And why should they stay amongst themselves? It's an old Scottish tradition to live in England. Even in the (extremely unlikely) case where Scotland does not join the EU, it could still bee in the EEA through EFTA and still keep the free movement of people.
Yeah, but Catalonia has its referendum before Scotland does. After Catalonia is independent, Madrid will have a lot less to say on Scottish EU membership. Also, and more importantly, maybe finally UEFA will rethink it's stupid 'one country one league' rule.
Water under great pressure does compress, but just to make things easy, let's assume it doesn't. This makes rho=1000Kg/m^3, a constant. We can also use the Shell theorem to point out that g(r)=-GM/r^2, where M is the mass inside r. We have thus:
M=4/3 pi r^3 rho
dP=-4/3G pi r^3 rho (rho/r^2)=-4/3G pi rho^2 r
Now we integrate this from R to 0, and determine that the pressure at the centre of a planet of radius R is:
P(R)=2/3G pi rho^2 R^2:: Pascals
The radius of earth is roughly 6371Km, which means that if it were made entirely out of water, the pressure at the centre would be about 5.67gPa. Now take a look at this phase diagram for water and notice that at this pressure, and for any temperature roughly between 0 and 100C, water is in the Ice VII phase. Which is solid.
Thanks to rpenner here. Why can't I get fucking rho and pi to display?
Still better than the mattress. Other places offer more money, but there is less chance you will see it again. The other day I got this email that promised me a payment of £5000 on top of my £10000 in a week (that's a 143464837548% APR!!) but had no assurances of getting anything back. If you want more money, you'll have to accept more risk. On the other hand, if you want your money to be as secure as it is in your mattress, you will get no interest.
The City of London is not a 'coorporation' whatever that is (or it is, in the sense that it has juridical personality, but all sorts of things do). The City of London Corporation is the old name for the Mayor and Commonality and Citizens of the City of London. The Corporation is the local (municipal) authority of the City of London, equivalent to the Isington Borough Council or whatever. It is just a local authority. Small difference is that the Corporation operates the City Police, which is a separate entity from the Metropolitan Police, which is part of the Greater London Authority. There is no 'British Police', as each geographic region operates its own independent police service, but by any reasonable use of language, then yes, the article was about British Police.
You jest, but are entirely right. Quoting the article quoting the Federal Review Board for something:
This applies to, for example, media that contain indecent, extremely violent, crime-inducing, anti-Semitic or racist material, also to media content that glorifies National Socialism, drugs, alcohol abuse, self-inflicted injury or suicide, to media content propagating vigilante justice and to media content that discriminates against specific groups of people.
Nazi ideology is not banned by the German constitution. Some Nazi statements are banned, though they must either call for violence or racial hatred, deny the holocaust, or glorify the Nazi government of Hitler. Racist statements that do not call for hate or violence are allowed. Similar laws exist in the United States (see here for the court's opinion) where the main difference is that the US only bans such fighting speech when it incites to immediate violence or hate. Invitations to deferred violence or hate, such as are found in far right music in Germany, or even if they are in writing or transmitted by radio, are banned by the German penile code.
'Who(m)ever designed this system' is a subject clause of the sentence. Within this clause, 'Who(m)ever' is the subject of design. You use whomever for subjects.
What about the economists who are employed by universities? We value academic freedom for a reason. And tenure was instituted so that prominent scientists could espouse unpopular ideas.
I imagine that in places where prostitution is illegal, the average age of entrance would be lower. I also imagine that it would be very hard to find reliable data to back this up.
These laws apply to everyone. Making 'extraterritorial surveillance' a violation of human rights would mean that no one is allowed to do it. Not the US, not the UK, not China, not fucking Burundi. American technology industries wouldn't be hurt by this, they can only be helped if the law assures their clients that their data is safe.
Anyway, the point is moot. Of the five permanent members of the security council, at least four would veto any such curbs on their surveillance programs.
OK, I now realise this applies only to the Senate confirmation process. I apologise for not having read. I will agree that filibustering the vote to fill a cabinet position is more commonly an unsportsmanlike tactic than it is a fight for the minority's rights. Nevertheless I will maintain that there are legitimate reasons for a minority to want to reject a candidate to an appointed office, and while removing the filibuster may be justified, another avenue for minority dissent should be opened. To be clear, I believe that as a tool to stand for the rights for the few against the wishes of the many, the filibuster is very poor.
