But publicly decrying Cnet news they're setting a precedent.
This is always worth losing my mod points for: THAT DIDN'T FUCKING HAPPEN.
Google didn't issue a fucking press release, they just wouldn't give them any more interviews. OK? CNet then wrote a whinging article about how Google wasn't talking to them, the crybabies.
Personally I do think Google is morally justified, but whether or not they are, they still weren't 'publicly decrying', just ignoring, CNet.
It is. Electric heaters generally are. All the energy put in turns into heat or light or momentum... even if some of that heat is in the electrolysis unit. In the end, the only waste here is the pretty effect and the unnecessary motion of particles - not a lot at all.
On the other hand, the ecological manufacture costs will be a lot more than a simple bar heater - but a lot less than burning coal in the home.
You're talking specifically about an ionic solution - you can have anionic solutions too. In a suspension you should be able to get the stuff out by, say, centrifuging, but in an anionic solution (or, obviously, an ionic one) you won't.
There's an issue for me in putting private information that could be found if someone actually looked for it onto a forum that thousands of people read (even if they only read it cos they don't know any better).
That's why journos have codes of conduct. Because it may not be illegal and it may not be that hard to do, but it can still be wrong.
if the nanotubes were in solution, they wouldn't be nanotubes any more.
Not so. You can have macromolecules is solution without destroying them. For example, fullerene dissolves in toluene. The molecules don't break up, but they acquire a coating of toluene molecules on the surface which means that they act as part of the liquid instead of a solid. When the toluene is evaporated, the buckys are fine.
In fact, there's a good chance these nanotubes are bucky-derived so they might even be in a toluene solution in TFA (which I haven't read cos I don't care about chip manufacture, I was just reading for the '+5 Funny's).
I can think of no occasion ever in the history of the world when *starting* a war solved a problem. In most people's opinions your statement is simply insanse: war is the problem.
Can you tell me one instance in history where one country managed to change another country's system of government by war without permanent occupation? Is I see it, The US has a long record of trying, and none whatsoever of success (Iran, Iraq, Vietnam for starter).
Anyway, no, I really do give up. Trying to bomb someone into democracy is ludicrous, but you'll have to work that one out for yourselves.
Aid. Nothing else will ever work./Especially/ attempting to bomb people into democracy.
I'm not sure that we will ever be able live in a world free of nutters who want to strike out at what they percieve as detestable. I am there, of course, referring to both the dispossed of the Middle East and the current US administration. Both their actions provide re-inforcing feedback to the other and lead us all to hell. As Iain Banks put it, to stop a fight, someone has to be big enough to take the last hit(s) and not hit back.
The UN - generally considered fairly democratic - has had quite a few complaints (resolutions) about Israel, which the US block as much as it can. Read up on it.
Israel has invaded large areas of the Middle East on which it has no claim apart from the Bible(!) and forced the original occupants of Palestine off the only decent land in the area, leaving over a million people living in squalor in an area the size of the Isle of Wight. Who backed them with the weapons and money to do it? The US. I have no idea why, hence referring to it as 'strange'. I know that that action was partly in response to attack by the Arab nations, but taking over the land was never going to help their case or bring peace.
Your first para doesn't actually back up your assertion that the average Muslim is taught that suicide bombers are godly. I think this shows your blinkers are on, and your willingness to believe tabloid-style news. I should point out that I, a white Brit, speak (basic) Arabic and have visited the area, and you are just plain wrong, or else speaking only of war areas like Lebanon where all bets are off.
The war hasn't recruited anyone to the 'cause' that didn't already believe in it. It just gave them a convenient drive-in location to be killed, instead of leaving them to plot and plan and come to the US to kill us.
I give up. This is the most absurd, dangerous and downright wrong statement I have heard in ages. You are Don Rumsfeld and I claim my five pounds.
I think you're wrong in every way, and you think I am. We will have to revisit this conversation in ten years. By then, I think history will have judged that the US's international actions (from the strange alliance with Israel to the random military interventions) made the world a much less safe place for all.
Strange... you understand that extreme belief groups are responsible for terrorism, yet describe the average muslim in a way which I think is utterly wrong to the point of foolishness. The average Muslim is simply not taught that 'God smiles upon people who blow themselves up to kill non-Muslims'. What makes you think that is the case?
