Don't know about that, but Switzerland manages with four official languages. In the UK English is the default language, but there are minorities speaking Welsh, Scots Gaelic and Irish. In France you have (among others) native speakers of German, Basque and Corsican. Belgium (somewhat unsuccessfully) has to manage with three official languages: Dutch, French and German. Germany also has Sorbian as an official language in a (rather small) region. Spain has as co-official languages Basque, Catalan, Galician and Aranese. Etc.
I don't believe there is any country in Europe which really has a single common culture. (Which doesn't mean that the inhabitants have nothing in common, though.) That's one of the reasons why Nationalism has failed in the past. Doesn't mean that the EU dream will work, but at it's core it's an attempt to find an answer to Nationalism's failure.
An ATOM-based tablet might not be ideal now, but maybe Intel has already plans to offer something more competitive to ARM. It makes sense to have an already ported OS available once that comes out.
Apart from that, I think an x86 version of Android might be interesting for a TV settopbox. Together with a WIImote instead of a touch screen it would provide a nice user interface, and you could use standard processors for that, not just Atoms.
Still, if some females mutate so that they don't want to mate with the modified males (maybe they are able to detect a different smell or slightly different markings or whatever), then their offspring will have a better chance than those of females who do. If that preference were genetic they would pass it on to their offspring. As a result their genes would become prevalent and soon the modified species would become extinct.
Maybe such a mutation won't occur before the species dies out, though.
Well historically it seems that when people see a good chance that their children will survive, they'll raise fewer children. So bizarrely: reducing the risk of malaria might reduce population growth at the same time.
People share stuff with each other on social media sites. Companies want to get in on that - if someone shares info about their products, that's advertising - fairly cheap advertising. On top of that - this is coming from people's friends, so it's probably much more effective advertising - it is more likely to be read, and more likely to match the receiver's interests.
It seems fairly stupid for a company not to have a Facebook presence under these circumstances.
I agree, but how many history graduates do you need? We have a lot more graduates now than we used to have 50 years ago. That makes sense in some fields, because a high-tech economy needs better qualified workers. Did our need for history graduates significantly increase, though?
That's part of it, but it's not all. There is a tradeoff between convenience for the admin and convenience for the user, too. I've worked in many different engineering companies, and the level of service provided by IT varies wildly. They've all come to different arrangements about the distribution of convenience. Of course that has to do with resources as well as the skill set and motivation of the people involved on both sides.
This kind of conflict itself happens between lots of other departments as well - engineers and techdoc people frequently hate each other and engineers and marketing usually don't have a loving relationship either.
What makes IT stand out more is not the conflict itself, but that they have so many interfaces. Since everyone has an interface with IT, everyone has a chance to hate them as well.
The King likes to maintain the fiction that he has nothing to do with these laws, or with the army overthrowing the elected government whenever he feels like it. He might usually issue pardons, but he does not always do that. How is that "not being above criticism"? Sometimes he pardons someone after they've been harassed by the judicial system... and sometimes he doesn't. Better stay on his good side, eh?
Sure materials which we need to use in order to build e.g. wind turbines are theoretically finite. They are not being used up by building wind turbines, they can be recycled if that's economically interesting. Stuff like "While sunlight is renewable -- for at least another four billion years -- photovoltaic panels are not." is just silly. We are not going to run out of sand in any plausible scenario, so that's just nitpicking.
In any case, renewable energy refers to the energy source. That clearly sets it apart from other energy sources, and is thus a good description. There is nobody who believes the installations required to use renewables can be build without any environmental impact in terms of pollution, area use etc. That doesn't distinguish them from other installations. If people were calling renewable energy plants "impact free", fine the author would have a point. The myth the article is debunking is one which doesn't exist, however.
Of course I have. You keep using "inalienable rights" as if that had a legally defined meaning apart from other fundamental rights. It doesn't. In addition you make the claim that "An inalienable right cannot be curbed". What do you base that on? The declaration of independence lists as inalienable rights "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness". Do you believe they thought prisons shouldn't exist?
What you say isn't true for any other constitutional rights in the US. The government doesn't have to supply you with guns or buy you newspapers either.
That's fundamentally the problem with having a bill of rights, and that's the arguments which were made against having it in the US constitution. It's hard to say today whether it would have been better not to have such a list of rights - the list has worked well in terms of limiting government intrusion, but it also has acted as that precedent that now everything not on that list is not considered to be a right.