No, not money. You are confusing rights with privileges. An aristocratic class enjoys rights granted to them by the law that the majority do not posses. The wealthy enjoy money, and while money might give the rich a lifestyle parallel to that which was enjoyed by the old aristocracy, being born rich gives you (in principle, we are arguing about principles) no more rights than the poor also have. Some people have called this 'equality before the law'.
You may say that the rich have many things that the poor do not. Well obviously they do. But this is qualitatively different from being born with the right to sit in the upper house of parliament because you are the son of a lord.
Economic inequality is a bad thing. The lack of social equality is a very, very bad thing.
Strawman argument. Hypocrites are hypocritical, duh. And you will see by reading your image that a filibuster does not only benefit the republicans, who are a minority in the senate now, but also have in the past benefited the democrats when they haven't had a majority.
A filibuster is a tool against the tyranny of the many. It is one of the very few institutions currently in place that allow an opinion to be counted not only by the number of people who support it but also by the force with which they hold this opinion. If a majority has a slight preference for something, but there is a minority that strongly opposes it, what should happen? Certainly a straight yes or no vote would not accurately represent the will of the voters, so when called on to vote, what should the losers do? Should they simply accept their fate? This is now what the law requires them to do, but it is certainly not just.
No, monarchy is shit even if you get an enlightened, benevolent, philosopher-king at the top. You cannot live in a free society if there is a class of people that are born with rights to which the majority have no claim. Some people might be happy to be slaves in the off chance that they are treated well and given light work, but it is rude of them to think the rest of us would want anything to do with it, and it is evil of them try and force it onto their children.
Slashdot Mirror
And why should they stay amongst themselves? It's an old Scottish tradition to live in England. Even in the (extremely unlikely) case where Scotland does not join the EU, it could still bee in the EEA through EFTA and still keep the free movement of people.
What happened to question 35c and to calling it fitba'?
Yeah, but Catalonia has its referendum before Scotland does. After Catalonia is independent, Madrid will have a lot less to say on Scottish EU membership. Also, and more importantly, maybe finally UEFA will rethink it's stupid 'one country one league' rule.
No, it would not.
This problem is about the hydrostatic equilibrium of a self-gravitating sphere of water. Let's take:
According to the last equation here, we have that:
dP = g(r) rho(r) dr
Water under great pressure does compress, but just to make things easy, let's assume it doesn't. This makes rho=1000Kg/m^3, a constant. We can also use the Shell theorem to point out that g(r)=-GM/r^2, where M is the mass inside r. We have thus:
M=4/3 pi r^3 rho
dP=-4/3G pi r^3 rho (rho/r^2)=-4/3G pi rho^2 r
Now we integrate this from R to 0, and determine that the pressure at the centre of a planet of radius R is:
P(R)=2/3G pi rho^2 R^2 :: Pascals
The radius of earth is roughly 6371Km, which means that if it were made entirely out of water, the pressure at the centre would be about 5.67gPa. Now take a look at this phase diagram for water and notice that at this pressure, and for any temperature roughly between 0 and 100C, water is in the Ice VII phase. Which is solid.
Thanks to rpenner here. Why can't I get fucking rho and pi to display?
The odds of you getting lucky in the next ten minutes << The odds of you getting lucky in the next ten years.
Still better than the mattress. Other places offer more money, but there is less chance you will see it again. The other day I got this email that promised me a payment of £5000 on top of my £10000 in a week (that's a 143464837548% APR!!) but had no assurances of getting anything back. If you want more money, you'll have to accept more risk. On the other hand, if you want your money to be as secure as it is in your mattress, you will get no interest.
The City of London is not a 'coorporation' whatever that is (or it is, in the sense that it has juridical personality, but all sorts of things do). The City of London Corporation is the old name for the Mayor and Commonality and Citizens of the City of London. The Corporation is the local (municipal) authority of the City of London, equivalent to the Isington Borough Council or whatever. It is just a local authority. Small difference is that the Corporation operates the City Police, which is a separate entity from the Metropolitan Police, which is part of the Greater London Authority. There is no 'British Police', as each geographic region operates its own independent police service, but by any reasonable use of language, then yes, the article was about British Police.
The bank pays interest.
