Some guys from the ruling party have voted for the amendments, and the government is going to sanction them for that; hence at the next session they will simply be removed.
I have to admit that I know virtually nothing about French government, but that doesn't sound very democratic to me.
Also, can you elaborate on how the legislature is separate from the government?
Also, I find it funny that you put coup (d'état) in quotes. We put it in italics . . . because it's French!
The (big blue) LED (in the picture) is on the robot's right. The robot could identify himself as a robot that seems to have its LED on its left.
It's easy to forget this since we are basically symmetrical. Try shaking hands with yourself in a mirror. (That guy doesn't know how to shake hands! He must be me!)
At best that is functionally adequate, but the wrong thing to do. I'm a big fan of Free Software*, but if the government pays for it, it should go into the public domain.
Also, preview makes it obvious when you miss a </b> tag;-)
-Peter
*and "Open Source" to the extent that it is also Free Software.
the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980, which allowed universities to hold the patents on federally funded research and to license that intellectual property to industry
Anyway, this is all phrased in a hopeful, upbeat way. "Oooh! We're sharing!" But I don't see how any policy other than putting the fruit of taxpayer funded research in the public domain is legitimate.
You've boggled my mind. Are you saying that planting trees is bad? Or that planting trees is of no use unless they are never touched by human hands again?
My understanding is that the trees used for paper leach things out of the soil. Thus, the soil is depleted by not allowing the trees to fall down and rot.
Leach is really the wrong verb. (Water leaches substances from the soil.) It's true that lumber isn't made of happy thoughts. If we assume that we, as a society, are going to use paper we must choose an actual option. Given the choice between the natural growth process of wood (with the side-effect of young little forests dotting the country-side) vs. dredging up caustic chemicals to treat paper so it can be used to make paper the choice seems obvious.
You'll be happy to know that all those nutrients are returned to the earth . . . in land fills. If you can come up with a plan to mulch paper to feed tree farms you'd have my support. Be aware, however, that composting gives of methane; an ozone depleting gas.
Also, you take the carbon out of the atmosphere, but then when the paper is burned or otherwise destroyed, it's returned, making it a net zero change.
Given that carbon is an element, we are bound to see zero net change in the amount hanging around the earth. It seem that we (ice -cap loving bipeds) would be better off with some of the carbon that is in the air in the form of CO2 bound to something-or-other and safely buried. (I don't advocate burning trash. I'm a big fan of the modern landfill.)
Finally, creating more landfills (the alternative to burning or recyling[sic]) is not a positive change...
You can't have it both ways . . . either you want dead trees to go into the ground or you don't.
Okay, I don't want to have more landfills for their own sake. But of all the things that go into landfills I can't think of anything better for the environment than paper. I imagine bunches more paper in landfills would help buffer the less desirable crud.
Anyway, there are no easy answers to any of these things. I think that it would be a big help if both "sides" would drop the fanaticism and try to work on the real problems.
As a side comment, recycling paper is dumb. Planting (and eventually harvesting) trees is a net win for the environment. Chemically treating used paper is a net loss for the environment.
I just toured the Hoover dam a few weeks ago. One of the guides was quite the dry wit. As we rode the elevator down he made note that the government never spent a dime to build or operate the dam, and that all debts were recently retired. He then deadpanned, "It was a great idea. That's why it's never been done again."
I certainly no expert on Canada. I do, however, own a map. I'm highly skeptical that the far reaches of Yukon or Nunavut have "good internet and cable access."
I was disappointed that Bombadil didn't appear as well. (Man, I wanted to see Bill Murray as Tom!) I'll leave his importance to the GP.
After seeing the first movie I really wondered how they were going to get rid of Gandalf for the scouring. The scouring is, in my opinion, the most direct point of the story.
I can't really express how disappointed I was when they showed that first shot of the Shire on the Hobbits' return.
I will give them credit, however, for not getting all homophobic in handling Sam's feelings for Frodo. Sam is my favorite character, and, by my reading, the hero of the story.
Slashdot Mirror
I have to admit that I know virtually nothing about French government, but that doesn't sound very democratic to me.
Also, can you elaborate on how the legislature is separate from the government?
Also, I find it funny that you put coup (d'état) in quotes. We put it in italics . . . because it's French!
-Peter
It's so much simpler than that.
The robot is asymmetrical.
