Yes, it's obvious that the unemployed are less likely to own an iPhone.
So there's lots of unemployed people this won't help. So what? There's also enough unemployed people it will help - recent graduates, those recently made redundant. If it helps enough of them (and 50,000 downloading the app in ten weeks suggests there are thousands who at least thought it would help) then it may well be cost effective. It doesn't take a lot of people in work to generate 35k in income tax.
So it is not stupid, and it is probably not ineffective.
I assume you're thinking just of optical microscopes, where a standard one can see down to around 200nm. If you include electron microscopes, however, there are plenty that can see down to the size of individual atoms - so definitely enough resolution to see viruses.
There are also a load more visualisation techniques around which can also give info on virus structures.
I think Google could only be accused of the homage bit because of the previous "android" name. To be frank, Nexus is a more appropriate name for their mobile phones than android anyway - nexus being latin for a form of connection, a connected group or the centre of something, so a phone qualifies by one definition as a "nexus". "Android" means designed to act and look human, so not so close.
Plus latin is so dead that even the most extreme proposed copyright rules wouldn't mean you owe Rome anything...
Depends how you define "remake". I haven't played it, but I'd suspect "Civilization Revolution" has a lot of the original fundamental gameplay of the original. I'd call it a remake, but I guess you don't.
Well, I'm British and know the film (and have it on DVD - the version I've got came with a lot of extras, including the original moon landing footage). I personally think it's a great film, and although I'm perhaps more likely to remember it because my tastes match with the subject matter, I would have thought those tastes - humour, technology, scientists/engineers as the heroes, the moon landings - would have appealed to a fair few Slashdot readers as well.
As to the person who complained that someone shouldn't be expected to know an obscure foreign film - it isn't a foreign film. Or, at least, if you're writing from Australia, as the.com.au on the address of the article (and the Aussie sounding name of the author of the article) would suggest, it's not.
By modern standards, both sides were terrorists. Look up, for example, the Gnadenhutten massacre some time.
But despite that, compare it that war to Sherman's march to the sea, Cromwell's campaign in Ireland in the 17th century, the British actions in India during the Indian rebellion in the 1850s, the US actions during the Philippine - American War...
Well, as long as you don't count your banks having short term liabilities of 260% of your national GDP during a world-wide credit crunch, then no I can't think of any Swiss political problems.
Proper exercise takes time. No bones about it, doing a bunch of sit ups and press ups for a few minutes in the morning is going to do little. So do something you can keep up for some time. If you don't have time, well either make some or get used to being fat.
I personally prefer something that is non-impact and endurance - swimming, cycling and rowing. You probably don't like the idea of swimming if you hate exercising in front of people. Cycling should appeal to geeks for the amount of equipment you can play with, and you don't have to be a lycra-clad road racer - try baggy mountain biker instead, but you have to cycle *up* the hill first. You often get rowing machines in gyms, but if you don't want to set foot in such a place, you can buy a rowing machine yourself - but for pity's sake, don't get a cheapo one, you'll regret it. Concept 2 are the best ones I've ever used, a second hand one of them is far better than a new one of cheaper models.
Do you know of any other suitable liquid metal they could be using, then, as I don't - mercury is just too toxic (compared to Galinstan, anyway) and NaK is a fire and explosion hazard, so even if gallium alloys are getting more expensive, they're still the less toxic, cheapest option.
Waste paper takes up space in landfill sites (where most of it goes, not that much gets incinerated). It doesn't biodegrade well in the average landfill site anyway (not a nice, oxygenated environment).
Paper also takes energy to produce, as well as recycle. Of course, as the moment something is of interest to environmentalists both the pro and anti sides immediately dash out, cherry pick the data they like from the scientific literature, and then declare the extremes of the range all over the internet, it's very hard to get an accurate assessment of which is better in energy terms by googling - you'll get the extremes and the puff pieces. But to change the views from the consensus does require clear proof (I need numbers, not just people saying it is so in their books), and that appears to be lacking.
