I'm not sure that's the case. I don't think a court has tested whether presenting part of the game content as a free bonus for the first sale is actually a breach of resale rules. I'd certainly hope that it would be considered that way for all but the most trivial content but it's not been addressed.
I must've spent £50-80 on Mass Effect 2 and 3 story modules and I didn't build up a simmering hatred of EA in the process. I dare say that DLC makes enough money that online passes aren't worth it.
Come to think of it, can you even buy the story DLC without an Online Pass? It'd be a spectacular bit of foot-shooting if they put in a £15 barrier to the player spending money on things they might actually want.
That'd put a burden of disclosure and reproducibility on climate scientists that would be unique to climate science. Why is it not sufficient that different groups, following different methodologies, using different data, with different funding sources, in different fields draw the same conclusions?
I'm not sure what you're arguing here, that expertise in a field shouldn't have any weight on one's opinions, or that basic science applied in one area cannot have other applications. Neither sounds particularly sensible.
Well, ask yourself whether a model which includes mass measurements of the entire Earth, included Antarctica. Then ask yourself if it's possible that a model that included Antarctica has accounted for the effects of Antarctica.
Not at all. It's a method that's proven itself repeatedly in studies on other subjects, such as the inner structure of the Earth and the measurement of earthquakes. If you'd rather believe that geophysicists studying the earth's mantle who've never written a climate science paper in their lives are also part of The Conspiracy you're welcome to, but you're rapidly going to find yourself as the only one who isn't In On It.
Unfortunately the Slashdot crowd would rather presume that the Geophysical Journal accepts papers along the lines of "the poles have moved, there's less ice where they're going, therefore the two things caused each other".
I was comparing to this guy's Buick, but I'm actually surprised it's only 53 vehicles. I know EVs are quick from zero and tail off and assumed this would put them at a disadvantage compared to most hatchbacks, much less sports cars.
Actually, yes. If the Earth's mass is redistributed, its rotational axis and/or rate must move, depending on the redistribution. It's the difference between you spinning in the chair holding a lead brick, and spinning in the chair with the same mass evenly distributed about your person.
On one hand you argue that we can't model the effects of mass redistribution on the Earth's rotation... and on the other, you argue that earthquakes affect the polar position, which we know about because of the self-same research which you have declared to be impossible.
You're confusing the drift and inversion in the planet's magnetic pole with the drift in the planet's rotational pole. This article is about the latter.
We know the effect of the Fukishima earthquake on the Earth's polar rotation, both through models and measurements (which are in accordance with one another). Actually, the same models used by the authors of this study.
You don't have to account for continental drift, earthquakes or ice ages to investigate effects on the Earth's pole's position on a yearly or decadal scale. You just have to account for short-term effects like tides. There's a lot of experience in (for example) measuring the effects on the Earth's rotation of particularly large earthquakes. The analysis they have done here is uncontroversial and ultimately just a particularly subtle application good old classical mechanics.
Slashdot Mirror
That's not what these results indicate.
Live Tiles are a kind of card, but not all cards are Live Tiles.
I'm not sure that's the case. I don't think a court has tested whether presenting part of the game content as a free bonus for the first sale is actually a breach of resale rules. I'd certainly hope that it would be considered that way for all but the most trivial content but it's not been addressed.
I must've spent £50-80 on Mass Effect 2 and 3 story modules and I didn't build up a simmering hatred of EA in the process. I dare say that DLC makes enough money that online passes aren't worth it.
Come to think of it, can you even buy the story DLC without an Online Pass? It'd be a spectacular bit of foot-shooting if they put in a £15 barrier to the player spending money on things they might actually want.
That'd put a burden of disclosure and reproducibility on climate scientists that would be unique to climate science. Why is it not sufficient that different groups, following different methodologies, using different data, with different funding sources, in different fields draw the same conclusions?
I'm not sure what you're arguing here, that expertise in a field shouldn't have any weight on one's opinions, or that basic science applied in one area cannot have other applications. Neither sounds particularly sensible.
Experts in the kind of science that discovered that the Earth wobbles on its axis in the first place.
Well, ask yourself whether a model which includes mass measurements of the entire Earth, included Antarctica. Then ask yourself if it's possible that a model that included Antarctica has accounted for the effects of Antarctica.
Well, strictly speaking every direction is also East. Although given that every direction is also West that probably cancels...
We've all been there. Don't sweat it.
Not at all. It's a method that's proven itself repeatedly in studies on other subjects, such as the inner structure of the Earth and the measurement of earthquakes. If you'd rather believe that geophysicists studying the earth's mantle who've never written a climate science paper in their lives are also part of The Conspiracy you're welcome to, but you're rapidly going to find yourself as the only one who isn't In On It.
The technique they used is neither complex, controversial, new, nor specific to climate science.
Unfortunately the Slashdot crowd would rather presume that the Geophysical Journal accepts papers along the lines of "the poles have moved, there's less ice where they're going, therefore the two things caused each other".
I was comparing to this guy's Buick, but I'm actually surprised it's only 53 vehicles. I know EVs are quick from zero and tail off and assumed this would put them at a disadvantage compared to most hatchbacks, much less sports cars.
Actually, they did.
It says "geographic pole" in the first sentence of the summary.
No, really, I'm curious as to how it's possible for reducing a region's solar irradiance can be a driving force for it to become warmer.
So you're telling me that they used polar coordinates?
Actually, yes. If the Earth's mass is redistributed, its rotational axis and/or rate must move, depending on the redistribution. It's the difference between you spinning in the chair holding a lead brick, and spinning in the chair with the same mass evenly distributed about your person.
On one hand you argue that we can't model the effects of mass redistribution on the Earth's rotation... and on the other, you argue that earthquakes affect the polar position, which we know about because of the self-same research which you have declared to be impossible.
"Do unto others as you would have them do nought to sixty."
Actually by that metric the electric vehicles are still ahead.
You're confusing the drift and inversion in the planet's magnetic pole with the drift in the planet's rotational pole. This article is about the latter.
If the pole moves towards Greenland, doesn't that make Greenland colder?
We know the effect of the Fukishima earthquake on the Earth's polar rotation, both through models and measurements (which are in accordance with one another). Actually, the same models used by the authors of this study.
You don't have to account for continental drift, earthquakes or ice ages to investigate effects on the Earth's pole's position on a yearly or decadal scale. You just have to account for short-term effects like tides. There's a lot of experience in (for example) measuring the effects on the Earth's rotation of particularly large earthquakes. The analysis they have done here is uncontroversial and ultimately just a particularly subtle application good old classical mechanics.