Uh, rats are an invasive species on the islands in question, and we in have HAVE studied what happens when you get rid of them on such an ecosystem. https://www.livescience.com/40...
If you read the article, it has nothing to do with rat droppings, it has to do with the loss of bird dropping when rats are established as an invasive species complicating birds nesting (or at least nesting successfully) on such islands.
No such testimony in fact exists exists. What Corney said is Clinton was mistaken in her testimony, but he was by no means concluding she intentionally lied.
The reality about the emails is to a great degree they show how often confusing figuring out what is classified is at a government level like Hillary. There were also only a couple of emails with actual classification markings on them out of the huge number in question, with the way they were marked apparently leading to confusion on Hillary's part about what the particular marking meant in that case.
Uh, South Korea doesn't even vaguely resemble its 1950 counterpart.
South Korea has a roughly 640,000 man strong army and 2.9 million in reserves. China in no way has localized military superiority given the actual size of its army at this point, and would have trouble bring up all its reserves very quickly especially given assured prompt US intervention including air power. (With the US bringing in substantial troops in the long run with possible significant international support given plainly unprovoked Chinese aggression in this scenario.)
In a scenario where China is invading a unified Korea, South Korea would also have allot of trained North Korean manpower willing to fight against a plainly non-Korean invader.
The one you have been to in Colorado Springs was almost certainly what has now been closed. The current one, which is extremely limited in scope by any measure, is actually basically in someone's basement and can be visited by appointment only.
The Belgrade one is the one really notable true museum, but the view of many is there should be one in the U.S. where his most significant scientific accomplishments occurred, especially since most people are not going to happen to go to Belgrade.
It should be mostly 1 & 2, with adults who don't really know that much about science in general but think it might be an interesting museum to see being another category.
There should be plenty designed specifically for kids and school children in general, but the museum should ideally have artifacts and objects associated with tesla so that while the electrical engineer may have known just about everything about the exhibits information wise in advance, but still enjoy seeing the assorted artifacts in person.
Those who you might categorize as "Tesla nutters" still may be happy to see Tesla get recognition and get some praise at a museum for his accomplishments. They are the people most likely to possibly complain Tesla is still not getting enough credit and the "museum sold out to corporate interests to conceal the whole truth about Tesla" though.
It should be noted those you might consider "Tesla nutters" really have nothing to do with the foundation setting up the museum other than donating money. The actual foundation board consists of among others physicists and a retired teacher/librarian.
The key difference is there is now a developer willing to pay the price and who wants to flatten the site and turn it into a retail space, so the foundation has basically been given 6 weeks to come up with the money or the site and building is going to get sold and leveled.
The other huge difference is the State of New York has now pledged matching donations up to 850,000 dollars to buy the site and start work on the museum, which makes reaching the goal more viable.
The actual current asking price is 1.6 million, so if they meet their goal with the matching funds from New York State, they would be clearly above this with 1.7 million dollars. (The Indiegogo fee is only 4% at that point.)
It should be noted that they will need additional money to actually turn the building into a museum, so that where any money beyond the amount needed to buy the property will go.
I would view it as unlikely the other developer will win by raising the bid because the company in question is not required to necessarily sell to the highest bidder, and if they refused to sell at the 1.6 million amount and even a bit higher, the company in question could be looking at boycott threats and a large amount of bad publicity if they don't sell the property to the foundation. Under these circumstances, local politicians might suggest there could be permitting issues and other regulatory problems with tearing down the historic property as the developer desires in order to scare them off.
If its truly not possible to refund the money and the sale does not go through, presumably the non-profit in question would dedicate the money towards creating a Tesla museum and science center somewhere else in the New York City general area.
The link about joint authorship notes joint authorship is assumed when a work is prepared by two or more individuals absent an agreement to the contrary.
If such an agreement is made when the music is recorded so Musopen has clear exclusive rights prior to releasing the work in the public domain, this issue should not exist.
