Couldn't one argue that authorization was granted by the database when a valid login/password pair was provided?
If that were the case then social engineering attacks where hackers get a company employee to divulge their password would be entirely legal. Knowing a username and password is no different than having a key and simply having a key does not automatically make it legal for you to access everything it unlocks.
I think that would depend on the amount of loose material you have just as with water where a damp surface is fine and you only need grooves when there is some amount of water standing on the surface and I expect that by the time you have enough loose material to cause problems for a non-grooved tyre you very likely have a significant riving hazard since tyres will kick that material up and into the path of a driver behind you obscuring their vision and possibly damaging their vehicle.
Actually, given a smooth tire, surface area makes no difference, because the area cancels out when you calculate downward force
I don't know which universe you come from but in the one I'm in physics doesn't work like that. The first evidence is that Formula 1 cars have wide tyres to improve grip. If narrow tyres gripped just as well thy would use these because of the reduction in weight. The second is something you can try at home with two books - ideally something like two telephone directories if you happen to have two of these increasingly rare items. Interleave a couple of pages and you will be easily able to pull the books apart. Interleave several hundred pages and the spines of the books will rip apart before you can provide enough force to separate them. The only difference between the two is the contact surface ares between the books. Hence surface area matters a lot.
What you are forgetting is that the coefficient of friction is defined for a specific contact between two objects. If you change that contact, for example by increasing the area of contact by changing the shape of one or both of the objects, then the coefficient of friction will change too and it will increase for an increase in contact area. Whether or not the coefficient of friction is greater or less than one makes no difference - there is nothing magical about the value 1.0 for this quantity.
Wouldn't it be better for the society to agree on some kind of international legal and financial framework that would fund public research in GMOs?
This I think is the key to the problem. GMO technology could do bad things if it is not handled responsibly and in today's world the only thing you can trust large corporations to do is to look after their short term financial interests even, stupidly, when that damages their long term interests...and before you come up with counter examples just remember that the CEO can change so even if a company is ethical now there are no guarantees for tomorrow.
I would absolutely trust the work done by publicly funded biologists bound to follow strict ethics guidelines and required to publish in peer reviewed journals. The system is not perfect but mistakes do tend to get found and corrected. However I worry a lot about the GMO research done by large corporations. We have already seen that some pharmaceutical companies repeat drug tests until they get the result they need do show a drug works. How likely is it that a company would repeat GMO testing until the results show that it is ok to deploy? What happens if a scientist in such a corporation has an idea that something might be wrong with the product and wants to do extra tests to confirm it is ok? An academic could do the tests to learn something but would a corporation risk jeopardizing a major product for a test which is not legally required?
It's completely flat, it will have no "grip" to the ground.
This is a common misconception: flat tyres actually grip the ground better than tyres with a tread because they have a larger surface area in contact with the ground which generates more friction. This is why Formula 1 cars have flat tyres when racing in dry conditions. The tread is there because in wet conditions you need channels to get rid of the water between the tyre and the road when travelling at speed otherwise you hydroplane. So the tread is not there to increase grip but to get rid of water and as these tyres are now they will not grip well at speed in wet conditions but they will actually grip better than a treaded tyre in dry conditions.
No - its the 'theta term' in the expression, called a Lagrangian (technically a Lagrangian density), which could cause this: see this. The term is allowed by all the physics we know but strangely the value of theta appears to be exactly zero (or at least very small) and nobody knows why. Some theoretical models link this tiny value to a type of Dark Matter called axions and I think that finding a tiny, non-zero value of theta is allowed by these models but you would need to ask a theorist in this area to confirm that.
He is most certainly a kook. The dead giveaway is that he publishes to his own website and YouTube instead of reputable, peer reviewed journals and that he is a philosopher not a scientist.
I did not say that we could definitely say which direction is "forward" just that if the direction of time was flipped into reverse from whatever it used to be we would be able to tell because the laws of physics would be ever so slightly different. All that physics says is that the two directions, whatever you call them, are not the same.