I will have to disagree with you on the best way to stop terrorism. As far as I can see, the events of the last two years have massively increased the danger from terrorism, recruited thousands to the 'cause' and done nothing whatsoever to reduce the problem. They did however, play well in the recent election campaign, although it appears the US public is wising up.
You're still wrong. Starting speculative wars against third parties with no solid and visible link to any campaign of action is only going to make more people all over the middle east and elsewhere hate and attack the US (and UK - thanks to our idiot for following your idiot).
No, no, no. Stop listening to Bush and start thinking instead.
Say after me: the war in Iraq has nothing whatsoever to do with 911. None of the bombers had any connection with Saddam Hussein or Iraq. Most of them were from a country the US considers an ally (even though it is a dictatorship with a poor human rights record).
Sorry, I see that that might read badly - I meant light for a/. reader. Comparing your stuff to the stuff The Times et al print, you're a light year ahead.
I think anyone who reads your stuff will know the bloke who suggested that article might be an MS plant is a berk. Plus if you're anything like the other BBC freelancers I vaguely know, you're prolly not paid particularly well by them either!
If I were a permy and had the luxury of picking fights without losing my job... but I'm not, I'm a contractor and so I'll have to put up with the luxuries of: leaving when I get bored; taking as much holiday as I can afford; not caring if they let malware run riot; and of course, taking home 50% more money;-)
At my last contract we were not permitted FF, and had to use IE on the grounds that the IS team had not done a security review of FF, but they had of IE. The policy was simply 'better the devil you know'.
I could see their point, up till I asked when they were going to do a review of FF - and they said they weren't.
I think some people just like banging their head on the wall at work, for the feeling of pleasure they get when they stop and go home.
Slashdot Mirror
This is always worth losing my mod points for: THAT DIDN'T FUCKING HAPPEN.
Google didn't issue a fucking press release, they just wouldn't give them any more interviews. OK? CNet then wrote a whinging article about how Google wasn't talking to them, the crybabies.
Personally I do think Google is morally justified, but whether or not they are, they still weren't 'publicly decrying', just ignoring, CNet.
J.
Actually, not an atlantic crossing (who cares which part of the atlantic you look at!) but the steamer to 'the east' ie India etc.
And yes, it would be posh to turn up - posh isn't just for steamships any more...
J.
Did they fail to teach you how to spell 'posh' or 'porsche'? It could be either...
Justin.
...that can be accessed from any machine, including at home or aproad, and never needs to have an update rolled out.
Can't just look at the downside you glass-half-empty fellow you!
J.
At a guess, they add a pinch of salt to the electrodes (which will need replacing once in a while anyway). Then you have ions, then it conducts.
J.
It is. Electric heaters generally are. All the energy put in turns into heat or light or momentum... even if some of that heat is in the electrolysis unit. In the end, the only waste here is the pretty effect and the unnecessary motion of particles - not a lot at all.
On the other hand, the ecological manufacture costs will be a lot more than a simple bar heater - but a lot less than burning coal in the home.
J.
You're talking specifically about an ionic solution - you can have anionic solutions too. In a suspension you should be able to get the stuff out by, say, centrifuging, but in an anionic solution (or, obviously, an ionic one) you won't.
J.
I take it at least one mod can't detect sarcasm, you insightful fellow you ;-)
That's why journos have codes of conduct. Because it may not be illegal and it may not be that hard to do, but it can still be wrong.
J.
Don't drive across bridge two unless you're in Chitty-chitty-bang-bang?
J.
Not so. You can have macromolecules is solution without destroying them. For example, fullerene dissolves in toluene. The molecules don't break up, but they acquire a coating of toluene molecules on the surface which means that they act as part of the liquid instead of a solid. When the toluene is evaporated, the buckys are fine.
In fact, there's a good chance these nanotubes are bucky-derived so they might even be in a toluene solution in TFA (which I haven't read cos I don't care about chip manufacture, I was just reading for the '+5 Funny's).
J.
I can think of no occasion ever in the history of the world when *starting* a war solved a problem. In most people's opinions your statement is simply insanse: war is the problem.
