I've never been suprised by a contract, or its contracts. Maybe someday I will be, but I can comprehend the contents of a two page document without any trouble.
There is a reason that cases - like this one and many more - go to court: because the contract terms are unclear or unfair. I'll give you an example: Deep Vein Thrombosis. This is caused by long flights in aeroplanes, and is thought to be exacerbated by dehydration and lack of leg room (hence the alternative name of "economy class syndrome"). A reasonable number of people have died of this who have had travel insurance. One of the clauses in the insurance contact is "Death Bonefit", where the insurance company agrees to pay out in the case of death during the holiday - this is limited to death caused by accident or by external means. The question is "Will the policy pay out for death by DVT?".
The answer is "Nobody knows". In the UK (and many other countries) court action is being taken to settle the interpretation of the contract.
So, even if you did realise that you didn't understand your travel insurance contract, and had the contract reviewed by your lawyer, then you would still be no wiser than before. Any answer the lawyer would give you other than "I don't know" would be wrong as the question has not yet been decided.
Lawyer review may even put you in a worse position. When an individual signs a contract the playing field is tilted in his favour - the other side has lawyers, he doesn't. But when you have your contracts reviewed before signing the opposition can reasonably claim that that the playing field be untilted as both sides have had the luxury of legal review before entering the agreement.
It also lowers the internal resistance on the battery, and therefore raises slightly the voltage at the terminals. When you are powering electronic equipment it is just possible that from a weak battery you don't have enough volts until the battery is cold. Although I really doubt it happened in this case - Phone batteries generally have very flat voltage curves (i.e. the voltage only varies slightly with charge level) and they also have a sharp cut off (so when the voltage drops below the level needed to run the phone there is very little power left in the battery).
Damn - I remember people moaning about the first ening being a cliff-hanger. Can you imagine how upset they'd be if the film for the Two Towers finished in the same place as the book?
I saw one case here (in the UK) when the came out, and they did not have the CD logo on it that I could see. On the otherhand the warning label was not what you could describe as prominent, and the casual shopper would not spot it.
(Yay, giving the mental midgets from sales laptops was a great idea!)
I read an interesting theory about this a while ago - the reason that sales people appear stupid is that you are more likely to buy something from someone you think is less intelligent than you, as you think that you are getting a better deal.
So a salesman who appears thick, but is actually a shrewd negotiater, is ideal.
I had a friend who went there a cupple years ago and he was traveling in a group. They werent suposed to go traveling alone, and they had a government official with them when the group went out.
Hmm - not at all what I experienced. I went to Beijing about 10 years ago - also as part of a group. There were no restictions at all placed on us - there was an official interpreter, but no compulsion to go on the organised tours. I spent a lot of time wandering about. Things were a little tense as I was over there near the anniversary of Tiannemen Square (which I visited on the actual anniversary - that place is huge: jokingly I said beforehand it would take 1/2 hour to walk across it. This was an underestimate.), and there were a fair number of police wandering about. I even saw some dissidents being arrested (outside of the official government residence near Tianemmen Square).
One evening (armed with my trusty phrase book) I wandered into one of the large blocks that form neighbourhoods (these are 3 by 3 smaller blocks, and there seems to be some sort of district zoning thing going on). These are definitely not tourist places. In these I found a small resturant and proffering my phrase book opened to the resturant page I pointed at "What do you recommend?" and got what was easily the best meal I had there - and the cheapest by a mile.
Interestingly there was absolutly no problems at all in getting into China - send passport details to tour operator. The provided a group visa and we - literally - formed a line in the order of the names on the visa and walked through immigration. The whole thing took about 5 minutes. No problem getting out. This was the only place on the whole trip that photography was forbidden - in common with almost ever other immigration hall I've ever been in.
Admittedly I didn't go outside Beijing except to the Great Wall (although some others did) so things may well be diferent elsewhere. The only other place where there was a bit of an atmosphere was on the upper floors of the English Language Bookshop where the pirated software is reputedly sold.