No they proved T violation: go and read the papers I gave the refs for. Babar actually did a more complex measurement which really, unambiguously shows T violation. The CP-LEAR result could be argued to be due to CP violation but only if you assume CPT which, given that all quantum field theory has this baked into it from relativity, is very hard to get away from. However I would argue that the CP-LEAR result is a test of T violation since it looks at the process K0 to K0bar (and reverse) as a function of time whereas CP violation manifests itself in the kaon mass eigenstates and their decays. In a CPT conserving frame work CP and T violation are equivalent but without that the T violation in CP-LEAR could give a different result for kaons than you would expect from CP violation.
Nothing but you have not reversed time you have rewound time and forced everything to go back into the precise state it was in just before. That is NOT the same as reversing the arrow of time. To reverse time you have to let the universe evolve naturally under its own physical laws just now with time counting down rather than up. Essentially all you do is put a minus sign in front of the time and ask whether everything will happen the same with time now going in reverse...and it will not.
Rewinding time is completely different because in that case the only physical law is that you must return to the fixed state you were in just prior to this one. This will erase all knowledge of what is now the past (because our current state has no knowledge of the future) and there are no real physical laws because everything is predetermined.
But if laws are not symmetric, then your brain will not work the same. You will un-learn and then un-do the experiments, so you will not be able to reach conclusions.
You are missing a few important details here. First, as far as we know, this time reversal asymmetry does not apply to the EM force which is how our brains work so they would not be affected. Second the effect is a tiny one only measurable with extremely precise experiments so you would not notice an effect without detailed experiments. Lastly though "unlearning", glasses leaping back onto tables etc will only happen if you rewind time, not just reverse the flow i.e. force everything to return to its precise, previous state rather than reverse time and let the universe evolve naturally under it's physical laws. The two are completely different questions.
The UK government threatened not to allow Scotland to keep the Pound, and it was pointed out to them that Scotland wouldn't have to keep its share of the debt either in that case.
That is simply not true. There is no law which says how much of the debt would be transferred to Scotland that would have to be determined by the exit negotiation but technically the UK could say this is your share either take it or you are not leaving which, if they are being grossly unfair, would cause significant political problems.
Interestingly though a German colleague at work suggested there was a way to fix this mess more easily. If England and Wales declare independence from the UK then they will leave the EU too and Scotland would be independent and inherit the UK's EU membership with the rebates etc. Even better those of us who can't easily move to Scotland (and aren't even in the UK) could refuse to apply for English/Welsh nationality would automatically remain as Scottish/UK EU citizens. It's never going to happen but I can dream...
Time only "goes from" the past to the future because we define those terms by the way that time "goes", and time "goes" the way it does, from less-entropic to more-entropic states
Actually that is not true because of something called T-violation which has been observed in kaon and B-meson oscillations (see my other reply to a post below for details but this is NOT an effect of entropy!).
What the hell could pear-shaped nuclei possible have to do with any of that?
This is harder to explain and you are absolutely correct that the article utterly fails to do so! We have three special symmetries in particle physics called C, P and T where T is time-reversal and C and P together, CP, is the symmetry between matter and anti-matter. What relativity tells us is that all three together, CPT, should be a perfect symmetry of nature. This means that CP (the matter-antimatter symmetry) and T (time reversal) are linked because if the T symmetry is violated then the CP symmetry must be violated in exactly the opposite way so that CPT altogether is conserved.
Now the pear shaped nucleus is interesting because the nucleus is bound together by the strong force and every test so far suggests that the strong force obeys C, P and T separately (and so of course also CPT together). The weird violation of T and CP is only seen in the weak force (which causes nuclear beta decay). Now if a nucleus has a non-symmetric shape it suggests that the strong force also violates P, called parity. If P is conserved then if you flip the direction of the x, y and z axes there is no change. However with a pear-shaped nucleus there would be a change and so parity is said to be violated and this means that CP would also be broken.
So, if true, this result would be interesting because we have never seen this effect in the strong force despite it being possible to add a term to do this and it has always been a mystery as to why this term appeared to be exactly zero - it is called the "strong CP problem". Since CP is tied to CPT by relativity this means that we would expect time reversal to be broken as well by the strong force. However despite the BBC's best effort to advertize Dr. Who this result says absolutely nothing about whether time travel is possible just that time seems to have a preferred direction...which we have known since 1998 thanks to the CP-LEAR experiment.
As for the "pointing in the same direction in space" I want to see that written in a journal before I give it any credence. Given there are several errors and mistakes elsewhere in the article I the journalism behind this story is seems appalling and I think they completely misunderstood the explanation given...which as you can see above is not exactly trivial!
