No, no-one is obliged to be fed, or looked after, within a welfare state. The language of 'enforcement' doesn't make any sense. In any free nation, It's citizens are willing, happy collaborators of their society.
No man should have more rights than any other. No man should be denied a fair job with fair pay. No man should be hungry. Or uncared for when ill or old or disabled. No man should be denied a point of view. No man should be uneducated. Anything done on behalf of, in the interest of, or impinging in any way upon, should be done with informed consent. Rights outweigh freedoms. Democracy isn't just about voting, it's about being able to take part, to lobby, to represent, and to be represented.
I am against 'enforcement' as you put it. But I am deeply in favour of a common pool of resources, contributed to by all, and given to those whose needs are greatest.
I am not a US citizen, my views don't match any US polarity. my experience of a welfare state has been really positive. Imagine if you set up the state of "Libertaria" and it got hit by a plague, a tornado, flooding, and a massive crime wave; and the federal govt. said, "sorry, you don't pay federal taxes, you are on your own". Would that feel fair, or good? One feature of a centralised government is that it can deal very well with local crises, because it receives taxes from a large, stable area. This is one of the problems that inherently faces a decentralised state, regardless of it's polity.
Taxation creates jobs - it's involved in paying for the armed forces, the healthcare system, the educators, libraries, road networks, housing, new industry, and a whole lot of other stuff.
As for the rest of what you say, I don't think it applies, as I'm not a resident of the USA, as I made clear in my first post.
Read the first sentence of my original post. There was no twisting involved. It's a different culture. I'm happy, content, satisfied and fulfilled. I don't need a shrink.
So that's the difference, I guess. For me, I don't see taxation as an obligation, but a privilege. Someone who doesn't want to pay taxes, can emigrate - and they do, all the time. We always have choices, unless we are in a police state.
Taxation is nothing more than a state charity. Your system depends upon charities competing with each other, lobbying, and marketing themselves (in the same advertising space as big industry - so most of their money gets eaten up by marketing), whereas a centralised mandatory charity doesn't need to do that. And I get to vote in who spends my money - and they do their best to listen to what I say.
I wish you had responded to my remarks about freedoms vs. rights. Taxation we will never agree upon. Just like I said in the first sentence of my original post.
No. The government provides a currency as well as it can. It does what it can to meet the population's needs. It's not great at it - many politicians are self-obsessed parasitic grubs - but not all of them.
The money that is used in taxes provides armed forces, universal healthcare, universal education, food, clothing and shelter for those who are out of work, pensions, transportation, social projects (such as supporting new and emerging industries). 5% of it goes to paying interest, which is a bit annoying.
It's a bit like a centrally organised compulsory charity, the governers of which are voted into position by me and my fellow citizens. Why would I be bitter about helping my nation? It gives me the ability to live the life that I choose, and provides fundamental rights for everyone within it.
Rather than judging the success of a society by looking at the richest of the rich or the poorest of the poor, why not examine the median?
Because it's the dispossessed, the forgotten, the miserable, who become extremists, because they are excluded, and feel no sense of belonging towards the country that is responsible for them.
It's arbitrary, yes. But if the last man, woman or child is fed, warm, educated, and paid a fair wage, the social cost of the country is gone.
But, remember, you (and 250,000,000+ like you) voted for each successive federal government.
I'm sure that it must feel pretty heavy knowing that you live in one of the greatest democracies, which happens to be the greatest economy in the world also; it saddens me that big business likes to keep the wool over voter's eyes, and that the media are run by interests which really aren't shared by the citizen, as they are driven by viewer figures, (or readership numbers) which themselves appear to be based on what is the most exciting information, regardless of agenda.
You are right - most western european countries have given up empire as a bad idea - not because it's evil, but because in the end it costs too much. But most of us have had a go - Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Holland, France, Germany, and the UK - to name and shame the most of them.
