I was refering to the article, where "Liberal" is a reference to the ALDE (Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe). This is grouping of European Cenre-right parties. (The lib-dems in the UK, MoDem in France...)
If one read "here" as meaning "here in Europe" then "Liberal" would often be understood as "economicaly liberal", which is what you mean I guess.
The reason they are in poverty is simple - they are not free. Meaning that, they do not have security of property ownership (including natural resources), freedom to enter into mutually beneficial contracts, freedom of movement, freedom of speech, etc., etc.
[...]
Living in a democracy helps, but is not in itself a requirement.
Bizzare. Do you realy believe people living in undemocratic countries are "free"?
I can see claiming that democracy is necessary but not sufficient, but claiming that it's not necesary is odd.
Considering how many scholars lately have come out of the closet and declared that the IPCC position is all but insupportable and climate sensitivity is nowhere near 3.5 degrees per doubling of CO2.
If I recall correctly, this corresponds to somewhat of a philosophic difference between Airbus and Boeing. From what I read a few years ago, Airbus absolutely limits what the pilot can do - he/she can not make the plane do something the computer doesn't approve of. Boeing, assumes the pilot knows best, and allows the pilot to 'override' the system (do things with the controls that seem unwise to the computer). Boeing's POV is that the computer may be wrong, and/or the situation may not be one the computer is ready for.
Urban legend (or Boeing propaganda if you are a cynic).
In "normal law" Airbus will prevent the pilot from doing some stupid things, but when the shit hits the fan he can do what the hell he wants.
I call BS as well. Yes the ignition might be computer controlled, and yes the automatic transmission might be computer controlled, but the brake pedal will always work and will overpower the engine even if it running full power..
The guy claims that it was his attempts to brake that made the car speed up.
It's worth noting that he's disabled and the car is specialy modified, I'm not sure it had a brake pedal/
However, at the same time, modern defective kernel modules can spam kernel messages fast enough to make me weary of simply streaming the kernel log straight to EEPROM
The problem is that by calling out the first paper as BS science you're automatically labelled a conspiracy theorist. The second paper went on to do just that.
Well, no.
If yoiu claim that the first paper is total crap using conspirationist reasoning then you get called a conspiracy theorist.
Noun A permit from an authority to own or use something, do a particular thing, or carry on a trade (esp. in alcoholic beverages). Verb Grant a license to permit the use of something or to allow an activity to take place. Synonyms noun. licence - permit - permission - leave - authorization verb. licence - authorize - permit - allow - authorise
I remember reading a possibly apocryphal tale about different attitudes to deploying decoys on nuclear missiles in the Cold War; supposedly the US military went to a great deal of trouble building decoys that looked like nuclear warheads, whereas the British saved a lot of money by making the warheads look like decoys.
That doesn't seem to be a very good description of Chevaline.
The British system was so cheap that it's cost overruns were <pinky>1 billion pounds.</pinky>.
Slashdot Mirror
What does "I wouldn't hold my breath that" mean? How do you parse it?
So I wouldn't hold my breath that the Brits would be any better than Americans.
Could you re-write this in English please.
The net - Somalia for the 21st century.
Well, it depends what you mean by "here".
I was refering to the article, where "Liberal" is a reference to the ALDE (Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe). This is grouping of European Cenre-right parties. (The lib-dems in the UK, MoDem in France...)
If one read "here" as meaning "here in Europe" then "Liberal" would often be understood as "economicaly liberal", which is what you mean I guess.
Conservatives and liberals voting against the peoples interest - who would of guessed.
(note for our American friends - liberal means center right here)
What moron modded this "flamebait"!
It's funny you clowns.
That you use the guardian as a reference says a lot. That's a kin to using World Daily News.
This tells us more about you than about the Guardian.
The reason they are in poverty is simple - they are not free. Meaning that, they do not have security of property ownership (including natural resources), freedom to enter into mutually beneficial contracts, freedom of movement, freedom of speech, etc., etc.
[...]
Living in a democracy helps, but is not in itself a requirement.
Bizzare. Do you realy believe people living in undemocratic countries are "free"?