Your second link is about licenses potentially terminating after 35 years, but realistically its hard to see the rights to the Star Wars music for instance reverting to the individual orchestra after 35 years, so there is undoubtedly going to be a legislative change to the laws if this really is an issue.
Just not being sold and not restricting use of the music doesn't actually change these basic legal ownership details regarding music.
To be clear here, without this lawsuit there was a real question whether these emails would actually be saved for posterity at all. While they apparently are currently in a state where they could be recovered, if they were just left abandoned or outright thrown out, they would never be viewable at that point. While there may be limited short term payoff, there is the long term issue of eventual public accountability. (With emails becoming public after 7 years for instance potentially having actual consequences for former members of the Bush administration.)
It should be noted that there are genuine emails it probably is in the interests of the US as a whole to restrict from public access for awhile. I.E. where we have spies placed in North Korea and Iran, or simply pretty insulting sentiments about specific leaders of other countries. (If you knew the moment an administration left office such a view on the leader would be made public, you would be reluctant in many cases to give an honest opinion via email period.)
Actually there is a huge point even if some of the emails actually are classified. (Normally for most of them there will simply be delay until the public can see them but they actually won't be classified.)
The key is that over time classified documents do become declassified, with this often occurring 25 years after the fact, and a large portion of such records becoming declassified after 50 years. (While a favorable Presidential administration might potentially hold off declassifying for dubious reasons, sooner or later a Presidential administration with different views is going to come along and reverse that decision.) This means eventually historians and others can get access to these emails and come to their own judgments about the Bush administration. In other words this provides the threat to future Presidential administrations that they will eventually be shamed by the unfavorable judgement of future historians and others for their misconduct. (It also will provide information which can be flat out useful for general future research by historians period.)
It is completely correct - the reason why widening the taxiway is preferred is because always taxiing on the inner engines would place extra wear and tear on those engines, which is uneconomical in the long term but would be perfectly acceptable in a diversion.
You appear to be missing a major reason this is a key problem in the case of a potential Air Force One. Air Force One is actually going to pretty regularly fly to various airports all around the world, only a few of which are actually likely to see A380 scheduled service. When he's not flying to a location such as Paris or London it becomes quite likely this issue will come up. The President also has a variety of reason including political campaigning which can lead him to fly to all sorts of airports in the US, of which only a quite small number will be seeing A380 service anytime soon. Even as simply a maintenance issue it would be a major liability, and an engine going out at the wrong time could be somewhat of a security issue. (Among other things you don't want to take off with only three functioning engines and there are potentially times in which it can be important for the President to be able ti get in the air quickly.) The airport accessibility concern in this case is about way more than just an exceptional diversion.
Randall Walker needs to look at his data - Las Vegas already takes 777-300ER aircraft and that aircraft has a higher weight footprint than the A380 does. If the tunnels can take the 777-300ER, then they can take the A380.
The problem is not the individual pound per square inch exerted per wheel which the A380 does effectively deal with, but the TOTAL weight and the strain it potentially puts on the tunnel structure. A tunnel can potentially take the pounds per square inch just fine, but collapse due to the substantially greater total weight placed by the A380. If you read the article I linked to, LAX didn't upgrade underground structures specifically to accommodate the A380 for the heck of it, they did so because they calculated it was necessary to do so due to the greater weight of the plane involved. (The 777-300ER has been flying into Los Angeles International Airport for awhile.)
Actually the A380 can operate out of as many airfields as the 747 can - the reason it isn't planned to is because of passenger offload and FOD issues (the outer engines overhang taxiways, causing a potential foreign object debris issue, but at these airports the A380 would simply taxi on the inner engines only).
This is incorrect.
I don't know if the taxing on inner engines is really viable, but there are other problems at some airports. (The odd thing is enlarging taxiways appears to have been treated as mandatory for all airports getting the A380, and you think some would just resort to the alternative you suggested if it was really safe and perfectly viable without problems.)
However there are additional issues at some US airports for instance...
Randall Walker, the Las Vegas airport's aviation director, said he rebuffed an Airbus request to become an emergency alternative airport for A380s destined for Los Angeles.