I wouldn't give up on taxation for the federal (or local) government - the political infrastructure isn't broken, just the laws governing business interest, but it is about time =again= that the US citizen stood up and got counted. It's a shame that the population is so easily divided, so easily hoodwinked about what the real issues are - and so easily led to the slaughterhouse.
FYI, My wife and I earn over $150,000 a year (about half each) and pay 40% income tax on most of it. We pay 20% VAT on everything we purchase. We pay massive duty on fuel. Of the remainder, about 15% of our income goes to various charities. I am proud to pay taxes, and feel that it is a great privilege to do so.
Of course, you are a troll who cannot spell. But never mind! You have the right to be a troll. No offence taken.
I am not suggesting that taxation is used to make payouts. The point is that liberty is about freedom, and freedom is founded on rights. Those rights are where all liberty starts. The right not to be hungry. The right to healthcare. The right to education. The right to vote. The right to work. The right to warmth, clothing and shelter. The right to be protected and looked after when you are flooded, your home destroyed, or your land invaded, or you or your family merely get old, or sick. The more fundamental rights a nation is able to give it's population, the better that nation is, but some of those come at a price, which is taxation. In my mind at least, rights take precedence over freedom. The right not to be harmed takes precedence over the freedom to harm. A huge amount of rights vs. freedom is about the ability to give consent, which requires the asking of it. Maybe if your friend had asked for consent, he wouldn't have ended up involved in the interlocution you describe.
I guess that there's nothing that distances the US from western europe more than the attitude towards taxation. I like to pay taxes - I feel that contributing to my nation is a great way of demonstrating true patriotism. The money is used to benefit those who are less advantaged than me. I cannot believe that anyone who has substantially lived in a country that offers universal healthcare would ever dream of going back to any other system, regardless of the fact that such a system entails taxation.
Likewise, the way in which I judge the success of a country is not by the looking at the elites, but by measuring the sense of fulfilment of the least advantaged; it's a different way of seeing the world, I guess.
As for liberty, doesn't that tie in strongly with what one identifies as the individual - i.e., who one is responsible for? For instance, a family man may wish to fight for the liberty of his family, rather than just himself, - his sense of self is tied into what he is responsible for. Likewise, a good politician works for the benefit of the entire country (or state), with no self-interest - he identifies with the needs of who he is responsible for. In my mind, the larger the community one can be responsible for (and identify with) the more mature one becomes, and the more worthy of respect and honour.
So, if we take on the view that liberty for all is the highest possible achievement, then we find that the libertarian view is not different from the socialist one - there is a need for taxation in order to provide liberty to those who cannot otherwise achieve it - for training, for support, and for developing a sense of value, so that even the most humble person may feel great about the society within which they belong.
I probably left everyone behind by this point. Thank goodness everyone believes in the right to freedom of thought.
Have a look at http://education.mit.edu/projects/starlogo-tng It's available in English, Spanish, Brazilian Portuguese, and Greek - so it should be localizable - certainly for latin-based languages. I'm unaffiliated..
"The only thing you can do is draw pretty pictures" That is just not true.
Although it's initial purpose was to create a math land where kids could play with words and sentences, Logo was most often taught via turtle graphics - which provided a set of visual cues to understand the nature of the underlying structures of languages such as the stack and program counters and also helped to develop debugging skills. Likewise the fact that recursion is Logo's preferred processing paradigm is, IMO, quite remarkable. Logo's initial weaknesses were to do with an absence of concurrency and limited IO. Modern variants such as StarLogo and NetLogo address many of those issues and are used to examine emergent systems and AI.
Scratch runs on Squeak, a variant of Smalltalk, which was inspired by Logo, which itself is a dialect of Lisp.
If your kids are strongly visual, and want to work with graphics manipulation, then Scratch is ok. If they like robotics and want to work in the real world, then Lego mindstorms is alright (for simple projects) both choices the kids will be involved in as much non-programming as coding - as design (2d or 3d) will absorb their time.