No, in nuclear chemistry (and when dealing with acids), it's more common to call the compound hydrogen hydroxide.
You jest, but are entirely right. Quoting the article quoting the Federal Review Board for something:
This applies to, for example, media that contain indecent, extremely violent, crime-inducing, anti-Semitic or racist material, also to media content that glorifies National Socialism, drugs, alcohol abuse, self-inflicted injury or suicide, to media content propagating vigilante justice and to media content that discriminates against specific groups of people.
There is no way that doesn't include Wagner.
Nazi ideology is not banned by the German constitution. Some Nazi statements are banned, though they must either call for violence or racial hatred, deny the holocaust, or glorify the Nazi government of Hitler. Racist statements that do not call for hate or violence are allowed. Similar laws exist in the United States (see here for the court's opinion) where the main difference is that the US only bans such fighting speech when it incites to immediate violence or hate. Invitations to deferred violence or hate, such as are found in far right music in Germany, or even if they are in writing or transmitted by radio, are banned by the German penile code.
s/whomever/whoever/
'Who(m)ever designed this system' is a subject clause of the sentence. Within this clause, 'Who(m)ever' is the subject of design. You use whomever for subjects.
What about the economists who are employed by universities? We value academic freedom for a reason. And tenure was instituted so that prominent scientists could espouse unpopular ideas.
I imagine that in places where prostitution is illegal, the average age of entrance would be lower. I also imagine that it would be very hard to find reliable data to back this up.
In both porn and prostitution, people are having sex for money. But in porn, it's both the participants who are doing it.
To paraphrase George Carlin, it's nonsense that something is illegal to sell that you can legally give away for free.
Like a kidney? Or a child?
Poignant.
These laws apply to everyone. Making 'extraterritorial surveillance' a violation of human rights would mean that no one is allowed to do it. Not the US, not the UK, not China, not fucking Burundi. American technology industries wouldn't be hurt by this, they can only be helped if the law assures their clients that their data is safe.
Anyway, the point is moot. Of the five permanent members of the security council, at least four would veto any such curbs on their surveillance programs.
OK, I now realise this applies only to the Senate confirmation process. I apologise for not having read. I will agree that filibustering the vote to fill a cabinet position is more commonly an unsportsmanlike tactic than it is a fight for the minority's rights. Nevertheless I will maintain that there are legitimate reasons for a minority to want to reject a candidate to an appointed office, and while removing the filibuster may be justified, another avenue for minority dissent should be opened. To be clear, I believe that as a tool to stand for the rights for the few against the wishes of the many, the filibuster is very poor.
No, not money. You are confusing rights with privileges. An aristocratic class enjoys rights granted to them by the law that the majority do not posses. The wealthy enjoy money, and while money might give the rich a lifestyle parallel to that which was enjoyed by the old aristocracy, being born rich gives you (in principle, we are arguing about principles) no more rights than the poor also have. Some people have called this 'equality before the law'.
You may say that the rich have many things that the poor do not. Well obviously they do. But this is qualitatively different from being born with the right to sit in the upper house of parliament because you are the son of a lord.
Economic inequality is a bad thing. The lack of social equality is a very, very bad thing.
Strawman argument. Hypocrites are hypocritical, duh. And you will see by reading your image that a filibuster does not only benefit the republicans, who are a minority in the senate now, but also have in the past benefited the democrats when they haven't had a majority.
A filibuster is a tool against the tyranny of the many. It is one of the very few institutions currently in place that allow an opinion to be counted not only by the number of people who support it but also by the force with which they hold this opinion. If a majority has a slight preference for something, but there is a minority that strongly opposes it, what should happen? Certainly a straight yes or no vote would not accurately represent the will of the voters, so when called on to vote, what should the losers do? Should they simply accept their fate? This is now what the law requires them to do, but it is certainly not just.
No, monarchy is shit even if you get an enlightened, benevolent, philosopher-king at the top. You cannot live in a free society if there is a class of people that are born with rights to which the majority have no claim. Some people might be happy to be slaves in the off chance that they are treated well and given light work, but it is rude of them to think the rest of us would want anything to do with it, and it is evil of them try and force it onto their children.
Who's infecting whom.
You must surely be a robot. I can tell by your grammar.
It's not a programmer, it's an engineer. A programmer what is proof.