So, yes, China is in some ways a closed nation, but nowhere near as controlled as you are making out. It is also a very odd place - when you first arrive at the western hotel (which looks like a hilton anywhere else in the world) and get in the taxi (whose drivers are nutters) and see the McDonalds, and Coke, and bright, neon, shop signs, it all seems comfortably familiar. OK - they don't speak the language but I'm from Europe - I'm used to not speaking the language when I'm on holiday. After a few days, however, you'll notice something that makes you realise how different this place is - for me it was realising that there were no advertisments.
IIRC, and I may be wrong (so prove it) there was a cult screening on a weeknight on UK terrestrial TV (Channel 4 I think) which was presented by Alex Cox
Almost - it was on BBC2, and was on Saturday nights from 1989 to 1994. He didn't chose the films either (but kudos to whoever did). He left, finally, because of an apparent BBC policy not to show subtitled films.
It was revived in 1997 with another presenter, but the film selection was not quite as good (still better than most).
And so are you. This is the case of Lawrence Godfrey vs Demon Internet. The case was that somebody had posted a message that was forged to look like it came from Dr Godfrey, and was defamatory of him. This much all the parties agreed on.
Dr Godfrey faxed several ISPs and news providers in the UK and asked them to remove the posting form their newsspools (a mostly futile act it has to be said). Most complied but Demon, presumably thinking he was a usenet kook, didn't. Dr Godfrey followed up with several more faxes requesting action, but Demon refused to comply. So he sued demon for libel, as they were publishing the message in question. After much legal bickering (including the novel argument of "he was asking for it") Demon lost. A good account can be found at cyberrights.
This is oft repeated, but is not true. Libel is defamation of character, not lies about somebody. It is perfectly possible to libel someone with the truth. One way is omission - saying about somebody "She attends the sexually transmitted diseases clinic daily." may well be truthful, but leaving out the fact that she is a nurse there makes it defamatory, and hence potentially libellous.
In some juristictions (such as the UK) there are classes of statements that, while true, are automatically considered defametory and therefore libellous - these are statements made about people with "spent" criminal convictions. Under the rehabilitation of offenders act it is libel to mention to any unqualified body about certain criminal offencese in a persons past. There are usually minor crimes, and they become spent after five years.
Libel must have a specific intent to be injurious
No intent is necessary, although presence of intent obviously influences damages.
must be a knowing falshood
Obviously not, in light of the previous answer. Neglecting that it is still not true. There is also recklessness: if you publish something with a disregard for whether it is true or not then you can be guilty of libel if it is false even if you didn't know it was false at the time.
But then there is another story not many people remember about someone doing work on creating a pump mechanism that you place in a river. Using the kinetic force of the movement of the water to power a pump to take some of the water from the river and push it thorugh a hose up a hill. This was a device that was just submerged in the water without the need to dam the river.
I'm not surprised that not many people remember it. What you have described is a hydralic ram, which was invented by the Montgolfier brothers (of ballon fame) in 1793. See here for the details.
a contract that says "if you finish this book I'll deliver the ending you're expecting." His ending fails that contract, since Yagharek's quest for flight is the thing that moves the plot.
Well, yes and no. Yagharek's quest was what moved the plot, but what moved the world was the interaction between the different species. And in that world Yagharek's quest was probably doomed to failure. There was always the tension between what the participants wanted and what the society demanded.
It could have been a happy ending for the individuals, but that would have been a cop-out. He did a good job of following the logic of the world to it's tragic conclusions.
I don't think there is the implicit contact to deliver the ending you're expecting anyway - the surprise twist is a standard literary device. There is only the contract to delivery the ending a story demands, and this ending was quite fitting.
Don't forget the spider with the scissor fetish either.
The most appealing thing about the novel I thought was the characterisation (for want of a better word) of the different species. Each of them behaved in a way that seemed alien but consistent, which is a hard trick to pull off (considering the number of oh-so-human aliens I've read about in other novels).
The balance of the technology and magic was done well also, and the internal rules governing them that became apparent also worked. A good read and a great world.
Yeah - and people who get stoned are really good drivers, too, I suppose?
Well, for some value of really good - see this for details.
