Distressed BlackBerry users argue that too many of the world's workers rely on the device for the service to be shut down. But many of their jobs depend on the principle at stake in this case -- that the courts should protect intellectual property because it rewards inventors by conferring a real title to an intangible asset. Business requires confidence that intellectual property will be respected and infringers brought to justice, regardless of whether the litigant is using the patent or not. Only with that security will firms patent and license their inventions, thus allowing others to use their ideas.
Critical thinking isn't a fact of life 'round these parts anymore.
With the expection of you, I suppose? "Things aren't what they used to be. And they never were";-)
With the military Considering Anti-war protest groups a security threat, you're taking a big chance that they won't invent something to take you in on, using the logic that 'if you weren't doing anything wrong, you would have nothing to hide.'
Various doom-sayers were predicting such things for decades. Much -- I might add -- to the delight of the Soviet propaganda, which I was forced to read and listen to as a school pupil.
And yes, an anti-war group can be a security threat. Too many of these "peacenicks" have (and even wear in public!) Che Guevarra T-shirts and other Commie symbols, and openly support such "peaceful folks" as Fidel Castro, FARC, Shining Path, and the Nepalese insurgents. These organizations wage war against their countries' governments, and ours opposes them.
It is perfectly logical to prepare for their supporters trying to attack our interests. Disbanding/banning/incarcerating them would violate the Constitution, but being prepared seems fine to me.
Maybe a little bit overboard, after all I haven't been to Russia and most of what I get on America is from the media which is inherently unreliable.
Even if you were correct, we'd still come out a lot better than Russia in comparision -- our bombers and artillery aren't used against cities we claim as ours. It would be the population "looking the other way", not the police. Even if the states' governors were "the same" (as if there is anything inherently wrong with this), they still are elected by the governed, not appointed. Etc, etc.
Same as you probably.
I grew up in the Soviet Union and am currently living in USA. I can reliably assure you, that you are not just "little bit overboard", but completely wrong. See my responses to other US-bashers in this thread for details.
To keep the browser competition alive. Three is better than two -- Google would rather avoid having the web-standards dictated by the dominant browser, whichever one it is.
And all of us would rather avoid these standards dictated by Google.
Yeah, tell me about this so called mainstream free press in the USA. Fox News, right?
You may dislike Fox News, but they not controlled by the government. Plus there are CNN, ABC, NBC, and other broadcasters, none of whom are government controlled.
Plus there are tonns of non-"mainstream" publications, radio stations, etc., none of whom need to worry about, for example, a sudden surge of interest from the tax authorities, when they criticize the government.
Having courts in the corporation's pocket is somehow better, I suppose?
Even if they were in the corporations' collective pockets (note the plural), it would've been better, than in President's, because corporations compete. But they are not...
I hate to break it to you, but we (as the silent majority) don't really give a lot of shit about parties. We've just been screwed too much by communist crooks or democrate crooks or whatever other crooks.
You should've disbanded their party -- that's what Germany did in 1945. Any wonder, an ex-Commie KGB officer is a popular president?
Anyway, it may not matter much to you -- just as having to carry ID does not -- but it sure matters to the poster I was replying to.
You have your terrorist ghosts in the middle east, we have ours in the Caucasia.
You are trying to conquer Caucasus for the last 200 years. Our troubles with Al Qaeda began, when we helped our ally (Kuwait) expell a brutal invader (Iraq).
In any case, my point was, a Middle Eastern-looking man can walk far freer in New York or Los Angeles, than a Chechen-looking one in Moscow or St. Petersburg.
Oh, come on. You make it sound like asian looking people are being shot on sight here. There are stupid nazist fucks everywhere, it's no reason to spread sensationalistic nonsense.
Here is my source. Nothing of the kind can be credibly thrown at America. Even Australia -- with its recent communal violence -- is exemplary in the government's tough response.
And just in case - I'm white russian living in Saint-Petersburg.
The President nominates the judges -- and only the federal ones. They are then approved (or not) by the lawmakers. State judges are out of President's control altogether.
US -- no idea how this (selection of governors) works in the US
State Governors in US are elected by the State's voters.