Logo is a pure programming language, which is going to encourage good application design, but it's really important to find a good guide for them - it's also nice (but not necessary by any means) if you can find a turtle. At education college we were encouraged to teach logo, and it was a position that I agree on. The only potential issue is that it is not 'C'-like but that's a syntax issue.
There are also programming games which help develop Logo skills - not computer games - family games - such as you being a robot, and asking the kids to give you orders to do something - you can give them a starting lexicon of very few commands, and ask them to take you to the kitchen. Note that angles are often best addressed with quarter-turns: left, right, turn-around, etc. Then later on introduce something like 'bit-left' or 'little-left'. So a lexicon of forward,back,left,right,stop is often a good start. Then parameterising forward: eg forward 50..
The primary advantages are that they get time to have fun with their Dad, (and you with them) and you can design the language fluidly according to their ability. Later on you can easily add function definitions using eg "to": eg. "Dad, to square, repeat 4 times forward 5 right"
AFAIK none of them have very good debugging tools, and IMO debugging is where most early coders find out if they have enough stamina to want to code, so games like above help you to give suggestions. Likewise, with logo (turtle graphics) - at first anyway- you can act out the programme which can help.
Logo isn't just graphics - it's a simplified form of lisp.
Sique, IIRC the frequency of photon oscillation is proportional to their energy. It is the speed (not oscillation) of light which is constant - and speed depends upon distance, which (as mentioned) was infinite (but wrapped up tight) at the big bang.
It's been a while since I looked at big bang physics, but I seem to recall that time itself 'begins' at the big bang. Rather than it being like a clock that starts ticking at a constant rate, time itself begins to slow down (so the first few moments of the universe take a very long time, but the time itself is squashed up very tightly). There was no 'first second' - just a space-time singularity. (Apparent time would be infinite but take no time. Apparent space would be infinite but take no space).
Secondly, there is no such thing as a universal clock. We've known this since the beginning of the last century. Even our local time (and it's measurement) varies. So what does it mean to give an absolute figure (in years, no less) to the age of the universe?
So I would appreciate it if someone can set me straight here.
Why focus on the voting mechanism? It's like testing the quality of a democracy by looking at the voting procedure in the house of commons. The weakness, as is always the case, is human accountability. This is just as true within a theocratic oligarchy as it is within a representative democracy.
Anyone who thinks that powerful interests have no sway in the election of a pontiff is uneducated in history and blissfully naive.
I have been in charge of the development of an OSS (GPL) language - albeit very different from the one mentioned in the OP - called Obyx (cf. http://www.obyx.org/ ). Our motivation for OSS was so that clients would feel less bound to a proprietary model. We use (and love to use) Obyx for the development and deployment of dynamic web services. The actual effect of changing the license model (much of our remaining software is proprietary and closed) has been nominal - it has meant that we have shifted more of our income from build/production to support/maintenance services. As a direct income provider, Obyx has given us none. We haven't seen a big uptake of the language (we haven't promoted it), so the number of coders is in the tens.
However, when evaluating our decision, I talked to various individuals and organisations who found that OSS licenses can have a dramatic uptake to it's useage. This is most often the case when the software is chosen to be rolled out as a component of a Linux, when users (and interest) may jump to millions overnight. However, such events are rather like winning the lottery.
In retrospect, outside of CS theory, there really isn't a strong demand for new languages. Secondly, what is your motivation? Direct income, or uptake? These two are not always compatible. As I have implied, selling a language is not going to work in the long term. Languages themselves, to survive, must be free (as in beer) to use to the programmers. Language support services (and the services that you sell that use the language you develop) however, are all legitimate income sources.
We are among the developers who have had to change a memory game on the app store due to this widespread trademark infringement claim. Generics only apply to trademark law in the USA. We were bitter about the change - the use of the phrase "memory game" -isn't- trademarked AFAIK, and it seems trite to look at a single word embedded within a much longer title.