Can you tell me one instance in history where one country managed to change another country's system of government by war without permanent occupation? Is I see it, The US has a long record of trying, and none whatsoever of success (Iran, Iraq, Vietnam for starter).
Anyway, no, I really do give up. Trying to bomb someone into democracy is ludicrous, but you'll have to work that one out for yourselves.
J.
If they were not forced off their land, why are the Israelis not letting them back on it?
J.
Aid. Nothing else will ever work. /Especially/ attempting to bomb people into democracy.
I'm not sure that we will ever be able live in a world free of nutters who want to strike out at what they percieve as detestable. I am there, of course, referring to both the dispossed of the Middle East and the current US administration. Both their actions provide re-inforcing feedback to the other and lead us all to hell. As Iain Banks put it, to stop a fight, someone has to be big enough to take the last hit(s) and not hit back.
J.
The UN - generally considered fairly democratic - has had quite a few complaints (resolutions) about Israel, which the US block as much as it can. Read up on it.
Israel has invaded large areas of the Middle East on which it has no claim apart from the Bible(!) and forced the original occupants of Palestine off the only decent land in the area, leaving over a million people living in squalor in an area the size of the Isle of Wight. Who backed them with the weapons and money to do it? The US. I have no idea why, hence referring to it as 'strange'. I know that that action was partly in response to attack by the Arab nations, but taking over the land was never going to help their case or bring peace.
J.
The war hasn't recruited anyone to the 'cause' that didn't already believe in it. It just gave them a convenient drive-in location to be killed, instead of leaving them to plot and plan and come to the US to kill us.
I give up. This is the most absurd, dangerous and downright wrong statement I have heard in ages. You are Don Rumsfeld and I claim my five pounds.
I think you're wrong in every way, and you think I am. We will have to revisit this conversation in ten years. By then, I think history will have judged that the US's international actions (from the strange alliance with Israel to the random military interventions) made the world a much less safe place for all.
J.
Wahabism Delenda Est
Strange... you understand that extreme belief groups are responsible for terrorism, yet describe the average muslim in a way which I think is utterly wrong to the point of foolishness. The average Muslim is simply not taught that 'God smiles upon people who blow themselves up to kill non-Muslims'. What makes you think that is the case?
I will have to disagree with you on the best way to stop terrorism. As far as I can see, the events of the last two years have massively increased the danger from terrorism, recruited thousands to the 'cause' and done nothing whatsoever to reduce the problem. They did however, play well in the recent election campaign, although it appears the US public is wising up.
J.
Well googled.
You're still wrong. Starting speculative wars against third parties with no solid and visible link to any campaign of action is only going to make more people all over the middle east and elsewhere hate and attack the US (and UK - thanks to our idiot for following your idiot).
Justin.
You referred specifically to 'starting wars by blowing up Americans'. What on earth else were you referring to?
J.
No, no, no. Stop listening to Bush and start thinking instead.
Say after me: the war in Iraq has nothing whatsoever to do with 911. None of the bombers had any connection with Saddam Hussein or Iraq. Most of them were from a country the US considers an ally (even though it is a dictatorship with a poor human rights record).
J.
Hullo Bill ;-)
/. reader. Comparing your stuff to the stuff The Times et al print, you're a light year ahead.
Sorry, I see that that might read badly - I meant light for a
I think anyone who reads your stuff will know the bloke who suggested that article might be an MS plant is a berk. Plus if you're anything like the other BBC freelancers I vaguely know, you're prolly not paid particularly well by them either!
J.
J.
I bloody doubt it, unless you are suggesting The BBC's Bill Thompson is a shill.
J.
If I were a permy and had the luxury of picking fights without losing my job... but I'm not, I'm a contractor and so I'll have to put up with the luxuries of: leaving when I get bored; taking as much holiday as I can afford; not caring if they let malware run riot; and of course, taking home 50% more money ;-)
J.
At my last contract we were not permitted FF, and had to use IE on the grounds that the IS team had not done a security review of FF, but they had of IE. The policy was simply 'better the devil you know'.
I could see their point, up till I asked when they were going to do a review of FF - and they said they weren't.
I think some people just like banging their head on the wall at work, for the feeling of pleasure they get when they stop and go home.
Justin.