From a Trump campaign memo, when he threatened to cut off remittances, to encourage Mexico to pay:
“It’s an easy decision for Mexico: make a one-time payment of $5-10 billion to ensure that $24 billion (in remittances) continues to flow into their country year after year”.
That sounds like a a direct payment to me.
Trump is arguing for a 100% wall, and is arguing that it will magically solve 100% of problems. The Dems think this is a waste of money, and that there are more cost effective ways to control the border, which is why they voted for an increase in funding for border security a few days ago. Just not for a wall.
Oh, you mean that core election promise that Mexico would pay for the wall with a one-off payment. Looks like the Dems (and the GOP before Jan) are just holding him to that promise.
Only 6% of the Israeli "wall" is actually a wall. 94% is just lots (really lots!) of barbed wire fencing in multiple layers - with a dead zone between where people crossing can be observed, and with a trench to slow them down long enough to be observed, and smooth sand/gravel so that successful crossing attempts can at least be detected in hindsight.
The tall concrete walls you see in the news are only in places where there isn't enough width to have a fence + dead zone, or where there's an issue with snipers - e.g. housing right up close to the border from where people can shoot or be shot at.
Back in the US, most illegal migrants from the south arrive legally at border points then overstay.
Really, a wall will have next to no effect on the number of illegal migrants entering the US. As for drugs - if drug lords are resourceful enough to build mini-submarines for example, then a wall isn't going to stop them.
The ECHR is not part of the EU infrastructure, and after Brexit the UK will still come under it, unless we separately decide to quit. Brexit removes the UK from the ECJ, which is a separate beastie.
Approx total deaths from various causes In the last 10 years in the UK:
1000000 cardiovascular issues;
1000000 cancer;
25000 car crashes;
500 carbon monoxide poisoning;
200 drowning in the bath;
5 islamic terrorism.
Maybe we need a War on Bath Salesmen?
Sigh. A Watt is a unit of power, not energy. Every second our bodies consume 100J of energy, which means
on average we're burning about 100 watts (J/s). We consume around 8Mj per day, or 2000 Kcalories, or the equivalent of 40 of my laptop's batteries (56Wh) or 634 of my phone's batteries (3.5Wh).
" which is conveniently enough to power a modestly used smart phone". Actually 2000 calories per day is about 100W. That's a pretty damned big smartphone.
This wasn't an EU court. It was the UK High Court, which based it's ruling on the UK Human Rights Act, which is a UK act of parliament which enshrines the European Convention on Human Rights (a treaty which pre-dates the EU and the EC) into UK law. (Where "UK" kind of excludes Scotland. IANAL, let alone a constitutional one).
They pretend it's about the Swedish "rape" case, by which I mean consenting sex without a condom.
Sigh. First off, it's just as easy to extradite someone to the US from the UK as it is from Sweden. If the US wants him, there's no need for them to somehow persuade the Swedish authorities to extradite him first on their behalf.
Second, sex without consent is rape. If someone agrees to have sex with you on condition that you use a condom, then they haven't consented to condom-less sex. And condom-less sex with a promiscuous stranger risks such nasties as HIV. Whether this happened, we don't know. But the Swedish authorities have the right to carry out an investigation.
Overall, my feeling is that WikiLeaks is an important public service, but that Julian Assange is a bit of an arsehole.
Yes, but we already know that hockey stick graph was misleading. Mann left off the warming and cooling trend of the Medival warming trend, aka, the right side of the valley, to show a hockey stick, not an elongated U.
We also know he had code problems, and his results are bad.
Fraud? Probably not.
Confirmation Bias? Probably.
Perhaps you aren't aware that at the time Mann produced the hockey stick, the nature of his research was to investigate underlying natural cycles of climate (e.g. El Nino); he wasn't particularly interested in the AGW aspect of it. His initial graph went back as far as the data available at the time would allow and be statistically valid.
I'd suggest people read Mann's book "The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars".
Google never wanted the data. They would have deleted it immediately when they discovered that bits of random traffic data had been logged along with the SSIDs (which was the bit they were after), except that would have been regarded as destroying evidence. So instead they notified all the relevant authorities and waited for permission and/or orders to delete the data.
