That's probably the dumbest argument I've seen for a few weeks. The courts were deciding whether or not what the DEA was doing is illegal. The important part of that is the DEA works for the president. Something you would have learned in that civics class you want me to take.
The intention of ITER is to build a useful fusion reactor - eventually.
No, not really. They don't have any plans to convert excess energy into electrical power. At best, assuming they can get it to work, it will be useful as a test bed for materials.
Actually, no, she wasn't under oath at the time. She ran afoul of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001. And while you're right they didn't actually convict her for insider trading, the reason she went to jail, ultimately, was because they believed she was engaging in insider trading.
Anyway, my point stands. The Bush administration was much harder on white collar criminals than the Obama administration.
Actually, the Bush administration was far more active in prosecuting corporate malfeasance. When Enron collapsed the principals were prosecuted pretty vigorously. Hell, they put Martha Stewart in jail.
On the other hand, when MF Global collapsed (one of the top ten bankruptcies in US history), a collapse that involved misappropriation of customer funds, the Obama administration did... well, nothing. How is it Jon Corzine is still a free man?
Intellectual property is like real property. You can sell it when you need money. In bankruptcy it's an asset that goes to creditors. I don't see any real chance that Apple will go out of business, but if they did the most likely end would be purchase by Google or Oracle. Maybe even Microsoft. The patents would go to the purchaser.
That's why Google bought Motorola Mobility. Not because the company had a product or production capacity they wanted, or they thought they could transition Motorola customers to Google. They wanted Motorola's patents.
An additional complicating factor in the J-E scenario is that Japanese has many words that sound nearly identical, and are distinguished only by slight inflections: (hashi; chopsticks) and (hashi; bridge) is a typical example
Hah. Ask a Mandarin speaker how to say "Does the mother scold the horse?"
Every language has homonyms and near-homonyms. A Japanese friend who is a relatively fluent English speaker is continually tripped up by there/their/they're, especially when more than one form appears in the same sentence. Eventually machine translators will have to do a better job of what people do, which is decoding the the ambiguities based on context. Not just because different words can sound so similar, but also because most real, live, people don't enunciate clearly except in formal settings. You don't eat with a bridge or drive over chopsticks, and if you actually said something like that you'd most likely confuse native speakers.
I'll consider machine translation "here" when it can properly translate a sentence slurred by a drunk person from Osaka without any configuration other than "Japanese".
I can't find it, but there's a hilarious video on youtube where a guy is on a college campus in japan interviewing one of the students. He asks her (in English) what her major is. She looks blank, turns to a friend off camera and says something in Japanese. The friend replies. Then the interview subject turns back to the camera, gives a little nervous giggle, and says "English".
The goal here is, to free humanity from primitive low-level jobs, so that they can concentrate on cool and interesting challenges.
So, what will people on the left half of the bell curve do? People who only mix with university graduates don't think about it much, but there a whole lot of their fellow citizens have sub-100 IQs. For them, things like money management and showing up to work on time are interesting challenges. If we actually do manage to "free humanity from primitive low-level jobs" about half of humanity will simply have nothing to do.
A lot of criminals will back off if you're on the phone with the police. Where I live response time police response time is under four minutes. While that's plenty of time to commit a crime, it's not enough time to commit that crime and escape with any degree of certainty, especially if the cops have the criminal's general description.
Sure, but he was talking about it in the context of cell phones, which are certainly safe by your definition. That's why I added the word "completely", because that's the level of safety he's looking for.
There are other wrinkles as well. Mobile phones from 20 years ago used much more power than modern phones - most of the "brick" was battery. Even if you could show using a mobile from 1990 12 hours a day caused some detectable increase in brain tumors, you still haven't shown the phones people use today are capable of the same. And by the time you do, there will be a new generation with different characteristics.
..but with no definite proof pointing that cell phones are safe either.
And with good reason, too, since it's impossible to prove something is completely safe. Can't be done. So when someone says such and such a thing hasn't been proven safe, it's like saying the sky is blue or that 1 = 1. Of course it hasn't been proven safe.
You can prove something is unsafe. A little less definitively, you can show a correlation between a device or substance and disease. But neither of those have been done in this case.
I second that. A guy I knew got knifed engaging in that exact behavior. I would think you're 100x safer with a phone in your hand, if for no other reason than you can call the cops.
Hah! I haven't seen a payphone in northern California in years. For awhile you could still find them run by companies you'd never heard of. They would charge you outrageous amounts of money to make a call (like $2/minute). Then the government stepped in to limit the charges and the phones went away.
They are building out a high speed rail network that, while capable of ferrying passengers, is not its primary purpose. China has a massive industrial infrastructure and a lot of land to cover between its mountainous and resource-rich areas and the coast, where ships pick up and transport the goods.
You wouldn't build a high-speed network if efficient movement of freight was your primary goal. HSR is much more expensive to build and maintain, a network built primarily to move people will go different places than one built to move things like coal and petrochemicals. The US probably has the most efficient freight network in the world in terms of $/mile/ton, but if you live anywhere outside the Northeast you may as well not bother even looking at intercity rail. Unless you're a lump of coal.
In the case of China the network links major population centers. They even blew a large fortune on a maglev line that was supposed to go from Shanghai to Beijing , though it doesn't go maglev all the way for cost reasons. They also built a line to Tibet for strategic reasons. I don't know if that's high speed, though - looking at the web site it seems to average about 100 km/hr.
Slashdot Mirror
Concentrated cells tend to wear out much more quickly. They get much hotter, and junction heat is what determines the life of any semiconductor.
