The article summary is vague to the point that one is unsure what the subject of the article is.
My first thought was that the holders of internet protocol addresses wanted access to all of the data stored about them in the WHOIS database. I had to actually RTFA (the horror!) to figure out that IP meant intellectual property and not internet protocol.
To correct/clarify my previous statement:
The religious persuasion of the litigant being discussed here is not stated, to the best of my knowledge. In a different case, however, the litigant is a Muslim creationist. In short, I doubt your "99.99% of the time" claim. There are all sorts of reality-challenged individuals out there.
You'd like us to think that would be sufficient, wouldn't you? No, education should not be allowed to progress beyond what is necessary to read such great works as "My Pet Goat". Anything else is emboldening the terrorists.
For some reason I took the ambiguity in that post the wrong way. In reading it again, I can tell that he was referring to the suppression of information from the Bush administration.
Huh. Anyways, I'll reiterate Sunburnt's point without profanity. The GP is right that there's censorship in the government regarding global warming, but it's not in the direction that he seems to be implying.
I think most people incorrectly associate Creationism with Christianity, without realizing that it exists in significant numbers in Islam and Judaism (and possibly other religions of which I am quite ignorant).
I object to people who are so certain they are right and are so intolerant of even the mildest criticism of their world-view that they fell the need to browbeat others into recanting.
Browbeating others? I realize this wasn't your comment, but do you mean browbeating as in saying things like:
RMS, all Holiness to his Name the Prophet of GPL, because people ridicule him as a commie and whack job
GPL3 Supporters against Linus
Linux Fanboys against Ballmer
Al Gore against:
Orson Scott Card for laughing at him
Against people who chase down his wild exagerations
Against people who accuse him of being an energy hog
I found that post to be quite humorous in its blatant hypocrisy.
This seems like an appropriate time to bring out that old gem: "I don't think that word means what you think it means." I can't say I found their approach particularly discreet. I think the word you were looking for was "obvious".;)
So basically, say, if you used Germanium at 0.67 EV bandgap, you'd catch more photons than with Silicium at 1.11 EV bandgap, but get less useful energy (i.e., electricity as opposed to heat) out of each photon.
Can't you just increase the operating voltage to capture most of the extra energy? An electron moving across a larger voltage produces more energy. How large you can set the voltage depends on the energy in the electrons being knocked out — or am I missing something?
Are you suggesting that because some people are put on the list legitimately (ignoring whether or not she was legitimately put on the list), no one is put on the list illegitimately? If not, I've got to tell you, that's sure what it sounds like you're saying.
Thankfully those who get all hot and bothered by an arbitrarily-judged "offensive" word are a dying breed.
Seeing as how he had the word "fuck" in his title, I don't think he was going on about its offensiveness as a word so much as its over-use. I think his complaint was that a lot of fucking people don't seem to fucking realize that it's possible to have a fucking song without fucking swear words.
That said, I'd agree that you're unfortunately right that it's not a specialty market.
unless the mass was over-critical and the container provided some damping effect.
The easiest dampening effect could be achieved by the shape of the container (e.g., long, narrow tubes). As the excerpted text suggests, the concern was that the liquid would flow into another container with a shape much more efficient for inducing criticality.
They have more parties to choose from. I think that was the GP's point, but I could be mistaken. In the US, however, voting 3rd party is unfortunately a lot (although not quite) like not voting.
It's not necessarily your fault that you sarcasm wasn't obvious as all hell, but if you read what some people post in all seriousness here, you have to admit that it wasn't that obvious! (What's the name of that law regarding satire/parody and right-wing conservatives again?)
On March 6, 2006, the Republicans were still in charge of Congress.
How would Congress know if information was being kept from them? (Perhaps I'm missing something here.)
Not that I dispute your overall point that Congress could do even more oversight than they're already employing. You should note, however, how many pundits keep bemoaning this oversight as "witch hunts" or "fishing expeditions".
Unfortunately, I can't tell if you're being serious. If so, how would terrorists benefit from knowing, after the fact, that we had a nuclear accident? If you're being serious (and I hope you're not) this sounds a lot to me like "OMG! Think of the terrorists!"
Slashdot Mirror
To correct/clarify my previous statement:
The religious persuasion of the litigant being discussed here is not stated, to the best of my knowledge. In a different case, however, the litigant is a Muslim creationist. In short, I doubt your "99.99% of the time" claim. There are all sorts of reality-challenged individuals out there.
You'd like us to think that would be sufficient, wouldn't you? No, education should not be allowed to progress beyond what is necessary to read such great works as "My Pet Goat". Anything else is emboldening the terrorists.
For some reason I took the ambiguity in that post the wrong way. In reading it again, I can tell that he was referring to the suppression of information from the Bush administration.
Actually, it has.
I got the impression that he was a Muslim Quran literalist. They have Creationists, too, you know.
Huh. Anyways, I'll reiterate Sunburnt's point without profanity. The GP is right that there's censorship in the government regarding global warming, but it's not in the direction that he seems to be implying.
I think most people incorrectly associate Creationism with Christianity, without realizing that it exists in significant numbers in Islam and Judaism (and possibly other religions of which I am quite ignorant).
So, perhaps your world-view is wrong? Nah, that couldn't be it.
This seems like an appropriate time to bring out that old gem: "I don't think that word means what you think it means." I can't say I found their approach particularly discreet. I think the word you were looking for was "obvious". ;)
There are quite a few Libertarians and Greens at the local level — it just depends on how your particular locale "swings".
Are you suggesting that because some people are put on the list legitimately (ignoring whether or not she was legitimately put on the list), no one is put on the list illegitimately? If not, I've got to tell you, that's sure what it sounds like you're saying.
Seeing as how he had the word "fuck" in his title, I don't think he was going on about its offensiveness as a word so much as its over-use. I think his complaint was that a lot of fucking people don't seem to fucking realize that it's possible to have a fucking song without fucking swear words.
That said, I'd agree that you're unfortunately right that it's not a specialty market.
We all know that Idaho doesn't exist.
I was playing on the idea that we value our internet more than our lives. Again, it was only a joke.
They have more parties to choose from. I think that was the GP's point, but I could be mistaken. In the US, however, voting 3rd party is unfortunately a lot (although not quite) like not voting.
I'd say Three Mile Island. Mind you, it's just a guess.
It's not necessarily your fault that you sarcasm wasn't obvious as all hell, but if you read what some people post in all seriousness here, you have to admit that it wasn't that obvious! (What's the name of that law regarding satire/parody and right-wing conservatives again?)
- On March 6, 2006, the Republicans were still in charge of Congress.
- How would Congress know if information was being kept from them? (Perhaps I'm missing something here.)
Not that I dispute your overall point that Congress could do even more oversight than they're already employing. You should note, however, how many pundits keep bemoaning this oversight as "witch hunts" or "fishing expeditions".Unfortunately, I can't tell if you're being serious. If so, how would terrorists benefit from knowing, after the fact, that we had a nuclear accident? If you're being serious (and I hope you're not) this sounds a lot to me like "OMG! Think of the terrorists!"