I can see claiming that democracy is necessary but not sufficient, but claiming that it's not necesary is odd.
Considering how many scholars lately have come out of the closet and declared that the IPCC position is all but insupportable and climate sensitivity is nowhere near 3.5 degrees per doubling of CO2.
Oh, go on.
How many?
Scholars of what, exactly.
Think what you want,
http://www.airbusdriver.net/airbus_fltlaws.htm
Direct Law:
Pilot control inputs are transmitted unmodified to the control surfaces, providing a direct relationship between sidestick and control surface.
If I recall correctly, this corresponds to somewhat of a philosophic difference between Airbus and Boeing. From what I read a few years ago, Airbus absolutely limits what the pilot can do - he/she can not make the plane do something the computer doesn't approve of. Boeing, assumes the pilot knows best, and allows the pilot to 'override' the system (do things with the controls that seem unwise to the computer). Boeing's POV is that the computer may be wrong, and/or the situation may not be one the computer is ready for.
Urban legend (or Boeing propaganda if you are a cynic).
In "normal law" Airbus will prevent the pilot from doing some stupid things, but when the shit hits the fan he can do what the hell he wants.
I call BS as well. Yes the ignition might be computer controlled, and yes the automatic transmission might be computer controlled, but the brake pedal will always work and will overpower the engine even if it running full power..
The guy claims that it was his attempts to brake that made the car speed up.
It's worth noting that he's disabled and the car is specialy modified, I'm not sure it had a brake pedal/
The problem isn't that they are rightwing nutjob sites (though they are), it's that they're politcal sites.
Why go to political sites for information about science?
Ok, I mis-typed "too". But didn't you notice that Kaldaien clearly meant to type "wary"?
zow, probably the best collection of reliable sources ever quoted.
Seriously - reason? mises? redstate!
Running out of (disk) space is generally the bigger problem, linux doesn't like to log you in if it cannot syslog the attempt to disk.
Rubbish. There is no way a syslog caller can know whether the log worked or not.
login might fail if it can't write the utmp/wtmp record, if it still does that.
However, at the same time, modern defective kernel modules can spam kernel messages fast enough to make me weary of simply streaming the kernel log straight to EEPROM
To tired to change your spell checker?
As a matter of fact, many BIOS writers are quite proficient assembly gurus.
hypothesis not sustained by observed facts.
The problem is that by calling out the first paper as BS science you're automatically labelled a conspiracy theorist. The second paper went on to do just that.
Well, no.
If yoiu claim that the first paper is total crap using conspirationist reasoning then you get called a conspiracy theorist.
If you have a valid complaint, what is it?
Urghm, typo of name of mickey-mouse company.
TSG is not, and never has been, SCO.
Pah, you are not Basil Brush, you are Humpty Dumpty.
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'
A license might contain permissions, but a permission is not a license.
http://www.google.com/search?q=definition%3A+permission
permission
Noun
Consent; authorization.
An official document giving authorization.
Synonyms
permit - leave - license - licence - authorization
http://www.google.com/search?q=definition%3A+license
license
Noun
A permit from an authority to own or use something, do a particular thing, or carry on a trade (esp. in alcoholic beverages).
Verb
Grant a license to permit the use of something or to allow an activity to take place.
Synonyms
noun. licence - permit - permission - leave - authorization
verb. licence - authorize - permit - allow - authorise
I remember reading a possibly apocryphal tale about different attitudes to deploying decoys on nuclear missiles in the Cold War; supposedly the US military went to a great deal of trouble building decoys that looked like nuclear warheads, whereas the British saved a lot of money by making the warheads look like decoys.
That doesn't seem to be a very good description of Chevaline.
The British system was so cheap that it's cost overruns were <pinky>1 billion pounds.</pinky>.
...and less.
> "Simply put: does math win?"
Does our enemy really want to get into an all-out war vs. the US' productivity?
But the article is explicitly talking about fleet defence. The fleet has no productivity, it's limited to what it has on board.
(and one of the proposed "enemies" is China, who's GDP is rapidly aproaching that of the US).