Anyhow, our feeling was that this entire fiasco will probably backfire with bad press. We really wanted to change the game only in those territories which are trademarked, but that's not so easy with the current App store model.
For your information, here are the territories at issue:
Armenia, Austria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Belarus, Belgium, Brazil,Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Egypt, Equador, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, India, Italy, Latvia,Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Montenegro, Netherlands, Norway, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Russian Federation, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Korea, Spain, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine and Venezuela.
We are based in the UK and it made no difference to the takedown notice.
Reading one of the articles ( http://researchcommons.waikato.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10289/3622/Hogg%20Intcal09%20and%20Marine09.pdf ) seems to make it clear that the Lake Suigetsu project is a player, but only one of many, in the project to develop a better INTCAL chronology. It may be obvious to some, but any single dataset is not particularly useful until it is corroborated with many others. The Suigetsu project has been at work for several years and, although there has been some revision made to their baseline data, it hardly seems like headline news.
OTOH, it's always great to hear what scientists have been up to, regardless of the field.
How did the group refute suggestions that a nation state was behind the attack? Did it open it's books, and declare it's sponsors? Or did it just deny that a nation state was behind the attack? In which case it failed to refute anything - it merely disputed something.
Let them make the mistakes. Go cheap. Go even cheaper. It worked quite well with Windows. It failed with the Zune. It will fail with this release of Surface also. Asking all your customers to buy a new copy of MS Office? Not a great idea.
I loved the MS idea of a fully collaborative,contextually aware, common screen surface. If they could get that working outside of marketing videos, cheap enough for the consumer, it could be quite fun.
The planets are merely aligned in the same plane - and not perfectly.
When I first read the headline, I was expecting to read about a ring of planets sharing the same orbit - what would be equivalent to the first stage of maneuver for the development of a niven ring or even a dyson sphere. Now that would have been exciting news.
Slashdot Mirror
No, no-one is obliged to be fed, or looked after, within a welfare state. The language of 'enforcement' doesn't make any sense. In any free nation, It's citizens are willing, happy collaborators of their society.
No man should have more rights than any other.
No man should be denied a fair job with fair pay.
No man should be hungry. Or uncared for when ill or old or disabled.
No man should be denied a point of view.
No man should be uneducated.
Anything done on behalf of, in the interest of, or impinging in any way upon, should be done with informed consent.
Rights outweigh freedoms.
Democracy isn't just about voting, it's about being able to take part, to lobby, to represent, and to be represented.
I am against 'enforcement' as you put it. But I am deeply in favour of a common pool of resources, contributed to by all, and given to those whose needs are greatest.
I am not a US citizen, my views don't match any US polarity. my experience of a welfare state has been really positive. Imagine if you set up the state of "Libertaria" and it got hit by a plague, a tornado, flooding, and a massive crime wave; and the federal govt. said, "sorry, you don't pay federal taxes, you are on your own". Would that feel fair, or good? One feature of a centralised government is that it can deal very well with local crises, because it receives taxes from a large, stable area. This is one of the problems that inherently faces a decentralised state, regardless of it's polity.
Taxation creates jobs - it's involved in paying for the armed forces, the healthcare system, the educators, libraries, road networks, housing, new industry, and a whole lot of other stuff.
As for the rest of what you say, I don't think it applies, as I'm not a resident of the USA, as I made clear in my first post.
Read the first sentence of my original post. There was no twisting involved. It's a different culture.
I'm happy, content, satisfied and fulfilled. I don't need a shrink.
So that's the difference, I guess. For me, I don't see taxation as an obligation, but a privilege. Someone who doesn't want to pay taxes, can emigrate - and they do, all the time. We always have choices, unless we are in a police state.
Taxation is nothing more than a state charity. Your system depends upon charities competing with each other, lobbying, and marketing themselves (in the same advertising space as big industry - so most of their money gets eaten up by marketing), whereas a centralised mandatory charity doesn't need to do that. And I get to vote in who spends my money - and they do their best to listen to what I say.