So the judge is representing the government in this case? That's kind of odd.
That's probably the dumbest argument I've seen for a few weeks. The courts were deciding whether or not what the DEA was doing is illegal. The important part of that is the DEA works for the president. Something you would have learned in that civics class you want me to take.
Could hardly be worse. Worth giving him a try.
Does this square with your expectations?
The intention of ITER is to build a useful fusion reactor - eventually.
No, not really. They don't have any plans to convert excess energy into electrical power. At best, assuming they can get it to work, it will be useful as a test bed for materials.
Like I told my donor, "Get lost, buddy, I don't need your shit any more".
Try the veal.
No it doesn't. The Obama administration just sued Wells Fargo and Bank of America. My 2 examples cancel out your 2 examples.
Hardly. Name one significant corporate executive the Obama administration has sent to jail.
Actually, no, she wasn't under oath at the time. She ran afoul of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001. And while you're right they didn't actually convict her for insider trading, the reason she went to jail, ultimately, was because they believed she was engaging in insider trading.
Anyway, my point stands. The Bush administration was much harder on white collar criminals than the Obama administration.
Actually, the Bush administration was far more active in prosecuting corporate malfeasance. When Enron collapsed the principals were prosecuted pretty vigorously. Hell, they put Martha Stewart in jail.
On the other hand, when MF Global collapsed (one of the top ten bankruptcies in US history), a collapse that involved misappropriation of customer funds, the Obama administration did... well, nothing. How is it Jon Corzine is still a free man?
Intellectual property is like real property. You can sell it when you need money. In bankruptcy it's an asset that goes to creditors. I don't see any real chance that Apple will go out of business, but if they did the most likely end would be purchase by Google or Oracle. Maybe even Microsoft. The patents would go to the purchaser.
That's why Google bought Motorola Mobility. Not because the company had a product or production capacity they wanted, or they thought they could transition Motorola customers to Google. They wanted Motorola's patents.
Sure, because Steven Hawking is famous for his sub-100 IQ.
Hah. Ask a Mandarin speaker how to say "Does the mother scold the horse?"
Every language has homonyms and near-homonyms. A Japanese friend who is a relatively fluent English speaker is continually tripped up by there/their/they're, especially when more than one form appears in the same sentence. Eventually machine translators will have to do a better job of what people do, which is decoding the the ambiguities based on context. Not just because different words can sound so similar, but also because most real, live, people don't enunciate clearly except in formal settings. You don't eat with a bridge or drive over chopsticks, and if you actually said something like that you'd most likely confuse native speakers. I'll consider machine translation "here" when it can properly translate a sentence slurred by a drunk person from Osaka without any configuration other than "Japanese".
I can't find it, but there's a hilarious video on youtube where a guy is on a college campus in japan interviewing one of the students. He asks her (in English) what her major is. She looks blank, turns to a friend off camera and says something in Japanese. The friend replies. Then the interview subject turns back to the camera, gives a little nervous giggle, and says "English".
So, what will people on the left half of the bell curve do? People who only mix with university graduates don't think about it much, but there a whole lot of their fellow citizens have sub-100 IQs. For them, things like money management and showing up to work on time are interesting challenges. If we actually do manage to "free humanity from primitive low-level jobs" about half of humanity will simply have nothing to do.
A lot of criminals will back off if you're on the phone with the police. Where I live response time police response time is under four minutes. While that's plenty of time to commit a crime, it's not enough time to commit that crime and escape with any degree of certainty, especially if the cops have the criminal's general description.
Sure, but he was talking about it in the context of cell phones, which are certainly safe by your definition. That's why I added the word "completely", because that's the level of safety he's looking for.
There are other wrinkles as well. Mobile phones from 20 years ago used much more power than modern phones - most of the "brick" was battery. Even if you could show using a mobile from 1990 12 hours a day caused some detectable increase in brain tumors, you still haven't shown the phones people use today are capable of the same. And by the time you do, there will be a new generation with different characteristics.
And with good reason, too, since it's impossible to prove something is completely safe. Can't be done. So when someone says such and such a thing hasn't been proven safe, it's like saying the sky is blue or that 1 = 1. Of course it hasn't been proven safe.
You can prove something is unsafe. A little less definitively, you can show a correlation between a device or substance and disease. But neither of those have been done in this case.
Or maybe some Israeli hardware.
I second that. A guy I knew got knifed engaging in that exact behavior. I would think you're 100x safer with a phone in your hand, if for no other reason than you can call the cops.
Hah! I haven't seen a payphone in northern California in years. For awhile you could still find them run by companies you'd never heard of. They would charge you outrageous amounts of money to make a call (like $2/minute). Then the government stepped in to limit the charges and the phones went away.
They don't want you to bring your old phone with you anyway. Better to lock you into a two year contract with a subsidized new phone.
You wouldn't build a high-speed network if efficient movement of freight was your primary goal. HSR is much more expensive to build and maintain, a network built primarily to move people will go different places than one built to move things like coal and petrochemicals. The US probably has the most efficient freight network in the world in terms of $/mile/ton, but if you live anywhere outside the Northeast you may as well not bother even looking at intercity rail. Unless you're a lump of coal.
In the case of China the network links major population centers. They even blew a large fortune on a maglev line that was supposed to go from Shanghai to Beijing , though it doesn't go maglev all the way for cost reasons. They also built a line to Tibet for strategic reasons. I don't know if that's high speed, though - looking at the web site it seems to average about 100 km/hr.
Okay, now, that's pretty funny. And sad. Funny and sad.