give consent to a search while Bill is still present (and objecting).
Of course, in your scenario, it probably wouldn't matter. "He's making meth" (implying it's currently ongoing) and implying that he will hit her in the future is probably sufficient cause to enter without a warrant.
This is a strange story, overall. Target is much more aggressive about computer security than other, similar companies.
I think they would not have a hard time demonstrating to a jury that they made efforts to secure their systems beyond the industry standard. Which makes one wonder what the context of this "they were warned" is.
Yep. The only thing the system actually used gender for was supplying pronouns in system-generated text. So they separated out that factor into a different field. That field actually has the same 3 choices that it used to: if you didn't supply your gender to Facebook (it wasn't mandatory), it would use the plural "they" as a gender-neutral term. So they used to supposed "him/her/they", and now they support "him/her/they", except that now you can type anything you damn well please into the publicly-visible "Gender" field (which is how they treat religion, political views, home town, etc.).
If you look at it, there is no hard line for life beginning.
Yes, I should have specified, "if you insist on choosing the a particular point". I did point out that at no point are the cells "not alive". So it's rather inaccurate to talk about the "beginning of life" rather than the "beginning of an individual" (as opposed to its parents).
The bible says that god "breathed life" in Genesis 2:7, which suggests that life begins at breath. That is obviously unsatisfying, but we are talking about the bible here.
I'll have to take your word for that. I don't really know any Bible, just biology, which is all I'm interested in here.
After-all, there is no hard line between "alive" and "not-alive" when you look for it. Prions? Viruses? Debatable they are living organisms. There's not dividing line between animal and plant (or sentient/non-sentient) either.
Likewise, asexually-reproducing species frequently form colonies where defining "an individual" is challenging.
If you are really interested in figuring out when life "begins", then you should study Embryology and bioethics... The "answer" does indeed depend on how you conceive of the question. For example, twinning is no longer possible after two weeks. (Are twins one "life" or two?)
Yes, I'm pretty familiar with the biology. There are actually a number of interesting transitions in the first week or two, as cells aren't really committed yet to forming a single viable embryo (as opposed to, say, zero or two individuals). After that, though, the embryo is certainly alive (it never wasn't) and a distinct individual. It takes a much longer time to accrue any real chance at long-term survival, yes, but that seems like a very different question. I also don't really think that bioethics has much to do with the scientific, factual matter (despite its being interesting).
Conception if you want to ban hormonal contraceptives. (This last argument is actually incoherent, since hormonal contraceptives on average prevent a lot of fertilized embryos from being destroyed -- but we are talking about the land of motivated reasoning here.)
See, I was trying to limit this to the context of science. It seems that the real problem is that people want to use an answer to "when does life begin" as a motivation for moral and ethical opinions and, worse, for laws. However, it turns out to not necessarily be a very useful question (by itself) for this application. I would rather see, instead of people dither about what the "real" answer is to fix their own ethical opinions, accept that they can't hang their whole justification for their opinion on one piece of factual information.
If you work from conclusion back to arguments...
You seem to be under the impression that just because I think life does (more or less) begin at conception that I have some particular collection of moral opinions that I may want to impose on others. That's not the case.
The anti-science movement seems to be very active as well: vaccines, intelligent design, life-at-conception, aliens, GMOs, homeopathy et al., agw denial...
Hopefully you mean antivax as anti-science, rather than vaccines.
Is there some point, scientifically speaking, other than conception, when life "begins"? (Cells are alive in an unbroken chain from pre-conception to post-birth, so there's no transition from "not alive" to "alive". As far as I know, it becomes a distinct individual at conception.)
I have a hard time believing that deGrasse Tyson doesn't recognize astronomy and astrophysics as distinct disciplines. I certainly would believe that he prefers astrophysics to be called astrophysics, but there's plenty of astronomy outside of that. (Notably, amateur astronomy is not at all astrophysics.)