US -- Where you have 2 parties and both are a bunch of lying fuckers only out to do what is best for them and their friends.
As long as they compete with each other for my vote, I'm comfortable. In any case, neither one of them is anywhere close to the Commies (who are so pleasantly non-existant in US).
And beeing black in the US doesn't make you a target?
Khm... I don't know. Maybe, we should ask Condoleeza Rice? Or her predescessor? Or any of the (insanely popular) Black sportsmen and women, actors, and musicians?
Or people that have this middle east look?
No, actually, it does not. I walk by hot-dog and fruit stalls operated by various Middle Easterners. One particularly religious of them even goes to pray in the middle of the day as required by Islam -- he lays out his little praying carpet right next to his apples and bananas in midtown Manhattan... Nobody minds.
Perhaps, you need to learn more about US before bashing it? Khm?..
There must be a reason, we are a dream destination for many thousands more of would-be immigrants, than are actually allowed to immigrate.
Refuse to show your ID upon request in the US. See how far you get.
Never had to -- in my 13 years here. Not unless I needed to get somewhere restricted/controlled -- like an airplane. And a refusal to show it may make you a jerk (in the officer's opinion), but not a criminal. You will not get to fly that day, but you will not get searched either.
True, it is getting tighter, but the people oppose it strongly here. Whereas in Russia it is an accepted fact of life.
It's ironic that the people of the Russia now have more personal liberty than we do here in the USA
Russia -- where most press and all TV-stations are state-controlled.
Russia -- where courts are in the President's pocket.
Russia -- which uses air-bombers and heavy artillery against the very people, it claims are its citizens (although they disagree).
Russia -- where regional governors are appointed by the President.
Russia -- where the Communist Party is among the strongest.
You complain about random searches in NYC subways? In Russia you are obligated to carry identification with you at all times and present it to any law enforcer upon request.
Unhappy about racial profiling here? If you are dark-skinned (thus looking like a Chechen), you will be harassed and periodically searched on the streets in Russia. And not in some red-neck backwater, but in the shiny newly-rich capital of Moscow.
If you are non-white looking -- don't go to St. Petersburgh (Russia's other capital -- the "sophisticated" one). Russian skin-heads have been attacking non-whites (Asian students primarily) there recently, with police looking the other way.
Obtaining orbit isn't a matter of altitude but rather speed. Shaving 30 miles off the distance is going to make no difference to the final speed you'll have to obtain get into orbit. And accelerating from 0 to 17,500 mph is still going to require almost as much fuel and oxidizer as it does now.
Both are important -- I'm no rocket scientist, but I think, you underestimate the importance of the elevation. The rockets on the launchpad are pointing upwards and nobody is suggesting speeding them up initially on a special (but horizontal) rail-road. In other words, they do need to climb up.
With a headstart in altitude you can afford to accelerate slower, thus possibly using a more efficient engine. And, two, the whole thread is about combining the baloon-provided elevation with the railgun-provided headstart in speed.
You're talking about rockets; the parent poster was talking about railguns. Very important difference, although I suppose you could have a vehicle with manoeuvring thursters get its original "kick" from a railgun.
Yes, I'm talking about a combination. The vehicle's thrusters can be much smaller and/or use less fuel if it is already miles above ground and has a substantial velocity -- even if the speed's vector points into slightly wrong direction.
the energy advantage from lifting this entire platform on balloons every time you wanted to use it would not outweigh the additional costs of the system as I mentioned above
I suspect (hope?), you overestimate the additional costs. Whatever can be built on the ground, can also be slowly raised above ground on baloons:-) Not that I know, how big/heavy a rail-gun needs to be, but very heavy things are sometimes transported by dirigibles, and in this case we don't even care (much), which way the whole things drifts with the wind.
As for the energy win from being launched from high -- does not the usual rocket burn most of the fuel within the first few seconds of the launch? I thought, the curve is exponential -- with every mile closer to the ground, the amount of fuel grows very quickly, because of the weight of the rest of the fuel. If I'm right, then the win will be huge.