We know due to lots of stuff, like tree rings and lake sediments. While they all have margins of error, they are all in broad agreement that the temperature rises in the last century have been exceptional. We also have CO2 data from ice cores that shows that for 0.5M years CO2 levels varied between about 180 and 280ppm, in step with the ice ages and Milankovitch cycles, while in the last 100 years it has risen suddenly to 400ppm.
The relationship between CO2 content in the atmosphere, and how much heat the Earth absorbs from / radiates into space, is basic physics, and has been well understood for a hundred years or so. Increasing CO2 from 280ppm to 400ppm will cause a significant heating of the atmosphere and oceans. Dismissing it because it's only 0.00012 is vacuous handwaving.
IANAL. IANA American. However, my understanding is that: copyrights are decided in federal courts. This decision does not establish any precedent, although of course people in other trials may reference it as a useful example of something clearly argued. If appealed, it goes to the 9th circuit, which covers a few states including California. If that circuit makes a firm ruling on the copyrightability of the SSO of APIs, then that is precedent-setting for all lower courts within the 9th circuit area. Courts in other areas are not bound by it, but may of view it as a useful example. If further appealed to SCOTUS, then any decision there binds the entire country.
and similarly, if the jury decide that that Google *did* copy the API (i.e. it wasn't fair use etc), then if after appeal it's decided that APIs are protectable, it avoids having to send the case back with a new jury to decide whether Google violated that copyright.
Its not a leak, Someone has already commented in the ticket that if you repeatedly create and destroy perl interpeters, then you need to set PL_destruct_level, because otherwise, (for efficiency), perl doesn't completely free the old interpreter, on the asumption that you're about to call exit(). So, it's just that no one got round to marking the ticket as rejected.
Slashdot Mirror
From a Trump campaign memo, when he threatened to cut off remittances, to encourage Mexico to pay: “It’s an easy decision for Mexico: make a one-time payment of $5-10 billion to ensure that $24 billion (in remittances) continues to flow into their country year after year”. That sounds like a a direct payment to me.
Trump is arguing for a 100% wall, and is arguing that it will magically solve 100% of problems. The Dems think this is a waste of money, and that there are more cost effective ways to control the border, which is why they voted for an increase in funding for border security a few days ago. Just not for a wall.
Oh, you mean that core election promise that Mexico would pay for the wall with a one-off payment. Looks like the Dems (and the GOP before Jan) are just holding him to that promise.
Only 6% of the Israeli "wall" is actually a wall. 94% is just lots (really lots!) of barbed wire fencing in multiple layers - with a dead zone between where people crossing can be observed, and with a trench to slow them down long enough to be observed, and smooth sand/gravel so that successful crossing attempts can at least be detected in hindsight. The tall concrete walls you see in the news are only in places where there isn't enough width to have a fence + dead zone, or where there's an issue with snipers - e.g. housing right up close to the border from where people can shoot or be shot at. Back in the US, most illegal migrants from the south arrive legally at border points then overstay. Really, a wall will have next to no effect on the number of illegal migrants entering the US. As for drugs - if drug lords are resourceful enough to build mini-submarines for example, then a wall isn't going to stop them.
The ECHR is not part of the EU infrastructure, and after Brexit the UK will still come under it, unless we separately decide to quit. Brexit removes the UK from the ECJ, which is a separate beastie.
Approx total deaths from various causes In the last 10 years in the UK: 1000000 cardiovascular issues; 1000000 cancer; 25000 car crashes; 500 carbon monoxide poisoning; 200 drowning in the bath; 5 islamic terrorism. Maybe we need a War on Bath Salesmen?
Sigh. A Watt is a unit of power, not energy. Every second our bodies consume 100J of energy, which means on average we're burning about 100 watts (J/s). We consume around 8Mj per day, or 2000 Kcalories, or the equivalent of 40 of my laptop's batteries (56Wh) or 634 of my phone's batteries (3.5Wh).
" which is conveniently enough to power a modestly used smart phone". Actually 2000 calories per day is about 100W. That's a pretty damned big smartphone.