It is actually radioactive, because it's in contact with underground rocks (which dissolve some radioactive materials into the water). Fortunately, it's not much, and dissolved minerals don't evaporate along with the water.
It's not lost. The water is generally returned to the system.
The whole situation is a bit more complicated, naturally. Generating a lot of wastewater is its own problem, since it needs to be treated. Many water treatment places are unhappy with that, both by volume and because of the use of undisclosed chemicals. Sometimes the water is trucked to another location where it will be treated. Sometimes it is actually pumped into holes in the ground. I don't know if those are sealed or not; if not, the water will eventually filter back into the system. But in general, the wastewater can and often is treated and returned to the water cycle.
No. Maxwell's equations are essentially symmetric with respect to electricity and magnetism. Not surprising, since they are really the same thing. The form that you usually learn in school reduces the equations by having magnetic charge = 0 and magnetic current = 0 everywhere, since as far as we know, that's the world we live in. But magnetic monopoles are in no way disruptive to our understanding of how electricity and magnetism work.
As far as I can tell all your posts support my standpoint. So what exactly did you try to point out?
I said children can tolerate fevers up to 108. You said that was nonsense. My sources say brain damage (the ill effect of high fever) doesn't occur until temperatures above 108 (rounding 107.6 to 108). So, "can tolerate fevers up to 108" is correct; it is not nonsense.
And your point about the Bohr model I don't get anyway. For everything interesting to a layman the Bohr model is perfect. You don't need more for anything in chemistry or physics unless you start seriously studying physics. In fact I would say 'other' models (I'm not aware there is one that substitutes/replaces Bohrs) are all only variations or slight evolutions of Bohrs model./quote>
The model that replaces the Bohr model is the electron-cloud model. It's not perfect (except in the case of hydrogen), but it's very close. While it may not be clear to the layman, the electron-cloud model is not a "slight evolution" of the Bohr model, it's completely different. The problem with the Bohr model is that it's completely wrong, except for the bits where an atom has electrons and those electrons aren't in the nucleus.
This is not to be confused with the electron-shell model of chemistry. Bohr and electron-cloud deal with the mechanical behavior of the electrons in the atom. The electron-shell model discusses only their energy levels. The electron-shell model is still very useful and mostly accurate.
The Bohr model of electron mechanics is completely wrong and gives people the wrong intuition about the behavior of electrons. In the Bohr model, electrons orbit the nucleus. At any particular point in time, you could point to a particular location in space and say, "the electron is here". Neither of these is at all true.
No. Children, at least, can tolerate fevers up to 108 without long-term effects. NONSENSE! 108 Fahrenheit is close to certain death or brain damage: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What...
WikiAnswers, without a source, is not really a very reliable source of information. "Up to" 108 turns out to be up to 107.6 according to that source. Note that all of the lower temperatures say nothing of brain damage. So, according to your source, you can tolerate temperatures up to 107.6.
Let's try some other sources.
Johns Hopkins: "Fevers with infections don't cause brain damage. Only body temperatures above 108 F (42 C) can cause brain damage." "...fevers from infection usually don't go above 103 or 104 F. They rarely go to 105 or 106 F. While the latter are "high" fevers, they are harmless ones."
NIH: "Brain damage from a fever generally will not occur unless the fever is over 107.6 F. Untreated fevers caused by infection will seldom go over 105 F unless the child is overdressed or trapped in a hot place."
WebMD: "High fevers may make your child uncomfortable, but they rarely cause serious problems. There is no medical evidence that fevers from infection cause brain damage. The body limits a fever caused by infection from rising above 106 F."
Yes, I know everyone "learned" that fevers above 104 F are bad and should be mitigated. We also learned that different sections of the tongue are responsible for different tastes. Your school textbook probably had a picture of the Bohr model of an atom. It turns out that often the things we learn aren't true.
Sure, letting your fever get up there, but at 103 you get cognitive impairment, 104 you begin to get brain damage, 105 brain damage is happening and 108 is death. So Sure let it get high, but not too high.