Here is a paragraph from the report referenced:
Third, the style of driving performance after consumption of cannabis can be interpreted as cautious. Evidence of increased caution includes fewer overtaking attempts, larger distances required for overtaking, slower speeds, and larger headways. This caution can describe either the behaviour or the strategy of the driver. For example, cautious behaviour may arise without deliberation as a result of alterations in perception and control (e.g., distorted perception of time and space). Alternatively, a driver may decide upon a deliberate strategy to act cautiously by adopting a reduced threshold of acceptable risk. This decision may be motivated by the recognition of performance impairment. Of course, neither basis is mutually exclusive; changes in behaviour may be a result of both (unconscious) psychomotor impairment and (conscious) cognitive strategy.
The gene itself is not an invention, but testing for it certainly is.
Ah - but what is being patented is the gene, and as a consequence all possible tests for it. If they want to patent a test - using enzyme A and reagent B then that is fine. A blanket patent covering all possible test is not.
Elimination of patents
was not what I was suggesting. The thesis I was replying to was what possible reason other than for profit could a body have to pursue research. Consequent to this was the requirement to provide some mechanism for realising profit, which is this case happens to be an abuse of the patent system. The conclusion we were being invited to draw was the such abuse of the patent system was a worthwhile price to pay for the advancement in knowledge, partially because there was no other way that this advancement would come about.
Perhaps patents on genetic sequences are not legitimate because of the discovery vs. invention issue. But that can and should be fixed by far less radical means than your proposal.
My proposal was to stop issuing illegitimate patents, not that all patents are illegitimate - as a patent holder maintaining that all patents were illegitimate would be a slightly odd position to take.
And btw, why shouldn't the company that discovered the importance of the BRAC2 gene be rewarded for their work? What are the alternatives? (emphasis added).
I think you have answered your own question here - these are not inventions by any reasonable description, but discoveries. Just as in the same way you cannot patent a gold mine you cannot patent something that already exists (we'll, you can, but that is the bone of contention).
Patents aren't a reward for doing something socially useful, and should not be used as such. After all, Madame Wu did not get a patent on non-conservation of parity after performing the experiment on Co60, which is a much a discovery as the existence of the BRCA2 gene.
What are the alternatives?
You neglected to mention public funded and publically owned research, and private endowments to research institutions. I think either of these are better than the illegimate patents.
As good luck would have it, I started reading Shakespeare during my salad days. At one fell swoop, practically in the twinkling of an eye, the game was afoot: during those halcyon days, devouring his works, I was exceedingly well read. Now, even when I travel to all the corners of the world, and hopefully until I shuffle off this mortal coil, he will be my companion. He is a tower of strength.
Maybe one day the worm will turn, and the game will be up, but I think the cracks of doom will have opened and I'd be as cold as a stone before that happens - his plays are a dish fit for a God, and meat and drink for me.
Still, come what may, I'd advise you to learn of his contribution to English. All these phrases in bold are his. The language would be a sorry sight without him.
Import duty and VAT are payable on all imports, moron
Oh dear - gross oversimplification above (almost moronic). Right - import levies include
import duties
'additional duties' on flour and sugar
'countervailing charges' on fruit and vegetables
'variable charges' on processed goods
'compensatory charges' on oils and fats
'extra charges' on eggs, poultry or pig meat
'sugar levies' on processed goods with sugar in them
Value Added Tax (VAT)
excise duty on alcoholic beverages
depending on your import.
For example lets consider software. According to UK customs software can either be considered goods or services. If it is considered a good then it attracts VAT. If it is a service then it does not.
If you order a computer game (which is a good) the value of the package is less than 18GBP then you do not pay either VAT or import duty.
If you order scientific software for the purposes of research of value greater then 18GBP then you have to pay import duty but not VAT.
All these only apply if you are exporting into the UK from outside the EU - if you are inside the EU then there is no import duty but there may be VAT.
If you are importing e.g. Tin from the US to the EU then you do not have to pay import duty but you may have to pay VAT.
The best experiment is really a pair of them: Young's double slit experiment, and the photoelectric effect. Young's double slit experiment showed that light acted as a wave. The photo-electric effect showed that light acted as a particle. Together they showed that light acts completely unlike anything we experience in the classical world.
Both are simple, easily doable in the laboratory for undergraduates, and after doing (and comprehending) both you'll never again think the same way about light.
Oxygen (the gas we use when we breathe) is actually a posionous gas that life on earth has evolved to reley on. If oxygen is breathed at very low pressure it can kill you.