I wish you had responded to my remarks about freedoms vs. rights. Taxation we will never agree upon. Just like I said in the first sentence of my original post.
No. The government provides a currency as well as it can. It does what it can to meet the population's needs. It's not great at it - many politicians are self-obsessed parasitic grubs - but not all of them.
The money that is used in taxes provides armed forces, universal healthcare, universal education, food, clothing and shelter for those who are out of work, pensions, transportation, social projects (such as supporting new and emerging industries). 5% of it goes to paying interest, which is a bit annoying.
It's a bit like a centrally organised compulsory charity, the governers of which are voted into position by me and my fellow citizens. Why would I be bitter about helping my nation? It gives me the ability to live the life that I choose, and provides fundamental rights for everyone within it.
Rather than judging the success of a society by looking at the richest of the rich or the poorest of the poor, why not examine the median?
Because it's the dispossessed, the forgotten, the miserable, who become extremists, because they are excluded, and feel no sense of belonging towards the country that is responsible for them.
It's arbitrary, yes. But if the last man, woman or child is fed, warm, educated, and paid a fair wage, the social cost of the country is gone.
Hey AC, don't get me wrong.
But, remember, you (and 250,000,000+ like you) voted for each successive federal government.
I'm sure that it must feel pretty heavy knowing that you live in one of the greatest democracies, which happens to be the greatest economy in the world also; it saddens me that big business likes to keep the wool over voter's eyes, and that the media are run by interests which really aren't shared by the citizen, as they are driven by viewer figures, (or readership numbers) which themselves appear to be based on what is the most exciting information, regardless of agenda.
You are right - most western european countries have given up empire as a bad idea - not because it's evil, but because in the end it costs too much. But most of us have had a go - Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Holland, France, Germany, and the UK - to name and shame the most of them.
I wouldn't give up on taxation for the federal (or local) government - the political infrastructure isn't broken, just the laws governing business interest, but it is about time =again= that the US citizen stood up and got counted. It's a shame that the population is so easily divided, so easily hoodwinked about what the real issues are - and so easily led to the slaughterhouse.
FYI, My wife and I earn over $150,000 a year (about half each) and pay 40% income tax on most of it. We pay 20% VAT on everything we purchase. We pay massive duty on fuel. Of the remainder, about 15% of our income goes to various charities.
I am proud to pay taxes, and feel that it is a great privilege to do so.
Of course, you are a troll who cannot spell. But never mind! You have the right to be a troll. No offence taken.
I am not suggesting that taxation is used to make payouts. The point is that liberty is about freedom, and freedom is founded on rights. Those rights are where all liberty starts. The right not to be hungry. The right to healthcare. The right to education. The right to vote. The right to work. The right to warmth, clothing and shelter. The right to be protected and looked after when you are flooded, your home destroyed, or your land invaded, or you or your family merely get old, or sick. The more fundamental rights a nation is able to give it's population, the better that nation is, but some of those come at a price, which is taxation. In my mind at least, rights take precedence over freedom. The right not to be harmed takes precedence over the freedom to harm. A huge amount of rights vs. freedom is about the ability to give consent, which requires the asking of it. Maybe if your friend had asked for consent, he wouldn't have ended up involved in the interlocution you describe.
I guess that there's nothing that distances the US from western europe more than the attitude towards taxation. I like to pay taxes - I feel that contributing to my nation is a great way of demonstrating true patriotism. The money is used to benefit those who are less advantaged than me. I cannot believe that anyone who has substantially lived in a country that offers universal healthcare would ever dream of going back to any other system, regardless of the fact that such a system entails taxation.
Likewise, the way in which I judge the success of a country is not by the looking at the elites, but by measuring the sense of fulfilment of the least advantaged; it's a different way of seeing the world, I guess.