No. Children, at least, can tolerate fevers up to 108 without long-term effects.
They make it only available on leased models, and refuse to "sell" the vehicle.
What exactly do "they" (the dealers, who have a contract with but do not work for the manufacturer) plan to do with those leased cars after 3 years, when the lease runs out?
Slashdot Mirror
The concept of "terms of service" has, sure, and so have a variety of claims put into ToSes, but you cannot put arbitrary claims in your ToS and expect them to actually be upheld. You can't even put arbitrary terms into negotiated, signed contracts.
Notably, they assert that they are not actually a bank and are not subject to any banking regulations. That, however, is not a matter that is up to them.
Q: Where will my bitcoins go?
A: Bitcoins deposited with flexcoin will be stored on our secure servers. They will remain in your account, and your account only, unless you authorize a transaction with them.
Wishful thinking.
From the Terms of Service:
We have taken every precaution to defend your bitcoins from hackers and/or intruders. However, Flexcoin Inc is not responsible for insuring any bitcoins stored in the Flexcoin system. You are entering into this agreement with Flexcoin Inc. You agree to not hold Flexcoin Inc, or Flexcoin Inc's stakeholders, or Flexcoin Inc's shareholders liable for any lost bitcoins.
We'll see.
steam is always at the same temperature
Uh, no it's not. Boiling water is always at the same temperature. (Except for the effects of altitude and pressure in a sealed vessel.) Steam, as the gaseous phase of water, can get almost arbitrarily hot.
I wondered that, too. I think they're actually trying to eliminate the off-brand K-cup market, though, which is pretty big. It seems that few people that have a Keurig actually use the My K Cup accessory, so that's a tiny market to try to eliminate.
Unfortunately, even with that accessory, the coffee sucks.
Typically coffee snobs go for Italian espresso which is far stronger.
It depends on if they want espresso. There are lots of coffee-snob-approved ways of making coffee that result in dramatically different flavors. Sometimes you want a less-concentrated form of coffee. Just not one that tastes like crap, as automatic drip does.
Off the top of my head, Aeropress, French press, Chemex, single-cup pourover, and cold brewing all make excellent cups of coffee.
Just because most Americans drink automatic drip, that Keurig nonsense, or crappy Starbucks candied beverages doesn't mean that there aren't lots of us who actually know how to make good coffee. I've been to Italy; I had a lot of espresso. I'm pretty sure Italians are just drinking slightly less shitty coffee in a different style.
He would not be a legal occupant, no. However, they could enter if they witnessed a hobo breaking in, since they have very good cause to believe that there is a crime in progress.
Y'all is correct for a couple.
However, in this case, it's possessive, so should be y'all's.
Actually, per a previous ruling -- and one that's explicitly mentioned in this ruling -- if one of the occupants that is present objects to the search, the search cannot be conducted. However, if the party that would object isn't present, they don't get a say in the matter. So in your example, Wanda could not give consent to a search while Bill is still present (and objecting).
Of course, in your scenario, it probably wouldn't matter. "He's making meth" (implying it's currently ongoing) and implying that he will hit her in the future is probably sufficient cause to enter without a warrant.
It's relevant if you're writing a book about that person. Like, say, a memoir.
...digging under your grass and "zeroscaping" is fairly popular.
Xeriscaping. Sounds about the same, though.
This is a strange story, overall. Target is much more aggressive about computer security than other, similar companies.
I think they would not have a hard time demonstrating to a jury that they made efforts to secure their systems beyond the industry standard. Which makes one wonder what the context of this "they were warned" is.
Yep. The only thing the system actually used gender for was supplying pronouns in system-generated text. So they separated out that factor into a different field. That field actually has the same 3 choices that it used to: if you didn't supply your gender to Facebook (it wasn't mandatory), it would use the plural "they" as a gender-neutral term. So they used to supposed "him/her/they", and now they support "him/her/they", except that now you can type anything you damn well please into the publicly-visible "Gender" field (which is how they treat religion, political views, home town, etc.).
