...Do the same tests on Chinese vs American scientists when they develop hypothesis and make plans/estimations for future experiments....
That may be very revealing. People in science widely acknowledge that the Chinese training form creates diligent uninspired thinking that focuses on large experiments making small jumps in progress, and that American scientists are more creative and less methodical, doing smaller experiments that make larger jumps.
This is a generalization. Not an absolute.
Since most "American" scientists are really scientists from all over the world working in America, I'd say it's not so much a question of the type of training (which many of those have gotten elsewhere), as it is a question of the type of working conditions. There are few fields where freedom is as important for good results as in science.
Also, trademarks expire if they are no longer used by the owner.
However, for Superman, both don't apply: "Superman" refers only to that specific superhero and is not used as generic name of superheroes, and obviously the trademark "Superman" is still in use.
I just noted that I was a bit ambiguous: In the second "If" sentence (i.e. the third paragraph"), the second "they" of course refers to Warner, not to the heirs.
I guess when offering Warner their 50%, this was against compensation.
If Warner paid and the heirs accepted the money (or whatever the compensation consisted of), I don't see how they could then claim to still have any rights. If you want to keep something, don't sell it.
If they asked for compensation and Warner didn't pay anything, I can't see how they could own the rights.
And if the heirs didn't demand compensation for transferring their rights, well, they just pay the price for their stupidity.
You certainly can be an expert computer maker without knowing computer science. You should know a bit about electrical engineering, though. To program those computers, you can then safely let to the programmers.
It sounds like you need to brush up on your own history classes -- unless they were in the US, in which cases they made some important omissions. Such as the fact that England started shipping its inmates to Australia only after the American Revolution made them lose their favorite penal colony. Prior to then, many punishments for criminals consisted of them having to spend several years or their whole lives in the US.
Prior to then, the US didn't yet exist. So England may have sent their criminals to America, but certainly not to the US.
Last time when we talk about Soviet Union and/or China and/or Cuba and/or Iran and/or North Korea or East Germany, or any of those countries we used words like "ROUGE COUNTRIES" to describe them.
I seriously doubt that.
Well, Iran was certainly not considered red, but the other countries clearly were.
The thing is, if you make it too hard for terrorists to use computers/phones etc (ie they are/can be monitored), they simply switch to communicate via hand delivered notes written on paper.
Offtopic?? Please, moderators, if you really feel the irresistable urge to misuse negative moderation for "I disagree", then please at least restrict yourself to "Troll", "Flamebait" or "Overrated".
It'd've been correct if the OP has said "Death is freedom from life". Unwanted death is not by choice. Suicide is by choice. If you choose to live under totalitarian dictatorship so that you don't have to make decision, then I'd call it freedom.
The initial decision may have been a free one, but at that time you didn't yet live under a totalitarian dictatorship. As soon as that decision is executed, you're not free any more.
Yes, you can freely choose to lose your freedom. But afterwards you are no longer free.
Slashdot Mirror
...Do the same tests on Chinese vs American scientists when they develop hypothesis and make plans/estimations for future experiments....
That may be very revealing. People in science widely acknowledge that the Chinese training form creates diligent uninspired thinking that focuses on large experiments making small jumps in progress, and that American scientists are more creative and less methodical, doing smaller experiments that make larger jumps.
This is a generalization. Not an absolute.
Since most "American" scientists are really scientists from all over the world working in America, I'd say it's not so much a question of the type of training (which many of those have gotten elsewhere), as it is a question of the type of working conditions. There are few fields where freedom is as important for good results as in science.
Also, trademarks expire if they are no longer used by the owner.
However, for Superman, both don't apply: "Superman" refers only to that specific superhero and is not used as generic name of superheroes, and obviously the trademark "Superman" is still in use.
I just noted that I was a bit ambiguous: In the second "If" sentence (i.e. the third paragraph"), the second "they" of course refers to Warner, not to the heirs.
I guess when offering Warner their 50%, this was against compensation.
If Warner paid and the heirs accepted the money (or whatever the compensation consisted of), I don't see how they could then claim to still have any rights. If you want to keep something, don't sell it.
If they asked for compensation and Warner didn't pay anything, I can't see how they could own the rights.
And if the heirs didn't demand compensation for transferring their rights, well, they just pay the price for their stupidity.
Someone on Slashdot pointed me to the Greasemonkey script Moderatrix. It works great.
Browse Slashdot while you're supposed to be working, use your lunch time to go for a walk.
And when am I supposed to be eating?
To put your signature onto it and then scan it, of course.
If there is one thing you definitely don't want to be remotely controllable, it's security systems.
This is done by the delivery services; what would you remote-control there?
That doesn't need remote control. Put sensors in each room which detect if someone is there.
See above.
Their phone isn't the master controller. The central server is.
You certainly can be an expert computer maker without knowing computer science. You should know a bit about electrical engineering, though. To program those computers, you can then safely let to the programmers.
Or plant kiddy porn there, for convenient later use.
It sounds like you need to brush up on your own history classes -- unless they were in the US, in which cases they made some important omissions. Such as the fact that England started shipping its inmates to Australia only after the American Revolution made them lose their favorite penal colony. Prior to then, many punishments for criminals consisted of them having to spend several years or their whole lives in the US.
Prior to then, the US didn't yet exist. So England may have sent their criminals to America, but certainly not to the US.
Last time when we talk about Soviet Union and/or China and/or Cuba and/or Iran and/or North Korea or East Germany, or any of those countries we used words like "ROUGE COUNTRIES" to describe them.
I seriously doubt that.
Well, Iran was certainly not considered red, but the other countries clearly were.
The thing is, if you make it too hard for terrorists to use computers/phones etc (ie they are/can be monitored), they simply switch to communicate via hand delivered notes written on paper.
Then forbid paper as a terrorist's tool.
Next step, they'll make it illegal to take countermeasures they cannot circumvent.
I can't see a dereference in his sig.
We would have caught him, but there was a Python lying in front of his door.
So I can use it to control my heart beat, blood pressure, etc.?
Or someone else's?
Offtopic?? Please, moderators, if you really feel the irresistable urge to misuse negative moderation for "I disagree", then please at least restrict yourself to "Troll", "Flamebait" or "Overrated".
Framed rightly, you can make anything into a "free" decision.
A decision is only truly free if neither option has considerably bad consequences.
It'd've been correct if the OP has said "Death is freedom from life". Unwanted death is not by choice. Suicide is by choice. If you choose to live under totalitarian dictatorship so that you don't have to make decision, then I'd call it freedom.
The initial decision may have been a free one, but at that time you didn't yet live under a totalitarian dictatorship. As soon as that decision is executed, you're not free any more.
Yes, you can freely choose to lose your freedom. But afterwards you are no longer free.
Well, the more you know, the more you know you don't know.
Also what is so different between blowing up planets and dropping bombs on people with drones?
When the people you are attacking live on the same planet you live on, the difference is that in the second case you tend to survive.
Ah, now I get why you call them an administration.
In other words, fine precedent, lousy president!
(And in case anyone is curious, in my opinion Mitt Romney would have been even worse)
You mean, he would have had worse parasites than louses? :-)