Walker said it's not even clear that the airport's underground tunnels could handle the weight of the airplane.
Basically reinforcing the tunnels to handle the A380s weight is something which certainly won't get done unless an airport is seeing regular A380 service. Similar situations exist at a variety of airports in which runways go over roads. However not being able to use various airports is a serious limitation for Air Force One which will regularly get used wherever the US President wants to fly somewhere. It also is a potential issue in that it limits the number of locations the aircraft can ultimately choose to land in an emergency situation.
Along with the 5 video diaries that you can also find at the official site, an additional video diary with a behind the scenes look at the how the special effects for the production were done is also available at this link.
Among other things you get a longer glimpse at the space battle scene shown in the trailer.
Obviously Red Hat has been paying attention to the arguments made on/.
"SCO itself, however, has been publicly distributing the LINUX operating system, including the LINUX code, for at least five years. Regcognizing the inconsistency between its claim of "trade secret" missapropriation and its public disclosures of the same allegedly secret information, in May 2003 SCO public stated it would no longer disribute LINUX. However, that statement too is false. SCO continues to offer LINUX source code for public downloading today- more than four months after SCO sued IBM for disclosing UNIX "trade secrets" that SCO coninues to disclose itself."
http://lwn.net/images/ns/rh-complaint.pdf
Check out the Distributed Folding Project The project is run a non-profit institution and is focussed on medical research. The project has very strong multi-platform support, and actually runs BETTER on Linux in relation to Windows. A summary of the science behind the project can be found here.
Another interesting distributed computing project is the Distributed Folding Project. The project uses its computing resources to predict the shape of proteins after they "fold." Since this is the shape they actually are in while inside living organisms, being able to quickly and easily determine their shape could have major ramifications for medical research. Additional infromation about the science behind the project can be found on this page.
There are other distributed computing projects also seeking to cure diseases such as [URL=http://sushi.dbestern.net/distributedfolding/ index.php]The Distributed Folding Project.[/URL] This project is particularly good at supporting different operating system such as Linux, FreeBSD, etc.
Historicly the principle behind changing a businesses's methods was that if doing so gave the company a temporary competative advantage over the competition, then it was worthwhile. While the competitor could attempt to imitate the other company, if the change in business practices was difficult to implement for the first company, then it will usually be difficult for the second company to sucessfully adopt the other company's business practices. By the time the competition adopt the new methods, the company who initially made the change should have made a great deal of money from adopting the new business technique first, generally more then it cost the company to implement the idea in the first place.
An example of this would be Henry Ford when he adopted the assembly line bussiness method of building model T cars. The innovation cut the cost of building the cars by over half, and made Ford an enourmous amount of money. Henry Ford was not able to patent the bussiness method of the assembly line, and eventually competitors were able to copy Ford's assembly line procedure. However, Ford had been able to become the dominent car maker in the US in the meantime. If Ford had been able to patent the idea of a company using assembly line techniques it would have drasticly slowed the spread of mass production techniques in the US, and this would have had very negative implications for the growth of the US and world economies.
A modern example of a business sucessfully using a business method the achieve sucess is Dell. Dell was the first computer company to sucessfully implement a direct order system for buying personal computers. Since there was not a middle man marking up the cost of Dell's computers to the customers, Dell could either offer their computers for less then the competition, or make more money on each sale. After Dell's competitors tried to imitate Dell's strategy, they found that they needed to resolve the same difficulties that Dell had to solve in order to get the direct order system to work. In addition, Dell's established competitors were afraid of alienating the stores that they were currently selling their computers to if they went to a direct order system, and were reluctant to take the risk of changing how they operated. Therefore, without needing to patent ordering computers over the telephone, or buying computers over the internet, Dell was able to take advantage of their new business technique to become one of the most sucessful companies of the 1990's. Business patents are not necessary as an incentive for companies to inovate, and they simply impede the growth of the economy.
Slashdot Mirror
Uh, rats are an invasive species on the islands in question, and we in have HAVE studied what happens when you get rid of them on such an ecosystem.
https://www.livescience.com/40...