Yes - this is called suffocation. What (I think) you are trying to say is that oxygen can cause central nervous system toxicity at high pressures.
Life on this planet has evolved to the appropiate temperature, which ranges from penguins and polar bears is constant freezing conditions, to certain lizards and scorpions who survive in boiling dessert conditions.
I've never had a lizard or a scorpion in any dessert I've ever eaten. Oh - you mean desert...
I still don't know what the point of this fact is.
The building blocks of life on this planet are Amino Acids and proteins. These can be created from methane(Carbon and Hydrogeon), Hydrogeon-Cyanide(Carbon, Hyrdrogeon and Nitrogeon), Ammonia(Nitrogeon and Hydrogeon) and Water (Hydrogeon and oxygeon) which can be found on many planets.
Proteins are built of amino-acids, so proteins aren't really a building block per se. Amino Acids are one of the building blocks of life on this planet, and the constituents of amino acids are certainly ubiquitious. Nucleic acids are another key building block. But why do you assume that other life elsewhere uses proteins and amino-acids? I'd expect other life to be based on carbon chemistry (being the only element that forms chains with itself) but there is a huge range of chemistry available it would be extraordinary if it was DNA and amino-acid based. (Extraordinary for one of two reason: either life can only follow the DNA path, which would be very interesting; or it can follow other paths, but hasn't, which implies some common origin - possibly some panspermia type mechanism, or some sort of catalytic prelife process that tilts the odds vastly in favour of amino-acid/DNA organisms).
So what a lot of astornomers are looking for at the monent is planets, so at alter point that they can study these to see if they have the required elements to create/support any life, the chances of finding another planet with the same temperature range and air composition of earth is highly improbable.
Indeed, the presence of an oxygen containing atmosphere is a very strong indicator or life (the converse is not true - life existed on earth for millions of years before blue-green algae started starting polluting the place with nasty oxygen).
The temperature range is not that important - have a look at extremophiles in general and (my favourites) tardigrades in particular to have some idea of the flexibility of life. Remember these are organisms which developed on one planet.
Quantum phenomena are MICROSCOPIC (actually sub-nanoscopic) phenomena
Superconductivity, to name but one, is a macroscopic quantum phenomenon. So are superfluidity of liquid helium, lasers, Josephson junctions, Bose-Einstein condensates, the photo-electon effect, and numerous others (such as all of chemistry).
Slashdot Mirror
There is a reason that cases - like this one and many more - go to court: because the contract terms are unclear or unfair. I'll give you an example: Deep Vein Thrombosis. This is caused by long flights in aeroplanes, and is thought to be exacerbated by dehydration and lack of leg room (hence the alternative name of "economy class syndrome"). A reasonable number of people have died of this who have had travel insurance. One of the clauses in the insurance contact is "Death Bonefit", where the insurance company agrees to pay out in the case of death during the holiday - this is limited to death caused by accident or by external means. The question is "Will the policy pay out for death by DVT?".
The answer is "Nobody knows". In the UK (and many other countries) court action is being taken to settle the interpretation of the contract.
So, even if you did realise that you didn't understand your travel insurance contract, and had the contract reviewed by your lawyer, then you would still be no wiser than before. Any answer the lawyer would give you other than "I don't know" would be wrong as the question has not yet been decided.
Lawyer review may even put you in a worse position. When an individual signs a contract the playing field is tilted in his favour - the other side has lawyers, he doesn't. But when you have your contracts reviewed before signing the opposition can reasonably claim that that the playing field be untilted as both sides have had the luxury of legal review before entering the agreement.
their - possesive; e.g. their car.
That should be "possessive".
Only idiots can't keep this straight
If only you'd looked up, you'd have seen the joke go "whoosh" over your head.
Cooling batteries makes them discharge slower
It also lowers the internal resistance on the battery, and therefore raises slightly the voltage at the terminals. When you are powering electronic equipment it is just possible that from a weak battery you don't have enough volts until the battery is cold. Although I really doubt it happened in this case - Phone batteries generally have very flat voltage curves (i.e. the voltage only varies slightly with charge level) and they also have a sharp cut off (so when the voltage drops below the level needed to run the phone there is very little power left in the battery).
