And oddly, only one journalist was there to hear him say that. Google news has 3 reports, all of which link to the UnionLeader A site which appears to be inaccessible right now. But this could be anything. Could be a hoax. Could be a complete misinterpretation. could be a complete misrepresentation. Could even be a malicious lie to discredit Newt Gingrich. Or it could be accurate. But without a transcript and at least some sort of independednt verification, we've got nothing.
It's not right that all science teaching is geared to the environemntal message. Yes, the Big Oil companies have done some questionable things, but the nature of our society is that we debate these points. The environmental lobby is hardly a tiny group of zealots these days, and it's not like they're totally without blame for spreading misleading propaganda. We should not allow all our science information to come from any single source. And there's some truth to what the oil conmpanies say. For good or bad, oil is essential to our society. Cars need it to run. Most machines will stop working without oil based lubricants. Oil is used for all sorts of purposes.
There can even be some largely apolitical justification for oil companies to be sponsoring science education. They are the largest employers of geologists, and oil probably account for a substantial portion of professional chemists. It's simply in their direct commercial interests to fund science. And if they do this, it's a good thing for everyone.
Likewise, with the lobbying against environmentla regulations - The adversarial system is not limited to the courts any more. Should politicians enact any and all possible environmental legislation no matter how small the effect without any concern at all for the costs to the oil industry?
It's no surprise that this has been struck down as unconstitutional. Unconstitutional anti-video games bills seem to have become a hobby for legislators recently. But it works for us.
We now have an argument backing games as freedom of speech from a respected independent organisation, and not only that, it uses a highly respected literary work to make its point. I'd say the Illionois legislature did the games industry a serious favour here.
I still call a motion picture a "film", even if it's shot on digital. They still call programmes on the radio "shows" even though they show nothing. Aircraft speed is measured in knots even thugh nobdy measures it by throwing a log attached to a rope overboard. People will use a word that has meaning to the person they're talking to. If the meaning changes, it will change.
If only. It's true that the vast majority are more or less agnostic - religion isn't a big issue for most people in this country, and churches are seen as places to get married and buried. But that doesn't mean we're scientists.
The highbrow media has had a very snobbish anti-science attitude for a very long time. It's a country where people seem to be proud of their ignorance of maths and science, but would be horrified if someone didn't recognise Beethoven's 5th. We keep getting vague pushes to encourage more people into science, from politicians who are so committed to the idea that they haven't even worked out what the difference is between science and engineering.
So, we lose the dogmatic Creationism stuff, but on the whole, absense of religion has little benefit to science.
It's not that hard, just a bit misleading. "No" means "maybe", "Maybe" means "yes", "yes" means "I'm a slut" (These are related to context of course). "Of course I'm not" means "Of course I am". "It's up to you" means "Do as I say" and "Does my bum look big in this" means "Say no as quickly as humanly possible or I'll not talk to you for several days".
As you can see, it sounds like English, but the meanings are totally different.
It would be interesting for MS to decide to abandon half of its market, while a number of other OS and office suite vendors compete for the market, relying on the time between upgrade cycles to actually devlop a viable alternative, thus standardising Europe on it and gradually forcing the US to abandon Microsoft and standardise on whatever's in use in Europe, because Europe is incapable of switching over.
Microsoft's not a monopoly: you're perfectly free to create your own standard (as the OO crowd is trying to do).
That doesn't stop Microsoft from neing a monopoly. They have such a large segment of the market that they completely control it. Froma legal point of view, that makes them a monopoly. They can use this control to bar their customers from buying competing products, and if they do so, then they are acting illegally.
Since I get my MS Office for free, why should I even consider OO?
Microsoft Office or OO is not exactly a free and vibrant marketplace now is it? If there was freedom, then you would have a huge choice of products, many of them better, but at a price. You would both be able to choose the package that best represented your needs.
But why should this be our problem? You can buy a prefectly good mobile phone quite cheaply. Even if you couldn't, the networks are under no obligation to offer subsidised phones. Even if they were, they get their money back through long lock-in periods. Not the inability to reuse the phone. The lock-in is just a means to increase the cost for other companies to compete for their business when the contract expires.
When this happened, there were a lot of comments saying that Blizzard have the right to do whatever they want, and theres no justification for whining. They do have the right to do what they want, but it was still unfair, so people complained. Now Blizzard have reversed their decision. Would they have reversed their decision if there wasn't the outcry from slighted Linux users? It's possible, but I think not.
Slashdot Mirror
And oddly, only one journalist was there to hear him say that. Google news has 3 reports, all of which link to the UnionLeader A site which appears to be inaccessible right now. But this could be anything. Could be a hoax. Could be a complete misinterpretation. could be a complete misrepresentation. Could even be a malicious lie to discredit Newt Gingrich. Or it could be accurate. But without a transcript and at least some sort of independednt verification, we've got nothing.
It's not right that all science teaching is geared to the environemntal message. Yes, the Big Oil companies have done some questionable things, but the nature of our society is that we debate these points. The environmental lobby is hardly a tiny group of zealots these days, and it's not like they're totally without blame for spreading misleading propaganda. We should not allow all our science information to come from any single source. And there's some truth to what the oil conmpanies say. For good or bad, oil is essential to our society. Cars need it to run. Most machines will stop working without oil based lubricants. Oil is used for all sorts of purposes.
