Nonetheless, it often is. The same article goes on to say "About 200 degrees Fahrenheit is the optimal temperature to make coffee," and the National Coffee Association agrees, and goes on to say that "If it will be a few minutes before it will be served, the temperature should be maintained at 180 - 185 degrees Fahrenheit."
So the point stands - 185 degrees shouldn't be an unexpected serving temperature.
Coffee is often made with boiling water, so 185F coffee isn't unreasonable or something which should be unexpected. McDonald's shouldn't have to warn people of that, nor should they be held responsible if people spill it on themselves.
Your link, to a self-serving article by the "Consumer Attorneys of California," does nothing to support your claim that this was anything other than an unreasonable abuse of the legal process.
"Facebook Inc said on Monday that it made a mistake in letting Merck & Co take over a page on the social networking website from its German rival Merck KGaA." - IBTimes
Merck Germany filed in NY so it could do discovery and find out who moved their cheese. It's not clear at this point if the FB page was turned over to Merck US by FB, or by someone else (Merck Germany employee or contractor) who had administrative privileges.
But, just as FB support multiple "John Smith" pages, there are multiple Merck pages. Merck Germany still has one, with posts going back more than a year, but which was pretty inactive. The US Merck has it's own page. So, maybe the Germans are just clueless or confused. Or, maybe it's because the simple link - http://www.facebook.com/Merck is linked to the US one (the full URI to the US one permanently redirects to the simple one), but it used to be linked to the German one. It seems to me that's something FB would have done - I doubt a user can control that. And, FB may have done that simply to point to the more active and popular "Merck." The US site has had 30 posts since September, the German one, 19 in a year and a half.
Western Digital and Seagate already signed contracts with OEMs for Q4 (if not beyond) - at this point they're locked into selling a specific number of drives at a specific price. Short of going bankrupt, breach of contract is rarely the better option.
Although I don't have the specific knowledge of WDC and Seagate contracts you profess, many/most contracts have "outs" for act-of-god situations, which would apply here.
They're throwing stuff against the wall. If it doesn't stick, you really can't fault them for letting it fall. If you could predict with certainty what would ultimately be successful in the market, you wouldn't be spending time on/., you'd be doing something useful (and getting rich at the same time), instead of being an ankle biter.
it's called Free Speech. That's not to say that the Government won't try to take it away, as they have with other rights, but there it is. The Internet isn't a thing which can be (properly) regulated, it's just a bunch of people/organizations voluntarily communicating.
I believe that there were cooks calling things "fruits" and "vegetables" before there were scientists (in the modern sense of that word). Both terms go back to Middle English, according to the OED. So, really, scientists have no right to re-categorized plant words for their own purposes.
BTW, the Oxford disagrees with your claim:
The confusion about 'fruit' and 'vegetable' arises because of the differences in usage between scientists and cooks.
"However, those are not the particles that form the dunes in the first place. The dunes would be composed of the larger (heavier) particles that need more force to move."
Sure. I'd expect that the winds naturally sort by particle size. Those light enough to be kept aloft, are. Dense/large ones stay in one place. Those in between, which can only be pushed around as dunes, are. Where's the surprise in that? The surprise would be if there were a particle size distribution with a large gap between ones which could stay aloft and ones which couldn't even be moved.
So, back to the original point - how did they duplicate Martian gravity (and sand, for that matter) in a wind tunnel? I suspect they were just "doing mathematics."
By your logic, you should be able to do the same for the pressure difference, so why then the wind tunnel? What is the relationship between the wind speed needed to move sand around and gravity? Do you have a physical/mathematical formula to share?
Furthermore, it's known that the Mars atmosphere is dusty, so why would they think particulates just sit still? What's the particle size of the sand in those dunes? Density? They obviously weren't using Martian sand in the tests.
"Wind-tunnel experiments have shown that a patch of sand would take winds of about 80 mph (nearly 130 kilometers per hour) to move on Mars compared with only 10 mph (about 16 kilometers per hour) on Earth."
I can understand how they could have a low pressure wind tunnel to simulate the lower Martian atmospheric pressure, but how did they reduce the gravity by almost 2/3? There's no mention of Mars' lower gravity anywhere in the article.
If you cannot consume the media without a copy of it being made (e.g., in the memory of the player),
Transitory "copies" do not violate copyright. There's case law behind that. See here, for a bit of info.
Beyond that, I'd argue that any "copying" necessary to reproduce the work as it is obviously intended to be rendered (i.e. audio and/or video playback) would be "fair use," as the work would be useless otherwise.
The phone itself has an electronic serial number (MEID/ESN/IMEI) associated with the phone hardware. There's also a phone number and serial number associated with the "SIM" (USIM/RUIM, etc.).
Both are sent when registering with a cell site.
Every GSM phone contains a unique identifier (different from the phone number), called the International Mobile Equipment Identity (IMEI). This can be found by dialing *#06#. When a phone contacts the network, its IMEI may be checked against the Equipment Identity Register to locate stolen phones and facilitate monitoring.
A "digital audio recording device" is any machine or device
of a type commonly distributed to individuals for use by
individuals, whether or not included with or as part of some
other machine or device, the digital recording function of which
is designed or marketed for the primary purpose of, and that is
capable of, making a digital audio copied recording for private
use...
and
A "digital audio copied recording" is a reproduction in a
digital recording format of a digital musical recording, whether
that reproduction is made directly from another digital musical
recording or indirectly from a transmission.