How do we know time doesn't go backward? Maybe it does. We'd never know it if it did. (think about it.)
Surprising as it seems we would actually know if time reversed because of what seems to be one of the most forgotten results of particle physics: the laws of physics do not work the same if time is reversed due to something called "T-violation": literally time-reversal symmetry violation. This is NOT the same thing as a glass falling off a table will not reassemble itself and flying back onto the same because this is an effect of entropy.
The first evidence for T-violation came from the CP-LEAR kaon experiment at CERN in 1998 [Phys. Lett. B 444 43 (1998)] and was confirmed in B-decays by Babar in 2012 (and as evidence that this result is always forgotten they forgot about the CP-LEAR measurement in this article!!). These experiments looked at how a particle oscillates back and forth between two possible states. What they found is that a particle in state A will oscillate into state B faster than one in state B will oscillate into state A. Hence the process prefers to go in one direction more than the other even though in this case the two states have identical entropy.
So if time were reversed you would be able to detect it by doing the same experiment and finding that now the particles would go from B to A faster than from A to B. Incidentally this symmetry is also closely related by special relativity to the symmetry between matter and anti-matter so reversing time would switch our universe into one which prefers anti-matter over matter and we could detect this flip again with particle physics experiments.
So amazing as it seems we could detect a flip in the direction of time and the article is just plain wrong when it says that the laws of physics don't care which way time goes: they do and we have evidence to show it!
No I am comparing the long term effects of punitive economic measures on a large European country. It has nothing to do with the UK's temper tantrums but rather what the rest of the EU will do as a result. If the UK triggers article 50 there is a real danger that it could end up with no trade deal before the fixed, 2 year time limit that article imposes is up...and this could happen even if the EU is being somewhat cooperative given the massive complexity involved.
This would catapult the UK out of the common market and have a huge, negative, long term impact on the economy and you can bet the Westminster politicians are not going to own that problem but lay it squarely at the feet of the EU. That could well set up very similar economic conditions to Germany in the 1920's where the economy is tanking and the politicians blame a foreign power.
Clearly we are still nowhere near that situation yet but unless we are careful there is a clear, and now somewhat likely, path to get there even though it may take 10 years to arrive at it.
Scotland would be loaded with 130 billion pounds of debt.
...and by the time this epic cluster fuck is resolved that won't be worth anything like as much as it is today will it? Besides if they got independence and offered Scottish citizenship in exchange for giving up British citizen I expect there would be a significant fraction of the 16 million predominantly well educated Brits who would happily take them up on the offer to regain EU citizenship and that would provide a massive boost to their economy.
And why would the EU with 450+ M people give such good deals to the UK ?
Hopefully the EU will remember Europe's history and not try to really turn the thumbscrews on the UK no matter how well deserved. The last time a European country screwed up and really annoyed the continent was Germany. The punitive measures Europe imposed after the First World War collapsed the economy and directly lead to the rise of the Nazi party.
We already have right wing nut jobs in the UK using posters worryingly similar to Nazi propaganda. So by all means give us an economic slap for this utterly insane decision (we can hope it might bring the leavers to their senses) but please resist the urge to give us the full economic punch the UK richly deserves since that could lead to something far worse.
But what if the robots don't want to be subjected to socialism like this?
Well if they are classed as persons then they presumably get to vote as well and can elect right wing robot politicians....and before you say that will never happen we used to have one here in Canada called Stephen Harper.
DVDs were replaced by online downloads and streaming. The 3.5mm jack is going to be replaced by multiple competing standards so you are going to be carrying dongles around with you so your earphones work with all your devices. This is more like the MacBook where they replaced multiple standard ports with just USB-C and made all the users buy dongles to get the ports they needed. People were not happy.
...and they save a whole whopping nickel off each unit.
That's not the reason they are doing this. The 3.5mm jack is an open standard which anyone can easily use for free and just about any earphones will work with any phone. If each manufacturer can get away with replacing this with their own proprietary connector then now users will have to either purchase a dongle or a specially designed earphone where the phone manufacturer gets a cut because it uses their connector.