There can even be some largely apolitical justification for oil companies to be sponsoring science education. They are the largest employers of geologists, and oil probably account for a substantial portion of professional chemists. It's simply in their direct commercial interests to fund science. And if they do this, it's a good thing for everyone.
Likewise, with the lobbying against environmentla regulations - The adversarial system is not limited to the courts any more. Should politicians enact any and all possible environmental legislation no matter how small the effect without any concern at all for the costs to the oil industry?
So, that's three votes claiming that the anti-piracy ads at best reduce sales, and might increase piracy.
Has anyone, ever, in the history of the universe, decided not to pirate a film after seeign a message on it equating it with theft?
I don't know about you, but I enjoy being patronised and accused of being a criminal. Insults just add to the experience.
Ironically, I hate those ads so much that it's rather put me off buying DVDs. I guess that means at least I'm not going to copy it.
A friend of mine simply copied all her discs to her PC to circumvent it.
It's no surprise that this has been struck down as unconstitutional. Unconstitutional anti-video games bills seem to have become a hobby for legislators recently. But it works for us.
We now have an argument backing games as freedom of speech from a respected independent organisation, and not only that, it uses a highly respected literary work to make its point. I'd say the Illionois legislature did the games industry a serious favour here.
The number of flaws doesn't matter. a slice of cheese has one flaw as a database. It isn't a database. This doesn't make it a better product.
Mot of my friends have adopted the spoonerism of Phobile Mone. It seems to fit.
I still call a motion picture a "film", even if it's shot on digital. They still call programmes on the radio "shows" even though they show nothing. Aircraft speed is measured in knots even thugh nobdy measures it by throwing a log attached to a rope overboard. People will use a word that has meaning to the person they're talking to. If the meaning changes, it will change.
Don't make the mistake of assuming a shared conciousness. Mayeb the ones who oppose WiFi are also the ones who serve up 3 healthy meals a day.
If only. It's true that the vast majority are more or less agnostic - religion isn't a big issue for most people in this country, and churches are seen as places to get married and buried. But that doesn't mean we're scientists.
The highbrow media has had a very snobbish anti-science attitude for a very long time. It's a country where people seem to be proud of their ignorance of maths and science, but would be horrified if someone didn't recognise Beethoven's 5th. We keep getting vague pushes to encourage more people into science, from politicians who are so committed to the idea that they haven't even worked out what the difference is between science and engineering.
So, we lose the dogmatic Creationism stuff, but on the whole, absense of religion has little benefit to science.
The idea of religion in the UK is fairly loose. Most people I know are nominally Church of England (i.e Christian), but don't go to church.
Or to put it another way, they're Christian because it's a Christian church they don't attend.
I think we should ban all devices that emit these waves. Not just wireless networks, but cell phones, televisions, and,. of course, lightbulbs.
I did.
It's news for nerd. You're clearly not nerdy enough. It doesn't matter.
It's not that hard, just a bit misleading. "No" means "maybe", "Maybe" means "yes", "yes" means "I'm a slut" (These are related to context of course). "Of course I'm not" means "Of course I am". "It's up to you" means "Do as I say" and "Does my bum look big in this" means "Say no as quickly as humanly possible or I'll not talk to you for several days".
As you can see, it sounds like English, but the meanings are totally different.
They have that option.
It would be interesting for MS to decide to abandon half of its market, while a number of other OS and office suite vendors compete for the market, relying on the time between upgrade cycles to actually devlop a viable alternative, thus standardising Europe on it and gradually forcing the US to abandon Microsoft and standardise on whatever's in use in Europe, because Europe is incapable of switching over.
Their software will still work for a few years.
Microsoft's not a monopoly: you're perfectly free to create your own standard (as the OO crowd is trying to do).
That doesn't stop Microsoft from neing a monopoly. They have such a large segment of the market that they completely control it. Froma legal point of view, that makes them a monopoly. They can use this control to bar their customers from buying competing products, and if they do so, then they are acting illegally.
Since I get my MS Office for free, why should I even consider OO?
Microsoft Office or OO is not exactly a free and vibrant marketplace now is it? If there was freedom, then you would have a huge choice of products, many of them better, but at a price. You would both be able to choose the package that best represented your needs.
They keep getting the same guy to direct. It's like a bad hobbit. Hope his elf holds up.
But why should this be our problem? You can buy a prefectly good mobile phone quite cheaply. Even if you couldn't, the networks are under no obligation to offer subsidised phones. Even if they were, they get their money back through long lock-in periods. Not the inability to reuse the phone. The lock-in is just a means to increase the cost for other companies to compete for their business when the contract expires.
Since when the fuck does anyone give two-shits what the library of congress says?
1998.
Where'd they get this authority????
From the DMCA, which gets its authority from the US government, which in turn gets its authority from the voters of the US.
When this happened, there were a lot of comments saying that Blizzard have the right to do whatever they want, and theres no justification for whining. They do have the right to do what they want, but it was still unfair, so people complained. Now Blizzard have reversed their decision. Would they have reversed their decision if there wasn't the outcry from slighted Linux users? It's possible, but I think not.
The tag by the name said "Plutonium in her pockets". Looks like they changed it.
Perhaps but nobody had discovered it naturally until after it was created.
Plutonium is generally created synthetically by bombarding Uranium 238 with neutrons.
They'd both get my vote. So would Cathy Rogers from Scrapheap Challenge/Junkyard Wars.