I would guess that your device isn't considered a "digital audio recording device" because it's primary purpose is recording A/V works (movies, TV), not musical audio.
Slashdot Mirror
It would be even better if there were robot sharks with lasers trying to shoot them down.
Nonetheless, it often is. The same article goes on to say "About 200 degrees Fahrenheit is the optimal temperature to make coffee," and the National Coffee Association agrees, and goes on to say that "If it will be a few minutes before it will be served, the temperature should be maintained at 180 - 185 degrees Fahrenheit."
So the point stands - 185 degrees shouldn't be an unexpected serving temperature.
Coffee is often made with boiling water, so 185F coffee isn't unreasonable or something which should be unexpected. McDonald's shouldn't have to warn people of that, nor should they be held responsible if people spill it on themselves.
Your link, to a self-serving article by the "Consumer Attorneys of California," does nothing to support your claim that this was anything other than an unreasonable abuse of the legal process.
"Facebook Inc said on Monday that it made a mistake in letting Merck & Co take over a page on the social networking website from its German rival Merck KGaA." - IBTimes
Merck Germany filed in NY so it could do discovery and find out who moved their cheese. It's not clear at this point if the FB page was turned over to Merck US by FB, or by someone else (Merck Germany employee or contractor) who had administrative privileges.
But, just as FB support multiple "John Smith" pages, there are multiple Merck pages. Merck Germany still has one, with posts going back more than a year, but which was pretty inactive. The US Merck has it's own page. So, maybe the Germans are just clueless or confused. Or, maybe it's because the simple link - http://www.facebook.com/Merck is linked to the US one (the full URI to the US one permanently redirects to the simple one), but it used to be linked to the German one. It seems to me that's something FB would have done - I doubt a user can control that. And, FB may have done that simply to point to the more active and popular "Merck." The US site has had 30 posts since September, the German one, 19 in a year and a half.
"It would be fairly safe to assume that the 4-inch display will be for the next iPhone â" the iPhone 5"
Isn't is obvious? The 5" display is for the MacBook Mini.
Although I don't have the specific knowledge of WDC and Seagate contracts you profess, many/most contracts have "outs" for act-of-god situations, which would apply here.
BOO!
Were you terrified?
dd if=/dev/random of=/dev/sdx
is free, and just as good.
They're throwing stuff against the wall. If it doesn't stick, you really can't fault them for letting it fall. If you could predict with certainty what would ultimately be successful in the market, you wouldn't be spending time on /., you'd be doing something useful (and getting rich at the same time), instead of being an ankle biter.
it's called Free Speech. That's not to say that the Government won't try to take it away, as they have with other rights, but there it is. The Internet isn't a thing which can be (properly) regulated, it's just a bunch of people/organizations voluntarily communicating.
BTW, the Oxford disagrees with your claim:
- OED
That stuff on tap in Germany isn't water.
America isn't considered "third world," so that top 40 stuff is just garbage.
"However, those are not the particles that form the dunes in the first place. The dunes would be composed of the larger (heavier) particles that need more force to move."
Sure. I'd expect that the winds naturally sort by particle size. Those light enough to be kept aloft, are. Dense/large ones stay in one place. Those in between, which can only be pushed around as dunes, are. Where's the surprise in that? The surprise would be if there were a particle size distribution with a large gap between ones which could stay aloft and ones which couldn't even be moved.
So, back to the original point - how did they duplicate Martian gravity (and sand, for that matter) in a wind tunnel? I suspect they were just "doing mathematics."
You could have probably saved NASA the cost of a million dollar wind tunnel experiment. Too bad they don't have anyone with a BS in physics on staff.
By your logic, you should be able to do the same for the pressure difference, so why then the wind tunnel? What is the relationship between the wind speed needed to move sand around and gravity? Do you have a physical/mathematical formula to share?
Furthermore, it's known that the Mars atmosphere is dusty, so why would they think particulates just sit still? What's the particle size of the sand in those dunes? Density? They obviously weren't using Martian sand in the tests.
"Wind-tunnel experiments have shown that a patch of sand would take winds of about 80 mph (nearly 130 kilometers per hour) to move on Mars compared with only 10 mph (about 16 kilometers per hour) on Earth."
I can understand how they could have a low pressure wind tunnel to simulate the lower Martian atmospheric pressure, but how did they reduce the gravity by almost 2/3? There's no mention of Mars' lower gravity anywhere in the article.
So you're saying that those "Appillionaires" are just pulling your finger?
Transitory "copies" do not violate copyright. There's case law behind that. See here, for a bit of info.
Beyond that, I'd argue that any "copying" necessary to reproduce the work as it is obviously intended to be rendered (i.e. audio and/or video playback) would be "fair use," as the work would be useless otherwise.
"Case 3 is no longer possible.... We can tear anything apart to the atomic level if needed nowadays..."
Now, go find a food recipe, and make it by just mixing all the ingredients together, ignoring all the process information. Let us know how it tastes.
have left out this tidbit: "...founder of the Wimpy burger chain." I find that more interesting than the "tea merchants" bit.
"I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today" - J._Wellington_Wimpy
Both are sent when registering with a cell site.
- Wikipedia article on GSM, other air interfaces are similar.
and
I would guess that your device isn't considered a "digital audio recording device" because it's primary purpose is recording A/V works (movies, TV), not musical audio.