Doesn't sound too bad until you think about an aerostatically supported platform trying to launch things into predictable orbits while oscillating all over the place from the reaction force of the launches.
Very precise-hitting missiles are known to be launchable from hunks of steel flying miles above the earth. Once launched, in other words, the rocket can correct itself even if the platform oscillated and stumbled because of the launch.
Who would staff a platform at an altitude of 30 miles? How would you get them up and down?
The platform -- with the rocket mounted on it, the stuff needed, and the handful of support personnel (if any) -- can rise slowly from the ground some time before launch by inflating the baloons, and come back down afterwards by gradually deflating or releasing them.
Yes, I am talking about still using rockets, but with the huge headstart provided by the flying platforms and starters they would be able offer much better payload ratios.
I bought two seemingly nice IBM-branded Seagate Savvios. They absolutely refused to work with my HP/Compaq SCSI adapter and Seagate rep confirmed, that the IBM firmware in these drives requires an IBM's SCSI card.
I contacted the EBay seller and he confirmed, that he tested the disks in an IBM system -- I had to send them back to him:-(
I guess, IBM does this to justify its markup. But it does happen, so eat your shite back.
Every Damn time you went to the moon you rammed a flagpole in the dirt and proudly marked the fact that AMERICA GOT HERE FIRST.
Everyone does that -- every time they get to the Moon:-)
And not just to the Moon -- the North and South Poles explorers were carrying their countries' flags with them too, for example. As did mountain climbers -- getting to some peak, that was not scaled before (to their knowledge). As do sportsmen today -- on every competition... Nothing is wrong with that.
My objections are not about the people drinking or smoking whatever herbs they want to, that wont change. They are about stealing knowledge from other cultures/sources and pretending to discover the wheel, and pretend to have some kind of special rights to exploit it over anyone else's.
"Stealing knowledge"? How do you do that, exactly? Is that like copying a file?
Lawyers don't have any better understanding of technology than a cow does [of] algebra
As a matter of fact, lawyers are -- on average -- very smart people. They are able to understand any field very well and can usually be rivaled only by people in that (or a neighboring) field for a living (certainly superious to most journalists, sadly).
And -- as most smart people -- they tend to know their limitations, and are not afraid of hiring expert advice...
I'm curious, how come you can be so obsessed by a private group deciding to pull something like that becuase of private reaction, but be (apparently) perfectly O.K. with the fact that the FEC can tell you what you can say?
I'm not obsessed with the former, nor Ok with the latter. Thank you for your concern...
If I remember, the crux of the Democrats' legal case was that the use of Sinclair's media holdings to broadcast blatant propaganda constituted a donation to the Bush campaign, the value of which put Sinclair waaaaaaaay over the legal limits.
The limits are, actually, in blatant violation of the First Ammendment. Aren't they?
On a slightly offtopic rant I'm rather sick of populated areas (typically blue states in the US) subsidizing rural ones (typically red states in the US). Why should we have to pay more for our phone service/electricity/roads/etc, etc, etc just so you can afford yours? If you like living in the middle of nowhere so much then be prepared to pay for it.
You are not talking about Lousiana, are you? Among the bluest of them all...
Slashdot Mirror
And yes, an anti-war group can be a security threat. Too many of these "peacenicks" have (and even wear in public!) Che Guevarra T-shirts and other Commie symbols, and openly support such "peaceful folks" as Fidel Castro, FARC, Shining Path, and the Nepalese insurgents. These organizations wage war against their countries' governments, and ours opposes them.
It is perfectly logical to prepare for their supporters trying to attack our interests. Disbanding/banning/incarcerating them would violate the Constitution, but being prepared seems fine to me.
Even if you were correct, we'd still come out a lot better than Russia in comparision -- our bombers and artillery aren't used against cities we claim as ours. It would be the population "looking the other way", not the police. Even if the states' governors were "the same" (as if there is anything inherently wrong with this), they still are elected by the governed, not appointed. Etc, etc.
I grew up in the Soviet Union and am currently living in USA. I can reliably assure you, that you are not just "little bit overboard", but completely wrong. See my responses to other US-bashers in this thread for details.
