Whether Alexander was Greek depends on what you consider Greek. You're correct that there is a distinction between classical Greeks (i.e. Athenians, Spartans, and others) and classical Macedonians. However, modern Greeks are actually in large part descendents of Macedonians and Hellenized non-Greeks; it's not as if modern Greeks are somehow purebred descendents of ancient Athenians.
To the extent that the Macedonian Empire created much of what would become the "Hellenic World", Alexander was certainly Greek almost definitionally.
Currency as physical property is a piece of paper with text on it. The reason you cannot copy it is that the government holds the intellectual property rights to it. If you physically stole currency from a bank vault, that would be theft of physical property. If you counterfeit currency, that's not physical theft.
Hard currency (e.g. silver coins) is another matter, and in that case it is real physical property with inherent value, but that's a very small proportion of currency these days.
NASA seems to be confident that a 3-out situation happening more than 90 seconds into flight would permit some sort of safe abort, either an RTLS, landing at an alternate airstrip, or gliding ditch into the ocean with crew bailing out via parachute. They seem less confident of what would happen if all 3 SMEs failed less than 90 seconds into launch.
One of the reason more failure modes are now survivable for the crew is that post-Challenger a bailout ability was added: If the shuttle is stable and under control and still not too high, but has insufficient power to either attain orbit or reach an emergency-landing airstrip, the crew can put it on autopilot and bail out with parachutes, using an egress pole that allows them to clear the left shuttle wing.
First, multiple SME failure just after SRB ignition was problematic, but it has never been problematic due to over-rotation---there is sufficient steering ability even with just the SRBs. The problem is that multiple SME failure causes too much of a difference in thrust between the shuttle and the boosters, which would overstress the struts attaching the SRBs to the shuttle. In addition, a failure of two or more (of the three) SMEs would result in insufficient power to attain orbit.
Since Challenger, the struts were strengthened, so they can now survive even a three-out situation. A two-out failure can now be dealt with without loss of life throughout the launch (although it would require a ditch and loss of the vehicle through some portions). A three-out failure is still problematic, but should be survivable for the crew after 90 seconds, and might be survivable just after launch.
To take your scotch example, many novice drinkers prefer the expensive blended Johnny Walker Blue (~$150-180/bottle), whereas there are many cheaper (often sub-$75) bottles of single malt that scotch aficionados would prefer.
The specific context being discussed here (how a machine can "really" assign meaning to the symbols it manipulates) is the famous "symbol-grounding problem", which is very much rooted in the fields of artificial intelligence (where it originated), linguistics, cognitive science, and philosophy of mind. I am not aware of any important research into the symbol-grounding problem that draws on semiotic tools, and certainly no such research that has had an impact on AI practice.
"Semiotics" is not a field of study in the U.S., although the term occasionally comes up. It's most often referred to in humanities contexts (sociology, literary theory, "critical theory", etc.). Most of the research into what a Professor of Semiotics in Europe would do is done in some other area in the U.S., and most of the serious/rigorous research is done by linguists (who, contrary to popular belief, do not study only language, but really any system of meaning and/or communication).
That is a term for it, and the distinction is more cultural and historical than scientific. European research into this collection of areas often is called "semiotics", and has a particular tradition. Anglosphere research into such areas has another tradition, and the term "semiotics" is rarely heard. Instead, various portions of such research take place under the aegis of "linguistics" (incl. semantics, and studying more than just traditional languages), "philosophy of language", "philosophy of mind", and "cognitive science".
1) The U.S. does not have "hate speech" laws. Such laws would be unconstitutional here, unlike in Germany.
2) You cannot get an injunction for prior restraint of speech in the U.S. in most cases; only in extreme cases. See the Wikipedia article on prior restraint for more on how U.S. law much more strongly protects publishers in that respect.
If someone sends your ISP a nasty letter accusing you of anything---claiming without evidence that you're a spammer, say---some ISPs will just shut you down rather than deal with it.
The DMCA, although a crappy law, does not permit prior restraint of speech. If someone receives a DMCA notice, and replies asserting that the material in question is not a violation of copyright, the material stays up and the complainer must take them to court to get it taken down. So your description of how it works ("don't even need to get a court involved") is simply incorrect, unless the defendant simply acquiesces.
Suspects still are entitled to sue for slander (or libel) if it in fact takes place. However, accurately reporting that so-and-so was arrested and charged with [x] is not slander---it is simply stating verifiable facts.
It's vaguely related in that Germany has, along with some other European countries, made an overall decision to "balance" free speech rights with what they consider equally important social goals. This is mainly targetted at neo-Nazis and whatnot, but also results in cases like this one.
If, instead, Germany had strongly-enshrined free speech rights similar to the U.S.'s First Amendment, this case would never have even made it to an injunction.
In the U.S., for example, a preliminary injunction prohibiting publication of material alleged but not actually (yet) found to be illegal is called "prior restraint", and an a high bar must be met for a court to issue such an injunction.
They use the same: * Processors (Intel x86) * Internal peripherals busses (PCI and AGP) * External peripherals interfaces (USB and BlueTooth) * Hard drive interface (SATA)
Just about the only thing non-commodity is the Apple Display Connector (ADC), which is basically DVI and USB bundled onto one cable, to make it easy to put USB ports on the monitor.
Slashdot Mirror
The subject here seems to be "TV-like" streaming, which is just pushing out streaming already-rendered video files.
The 4th century B.C. spanned from 301 to 400 B.C.
You linked to an article on a nation comprised of Slavic peoples who migrated to the region nearly 1000 years after Alexander died.