Damn - I remember people moaning about the first ening being a cliff-hanger. Can you imagine how upset they'd be if the film for the Two Towers finished in the same place as the book?
I saw one case here (in the UK) when the came out, and they did not have the CD logo on it that I could see. On the otherhand the warning label was not what you could describe as prominent, and the casual shopper would not spot it.
(Yay, giving the mental midgets from sales laptops was a great idea!)
I read an interesting theory about this a while ago - the reason that sales people appear stupid is that you are more likely to buy something from someone you think is less intelligent than you, as you think that you are getting a better deal.
So a salesman who appears thick, but is actually a shrewd negotiater, is ideal.
I had a friend who went there a cupple years ago and he was traveling in a group. They werent suposed to go traveling alone, and they had a government official with them when the group went out.
Hmm - not at all what I experienced. I went to Beijing about 10 years ago - also as part of a group. There were no restictions at all placed on us - there was an official interpreter, but no compulsion to go on the organised tours. I spent a lot of time wandering about. Things were a little tense as I was over there near the anniversary of Tiannemen Square (which I visited on the actual anniversary - that place is huge: jokingly I said beforehand it would take 1/2 hour to walk across it. This was an underestimate.), and there were a fair number of police wandering about. I even saw some dissidents being arrested (outside of the official government residence near Tianemmen Square).
One evening (armed with my trusty phrase book) I wandered into one of the large blocks that form neighbourhoods (these are 3 by 3 smaller blocks, and there seems to be some sort of district zoning thing going on). These are definitely not tourist places. In these I found a small resturant and proffering my phrase book opened to the resturant page I pointed at "What do you recommend?" and got what was easily the best meal I had there - and the cheapest by a mile.
Interestingly there was absolutly no problems at all in getting into China - send passport details to tour operator. The provided a group visa and we - literally - formed a line in the order of the names on the visa and walked through immigration. The whole thing took about 5 minutes. No problem getting out. This was the only place on the whole trip that photography was forbidden - in common with almost ever other immigration hall I've ever been in.
Admittedly I didn't go outside Beijing except to the Great Wall (although some others did) so things may well be diferent elsewhere. The only other place where there was a bit of an atmosphere was on the upper floors of the English Language Bookshop where the pirated software is reputedly sold.
So, yes, China is in some ways a closed nation, but nowhere near as controlled as you are making out. It is also a very odd place - when you first arrive at the western hotel (which looks like a hilton anywhere else in the world) and get in the taxi (whose drivers are nutters) and see the McDonalds, and Coke, and bright, neon, shop signs, it all seems comfortably familiar. OK - they don't speak the language but I'm from Europe - I'm used to not speaking the language when I'm on holiday. After a few days, however, you'll notice something that makes you realise how different this place is - for me it was realising that there were no advertisments.
L.A.S.E.R. It's an acronym you know.
Now look up acronym in the dictionary. You'll find it means "a word formed from...", so it's "laser".
Hell, look up laser in the dictionary.
Pedants'r'us
IIRC, and I may be wrong (so prove it) there was a cult screening on a weeknight on UK terrestrial TV (Channel 4 I think) which was presented by Alex Cox
Almost - it was on BBC2, and was on Saturday nights from 1989 to 1994. He didn't chose the films either (but kudos to whoever did). He left, finally, because of an apparent BBC policy not to show subtitled films.
It was revived in 1997 with another presenter, but the film selection was not quite as good (still better than most).
Details here
Unfortuantely you're wrong.
And so are you. This is the case of Lawrence Godfrey vs Demon Internet. The case was that somebody had posted a message that was forged to look like it came from Dr Godfrey, and was defamatory of him. This much all the parties agreed on.
Dr Godfrey faxed several ISPs and news providers in the UK and asked them to remove the posting form their newsspools (a mostly futile act it has to be said). Most complied but Demon, presumably thinking he was a usenet kook, didn't. Dr Godfrey followed up with several more faxes requesting action, but Demon refused to comply. So he sued demon for libel, as they were publishing the message in question. After much legal bickering (including the novel argument of "he was asking for it") Demon lost. A good account can be found at cyberrights.
Dr Godfrey is a University lecturer BTW.