Both production and recycling consume water, and use chemicals. But I've regularly seen the claim that recycling uses less chemicals than from virgin wood (including in peer reviewed academic journals), and very rarely seen it the other way around. I'd need a cite from a believable source with evidence that they've actually measured it rather than just declared it.
Paper isn't purely made from trees. There's usually other stuff in it as well (e.g. chalk, china clay).
Forcing anyone to do with their lives and property other than they wish is a violation of their rights as human beings. Any gain that results from such endeavors is not justified - ie, the ends do not justify the means.
What, not even if they're a psychopath, and what they want to do with their lives is kill people?
Or, less extreme - what if they're a truck driver. They want to work an 80 hour week. Fine? Or do you think the chances of them falling asleep at the wheel and plowing through traffic is too high to be acceptable to the general public?
Just because academics have (partially - politicians are also clearly to blame) led the system to be the way it is by gaming the system doesn't mean that the way it now is is the way researchers *want* it to be.
The Tories have historically done what was necessary to stay in power - which used to be to do as little as possible (seriously, the desperate urge to tamper is a bad thing in a politician, Thatcher was not a typical traditional Tory). So a mix of what they thought was popular, what they thought was long-term the right thing to do (if you assume you are the natural party of government, you assume you'll still be there when the shit hits the fan), and what they wanted to do.
But given that the Tories now appear to feel so strongly about 42 days that one of them has resigned to trigger a by-election just to prove a point suggests that even they do think this is too far.
if by "thrash" you mean "lose to at both the last two Rugby Union World Cups" then yes, Australia thrashes England at Rugby. As I'm not from Yorkshire or Lancashire, I don't give a toss about League.
Well, technically it was a subtraction from their compensation award, but it amounts to the same thing. Even if they're only charging you 8.56 GBP a day, it's still a bit rich.
Being under 16 does not stop you holding a gun, so a strict definition of only those out of military uniform who are taking shots at us could include children. Anyone think the Taliban would adhere to a strict 18+ rule on active service?
Not that that automatically makes it right to capture children used in this way, fly them halfway round the globe and detain them in Guantanamo Bay, of course.
It does occur to me to wonder how many of the "drug offenses" were cases where the authorities wanted to charge them with something else originally, couldn't make it stick, so went for the drug charge instead.
That's why I said "UK voting patterns" not "the UK population". I personally think it's more likely they just don't care enough either way to vote, in which case I suppose really 30% of the TV being about something and 70% being mindless apathetic pap would also be an accurate reflection of current UK voting patterns, so I should stop complaining about it.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, it's obvious that the unemployed are less likely to own an iPhone. So there's lots of unemployed people this won't help. So what? There's also enough unemployed people it will help - recent graduates, those recently made redundant. If it helps enough of them (and 50,000 downloading the app in ten weeks suggests there are thousands who at least thought it would help) then it may well be cost effective. It doesn't take a lot of people in work to generate 35k in income tax. So it is not stupid, and it is probably not ineffective.
I assume you're thinking just of optical microscopes, where a standard one can see down to around 200nm. If you include electron microscopes, however, there are plenty that can see down to the size of individual atoms - so definitely enough resolution to see viruses. There are also a load more visualisation techniques around which can also give info on virus structures.
Why is it suddenly NASA's job to monitor global warming?
Suddenly? Earth observation has been there from the beginning. NASA built the first TIROS weather satellite in 1960, the first LANDSAT in 1972.
Plus latin is so dead that even the most extreme proposed copyright rules wouldn't mean you owe Rome anything...
Better because they got the British Medical Journal to write it - link
The first edition of Robert Harris' Enigma came out in 1995.
Does Enigma, by Robert Harris also count as a cryptographic thriller? First edition was 1995.
Dogs are potentially the first animal to be domesticated, over 15,000 years ago. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/298/5598/1610.pdf
Depends how you define "remake". I haven't played it, but I'd suspect "Civilization Revolution" has a lot of the original fundamental gameplay of the original. I'd call it a remake, but I guess you don't.
You can't sell the rights to showing a programme in another territory for very much if you're just going to show it everywhere yourself anyway.