Whether Alexander was Greek depends on what you consider Greek. You're correct that there is a distinction between classical Greeks (i.e. Athenians, Spartans, and others) and classical Macedonians. However, modern Greeks are actually in large part descendents of Macedonians and Hellenized non-Greeks; it's not as if modern Greeks are somehow purebred descendents of ancient Athenians.
To the extent that the Macedonian Empire created much of what would become the "Hellenic World", Alexander was certainly Greek almost definitionally.
Currency as physical property is a piece of paper with text on it. The reason you cannot copy it is that the government holds the intellectual property rights to it. If you physically stole currency from a bank vault, that would be theft of physical property. If you counterfeit currency, that's not physical theft.
Hard currency (e.g. silver coins) is another matter, and in that case it is real physical property with inherent value, but that's a very small proportion of currency these days.
% locate foo
NASA seems to be confident that a 3-out situation happening more than 90 seconds into flight would permit some sort of safe abort, either an RTLS, landing at an alternate airstrip, or gliding ditch into the ocean with crew bailing out via parachute. They seem less confident of what would happen if all 3 SMEs failed less than 90 seconds into launch.
One of the reason more failure modes are now survivable for the crew is that post-Challenger a bailout ability was added: If the shuttle is stable and under control and still not too high, but has insufficient power to either attain orbit or reach an emergency-landing airstrip, the crew can put it on autopilot and bail out with parachutes, using an egress pole that allows them to clear the left shuttle wing.
First, multiple SME failure just after SRB ignition was problematic, but it has never been problematic due to over-rotation---there is sufficient steering ability even with just the SRBs. The problem is that multiple SME failure causes too much of a difference in thrust between the shuttle and the boosters, which would overstress the struts attaching the SRBs to the shuttle. In addition, a failure of two or more (of the three) SMEs would result in insufficient power to attain orbit.
Since Challenger, the struts were strengthened, so they can now survive even a three-out situation. A two-out failure can now be dealt with without loss of life throughout the launch (although it would require a ditch and loss of the vehicle through some portions). A three-out failure is still problematic, but should be survivable for the crew after 90 seconds, and might be survivable just after launch.
Had they followed your advice, Larry Page and Sergey Brin would not be multibillionaires as they currently are.
To take your scotch example, many novice drinkers prefer the expensive blended Johnny Walker Blue (~$150-180/bottle), whereas there are many cheaper (often sub-$75) bottles of single malt that scotch aficionados would prefer.
The specific context being discussed here (how a machine can "really" assign meaning to the symbols it manipulates) is the famous "symbol-grounding problem", which is very much rooted in the fields of artificial intelligence (where it originated), linguistics, cognitive science, and philosophy of mind. I am not aware of any important research into the symbol-grounding problem that draws on semiotic tools, and certainly no such research that has had an impact on AI practice.
"Semiotics" is not a field of study in the U.S., although the term occasionally comes up. It's most often referred to in humanities contexts (sociology, literary theory, "critical theory", etc.). Most of the research into what a Professor of Semiotics in Europe would do is done in some other area in the U.S., and most of the serious/rigorous research is done by linguists (who, contrary to popular belief, do not study only language, but really any system of meaning and/or communication).
That is a term for it, and the distinction is more cultural and historical than scientific. European research into this collection of areas often is called "semiotics", and has a particular tradition. Anglosphere research into such areas has another tradition, and the term "semiotics" is rarely heard. Instead, various portions of such research take place under the aegis of "linguistics" (incl. semantics, and studying more than just traditional languages), "philosophy of language", "philosophy of mind", and "cognitive science".
1) The U.S. does not have "hate speech" laws. Such laws would be unconstitutional here, unlike in Germany.
2) You cannot get an injunction for prior restraint of speech in the U.S. in most cases; only in extreme cases. See the Wikipedia article on prior restraint for more on how U.S. law much more strongly protects publishers in that respect.
If someone sends your ISP a nasty letter accusing you of anything---claiming without evidence that you're a spammer, say---some ISPs will just shut you down rather than deal with it.
The DMCA, although a crappy law, does not permit prior restraint of speech. If someone receives a DMCA notice, and replies asserting that the material in question is not a violation of copyright, the material stays up and the complainer must take them to court to get it taken down. So your description of how it works ("don't even need to get a court involved") is simply incorrect, unless the defendant simply acquiesces.
Suspects still are entitled to sue for slander (or libel) if it in fact takes place. However, accurately reporting that so-and-so was arrested and charged with [x] is not slander---it is simply stating verifiable facts.
It's vaguely related in that Germany has, along with some other European countries, made an overall decision to "balance" free speech rights with what they consider equally important social goals. This is mainly targetted at neo-Nazis and whatnot, but also results in cases like this one.
If, instead, Germany had strongly-enshrined free speech rights similar to the U.S.'s First Amendment, this case would never have even made it to an injunction.
They did sue someone as the first reaction, though. Only, instead of suing the publisher, they sued someone completely unrelated.
How is that better?
In the U.S., for example, a preliminary injunction prohibiting publication of material alleged but not actually (yet) found to be illegal is called "prior restraint", and an a high bar must be met for a court to issue such an injunction.
They sent legal papers to the offices of the Wikimedia Foundation in Florida, demanding they appoint a representative in Germany to defend the case.
They use the same:
* Processors (Intel x86)
* Internal peripherals busses (PCI and AGP)
* External peripherals interfaces (USB and BlueTooth)
* Hard drive interface (SATA)
Just about the only thing non-commodity is the Apple Display Connector (ADC), which is basically DVI and USB bundled onto one cable, to make it easy to put USB ports on the monitor.
If you didn't want things like Flash, you wouldn't be buying a Mac anyway.
If there were 500 Eiffel towers dotting Paris, people might be less happy about them than they are about the one.