As for liberty, doesn't that tie in strongly with what one identifies as the individual - i.e., who one is responsible for? For instance, a family man may wish to fight for the liberty of his family, rather than just himself, - his sense of self is tied into what he is responsible for. Likewise, a good politician works for the benefit of the entire country (or state), with no self-interest - he identifies with the needs of who he is responsible for. In my mind, the larger the community one can be responsible for (and identify with) the more mature one becomes, and the more worthy of respect and honour.
So, if we take on the view that liberty for all is the highest possible achievement, then we find that the libertarian view is not different from the socialist one - there is a need for taxation in order to provide liberty to those who cannot otherwise achieve it - for training, for support, and for developing a sense of value, so that even the most humble person may feel great about the society within which they belong.
I probably left everyone behind by this point. Thank goodness everyone believes in the right to freedom of thought.
mod parent up even higher than 5.
Have a look at http://education.mit.edu/projects/starlogo-tng
It's available in English, Spanish, Brazilian Portuguese, and Greek - so it should be localizable - certainly for latin-based languages.
I'm unaffiliated..
"The only thing you can do is draw pretty pictures" That is just not true.
Although it's initial purpose was to create a math land where kids could play with words and sentences, Logo was most often taught via turtle graphics - which provided a set of visual cues to understand the nature of the underlying structures of languages such as the stack and program counters and also helped to develop debugging skills. Likewise the fact that recursion is Logo's preferred processing paradigm is, IMO, quite remarkable.
Logo's initial weaknesses were to do with an absence of concurrency and limited IO. Modern variants such as StarLogo and NetLogo address many of those issues and are used to examine emergent systems and AI.
Scratch runs on Squeak, a variant of Smalltalk, which was inspired by Logo, which itself is a dialect of Lisp.
If your kids are strongly visual, and want to work with graphics manipulation, then Scratch is ok. If they like robotics and want to work in the real world, then Lego mindstorms is alright (for simple projects) both choices the kids will be involved in as much non-programming as coding - as design (2d or 3d) will absorb their time.
Logo is a pure programming language, which is going to encourage good application design, but it's really important to find a good guide for them - it's also nice (but not necessary by any means) if you can find a turtle. At education college we were encouraged to teach logo, and it was a position that I agree on. The only potential issue is that it is not 'C'-like but that's a syntax issue.
There are also programming games which help develop Logo skills - not computer games - family games - such as you being a robot, and asking the kids to give you orders to do something - you can give them a starting lexicon of very few commands, and ask them to take you to the kitchen. Note that angles are often best addressed with quarter-turns: left, right, turn-around, etc. Then later on introduce something like 'bit-left' or 'little-left'. So a lexicon of forward,back,left,right,stop is often a good start. Then parameterising forward: eg forward 50..
The primary advantages are that they get time to have fun with their Dad, (and you with them) and you can design the language fluidly according to their ability. Later on you can easily add function definitions using eg "to": eg. "Dad, to square, repeat 4 times forward 5 right"
AFAIK none of them have very good debugging tools, and IMO debugging is where most early coders find out if they have enough stamina to want to code, so games like above help you to give suggestions. Likewise, with logo (turtle graphics) - at first anyway- you can act out the programme which can help.
Logo isn't just graphics - it's a simplified form of lisp.
Sique, IIRC the frequency of photon oscillation is proportional to their energy. It is the speed (not oscillation) of light which is constant - and speed depends upon distance, which (as mentioned) was infinite (but wrapped up tight) at the big bang.
It's been a while since I looked at big bang physics, but I seem to recall that time itself 'begins' at the big bang. Rather than it being like a clock that starts ticking at a constant rate, time itself begins to slow down (so the first few moments of the universe take a very long time, but the time itself is squashed up very tightly). There was no 'first second' - just a space-time singularity. (Apparent time would be infinite but take no time. Apparent space would be infinite but take no space).
Secondly, there is no such thing as a universal clock. We've known this since the beginning of the last century. Even our local time (and it's measurement) varies.