If you read the article, it has nothing to do with rat droppings, it has to do with the loss of bird dropping when rats are established as an invasive species complicating birds nesting (or at least nesting successfully) on such islands.
No such testimony in fact exists exists. What Corney said is Clinton was mistaken in her testimony, but he was by no means concluding she intentionally lied.
The reality about the emails is to a great degree they show how often confusing figuring out what is classified is at a government level like Hillary. There were also only a couple of emails with actual classification markings on them out of the huge number in question, with the way they were marked apparently leading to confusion on Hillary's part about what the particular marking meant in that case.
Uh, South Korea doesn't even vaguely resemble its 1950 counterpart.
South Korea has a roughly 640,000 man strong army and 2.9 million in reserves. China in no way has localized military superiority given the actual size of its army at this point, and would have trouble bring up all its reserves very quickly especially given assured prompt US intervention including air power. (With the US bringing in substantial troops in the long run with possible significant international support given plainly unprovoked Chinese aggression in this scenario.)
In a scenario where China is invading a unified Korea, South Korea would also have allot of trained North Korean manpower willing to fight against a plainly non-Korean invader.
The one you have been to in Colorado Springs was almost certainly what has now been closed. The current one, which is extremely limited in scope by any measure, is actually basically in someone's basement and can be visited by appointment only.
The Belgrade one is the one really notable true museum, but the view of many is there should be one in the U.S. where his most significant scientific accomplishments occurred, especially since most people are not going to happen to go to Belgrade.
It should be mostly 1 & 2, with adults who don't really know that much about science in general but think it might be an interesting museum to see being another category.
There should be plenty designed specifically for kids and school children in general, but the museum should ideally have artifacts and objects associated with tesla so that while the electrical engineer may have known just about everything about the exhibits information wise in advance, but still enjoy seeing the assorted artifacts in person.
Those who you might categorize as "Tesla nutters" still may be happy to see Tesla get recognition and get some praise at a museum for his accomplishments. They are the people most likely to possibly complain Tesla is still not getting enough credit and the "museum sold out to corporate interests to conceal the whole truth about Tesla" though.
It should be noted those you might consider "Tesla nutters" really have nothing to do with the foundation setting up the museum other than donating money. The actual foundation board consists of among others physicists and a retired teacher/librarian.
The key difference is there is now a developer willing to pay the price and who wants to flatten the site and turn it into a retail space, so the foundation has basically been given 6 weeks to come up with the money or the site and building is going to get sold and leveled.
The other huge difference is the State of New York has now pledged matching donations up to 850,000 dollars to buy the site and start work on the museum, which makes reaching the goal more viable.
The actual current asking price is 1.6 million, so if they meet their goal with the matching funds from New York State, they would be clearly above this with 1.7 million dollars. (The Indiegogo fee is only 4% at that point.)
It should be noted that they will need additional money to actually turn the building into a museum, so that where any money beyond the amount needed to buy the property will go.
I would view it as unlikely the other developer will win by raising the bid because the company in question is not required to necessarily sell to the highest bidder, and if they refused to sell at the 1.6 million amount and even a bit higher, the company in question could be looking at boycott threats and a large amount of bad publicity if they don't sell the property to the foundation. Under these circumstances, local politicians might suggest there could be permitting issues and other regulatory problems with tearing down the historic property as the developer desires in order to scare them off.
If its truly not possible to refund the money and the sale does not go through, presumably the non-profit in question would dedicate the money towards creating a Tesla museum and science center somewhere else in the New York City general area.
This claim appears to be wrong.
The link about joint authorship notes joint authorship is assumed when a work is prepared by two or more individuals absent an agreement to the contrary.
If such an agreement is made when the music is recorded so Musopen has clear exclusive rights prior to releasing the work in the public domain, this issue should not exist.
Your second link is about licenses potentially terminating after 35 years, but realistically its hard to see the rights to the Star Wars music for instance reverting to the individual orchestra after 35 years, so there is undoubtedly going to be a legislative change to the laws if this really is an issue.