In any case it's too late now to avoid setting a precedent, the deed is done. I guess you are stuck building on what you already have.
Hmmm. The parliament selecting the government is not a system which was developed in mainland Europe, I think. As far as I know it's derived from the British "crown in parliament" system. The electorate votes for the parliament, and all other functions of the state are derived from parliament.
In a presidential system like in the US or France you don't get to vote for the setup of all positions of government, either. Then the president gets to choose who is in charge of which department (though there can be parliamentary controls).
Well businesses can have corruption without politicians being involved (e.g. when awarding contracts, purchasing or outsourcing). The larger an organization the more susceptible it is to corruption - it really doesn't matter what type of organization - whether it's a business, a political party, an independent institution, a charity, a church or whatever else.
Well in Germany the Pirate Party is doing quite well - polling at around 8% of the vote they could make quite a splash in the next federal elections. What Germany needs (and apparently gets) is public participation.
But I agree with all the posters that the chances of crowdfunding as a complete replacement for more traditional funding sources are highly unlikely.
It's not just unlikely, it seems an extremely dangerous approach to take. Seen from the outside it's fascinating, frightening as well as somewhat hilarious, how the US is dismantling itself - trying to become a third-world country by destroying all it's functioning institutions. So might crowdsourcing be a future model for science funding in the U.S. and abroad? Not abroad no, I can't imagine any other country going down that road - in the US maybe, but it's a pretty bleak version of the future.
Or maybe he thinks Jobs is an exception rather than the rule and would prefer his kids to finish college. Anyway, he is a journalist, he earns money selling interviews amongst other things. Regardless whether you like him or not: why should he give away his work for free?
Slashdot Mirror
Canada can barely manage with two languages.
Don't know about that, but Switzerland manages with four official languages. In the UK English is the default language, but there are minorities speaking Welsh, Scots Gaelic and Irish. In France you have (among others) native speakers of German, Basque and Corsican. Belgium (somewhat unsuccessfully) has to manage with three official languages: Dutch, French and German. Germany also has Sorbian as an official language in a (rather small) region. Spain has as co-official languages Basque, Catalan, Galician and Aranese. Etc.
I don't believe there is any country in Europe which really has a single common culture. (Which doesn't mean that the inhabitants have nothing in common, though.) That's one of the reasons why Nationalism has failed in the past. Doesn't mean that the EU dream will work, but at it's core it's an attempt to find an answer to Nationalism's failure.
An ATOM-based tablet might not be ideal now, but maybe Intel has already plans to offer something more competitive to ARM. It makes sense to have an already ported OS available once that comes out.
Apart from that, I think an x86 version of Android might be interesting for a TV settopbox. Together with a WIImote instead of a touch screen it would provide a nice user interface, and you could use standard processors for that, not just Atoms.
Still, if some females mutate so that they don't want to mate with the modified males (maybe they are able to detect a different smell or slightly different markings or whatever), then their offspring will have a better chance than those of females who do. If that preference were genetic they would pass it on to their offspring. As a result their genes would become prevalent and soon the modified species would become extinct.
Maybe such a mutation won't occur before the species dies out, though.
Well historically it seems that when people see a good chance that their children will survive, they'll raise fewer children. So bizarrely: reducing the risk of malaria might reduce population growth at the same time.
Forget about the mosquitoes - how can we get the program started to eliminate Chihuahuas?
People share stuff with each other on social media sites. Companies want to get in on that - if someone shares info about their products, that's advertising - fairly cheap advertising. On top of that - this is coming from people's friends, so it's probably much more effective advertising - it is more likely to be read, and more likely to match the receiver's interests.
It seems fairly stupid for a company not to have a Facebook presence under these circumstances.
Well I hope they only let companies join which are at least 14 years old.
Which is not a contradiction.
who needs portables (for work)?
Well, I work in a fairly disfunctional company, I like to have a laptop so I can get some work done while attending useless meetings.
Besides, history is important.
I agree, but how many history graduates do you need? We have a lot more graduates now than we used to have 50 years ago. That makes sense in some fields, because a high-tech economy needs better qualified workers. Did our need for history graduates significantly increase, though?