This wasn't an EU court. It was the UK High Court, which based it's ruling on the UK Human Rights Act, which is a UK act of parliament which enshrines the European Convention on Human Rights (a treaty which pre-dates the EU and the EC) into UK law. (Where "UK" kind of excludes Scotland. IANAL, let alone a constitutional one).
you do realise that all these detentions happened years before the Snowden leaks?
"Second, sex without consent is rape." Which is not what happened.
Well, non-consensual sex is what is claimed. Whether it happened is for a jury to decide.
And dumbasses like you think it's still about sex without a condom
Ah, what en elegant way you have with words!
They pretend it's about the Swedish "rape" case, by which I mean consenting sex without a condom.
Sigh. First off, it's just as easy to extradite someone to the US from the UK as it is from Sweden. If the US wants him, there's no need for them to somehow persuade the Swedish authorities to extradite him first on their behalf.
Second, sex without consent is rape. If someone agrees to have sex with you on condition that you use a condom, then they haven't consented to condom-less sex. And condom-less sex with a promiscuous stranger risks such nasties as HIV. Whether this happened, we don't know. But the Swedish authorities have the right to carry out an investigation.
Overall, my feeling is that WikiLeaks is an important public service, but that Julian Assange is a bit of an arsehole.
it's a rocket. I'm not aware of them using Helium
Rockets often use compressed helium to maintain pressure in the fuel tanks as they empty
Yeah. Overturning the Newtonian consensus really screwed up Einstein's career.
Yes, but we already know that hockey stick graph was misleading. Mann left off the warming and cooling trend of the Medival warming trend, aka, the right side of the valley, to show a hockey stick, not an elongated U.
We also know he had code problems, and his results are bad.
Fraud? Probably not.
Confirmation Bias? Probably.
Perhaps you aren't aware that at the time Mann produced the hockey stick, the nature of his research was to investigate underlying natural cycles of climate (e.g. El Nino); he wasn't particularly interested in the AGW aspect of it. His initial graph went back as far as the data available at the time would allow and be statistically valid.
I'd suggest people read Mann's book "The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars".
"smooth RAC cluster installation". That would make a pleasant change.
Of course they didn't deny they had it. *They* were the ones who told the authorities they had it.
Google never wanted the data. They would have deleted it immediately when they discovered that bits of random traffic data had been logged along with the SSIDs (which was the bit they were after), except that would have been regarded as destroying evidence. So instead they notified all the relevant authorities and waited for permission and/or orders to delete the data.
We know due to lots of stuff, like tree rings and lake sediments. While they all have margins of error, they are all in broad agreement that the temperature rises in the last century have been exceptional. We also have CO2 data from ice cores that shows that for 0.5M years CO2 levels varied between about 180 and 280ppm, in step with the ice ages and Milankovitch cycles, while in the last 100 years it has risen suddenly to 400ppm.
The relationship between CO2 content in the atmosphere, and how much heat the Earth absorbs from / radiates into space, is basic physics, and has been well understood for a hundred years or so. Increasing CO2 from 280ppm to 400ppm will cause a significant heating of the atmosphere and oceans. Dismissing it because it's only 0.00012 is vacuous handwaving.
IANAL. IANA American. However, my understanding is that: copyrights are decided in federal courts. This decision does not establish any precedent, although of course people in other trials may reference it as a useful example of something clearly argued. If appealed, it goes to the 9th circuit, which covers a few states including California. If that circuit makes a firm ruling on the copyrightability of the SSO of APIs, then that is precedent-setting for all lower courts within the 9th circuit area. Courts in other areas are not bound by it, but may of view it as a useful example. If further appealed to SCOTUS, then any decision there binds the entire country.
When you say evolution is already proven please give a reference to such evidence. I'm ready and willing to listen.
See Talk origins; in particular 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution
Did you mention hydrogen bombs to him?
and similarly, if the jury decide that that Google *did* copy the API (i.e. it wasn't fair use etc), then if after appeal it's decided that APIs are protectable, it avoids having to send the case back with a new jury to decide whether Google violated that copyright.
Its not a leak, Someone has already commented in the ticket that if you repeatedly create and destroy perl interpeters, then you need to set PL_destruct_level, because otherwise, (for efficiency), perl doesn't completely free the old interpreter, on the asumption that you're about to call exit(). So, it's just that no one got round to marking the ticket as rejected.