So this is not about saving a 3p/5c per phone this is about making ten times as much, or more, per dongle or earphone purchased. Better yet if these are like Apple's lightning connector the lifespan of the connector is a lot less than that of the phone so they can sell multiple connectors per phone and make even more money. Call me cynical but I have yet to see any real benefit mentioned to the customer from ditching the standard 3.5mm jack, and certainly nothing like enough to offset the pain involved in carrying around multiple dongles so your earphones can work with your tablet, phone an laptop.
It doesn't make it ok but it does mean that entity1 doesn't really get to complain about it unless they have apologized and made reparations for their past, and to some extent still ongoing (but better disguised), egregious behaviour in this regard. The OP is not saying that what the Chinese are doing is fine but simply that the US is in no position to complain about it because this is how they have behaved, and to some extent still are, behaving (only better disguised as a legal patent system which foreign companies find strangely hard to win against US ones).
Would you trust any security guarantee from a company who thinks that putting documents in the cloud is less of a security risk than a paper document? These guys are clearly idiots who have no idea of the type of security problems they are going to be dealing with.
Which dismisses the fact that we COULD NOT exist if the universe hadn't been here for 13 billion years.
Why? Science works on evidence and reasoned argument not just because you think it ought to act that way. There is absolutely no scientific evidence to support this claim which means that it is NOT a fact. You can call me silly names until you are blue in the face but this just makes you look like an idiot who is trying to win a scientific argument based on force of character rather than force of evidence and that never works.
Here is why you are wrong. The star which went supernova leaving the material from which the solar system formed had a lifespan measured in millions, not billions of years. Hence all the events directly leading up to us evolving took place in a little over 6 billion years. Had the solar system formed from the debris of one of the first supernovae we could have evolved ~6-7 billion years earlier. If that's wrong please provide a reasoned, scientific argument as to why because the scientific community would love to know where this chain of events is flawed because that would help solve the Fermi paradox. Your own personal opinion of what you want to be true is irrelevant to how the universe actually works. That's a tough lesson to learn but one that science is good at teaching - you should try it some time.
Even when we are looking for a particular object and even one that we made ourselves and is on the planet we seem to have incredible difficulty finding it. Just look at flight MH370 where we still don't really know what happened to it or where it went down despite a huge international effort and the size of that is very comparable at 73.9m in length.
Slashdot Mirror
Couldn't one argue that authorization was granted by the database when a valid login/password pair was provided?
If that were the case then social engineering attacks where hackers get a company employee to divulge their password would be entirely legal. Knowing a username and password is no different than having a key and simply having a key does not automatically make it legal for you to access everything it unlocks.
I think that would depend on the amount of loose material you have just as with water where a damp surface is fine and you only need grooves when there is some amount of water standing on the surface and I expect that by the time you have enough loose material to cause problems for a non-grooved tyre you very likely have a significant riving hazard since tyres will kick that material up and into the path of a driver behind you obscuring their vision and possibly damaging their vehicle.
Actually, given a smooth tire, surface area makes no difference, because the area cancels out when you calculate downward force
I don't know which universe you come from but in the one I'm in physics doesn't work like that. The first evidence is that Formula 1 cars have wide tyres to improve grip. If narrow tyres gripped just as well thy would use these because of the reduction in weight. The second is something you can try at home with two books - ideally something like two telephone directories if you happen to have two of these increasingly rare items. Interleave a couple of pages and you will be easily able to pull the books apart. Interleave several hundred pages and the spines of the books will rip apart before you can provide enough force to separate them. The only difference between the two is the contact surface ares between the books. Hence surface area matters a lot.
What you are forgetting is that the coefficient of friction is defined for a specific contact between two objects. If you change that contact, for example by increasing the area of contact by changing the shape of one or both of the objects, then the coefficient of friction will change too and it will increase for an increase in contact area. Whether or not the coefficient of friction is greater or less than one makes no difference - there is nothing magical about the value 1.0 for this quantity.
Just be glad you don't live in Beijing where you may need to bring food and water for 10 days.
Wouldn't it be better for the society to agree on some kind of international legal and financial framework that would fund public research in GMOs?
This I think is the key to the problem. GMO technology could do bad things if it is not handled responsibly and in today's world the only thing you can trust large corporations to do is to look after their short term financial interests even, stupidly, when that damages their long term interests...and before you come up with counter examples just remember that the CEO can change so even if a company is ethical now there are no guarantees for tomorrow.