That's part of it, but it's not all. There is a tradeoff between convenience for the admin and convenience for the user, too. I've worked in many different engineering companies, and the level of service provided by IT varies wildly. They've all come to different arrangements about the distribution of convenience. Of course that has to do with resources as well as the skill set and motivation of the people involved on both sides.
This kind of conflict itself happens between lots of other departments as well - engineers and techdoc people frequently hate each other and engineers and marketing usually don't have a loving relationship either.
What makes IT stand out more is not the conflict itself, but that they have so many interfaces. Since everyone has an interface with IT, everyone has a chance to hate them as well.
Which is probably related to the fact that you can't openly discuss the political role of the king in Thailand.
The King likes to maintain the fiction that he has nothing to do with these laws, or with the army overthrowing the elected government whenever he feels like it. He might usually issue pardons, but he does not always do that. How is that "not being above criticism"? Sometimes he pardons someone after they've been harassed by the judicial system ... and sometimes he doesn't. Better stay on his good side, eh?
Sure materials which we need to use in order to build e.g. wind turbines are theoretically finite. They are not being used up by building wind turbines, they can be recycled if that's economically interesting. Stuff like "While sunlight is renewable -- for at least another four billion years -- photovoltaic panels are not." is just silly. We are not going to run out of sand in any plausible scenario, so that's just nitpicking.
In any case, renewable energy refers to the energy source. That clearly sets it apart from other energy sources, and is thus a good description. There is nobody who believes the installations required to use renewables can be build without any environmental impact in terms of pollution, area use etc. That doesn't distinguish them from other installations. If people were calling renewable energy plants "impact free", fine the author would have a point. The myth the article is debunking is one which doesn't exist, however.
Of course I have. You keep using "inalienable rights" as if that had a legally defined meaning apart from other fundamental rights. It doesn't. In addition you make the claim that "An inalienable right cannot be curbed". What do you base that on? The declaration of independence lists as inalienable rights "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness". Do you believe they thought prisons shouldn't exist?
"An inalienable right cannot be curbed."
The US bill of rights does not distinguish between inalienable and other rights.
What you say isn't true for any other constitutional rights in the US. The government doesn't have to supply you with guns or buy you newspapers either.
That's fundamentally the problem with having a bill of rights, and that's the arguments which were made against having it in the US constitution. It's hard to say today whether it would have been better not to have such a list of rights - the list has worked well in terms of limiting government intrusion, but it also has acted as that precedent that now everything not on that list is not considered to be a right.
In any case it's too late now to avoid setting a precedent, the deed is done. I guess you are stuck building on what you already have.
Hmmm. The parliament selecting the government is not a system which was developed in mainland Europe, I think. As far as I know it's derived from the British "crown in parliament" system. The electorate votes for the parliament, and all other functions of the state are derived from parliament.
In a presidential system like in the US or France you don't get to vote for the setup of all positions of government, either. Then the president gets to choose who is in charge of which department (though there can be parliamentary controls).
Well businesses can have corruption without politicians being involved (e.g. when awarding contracts, purchasing or outsourcing). The larger an organization the more susceptible it is to corruption - it really doesn't matter what type of organization - whether it's a business, a political party, an independent institution, a charity, a church or whatever else.
Well in Germany the Pirate Party is doing quite well - polling at around 8% of the vote they could make quite a splash in the next federal elections. What Germany needs (and apparently gets) is public participation.
But I agree with all the posters that the chances of crowdfunding as a complete replacement for more traditional funding sources are highly unlikely.
It's not just unlikely, it seems an extremely dangerous approach to take. Seen from the outside it's fascinating, frightening as well as somewhat hilarious, how the US is dismantling itself - trying to become a third-world country by destroying all it's functioning institutions. So might crowdsourcing be a future model for science funding in the U.S. and abroad? Not abroad no, I can't imagine any other country going down that road - in the US maybe, but it's a pretty bleak version of the future.
Or like Ubuntu One.
I used to only use my Windows box to play games. Now the humble bundles have removed that need.
You might want to check out RuneSoft and LGP as well.
Or maybe he thinks Jobs is an exception rather than the rule and would prefer his kids to finish college. Anyway, he is a journalist, he earns money selling interviews amongst other things. Regardless whether you like him or not: why should he give away his work for free?