So what does it mean to give an absolute figure (in years, no less) to the age of the universe?
So I would appreciate it if someone can set me straight here.
Why focus on the voting mechanism? It's like testing the quality of a democracy by looking at the voting procedure in the house of commons. The weakness, as is always the case, is human accountability. This is just as true within a theocratic oligarchy as it is within a representative democracy.
Anyone who thinks that powerful interests have no sway in the election of a pontiff is uneducated in history and blissfully naive.
I have been in charge of the development of an OSS (GPL) language - albeit very different from the one mentioned in the OP - called Obyx (cf. http://www.obyx.org/ ). Our motivation for OSS was so that clients would feel less bound to a proprietary model. We use (and love to use) Obyx for the development and deployment of dynamic web services. The actual effect of changing the license model (much of our remaining software is proprietary and closed) has been nominal - it has meant that we have shifted more of our income from build/production to support/maintenance services. As a direct income provider, Obyx has given us none. We haven't seen a big uptake of the language (we haven't promoted it), so the number of coders is in the tens.
However, when evaluating our decision, I talked to various individuals and organisations who found that OSS licenses can have a dramatic uptake to it's useage. This is most often the case when the software is chosen to be rolled out as a component of a Linux, when users (and interest) may jump to millions overnight. However, such events are rather like winning the lottery.
In retrospect, outside of CS theory, there really isn't a strong demand for new languages. Secondly, what is your motivation? Direct income, or uptake? These two are not always compatible. As I have implied, selling a language is not going to work in the long term. Languages themselves, to survive, must be free (as in beer) to use to the programmers. Language support services (and the services that you sell that use the language you develop) however, are all legitimate income sources.
Hubris
We are among the developers who have had to change a memory game on the app store due to this widespread trademark infringement claim.
Generics only apply to trademark law in the USA. We were bitter about the change - the use of the phrase "memory game" -isn't- trademarked AFAIK, and it seems trite to look at a single word embedded within a much longer title.
Anyhow, our feeling was that this entire fiasco will probably backfire with bad press. We really wanted to change the game only in those territories which are trademarked, but that's not so easy with the current App store model.
For your information, here are the territories at issue:
Armenia, Austria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Belarus, Belgium, Brazil,Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Egypt, Equador, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, India, Italy, Latvia,Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Montenegro, Netherlands, Norway, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Russian Federation, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Korea, Spain, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine and Venezuela.
We are based in the UK and it made no difference to the takedown notice.
Reading one of the articles ( http://researchcommons.waikato.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10289/3622/Hogg%20Intcal09%20and%20Marine09.pdf ) seems to make it clear that the Lake Suigetsu project is a player, but only one of many, in the project to develop a better INTCAL chronology. It may be obvious to some, but any single dataset is not particularly useful until it is corroborated with many others. The Suigetsu project has been at work for several years and, although there has been some revision made to their baseline data, it hardly seems like headline news.
OTOH, it's always great to hear what scientists have been up to, regardless of the field.
How did the group refute suggestions that a nation state was behind the attack? Did it open it's books, and declare it's sponsors?
Or did it just deny that a nation state was behind the attack? In which case it failed to refute anything - it merely disputed something.
It must be a grammar-nazi Tuesday or something.
Let them make the mistakes. Go cheap. Go even cheaper.
It worked quite well with Windows. It failed with the Zune.
It will fail with this release of Surface also.
Asking all your customers to buy a new copy of MS Office? Not a great idea.
I loved the MS idea of a fully collaborative,contextually aware, common screen surface.
If they could get that working outside of marketing videos, cheap enough for the consumer, it could be quite fun.
The planets are merely aligned in the same plane - and not perfectly.
When I first read the headline, I was expecting to read about a ring of planets sharing the same orbit - what would be equivalent to the first stage of maneuver for the development of a niven ring or even a dyson sphere. Now that would have been exciting news.