I would absolutely trust the work done by publicly funded biologists bound to follow strict ethics guidelines and required to publish in peer reviewed journals. The system is not perfect but mistakes do tend to get found and corrected. However I worry a lot about the GMO research done by large corporations. We have already seen that some pharmaceutical companies repeat drug tests until they get the result they need do show a drug works. How likely is it that a company would repeat GMO testing until the results show that it is ok to deploy? What happens if a scientist in such a corporation has an idea that something might be wrong with the product and wants to do extra tests to confirm it is ok? An academic could do the tests to learn something but would a corporation risk jeopardizing a major product for a test which is not legally required?
It's completely flat, it will have no "grip" to the ground.
This is a common misconception: flat tyres actually grip the ground better than tyres with a tread because they have a larger surface area in contact with the ground which generates more friction. This is why Formula 1 cars have flat tyres when racing in dry conditions. The tread is there because in wet conditions you need channels to get rid of the water between the tyre and the road when travelling at speed otherwise you hydroplane. So the tread is not there to increase grip but to get rid of water and as these tyres are now they will not grip well at speed in wet conditions but they will actually grip better than a treaded tyre in dry conditions.
No - its the 'theta term' in the expression, called a Lagrangian (technically a Lagrangian density), which could cause this: see this. The term is allowed by all the physics we know but strangely the value of theta appears to be exactly zero (or at least very small) and nobody knows why. Some theoretical models link this tiny value to a type of Dark Matter called axions and I think that finding a tiny, non-zero value of theta is allowed by these models but you would need to ask a theorist in this area to confirm that.
He is most certainly a kook. The dead giveaway is that he publishes to his own website and YouTube instead of reputable, peer reviewed journals and that he is a philosopher not a scientist.
I did not say that we could definitely say which direction is "forward" just that if the direction of time was flipped into reverse from whatever it used to be we would be able to tell because the laws of physics would be ever so slightly different. All that physics says is that the two directions, whatever you call them, are not the same.
Yes, the cited experiments proved CP violation...
No they proved T violation: go and read the papers I gave the refs for. Babar actually did a more complex measurement which really, unambiguously shows T violation. The CP-LEAR result could be argued to be due to CP violation but only if you assume CPT which, given that all quantum field theory has this baked into it from relativity, is very hard to get away from. However I would argue that the CP-LEAR result is a test of T violation since it looks at the process K0 to K0bar (and reverse) as a function of time whereas CP violation manifests itself in the kaon mass eigenstates and their decays. In a CPT conserving frame work CP and T violation are equivalent but without that the T violation in CP-LEAR could give a different result for kaons than you would expect from CP violation.
Nothing but you have not reversed time you have rewound time and forced everything to go back into the precise state it was in just before. That is NOT the same as reversing the arrow of time. To reverse time you have to let the universe evolve naturally under its own physical laws just now with time counting down rather than up. Essentially all you do is put a minus sign in front of the time and ask whether everything will happen the same with time now going in reverse...and it will not.
Rewinding time is completely different because in that case the only physical law is that you must return to the fixed state you were in just prior to this one. This will erase all knowledge of what is now the past (because our current state has no knowledge of the future) and there are no real physical laws because everything is predetermined.
But if laws are not symmetric, then your brain will not work the same. You will un-learn and then un-do the experiments, so you will not be able to reach conclusions.
You are missing a few important details here. First, as far as we know, this time reversal asymmetry does not apply to the EM force which is how our brains work so they would not be affected. Second the effect is a tiny one only measurable with extremely precise experiments so you would not notice an effect without detailed experiments. Lastly though "unlearning", glasses leaping back onto tables etc will only happen if you rewind time, not just reverse the flow i.e. force everything to return to its precise, previous state rather than reverse time and let the universe evolve naturally under it's physical laws. The two are completely different questions.
The UK government threatened not to allow Scotland to keep the Pound, and it was pointed out to them that Scotland wouldn't have to keep its share of the debt either in that case.
That is simply not true. There is no law which says how much of the debt would be transferred to Scotland that would have to be determined by the exit negotiation but technically the UK could say this is your share either take it or you are not leaving which, if they are being grossly unfair, would cause significant political problems.