Truth is never libel
This is oft repeated, but is not true. Libel is defamation of character, not lies about somebody. It is perfectly possible to libel someone with the truth. One way is omission - saying about somebody "She attends the sexually transmitted diseases clinic daily." may well be truthful, but leaving out the fact that she is a nurse there makes it defamatory, and hence potentially libellous.
In some juristictions (such as the UK) there are classes of statements that, while true, are automatically considered defametory and therefore libellous - these are statements made about people with "spent" criminal convictions. Under the rehabilitation of offenders act it is libel to mention to any unqualified body about certain criminal offencese in a persons past. There are usually minor crimes, and they become spent after five years.
Libel must have a specific intent to be injurious
No intent is necessary, although presence of intent obviously influences damages.
must be a knowing falshood
Obviously not, in light of the previous answer. Neglecting that it is still not true. There is also recklessness: if you publish something with a disregard for whether it is true or not then you can be guilty of libel if it is false even if you didn't know it was false at the time.
But then there is another story not many people remember about someone doing work on creating a pump mechanism that you place in a river. Using the kinetic force of the movement of the water to power a pump to take some of the water from the river and push it thorugh a hose up a hill. This was a device that was just submerged in the water without the need to dam the river.
I'm not surprised that not many people remember it. What you have described is a hydralic ram, which was invented by the Montgolfier brothers (of ballon fame) in 1793. See here for the details.
a contract that says "if you finish this book I'll deliver the ending you're expecting." His ending fails that contract, since Yagharek's quest for flight is the thing that moves the plot.
Well, yes and no. Yagharek's quest was what moved the plot, but what moved the world was the interaction between the different species. And in that world Yagharek's quest was probably doomed to failure. There was always the tension between what the participants wanted and what the society demanded.
It could have been a happy ending for the individuals, but that would have been a cop-out. He did a good job of following the logic of the world to it's tragic conclusions.
I don't think there is the implicit contact to deliver the ending you're expecting anyway - the surprise twist is a standard literary device. There is only the contract to delivery the ending a story demands, and this ending was quite fitting.
Don't forget the spider with the scissor fetish either.
The most appealing thing about the novel I thought was the characterisation (for want of a better word) of the different species. Each of them behaved in a way that seemed alien but consistent, which is a hard trick to pull off (considering the number of oh-so-human aliens I've read about in other novels).
The balance of the technology and magic was done well also, and the internal rules governing them that became apparent also worked. A good read and a great world.
Yeah - and people who get stoned are really good drivers, too, I suppose?
Well, for some value of really good - see this for details.
Here is a paragraph from the report referenced:
The gene itself is not an invention, but testing for it certainly is.
Ah - but what is being patented is the gene, and as a consequence all possible tests for it. If they want to patent a test - using enzyme A and reagent B then that is fine. A blanket patent covering all possible test is not.
Elimination of patents
was not what I was suggesting. The thesis I was replying to was what possible reason other than for profit could a body have to pursue research. Consequent to this was the requirement to provide some mechanism for realising profit, which is this case happens to be an abuse of the patent system. The conclusion we were being invited to draw was the such abuse of the patent system was a worthwhile price to pay for the advancement in knowledge, partially because there was no other way that this advancement would come about.
Perhaps patents on genetic sequences are not legitimate because of the discovery vs. invention issue. But that can and should be fixed by far less radical means than your proposal.
My proposal was to stop issuing illegitimate patents, not that all patents are illegitimate - as a patent holder maintaining that all patents were illegitimate would be a slightly odd position to take.
And btw, why shouldn't the company that discovered the importance of the BRAC2 gene be rewarded for their work? What are the alternatives? (emphasis added).
I think you have answered your own question here - these are not inventions by any reasonable description, but discoveries. Just as in the same way you cannot patent a gold mine you cannot patent something that already exists (we'll, you can, but that is the bone of contention).
Patents aren't a reward for doing something socially useful, and should not be used as such. After all, Madame Wu did not get a patent on non-conservation of parity after performing the experiment on Co60, which is a much a discovery as the existence of the BRCA2 gene.
What are the alternatives?
You neglected to mention public funded and publically owned research, and private endowments to research institutions. I think either of these are better than the illegimate patents.
Maybe one day the worm will turn, and the game will be up, but I think the cracks of doom will have opened and I'd be as cold as a stone before that happens - his plays are a dish fit for a God, and meat and drink for me.