Just not being sold and not restricting use of the music doesn't actually change these basic legal ownership details regarding music.
To be clear here, without this lawsuit there was a real question whether these emails would actually be saved for posterity at all. While they apparently are currently in a state where they could be recovered, if they were just left abandoned or outright thrown out, they would never be viewable at that point. While there may be limited short term payoff, there is the long term issue of eventual public accountability. (With emails becoming public after 7 years for instance potentially having actual consequences for former members of the Bush administration.)
It should be noted that there are genuine emails it probably is in the interests of the US as a whole to restrict from public access for awhile. I.E. where we have spies placed in North Korea and Iran, or simply pretty insulting sentiments about specific leaders of other countries. (If you knew the moment an administration left office such a view on the leader would be made public, you would be reluctant in many cases to give an honest opinion via email period.)
Actually there is a huge point even if some of the emails actually are classified. (Normally for most of them there will simply be delay until the public can see them but they actually won't be classified.)
The key is that over time classified documents do become declassified, with this often occurring 25 years after the fact, and a large portion of such records becoming declassified after 50 years. (While a favorable Presidential administration might potentially hold off declassifying for dubious reasons, sooner or later a Presidential administration with different views is going to come along and reverse that decision.) This means eventually historians and others can get access to these emails and come to their own judgments about the Bush administration. In other words this provides the threat to future Presidential administrations that they will eventually be shamed by the unfavorable judgement of future historians and others for their misconduct. (It also will provide information which can be flat out useful for general future research by historians period.)
It is completely correct - the reason why widening the taxiway is preferred is because always taxiing on the inner engines would place extra wear and tear on those engines, which is uneconomical in the long term but would be perfectly acceptable in a diversion.
You appear to be missing a major reason this is a key problem in the case of a potential Air Force One. Air Force One is actually going to pretty regularly fly to various airports all around the world, only a few of which are actually likely to see A380 scheduled service. When he's not flying to a location such as Paris or London it becomes quite likely this issue will come up. The President also has a variety of reason including political campaigning which can lead him to fly to all sorts of airports in the US, of which only a quite small number will be seeing A380 service anytime soon. Even as simply a maintenance issue it would be a major liability, and an engine going out at the wrong time could be somewhat of a security issue. (Among other things you don't want to take off with only three functioning engines and there are potentially times in which it can be important for the President to be able ti get in the air quickly.) The airport accessibility concern in this case is about way more than just an exceptional diversion.
Randall Walker needs to look at his data - Las Vegas already takes 777-300ER aircraft and that aircraft has a higher weight footprint than the A380 does. If the tunnels can take the 777-300ER, then they can take the A380.
The problem is not the individual pound per square inch exerted per wheel which the A380 does effectively deal with, but the TOTAL weight and the strain it potentially puts on the tunnel structure. A tunnel can potentially take the pounds per square inch just fine, but collapse due to the substantially greater total weight placed by the A380. If you read the article I linked to, LAX didn't upgrade underground structures specifically to accommodate the A380 for the heck of it, they did so because they calculated it was necessary to do so due to the greater weight of the plane involved. (The 777-300ER has been flying into Los Angeles International Airport for awhile.)
Actually the A380 can operate out of as many airfields as the 747 can - the reason it isn't planned to is because of passenger offload and FOD issues (the outer engines overhang taxiways, causing a potential foreign object debris issue, but at these airports the A380 would simply taxi on the inner engines only).
This is incorrect.
I don't know if the taxing on inner engines is really viable, but there are other problems at some airports. (The odd thing is enlarging taxiways appears to have been treated as mandatory for all airports getting the A380, and you think some would just resort to the alternative you suggested if it was really safe and perfectly viable without problems.)
However there are additional issues at some US airports for instance...
Randall Walker, the Las Vegas airport's aviation director, said he rebuffed an Airbus request to become an emergency alternative airport for A380s destined for Los Angeles.