Interestingly though a German colleague at work suggested there was a way to fix this mess more easily. If England and Wales declare independence from the UK then they will leave the EU too and Scotland would be independent and inherit the UK's EU membership with the rebates etc. Even better those of us who can't easily move to Scotland (and aren't even in the UK) could refuse to apply for English/Welsh nationality would automatically remain as Scottish/UK EU citizens. It's never going to happen but I can dream...
Time only "goes from" the past to the future because we define those terms by the way that time "goes", and time "goes" the way it does, from less-entropic to more-entropic states
Actually that is not true because of something called T-violation which has been observed in kaon and B-meson oscillations (see my other reply to a post below for details but this is NOT an effect of entropy!).
What the hell could pear-shaped nuclei possible have to do with any of that?
This is harder to explain and you are absolutely correct that the article utterly fails to do so! We have three special symmetries in particle physics called C, P and T where T is time-reversal and C and P together, CP, is the symmetry between matter and anti-matter. What relativity tells us is that all three together, CPT, should be a perfect symmetry of nature. This means that CP (the matter-antimatter symmetry) and T (time reversal) are linked because if the T symmetry is violated then the CP symmetry must be violated in exactly the opposite way so that CPT altogether is conserved.
Now the pear shaped nucleus is interesting because the nucleus is bound together by the strong force and every test so far suggests that the strong force obeys C, P and T separately (and so of course also CPT together). The weird violation of T and CP is only seen in the weak force (which causes nuclear beta decay). Now if a nucleus has a non-symmetric shape it suggests that the strong force also violates P, called parity. If P is conserved then if you flip the direction of the x, y and z axes there is no change. However with a pear-shaped nucleus there would be a change and so parity is said to be violated and this means that CP would also be broken.
So, if true, this result would be interesting because we have never seen this effect in the strong force despite it being possible to add a term to do this and it has always been a mystery as to why this term appeared to be exactly zero - it is called the "strong CP problem". Since CP is tied to CPT by relativity this means that we would expect time reversal to be broken as well by the strong force. However despite the BBC's best effort to advertize Dr. Who this result says absolutely nothing about whether time travel is possible just that time seems to have a preferred direction...which we have known since 1998 thanks to the CP-LEAR experiment.
As for the "pointing in the same direction in space" I want to see that written in a journal before I give it any credence. Given there are several errors and mistakes elsewhere in the article I the journalism behind this story is seems appalling and I think they completely misunderstood the explanation given...which as you can see above is not exactly trivial!
How do we know time doesn't go backward? Maybe it does. We'd never know it if it did. (think about it.)
Surprising as it seems we would actually know if time reversed because of what seems to be one of the most forgotten results of particle physics: the laws of physics do not work the same if time is reversed due to something called "T-violation": literally time-reversal symmetry violation. This is NOT the same thing as a glass falling off a table will not reassemble itself and flying back onto the same because this is an effect of entropy.
The first evidence for T-violation came from the CP-LEAR kaon experiment at CERN in 1998 [Phys. Lett. B 444 43 (1998)] and was confirmed in B-decays by Babar in 2012 (and as evidence that this result is always forgotten they forgot about the CP-LEAR measurement in this article!!). These experiments looked at how a particle oscillates back and forth between two possible states. What they found is that a particle in state A will oscillate into state B faster than one in state B will oscillate into state A. Hence the process prefers to go in one direction more than the other even though in this case the two states have identical entropy.
So if time were reversed you would be able to detect it by doing the same experiment and finding that now the particles would go from B to A faster than from A to B. Incidentally this symmetry is also closely related by special relativity to the symmetry between matter and anti-matter so reversing time would switch our universe into one which prefers anti-matter over matter and we could detect this flip again with particle physics experiments.
So amazing as it seems we could detect a flip in the direction of time and the article is just plain wrong when it says that the laws of physics don't care which way time goes: they do and we have evidence to show it!
No I am comparing the long term effects of punitive economic measures on a large European country. It has nothing to do with the UK's temper tantrums but rather what the rest of the EU will do as a result. If the UK triggers article 50 there is a real danger that it could end up with no trade deal before the fixed, 2 year time limit that article imposes is up...and this could happen even if the EU is being somewhat cooperative given the massive complexity involved.