Still, come what may, I'd advise you to learn of his contribution to English. All these phrases in bold are his. The language would be a sorry sight without him.
Oh dear - gross oversimplification above (almost moronic). Right - import levies include
depending on your import.
For example lets consider software. According to UK customs software can either be considered goods or services. If it is considered a good then it attracts VAT. If it is a service then it does not.
If you order a computer game (which is a good) the value of the package is less than 18GBP then you do not pay either VAT or import duty.
If you order scientific software for the purposes of research of value greater then 18GBP then you have to pay import duty but not VAT.
All these only apply if you are exporting into the UK from outside the EU - if you are inside the EU then there is no import duty but there may be VAT.
If you are importing e.g. Tin from the US to the EU then you do not have to pay import duty but you may have to pay VAT.
The best experiment is really a pair of them: Young's double slit experiment, and the photoelectric effect. Young's double slit experiment showed that light acted as a wave. The photo-electric effect showed that light acted as a particle. Together they showed that light acts completely unlike anything we experience in the classical world.
Both are simple, easily doable in the laboratory for undergraduates, and after doing (and comprehending) both you'll never again think the same way about light.
Oxygen (the gas we use when we breathe) is actually a posionous gas that life on earth has evolved to reley on. If oxygen is breathed at very low pressure it can kill you.
Yes - this is called suffocation. What (I think) you are trying to say is that oxygen can cause central nervous system toxicity at high pressures.
Life on this planet has evolved to the appropiate temperature, which ranges from penguins and polar bears is constant freezing conditions, to certain lizards and scorpions who survive in boiling dessert conditions.
I've never had a lizard or a scorpion in any dessert I've ever eaten. Oh - you mean desert...
I still don't know what the point of this fact is.
The building blocks of life on this planet are Amino Acids and proteins. These can be created from methane(Carbon and Hydrogeon), Hydrogeon-Cyanide(Carbon, Hyrdrogeon and Nitrogeon), Ammonia(Nitrogeon and Hydrogeon) and Water (Hydrogeon and oxygeon) which can be found on many planets.
Proteins are built of amino-acids, so proteins aren't really a building block per se. Amino Acids are one of the building blocks of life on this planet, and the constituents of amino acids are certainly ubiquitious. Nucleic acids are another key building block. But why do you assume that other life elsewhere uses proteins and amino-acids? I'd expect other life to be based on carbon chemistry (being the only element that forms chains with itself) but there is a huge range of chemistry available it would be extraordinary if it was DNA and amino-acid based. (Extraordinary for one of two reason: either life can only follow the DNA path, which would be very interesting; or it can follow other paths, but hasn't, which implies some common origin - possibly some panspermia type mechanism, or some sort of catalytic prelife process that tilts the odds vastly in favour of amino-acid/DNA organisms).
So what a lot of astornomers are looking for at the monent is planets, so at alter point that they can study these to see if they have the required elements to create/support any life, the chances of finding another planet with the same temperature range and air composition of earth is highly improbable.
Indeed, the presence of an oxygen containing atmosphere is a very strong indicator or life (the converse is not true - life existed on earth for millions of years before blue-green algae started starting polluting the place with nasty oxygen).
The temperature range is not that important - have a look at extremophiles in general and (my favourites) tardigrades in particular to have some idea of the flexibility of life. Remember these are organisms which developed on one planet.
Quantum phenomena are MICROSCOPIC (actually sub-nanoscopic) phenomena
Superconductivity, to name but one, is a macroscopic quantum phenomenon. So are superfluidity of liquid helium, lasers, Josephson junctions, Bose-Einstein condensates, the photo-electon effect, and numerous others (such as all of chemistry).
how about putting a permanent link on the main page that would allow anybody to quickly find their senator/congressman's contact information
Because not everyone has a senator/congressman?
Windows 2000/XP Professional only allows a maximum of 5 inbound CLIENT connections.
Wrong. The number is 10. See Q122920 for the details.
Sheesh - maybe if I keep saying it people will learn.
10 simultaneous connections will serve only 1-3 simultaneous clients.
It can simultaneously service 10 different IP addresses - that's what it means by clients. See Q122920 for chapter and verse.