It's just a blank field that you can fill in arbitrarily (just like most of the other profile fields).
The recognition of most of these new genders predates the rise of hipsters.
I think it's actually now a field that can be filled in arbitrarily, with a host of suggestions. That's how a bunch of their other fields operate.
If you look at it, there is no hard line for life beginning.
Yes, I should have specified, "if you insist on choosing the a particular point". I did point out that at no point are the cells "not alive". So it's rather inaccurate to talk about the "beginning of life" rather than the "beginning of an individual" (as opposed to its parents).
The bible says that god "breathed life" in Genesis 2:7, which suggests that life begins at breath. That is obviously unsatisfying, but we are talking about the bible here.
I'll have to take your word for that. I don't really know any Bible, just biology, which is all I'm interested in here.
After-all, there is no hard line between "alive" and "not-alive" when you look for it. Prions? Viruses? Debatable they are living organisms. There's not dividing line between animal and plant (or sentient/non-sentient) either.
Likewise, asexually-reproducing species frequently form colonies where defining "an individual" is challenging.
If you are really interested in figuring out when life "begins", then you should study Embryology and bioethics ... The "answer" does indeed depend on how you conceive of the question. For example, twinning is no longer possible after two weeks. (Are twins one "life" or two?)
Yes, I'm pretty familiar with the biology. There are actually a number of interesting transitions in the first week or two, as cells aren't really committed yet to forming a single viable embryo (as opposed to, say, zero or two individuals). After that, though, the embryo is certainly alive (it never wasn't) and a distinct individual. It takes a much longer time to accrue any real chance at long-term survival, yes, but that seems like a very different question. I also don't really think that bioethics has much to do with the scientific, factual matter (despite its being interesting).
Conception if you want to ban hormonal contraceptives. (This last argument is actually incoherent, since hormonal contraceptives on average prevent a lot of fertilized embryos from being destroyed -- but we are talking about the land of motivated reasoning here.)
See, I was trying to limit this to the context of science. It seems that the real problem is that people want to use an answer to "when does life begin" as a motivation for moral and ethical opinions and, worse, for laws. However, it turns out to not necessarily be a very useful question (by itself) for this application. I would rather see, instead of people dither about what the "real" answer is to fix their own ethical opinions, accept that they can't hang their whole justification for their opinion on one piece of factual information.
If you work from conclusion back to arguments...
You seem to be under the impression that just because I think life does (more or less) begin at conception that I have some particular collection of moral opinions that I may want to impose on others. That's not the case.
The anti-science movement seems to be very active as well: vaccines, intelligent design, life-at-conception, aliens, GMOs, homeopathy et al., agw denial...
Hopefully you mean antivax as anti-science, rather than vaccines.
Is there some point, scientifically speaking, other than conception, when life "begins"? (Cells are alive in an unbroken chain from pre-conception to post-birth, so there's no transition from "not alive" to "alive". As far as I know, it becomes a distinct individual at conception.)
Do you have a reference for that explanation?
I have a hard time believing that deGrasse Tyson doesn't recognize astronomy and astrophysics as distinct disciplines. I certainly would believe that he prefers astrophysics to be called astrophysics, but there's plenty of astronomy outside of that. (Notably, amateur astronomy is not at all astrophysics.)
It is actually radioactive, because it's in contact with underground rocks (which dissolve some radioactive materials into the water). Fortunately, it's not much, and dissolved minerals don't evaporate along with the water.
It's not lost. The water is generally returned to the system.
The whole situation is a bit more complicated, naturally. Generating a lot of wastewater is its own problem, since it needs to be treated. Many water treatment places are unhappy with that, both by volume and because of the use of undisclosed chemicals. Sometimes the water is trucked to another location where it will be treated. Sometimes it is actually pumped into holes in the ground. I don't know if those are sealed or not; if not, the water will eventually filter back into the system. But in general, the wastewater can and often is treated and returned to the water cycle.