This would catapult the UK out of the common market and have a huge, negative, long term impact on the economy and you can bet the Westminster politicians are not going to own that problem but lay it squarely at the feet of the EU. That could well set up very similar economic conditions to Germany in the 1920's where the economy is tanking and the politicians blame a foreign power.
Clearly we are still nowhere near that situation yet but unless we are careful there is a clear, and now somewhat likely, path to get there even though it may take 10 years to arrive at it.
Scotland would be loaded with 130 billion pounds of debt.
And why would the EU with 450+ M people give such good deals to the UK ?
Hopefully the EU will remember Europe's history and not try to really turn the thumbscrews on the UK no matter how well deserved. The last time a European country screwed up and really annoyed the continent was Germany. The punitive measures Europe imposed after the First World War collapsed the economy and directly lead to the rise of the Nazi party.
We already have right wing nut jobs in the UK using posters worryingly similar to Nazi propaganda. So by all means give us an economic slap for this utterly insane decision (we can hope it might bring the leavers to their senses) but please resist the urge to give us the full economic punch the UK richly deserves since that could lead to something far worse.
But what if the robots don't want to be subjected to socialism like this?
Well if they are classed as persons then they presumably get to vote as well and can elect right wing robot politicians....and before you say that will never happen we used to have one here in Canada called Stephen Harper.
No one will care in a year.
DVDs were replaced by online downloads and streaming. The 3.5mm jack is going to be replaced by multiple competing standards so you are going to be carrying dongles around with you so your earphones work with all your devices. This is more like the MacBook where they replaced multiple standard ports with just USB-C and made all the users buy dongles to get the ports they needed. People were not happy.
...and they save a whole whopping nickel off each unit.
That's not the reason they are doing this. The 3.5mm jack is an open standard which anyone can easily use for free and just about any earphones will work with any phone. If each manufacturer can get away with replacing this with their own proprietary connector then now users will have to either purchase a dongle or a specially designed earphone where the phone manufacturer gets a cut because it uses their connector.
So this is not about saving a 3p/5c per phone this is about making ten times as much, or more, per dongle or earphone purchased. Better yet if these are like Apple's lightning connector the lifespan of the connector is a lot less than that of the phone so they can sell multiple connectors per phone and make even more money. Call me cynical but I have yet to see any real benefit mentioned to the customer from ditching the standard 3.5mm jack, and certainly nothing like enough to offset the pain involved in carrying around multiple dongles so your earphones can work with your tablet, phone an laptop.
It doesn't make it ok but it does mean that entity1 doesn't really get to complain about it unless they have apologized and made reparations for their past, and to some extent still ongoing (but better disguised), egregious behaviour in this regard. The OP is not saying that what the Chinese are doing is fine but simply that the US is in no position to complain about it because this is how they have behaved, and to some extent still are, behaving (only better disguised as a legal patent system which foreign companies find strangely hard to win against US ones).
What HIPAA guarantees does CareMonkey make?
Would you trust any security guarantee from a company who thinks that putting documents in the cloud is less of a security risk than a paper document? These guys are clearly idiots who have no idea of the type of security problems they are going to be dealing with.
Which dismisses the fact that we COULD NOT exist if the universe hadn't been here for 13 billion years.
Why? Science works on evidence and reasoned argument not just because you think it ought to act that way. There is absolutely no scientific evidence to support this claim which means that it is NOT a fact. You can call me silly names until you are blue in the face but this just makes you look like an idiot who is trying to win a scientific argument based on force of character rather than force of evidence and that never works.
Here is why you are wrong. The star which went supernova leaving the material from which the solar system formed had a lifespan measured in millions, not billions of years. Hence all the events directly leading up to us evolving took place in a little over 6 billion years. Had the solar system formed from the debris of one of the first supernovae we could have evolved ~6-7 billion years earlier. If that's wrong please provide a reasoned, scientific argument as to why because the scientific community would love to know where this chain of events is flawed because that would help solve the Fermi paradox. Your own personal opinion of what you want to be true is irrelevant to how the universe actually works. That's a tough lesson to learn but one that science is good at teaching - you should try it some time.
We weren't looking for that particular object.
Even when we are looking for a particular object and even one that we made ourselves and is on the planet we seem to have incredible difficulty finding it. Just look at flight MH370 where we still don't really know what happened to it or where it went down despite a huge international effort and the size of that is very comparable at 73.9m in length.