And all of us would rather avoid these standards dictated by Google.
If not, it will not survive for long anyway.
Plus there are tonns of non-"mainstream" publications, radio stations, etc., none of whom need to worry about, for example, a sudden surge of interest from the tax authorities, when they criticize the government.
Even if they were in the corporations' collective pockets (note the plural), it would've been better, than in President's, because corporations compete. But they are not... You should've disbanded their party -- that's what Germany did in 1945. Any wonder, an ex-Commie KGB officer is a popular president? Anyway, it may not matter much to you -- just as having to carry ID does not -- but it sure matters to the poster I was replying to. You are trying to conquer Caucasus for the last 200 years. Our troubles with Al Qaeda began, when we helped our ally (Kuwait) expell a brutal invader (Iraq).In any case, my point was, a Middle Eastern-looking man can walk far freer in New York or Los Angeles, than a Chechen-looking one in Moscow or St. Petersburg.
Here is my source. Nothing of the kind can be credibly thrown at America. Even Australia -- with its recent communal violence -- is exemplary in the government's tough response. That explains a thing or two...Perhaps, you need to learn more about US before bashing it? Khm?..
There must be a reason, we are a dream destination for many thousands more of would-be immigrants, than are actually allowed to immigrate.
True, it is getting tighter, but the people oppose it strongly here. Whereas in Russia it is an accepted fact of life.
Russia -- where most press and all TV-stations are state-controlled.
Russia -- where courts are in the President's pocket.
Russia -- which uses air-bombers and heavy artillery against the very people, it claims are its citizens (although they disagree).
Russia -- where regional governors are appointed by the President.
Russia -- where the Communist Party is among the strongest.
You complain about random searches in NYC subways? In Russia you are obligated to carry identification with you at all times and present it to any law enforcer upon request.
Unhappy about racial profiling here? If you are dark-skinned (thus looking like a Chechen), you will be harassed and periodically searched on the streets in Russia. And not in some red-neck backwater, but in the shiny newly-rich capital of Moscow.
If you are non-white looking -- don't go to St. Petersburgh (Russia's other capital -- the "sophisticated" one). Russian skin-heads have been attacking non-whites (Asian students primarily) there recently, with police looking the other way.
Stop reading "Pravda".Things can happen slower, the engineering requirements can be far lower, etc.
Both are important -- I'm no rocket scientist, but I think, you underestimate the importance of the elevation. The rockets on the launchpad are pointing upwards and nobody is suggesting speeding them up initially on a special (but horizontal) rail-road. In other words, they do need to climb up. With a headstart in altitude you can afford to accelerate slower, thus possibly using a more efficient engine. And, two, the whole thread is about combining the baloon-provided elevation with the railgun-provided headstart in speed.
As for the energy win from being launched from high -- does not the usual rocket burn most of the fuel within the first few seconds of the launch? I thought, the curve is exponential -- with every mile closer to the ground, the amount of fuel grows very quickly, because of the weight of the rest of the fuel. If I'm right, then the win will be huge.
Yes, I am talking about still using rockets, but with the huge headstart provided by the flying platforms and starters they would be able offer much better payload ratios.
I contacted the EBay seller and he confirmed, that he tested the disks in an IBM system -- I had to send them back to him :-(
I guess, IBM does this to justify its markup. But it does happen, so eat your shite back.
And not just to the Moon -- the North and South Poles explorers were carrying their countries' flags with them too, for example. As did mountain climbers -- getting to some peak, that was not scaled before (to their knowledge). As do sportsmen today -- on every competition... Nothing is wrong with that.
You are just upset, that it is not your flag :-)
Is Mr. Zhang Chunliang much different from Mr. Jack Thompson?
And -- as most smart people -- they tend to know their limitations, and are not afraid of hiring expert advice...
And, after all, lawyers are just a tool...
And yet, an anti-Kerry documentary was pulled off the air just over a year ago...
So, whatever is really liked by many can not belong to anyone and should be confiscated? So much for unreasonable ceasures...
Gotta think of something better to say...
Rnfl Xnezn!