How can secretly accessing the private information of the people accessing the web site NOT be illegal? Where are you living? You need some decent laws over there, if it really is not illegal to do this.
Well in all the countries I have lived and worked so far (not the US) this would clearly be illegal. How is it not illegal in your country? Did you inform the police?
Why should I get excited about something written by a journalist where there must be something writeen by scientists? Where is the PDF of the scientific paper to download?
As soon as those chimpanzees apply for their rights by themselves I am all for it. In the meantime, could somebody provide some psychiatric help to those members of the Nonhuman Rights Project?
and what the exact plan to neutralize or destroy them is? Without that information, it is completely useless to discuss the issue of whre it will be done.
What I never inderstand about articles that talk about very distant objects: they always use "are" as if this large structure would be there now, when, if at all and we interpret the data correctly, it was there billions of years ago. Something that "stretches" over 4 billion ligth years may also (depending on in which direction it stretches) also stretch over a time span of at least 4 billion years. It is weird to think that what we see is not our universe at all: it is a picture that is a collage of times of what the universe was.
But what does it mean about our understanding of the universe now? Obviously we have no idea if Quasars "exist" -- the ones we observed so far are at least 600 million years away and thus have existed 600 million years ago.
600 Million years is a very long time. But 10 billion years is much closer to the beginning of the universe than to now. Does this make the violation of that "principle" then even more or qutie less significant?
"so where needed we will always start a dialogue to ensure the trademarks are used properly to avoid confusion." Yes - fuck you too. Somebody is getting way too much money that could get spend on useful work for this shit.
It all depends where that carbon comes from. If the butane, methane, dimethyl ether or whatever it is is created directly or indirectly by photosynthesis or if it is created electrochemically using waste CO2, the net CO2 in the exhaust is not a problem. The other reaction products you mention still are but it should be able to crack them up catalytically -- these are essentially the same you find in a diesel exhaust, minus the soot, which is a plus. Hydrogen fuel storage is really still a problem, and I am not sure it is likely to be solved, but I think the alternatives of cells that work with methane or methanol are promising technologies.
that taking organs from an executed person, possibly to save the lives of other people, is the terrible thing here, not the habit of executing people? Interesting take on ethics. In my point of view, every body of a dead human should be a possible donor (if at all, with an opt-out scheme). In my point of view, executing criminals is wrong and barbaric.
who obviously put more trust into a computer program without challenging its correctness than they trusted those postmasters. Obviously those judges had no idea of the subject matter and still felt comfortable to jail people.
TBH, i wholeheartedly detest the whole branding circus, whoever wants to take part in it. The idea that a silly word or phrase should be somebody's "property" is just not right and it is equally wrong when some blogger has it as when some multibillion dollar company has it. But if you really think you want to "I own a brand" game, then why dont you play by the rules? And as far as I know (but I admit I do not know much because, see above, I detest that whole circus), the rule is that you legally register a brand and that registering a brand is one (of probably several) steps necessary to protect a brand. If you did it, you probably can defend it. If you did not, tough call, you lose because you did it wrong.
Investing in getting well known, famous, rich or whatever you desire by being known for your quality or originality instead of some silly "brand" may work better in your case.
If they would not do everything to publish in those journals from those companies, the companies would have no chance to be evil.
But backbones are unfortunately rare things among scientists who will do close to anything to get funded and even more to get a high-impact paper published.
How about not going an burning down houses of innocent people, how about not going and killing and hurting innocent people because somebody made a drawing or a video about some stupid old fairy tale? If there is something that would be good censoring then it is the utter nonsense the comes from an islamist dictatorship.
Slashdot Mirror
I guess that is also why you write down "seventeen" as 710? oh wait ...
even more idiotic than using absurd units like F, inches, miles and ounces.
You are embarrassing yourself, US.
How can secretly accessing the private information of the people accessing the web site NOT be illegal? Where are you living? You need some decent laws over there, if it really is not illegal to do this.
Well in all the countries I have lived and worked so far (not the US) this would clearly be illegal. How is it not illegal in your country? Did you inform the police?
paper? you are kidding, right?
