VGA still is one of the most persistent standards of desktop computing. Many popular (read: cheap) LCDs still use it exclusivelly; however little sense, when it comes to price of manufacture (but not when it comes to artificial product segmentation) this has. Plus you can almost count on VGA in laptops; other connectors - hit & miss.
Though wasn't the issue in case of Pentium FDIV bug specifically that Intel didn't publish the errata or...any other information after Intel researchers discovered the error? It took one independent one, to whom Intel didn't even respond initially...
Though, given the same size, Iridium phone is destined to be worse than typical terrestrial cellular one; if the latter has the range (which in large part of the developed word, the area of the world that spends the most, is a given...I don't remember ever noticing "loss of range" in my 6 years of using mobile phones, except in a pretty serious "cellar", one of a castle)
With comparable size of the phone & battery, the satellite one will have very notably shorter talk time. And works only outside buildings, preferably with not too much vegetation around you.
At least for Eruope, there's another option 3) larger part of the trade coming via rail; which accidentally would assure the income from customs for Russia, hm... (also, few pipelines would be just added...accidentally also giving Russia greater profits and control)
Has those battlegroups been tested against recent technologically advanced weaponry?
For that matter, how many types of fortifications, tactics, types of armaments, etc. were historically portrayed as essentially invulnerable to enemy action?
Non-nuclear subs are the quiter ones BTW, just the range and submerged speed limitations don't make them used that often in open ocean.
Though...yeah, and that's not the only example. US essentially borrowed a Norwegian, afai remember, sub some time ago for testing. And a heavily modified Kilo from my place "sunk" two US nuclear subs during one NATO training maneuvers.
And the official position...pretty much always was that they are the good, caring, loving (sic) church of our saviour. Also in the times of crusades, or when showing support for brutal rightwing dictatorships in S. America. Heck, it was also the case during all the abuse that recently surfaces.
Some too significant (plus they were "protected" by their group...) part of the clergy seems to share a view (even if unofficially...so?) that following the same common moral code doesn't apply to them, not to the same degree, that it's relative to the position in a society. Fits rather nicely with your definition of choosing (why would you exlucde different groups in a stratified society?)
Yes, Ratzinger seems to have undergo some some sort of conversion a decade or so ago, but this doesn't change earlier "cautiosness" and that currently he still publicly abstains from saying what he really, really should. It's an issue of who he is, and what the institution is as whole - yes, some might dismiss the above as not connecting him directly enough (would they be satisfied by anything other than watching the act or sharing some child?), or a bit "out of context", or "not so bad"...but don't pretend that we don't have the right to demand, from Catholic Church, to try as hard as possible to be crystal clear; anything less is a failure, considering how they paint themselves, what they supposedly represent. How they, in the societies under their influence (I should know, I live in one officially 90+% Catholic), have the clout of standing for what is all good; being percieved as much wiser, less likely to be lost than random mortal.
If the church isn't helping even it's most revered members to remain virtuos, clystar clear...then what good is it? (it would be especially...sad, if Ratzinger was simply the most clear out of all probable candidates at the last conclave) At the least it's another thing showing that what they preach is bs; one would think the favorites of god would at least be a bit nicer...
Oh, from one of the links above and your chosen example:
The Rev Peter Hullermann had been accused of abusing boys when the now Pope approved his 1980 transfer to Munich to receive psychological treatment for paedophilia. The disgraced priest was convicted in 1986 of abusing a youth, but stayed within the Church for another two decades.
^even if we would buy the BS that he wasn't really involved...then at the least: if Ratzinger has allowed this while heading the organisation which was meant to deal which such stuff, then this is his fault (even if the fault was of organisational type...again, he led that part of the organisation!)
It's not the whole developed world, you know. Yes, on average developed world registers major drop.
And even in the US, when you look at some numbers...however useless it would be to choose which study gives exact value...the consecutive results (of the same study, hence probably the same methodology) show steady drop. US possibly just lags a bit in this.
But the point is that he can be "officially" infallible if he merely wants to be (but sure...why waste, for now, his mana on silly things; among them the internet)
Essentially it boils down that he is seen by many worshippers as infallible and without fault essentially all the time (I should know, I live in a place officially 90+& Catholic...), otherwise "now I will speak infallibly" wouldn't work.
Looking at history, they will close shop anyway, sooner or later; first relegated to curious mythologies and then mostly forgotten (of course, that current Christians would be typically considered, by early ones, to be heavy heretics is another matter...)
Regarding 1) & 2) - or exposes religions to that. Which ultimatelly brings trouble to them...they still often aren't adapted well to coexisting. But divisions between nations and people - I don't think so. Stability is typically ensured once people know each other better. Which, accidentally, makes them also need religion less...