As to the person who complained that someone shouldn't be expected to know an obscure foreign film - it isn't a foreign film. Or, at least, if you're writing from Australia, as the .com.au on the address of the article (and the Aussie sounding name of the author of the article) would suggest, it's not.
But despite that, compare it that war to Sherman's march to the sea, Cromwell's campaign in Ireland in the 17th century, the British actions in India during the Indian rebellion in the 1850s, the US actions during the Philippine - American War...
Well, as long as you don't count your banks having short term liabilities of 260% of your national GDP during a world-wide credit crunch, then no I can't think of any Swiss political problems.
I personally prefer something that is non-impact and endurance - swimming, cycling and rowing. You probably don't like the idea of swimming if you hate exercising in front of people. Cycling should appeal to geeks for the amount of equipment you can play with, and you don't have to be a lycra-clad road racer - try baggy mountain biker instead, but you have to cycle *up* the hill first. You often get rowing machines in gyms, but if you don't want to set foot in such a place, you can buy a rowing machine yourself - but for pity's sake, don't get a cheapo one, you'll regret it. Concept 2 are the best ones I've ever used, a second hand one of them is far better than a new one of cheaper models.
Do you know of any other suitable liquid metal they could be using, then, as I don't - mercury is just too toxic (compared to Galinstan, anyway) and NaK is a fire and explosion hazard, so even if gallium alloys are getting more expensive, they're still the less toxic, cheapest option.
Paper also takes energy to produce, as well as recycle. Of course, as the moment something is of interest to environmentalists both the pro and anti sides immediately dash out, cherry pick the data they like from the scientific literature, and then declare the extremes of the range all over the internet, it's very hard to get an accurate assessment of which is better in energy terms by googling - you'll get the extremes and the puff pieces. But to change the views from the consensus does require clear proof (I need numbers, not just people saying it is so in their books), and that appears to be lacking.
Both production and recycling consume water, and use chemicals. But I've regularly seen the claim that recycling uses less chemicals than from virgin wood (including in peer reviewed academic journals), and very rarely seen it the other way around. I'd need a cite from a believable source with evidence that they've actually measured it rather than just declared it.
Paper isn't purely made from trees. There's usually other stuff in it as well (e.g. chalk, china clay).
What, not even if they're a psychopath, and what they want to do with their lives is kill people?
Or, less extreme - what if they're a truck driver. They want to work an 80 hour week. Fine? Or do you think the chances of them falling asleep at the wheel and plowing through traffic is too high to be acceptable to the general public?
Just because academics have (partially - politicians are also clearly to blame) led the system to be the way it is by gaming the system doesn't mean that the way it now is is the way researchers *want* it to be.
Mathematics isn't restrained by such petty considerations as reality.
The Tories have historically done what was necessary to stay in power - which used to be to do as little as possible (seriously, the desperate urge to tamper is a bad thing in a politician, Thatcher was not a typical traditional Tory). So a mix of what they thought was popular, what they thought was long-term the right thing to do (if you assume you are the natural party of government, you assume you'll still be there when the shit hits the fan), and what they wanted to do. But given that the Tories now appear to feel so strongly about 42 days that one of them has resigned to trigger a by-election just to prove a point suggests that even they do think this is too far.
if by "thrash" you mean "lose to at both the last two Rugby Union World Cups" then yes, Australia thrashes England at Rugby. As I'm not from Yorkshire or Lancashire, I don't give a toss about League.
Well, technically it was a subtraction from their compensation award, but it amounts to the same thing. Even if they're only charging you 8.56 GBP a day, it's still a bit rich.
Not that that automatically makes it right to capture children used in this way, fly them halfway round the globe and detain them in Guantanamo Bay, of course.
It does occur to me to wonder how many of the "drug offenses" were cases where the authorities wanted to charge them with something else originally, couldn't make it stick, so went for the drug charge instead.
That's why I said "UK voting patterns" not "the UK population". I personally think it's more likely they just don't care enough either way to vote, in which case I suppose really 30% of the TV being about something and 70% being mindless apathetic pap would also be an accurate reflection of current UK voting patterns, so I should stop complaining about it.