Why should I get excited about something written by a journalist where there must be something writeen by scientists? Where is the PDF of the scientific paper to download?
they are totally within their rights of being that lame, of course, but they chose to be totally lame here.
Ah well, good for BitBucket.
As soon as those chimpanzees apply for their rights by themselves I am all for it.
In the meantime, could somebody provide some psychiatric help to those members of the Nonhuman Rights Project?
and what the exact plan to neutralize or destroy them is?
Without that information, it is completely useless to discuss the issue of whre it will be done.
that you will have to pay a lot of money to use it?
What I never inderstand about articles that talk about very distant objects: they always use "are" as if this large structure would be there now, when, if at all and we interpret the data correctly, it was there billions of years ago. Something that "stretches" over 4 billion ligth years may also (depending on in which direction it stretches) also stretch over a time span of at least 4 billion years.
It is weird to think that what we see is not our universe at all: it is a picture that is a collage of times of what the universe was.
But what does it mean about our understanding of the universe now? Obviously we have no idea if Quasars "exist" -- the ones we observed so far are at least 600 million years away and thus have existed 600 million years ago.
600 Million years is a very long time. But 10 billion years is much closer to the beginning of the universe than to now. Does this make the violation of that "principle" then even more or qutie less significant?
"so where needed we will always start a dialogue to ensure the trademarks are used properly to avoid confusion."
Yes - fuck you too.
Somebody is getting way too much money that could get spend on useful work for this shit.
Somebody should tell them about computers.
It all depends where that carbon comes from. If the butane, methane, dimethyl ether or whatever it is is created directly or indirectly by photosynthesis or if it is created electrochemically using waste CO2, the net CO2 in the exhaust is not a problem. The other reaction products you mention still are but it should be able to crack them up catalytically -- these are essentially the same you find in a diesel exhaust, minus the soot, which is a plus.
Hydrogen fuel storage is really still a problem, and I am not sure it is likely to be solved, but I think the alternatives of cells that work with methane or methanol are promising technologies.
He is very afraid. And rightlfully so.
Since, clearly, he does not have a heart.
Chromium obviously is open source already, but they do plan to opensource their additions too.
So this could actually be the good stuff.
Closed source? Seems legit.
that taking organs from an executed person, possibly to save the lives of other people, is the terrible thing here, not the habit of executing people?
Interesting take on ethics.
In my point of view, every body of a dead human should be a possible donor (if at all, with an opt-out scheme). In my point of view, executing criminals is wrong and barbaric.
who obviously put more trust into a computer program without challenging its correctness than they trusted those postmasters. Obviously those judges had no idea of the subject matter and still felt comfortable to jail people.
TBH, i wholeheartedly detest the whole branding circus, whoever wants to take part in it. The idea that a silly word or phrase should be somebody's "property" is just not right and it is equally wrong when some blogger has it as when some multibillion dollar company has it.
But if you really think you want to "I own a brand" game, then why dont you play by the rules? And as far as I know (but I admit I do not know much because, see above, I detest that whole circus), the rule is that you legally register a brand and that registering a brand is one (of probably several) steps necessary to protect a brand. If you did it, you probably can defend it. If you did not, tough call, you lose because you did it wrong.
Investing in getting well known, famous, rich or whatever you desire by being known for your quality or originality instead of some silly "brand" may work better in your case.
If they would not do everything to publish in those journals from those companies, the companies would have no chance to be evil.
But backbones are unfortunately rare things among scientists who will do close to anything to get funded and even more to get a high-impact paper published.
Thats true and highly relevant for people who have no chance to get close to a mains plug within 24 hours :)
that I cannot, for example, do with Maxima and octave on my Nexus 7, much more quickly and without that feeling of being trapped in the distant past?
How about not going an burning down houses of innocent people, how about not going and killing and hurting innocent people because somebody made a drawing or a video about some stupid old fairy tale?
If there is something that would be good censoring then it is the utter nonsense the comes from an islamist dictatorship.