And yes, "3) Some people use their soapbox to promote moral relativism." - most notably Vatican, which had untill recently a bit more straightforward means to promote moral relativism (which you hinted at, and with "charming" example of future pope ignoring way too widespread harming of children)
If anything, we know that even in this speech the current pope is a fraking hipocryte. He was shown to ignore, in the position of authority, very serious harm done to the most vulnerable by his subordinates (who were supposed to care for the vulnerable...and who will follow his word unquestionably!)
How is that for "intellectual and moral relativism", in an organisation and individual claiming to be the voice of good deity?
He has a tough choise though...large part (and the most important one...the growing one) of his faithfull are in developing countries. Heck, they are the reason why the Catholic Church as a whole is growing, despite (as with most faiths) registering major drop in the developed world.
You have to put everything he says into perspective...
First, essentially by his choosing, he is the voice of god (if he wants to). No, not "inspired by", etc., he has the self-appointed power to be infallible, to speak on behalf of their deity. "This Internet thing" is of course too silly to elicit such option soon, but...
Secondly, his power structure is that of oligarchy, cultural hegemony...one which fought with "transparency" (or whatever the equivalent in the past would be); it isn't yet adapted to the upcoming world. So it's naturally cautious, if only because it wishes to buy itself more time to adapt. At least the means at its disposal are becoming less harmfull lately - not as when, for example, Vatican preferred right-wing dictatorships in S. America, out of two evils...though I'm sure some "evil" will come out of it. Dissuasion of developing countries (where the uptake of Catholicism is the largest) from investing in their communication infrastructure seems likely to me.
Lunokhod 2 is in the most northerly position out of all available retroreflectors on the Moon, which will contribute to much more precise data about the Moon "wobble" (since the distance of Lunokhod 2 is greatly affected by it, in comparison to something near the center of the view from Earth)
There are only five apparently, at least among those which we can resolve - three from Apollo and, now, two from Lunokhods.
But the one from first Lunokhod is apparently a bit more valuable and interesting than the rest; placed in the most northerly location, can give more data about "wobble" of the Moon and hence its precise rotation.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes they did, just not so long as is commonly assumed. Babylon, Ancient Egypt, Ancient (really ancient) Greece, India, China even untill quite modern times; large part of some of the greatest civilisations (and who knows how large part of people who formed tribal-type societies) thought the Earth is flat.
VGA still is one of the most persistent standards of desktop computing. Many popular (read: cheap) LCDs still use it exclusivelly; however little sense, when it comes to price of manufacture (but not when it comes to artificial product segmentation) this has. Plus you can almost count on VGA in laptops; other connectors - hit & miss.
People always like to attach more value to events in their times than is due...
Though wasn't the issue in case of Pentium FDIV bug specifically that Intel didn't publish the errata or...any other information after Intel researchers discovered the error? It took one independent one, to whom Intel didn't even respond initially...
Though, given the same size, Iridium phone is destined to be worse than typical terrestrial cellular one; if the latter has the range (which in large part of the developed word, the area of the world that spends the most, is a given...I don't remember ever noticing "loss of range" in my 6 years of using mobile phones, except in a pretty serious "cellar", one of a castle)
With comparable size of the phone & battery, the satellite one will have very notably shorter talk time. And works only outside buildings, preferably with not too much vegetation around you.
One would think it's easy to figure out that you can cover your skin to prevent burns...
At least for Eruope, there's another option
3) larger part of the trade coming via rail; which accidentally would assure the income from customs for Russia, hm...
(also, few pipelines would be just added...accidentally also giving Russia greater profits and control)
Has those battlegroups been tested against recent technologically advanced weaponry?
For that matter, how many types of fortifications, tactics, types of armaments, etc. were historically portrayed as essentially invulnerable to enemy action?
Non-nuclear subs are the quiter ones BTW, just the range and submerged speed limitations don't make them used that often in open ocean.
Though...yeah, and that's not the only example. US essentially borrowed a Norwegian, afai remember, sub some time ago for testing. And a heavily modified Kilo from my place "sunk" two US nuclear subs during one NATO training maneuvers.
And the official position...pretty much always was that they are the good, caring, loving (sic) church of our saviour. Also in the times of crusades, or when showing support for brutal rightwing dictatorships in S. America. Heck, it was also the case during all the abuse that recently surfaces.
Look at actions, not what somebody claims to be.
Some too significant (plus they were "protected" by their group...) part of the clergy seems to share a view (even if unofficially...so?) that following the same common moral code doesn't apply to them, not to the same degree, that it's relative to the position in a society. Fits rather nicely with your definition of choosing (why would you exlucde different groups in a stratified society?)