It's then pumped back out. It generates quite a lot of wastewater.
No. Maxwell's equations are essentially symmetric with respect to electricity and magnetism. Not surprising, since they are really the same thing. The form that you usually learn in school reduces the equations by having magnetic charge = 0 and magnetic current = 0 everywhere, since as far as we know, that's the world we live in. But magnetic monopoles are in no way disruptive to our understanding of how electricity and magnetism work.
As far as I can tell all your posts support my standpoint. So what exactly did you try to point out?
I said children can tolerate fevers up to 108. You said that was nonsense. My sources say brain damage (the ill effect of high fever) doesn't occur until temperatures above 108 (rounding 107.6 to 108). So, "can tolerate fevers up to 108" is correct; it is not nonsense.
And your point about the Bohr model I don't get anyway.
For everything interesting to a layman the Bohr model is perfect. You don't need more for anything in chemistry or physics unless you start seriously studying physics. In fact I would say 'other' models (I'm not aware there is one that substitutes/replaces Bohrs) are all only variations or slight evolutions of Bohrs model./quote>
The model that replaces the Bohr model is the electron-cloud model. It's not perfect (except in the case of hydrogen), but it's very close. While it may not be clear to the layman, the electron-cloud model is not a "slight evolution" of the Bohr model, it's completely different. The problem with the Bohr model is that it's completely wrong, except for the bits where an atom has electrons and those electrons aren't in the nucleus.
This is not to be confused with the electron-shell model of chemistry. Bohr and electron-cloud deal with the mechanical behavior of the electrons in the atom. The electron-shell model discusses only their energy levels. The electron-shell model is still very useful and mostly accurate.
The Bohr model of electron mechanics is completely wrong and gives people the wrong intuition about the behavior of electrons. In the Bohr model, electrons orbit the nucleus. At any particular point in time, you could point to a particular location in space and say, "the electron is here". Neither of these is at all true.
No. Children, at least, can tolerate fevers up to 108 without long-term effects.
NONSENSE!
108 Fahrenheit is close to certain death or brain damage:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What...
WikiAnswers, without a source, is not really a very reliable source of information. "Up to" 108 turns out to be up to 107.6 according to that source. Note that all of the lower temperatures say nothing of brain damage. So, according to your source, you can tolerate temperatures up to 107.6.
Let's try some other sources.
Johns Hopkins:
"Fevers with infections don't cause brain damage. Only body temperatures above 108 F (42 C) can cause brain damage."
"...fevers from infection usually don't go above 103 or 104 F. They rarely go to 105 or 106 F. While the latter are "high" fevers, they are harmless ones."
NIH:
"Brain damage from a fever generally will not occur unless the fever is over 107.6 F. Untreated fevers caused by infection will seldom go over 105 F unless the child is overdressed or trapped in a hot place."
WebMD:
"High fevers may make your child uncomfortable, but they rarely cause serious problems. There is no medical evidence that fevers from infection cause brain damage. The body limits a fever caused by infection from rising above 106 F."
Yes, I know everyone "learned" that fevers above 104 F are bad and should be mitigated. We also learned that different sections of the tongue are responsible for different tastes. Your school textbook probably had a picture of the Bohr model of an atom. It turns out that often the things we learn aren't true.
Sure, letting your fever get up there, but at 103 you get cognitive impairment, 104 you begin to get brain damage, 105 brain damage is happening and 108 is death. So Sure let it get high, but not too high.
No. Children, at least, can tolerate fevers up to 108 without long-term effects.
They make it only available on leased models, and refuse to "sell" the vehicle.
What exactly do "they" (the dealers, who have a contract with but do not work for the manufacturer) plan to do with those leased cars after 3 years, when the lease runs out?