Walker said it's not even clear that the airport's underground tunnels could handle the weight of the airplane.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4188/is_20050215/ai_n11501106/pg_2?tag=artBody;col1/
Basically reinforcing the tunnels to handle the A380s weight is something which certainly won't get done unless an airport is seeing regular A380 service. Similar situations exist at a variety of airports in which runways go over roads. However not being able to use various airports is a serious limitation for Air Force One which will regularly get used wherever the US President wants to fly somewhere. It also is a potential issue in that it limits the number of locations the aircraft can ultimately choose to land in an emergency situation.
You can find a direct link to a mirror of the trailer at this link.
Along with the 5 video diaries that you can also find at the official site, an additional video diary with a behind the scenes look at the how the special effects for the production were done is also available at this link.
Among other things you get a longer glimpse at the space battle scene shown in the trailer.
Obviously Red Hat has been paying attention to the arguments made on /.
"SCO itself, however, has been publicly distributing the LINUX operating system, including the LINUX code, for at least five years. Regcognizing the inconsistency between its claim of "trade secret" missapropriation and its public disclosures of the same allegedly secret information, in May 2003 SCO public stated it would no longer disribute LINUX. However, that statement too is false. SCO continues to offer LINUX source code for public downloading today- more than four months after SCO sued IBM for disclosing UNIX "trade secrets" that SCO coninues to disclose itself."
http://lwn.net/images/ns/rh-complaint.pdf
Check out the Distributed Folding Project The project is run a non-profit institution and is focussed on medical research. The project has very strong multi-platform support, and actually runs BETTER on Linux in relation to Windows. A summary of the science behind the project can be found here.
Another interesting distributed computing project is the Distributed Folding Project. The project uses its computing resources to predict the shape of proteins after they "fold." Since this is the shape they actually are in while inside living organisms, being able to quickly and easily determine their shape could have major ramifications for medical research. Additional infromation about the science behind the project can be found on this page.
But can the games be played on this type of palm?
There are other distributed computing projects also seeking to cure diseases such as [URL=http://sushi.dbestern.net/distributedfolding/ index.php]The Distributed Folding Project.[/URL]
This project is particularly good at supporting different operating system such as Linux, FreeBSD, etc.
Historicly the principle behind changing a businesses's methods was that if doing so gave the company a temporary competative advantage over the competition, then it was worthwhile. While the competitor could attempt to imitate the other company, if the change in business practices was difficult to implement for the first company, then it will usually be difficult for the second company to sucessfully adopt the other company's business practices. By the time the competition adopt the new methods, the company who initially made the change should have made a great deal of money from adopting the new business technique first, generally more then it cost the company to implement the idea in the first place. An example of this would be Henry Ford when he adopted the assembly line bussiness method of building model T cars. The innovation cut the cost of building the cars by over half, and made Ford an enourmous amount of money. Henry Ford was not able to patent the bussiness method of the assembly line, and eventually competitors were able to copy Ford's assembly line procedure. However, Ford had been able to become the dominent car maker in the US in the meantime. If Ford had been able to patent the idea of a company using assembly line techniques it would have drasticly slowed the spread of mass production techniques in the US, and this would have had very negative implications for the growth of the US and world economies. A modern example of a business sucessfully using a business method the achieve sucess is Dell. Dell was the first computer company to sucessfully implement a direct order system for buying personal computers. Since there was not a middle man marking up the cost of Dell's computers to the customers, Dell could either offer their computers for less then the competition, or make more money on each sale. After Dell's competitors tried to imitate Dell's strategy, they found that they needed to resolve the same difficulties that Dell had to solve in order to get the direct order system to work. In addition, Dell's established competitors were afraid of alienating the stores that they were currently selling their computers to if they went to a direct order system, and were reluctant to take the risk of changing how they operated. Therefore, without needing to patent ordering computers over the telephone, or buying computers over the internet, Dell was able to take advantage of their new business technique to become one of the most sucessful companies of the 1990's. Business patents are not necessary as an incentive for companies to inovate, and they simply impede the growth of the economy.