Where have you been especially in the last few months?... O_o
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8612457.stm (and not only the titular case, also the table with allegations)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8587082.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8643984.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8588427.stm
http://documents.nytimes.com/the-document-trail-stephen-kiesle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases look up "Ratzinger" throughout this article
Yes, Ratzinger seems to have undergo some some sort of conversion a decade or so ago, but this doesn't change earlier "cautiosness" and that currently he still publicly abstains from saying what he really, really should. It's an issue of who he is, and what the institution is as whole - yes, some might dismiss the above as not connecting him directly enough (would they be satisfied by anything other than watching the act or sharing some child?), or a bit "out of context", or "not so bad"...but don't pretend that we don't have the right to demand, from Catholic Church, to try as hard as possible to be crystal clear; anything less is a failure, considering how they paint themselves, what they supposedly represent. How they, in the societies under their influence (I should know, I live in one officially 90+% Catholic), have the clout of standing for what is all good; being percieved as much wiser, less likely to be lost than random mortal.
If the church isn't helping even it's most revered members to remain virtuos, clystar clear...then what good is it? (it would be especially...sad, if Ratzinger was simply the most clear out of all probable candidates at the last conclave) At the least it's another thing showing that what they preach is bs; one would think the favorites of god would at least be a bit nicer...
Oh, from one of the links above and your chosen example:
The Rev Peter Hullermann had been accused of abusing boys when the now Pope approved his 1980 transfer to Munich to receive psychological treatment for paedophilia.
The disgraced priest was convicted in 1986 of abusing a youth, but stayed within the Church for another two decades.
^even if we would buy the BS that he wasn't really involved...then at the least: if Ratzinger has allowed this while heading the organisation which was meant to deal which such stuff, then this is his fault (even if the fault was of organisational type...again, he led that part of the organisation!)
It's not the whole developed world, you know. Yes, on average developed world registers major drop.
And even in the US, when you look at some numbers...however useless it would be to choose which study gives exact value...the consecutive results (of the same study, hence probably the same methodology) show steady drop. US possibly just lags a bit in this.
It seems that wouldn't explain all the dynamics.
But the point is that he can be "officially" infallible if he merely wants to be (but sure...why waste, for now, his mana on silly things; among them the internet)
Essentially it boils down that he is seen by many worshippers as infallible and without fault essentially all the time (I should know, I live in a place officially 90+& Catholic...), otherwise "now I will speak infallibly" wouldn't work.
With proper karma / etc. you don't get modpoints if you visit and post too rarely or too often, something like that.
Looking at history, they will close shop anyway, sooner or later; first relegated to curious mythologies and then mostly forgotten (of course, that current Christians would be typically considered, by early ones, to be heavy heretics is another matter...)
Regarding 1) & 2) - or exposes religions to that. Which ultimatelly brings trouble to them...they still often aren't adapted well to coexisting. But divisions between nations and people - I don't think so. Stability is typically ensured once people know each other better. Which, accidentally, makes them also need religion less...
And yes, "3) Some people use their soapbox to promote moral relativism." - most notably Vatican, which had untill recently a bit more straightforward means to promote moral relativism (which you hinted at, and with "charming" example of future pope ignoring way too widespread harming of children)
If anything, we know that even in this speech the current pope is a fraking hipocryte. He was shown to ignore, in the position of authority, very serious harm done to the most vulnerable by his subordinates (who were supposed to care for the vulnerable...and who will follow his word unquestionably!)
How is that for "intellectual and moral relativism", in an organisation and individual claiming to be the voice of good deity?
He has a tough choise though...large part (and the most important one...the growing one) of his faithfull are in developing countries. Heck, they are the reason why the Catholic Church as a whole is growing, despite (as with most faiths) registering major drop in the developed world.
You have to put everything he says into perspective...
First, essentially by his choosing, he is the voice of god (if he wants to). No, not "inspired by", etc., he has the self-appointed power to be infallible, to speak on behalf of their deity. "This Internet thing" is of course too silly to elicit such option soon, but...
Secondly, his power structure is that of oligarchy, cultural hegemony...one which fought with "transparency" (or whatever the equivalent in the past would be); it isn't yet adapted to the upcoming world. So it's naturally cautious, if only because it wishes to buy itself more time to adapt. At least the means at its disposal are becoming less harmfull lately - not as when, for example, Vatican preferred right-wing dictatorships in S. America, out of two evils...though I'm sure some "evil" will come out of it. Dissuasion of developing countries (where the uptake of Catholicism is the largest) from investing in their communication infrastructure seems likely to me.
I mean, Lunokhod 1 in the above post...the one about which the story is ;/
...I mean, "includes two Lunokhods"
The list to which you linked to includes Lunokhod 2. There are five, now all usable.
Lunokhod 2 is in the most northerly position out of all available retroreflectors on the Moon, which will contribute to much more precise data about the Moon "wobble" (since the distance of Lunokhod 2 is greatly affected by it, in comparison to something near the center of the view from Earth)
There are only five apparently, at least among those which we can resolve - three from Apollo and, now, two from Lunokhods.
But the one from first Lunokhod is apparently a bit more valuable and interesting than the rest; placed in the most northerly location, can give more data about "wobble" of the Moon and hence its precise rotation.