The (big blue) LED (in the picture) is on the robot's right. The robot could identify himself as a robot that seems to have its LED on its left.
It's easy to forget this since we are basically symmetrical. Try shaking hands with yourself in a mirror. (That guy doesn't know how to shake hands! He must be me!)
-Peter
No, I'm sorry. Matt Stone and Trey Parker was not the answer we were looking for.
The correct answer is, "Kevin Smth" with "Ben Affleck as the fucking shark."
Thanks for playing!
-Peter
Cisco 2000 (or, for large values of "small" 3000) series Integrated Services Router.
I'm a a set-top box software QA guy, and even I know that!
-Peter
The blockbuster event of Summer 2006: Robot Hero
Starring Ben Affleck as the fucking robot.
At best that is functionally adequate, but the wrong thing to do. I'm a big fan of Free Software*, but if the government pays for it, it should go into the public domain.
;-)
Also, preview makes it obvious when you miss a </b> tag
-Peter
*and "Open Source" to the extent that it is also Free Software.
Maybe I'm hazy on what "federally funded" means.
-Peter
Wonderful, they've linked to an ad for a story.
Anyway, this is all phrased in a hopeful, upbeat way. "Oooh! We're sharing!" But I don't see how any policy other than putting the fruit of taxpayer funded research in the public domain is legitimate.
-Peter
Can someone please explain to me any way in which this is not a big rip-off of the American taxpayer?
Also, is there some reason that this doesn't story doesn't link to an article somewhere?
-Peter
You have foolishly left the kryptonite condom out of your calculations.
-Peter
PS: Cookie stand isn't part of the food court.
. . . 8% bad at math!
-Peter
RTFA. The drives are 7200RPM, but the platter is 14 inches in diamater. That's one hell of a linear velocity at the edge!
-Peter
You've boggled my mind. Are you saying that planting trees is bad? Or that planting trees is of no use unless they are never touched by human hands again?
Leach is really the wrong verb. (Water leaches substances from the soil.) It's true that lumber isn't made of happy thoughts. If we assume that we, as a society, are going to use paper we must choose an actual option. Given the choice between the natural growth process of wood (with the side-effect of young little forests dotting the country-side) vs. dredging up caustic chemicals to treat paper so it can be used to make paper the choice seems obvious.
You'll be happy to know that all those nutrients are returned to the earth . . . in land fills. If you can come up with a plan to mulch paper to feed tree farms you'd have my support. Be aware, however, that composting gives of methane; an ozone depleting gas.
Given that carbon is an element, we are bound to see zero net change in the amount hanging around the earth. It seem that we (ice -cap loving bipeds) would be better off with some of the carbon that is in the air in the form of CO2 bound to something-or-other and safely buried. (I don't advocate burning trash. I'm a big fan of the modern landfill.)
You can't have it both ways . . . either you want dead trees to go into the ground or you don't.
Okay, I don't want to have more landfills for their own sake. But of all the things that go into landfills I can't think of anything better for the environment than paper. I imagine bunches more paper in landfills would help buffer the less desirable crud.
Anyway, there are no easy answers to any of these things. I think that it would be a big help if both "sides" would drop the fanaticism and try to work on the real problems.
Up with trees!
-Peter
I agree.
As a side comment, recycling paper is dumb. Planting (and eventually harvesting) trees is a net win for the environment. Chemically treating used paper is a net loss for the environment.
-Peter
This is just another example of a cumbersome commercial developer chasing Free/Open Source Software developer's tail lights.
-Peter
I just toured the Hoover dam a few weeks ago. One of the guides was quite the dry wit. As we rode the elevator down he made note that the government never spent a dime to build or operate the dam, and that all debts were recently retired. He then deadpanned, "It was a great idea. That's why it's never been done again."
-Peter
I certainly no expert on Canada. I do, however, own a map. I'm highly skeptical that the far reaches of Yukon or Nunavut have "good internet and cable access."
-Peter
I was disappointed that Bombadil didn't appear as well. (Man, I wanted to see Bill Murray as Tom!) I'll leave his importance to the GP.
After seeing the first movie I really wondered how they were going to get rid of Gandalf for the scouring. The scouring is, in my opinion, the most direct point of the story.
I can't really express how disappointed I was when they showed that first shot of the Shire on the Hobbits' return.
I will give them credit, however, for not getting all homophobic in handling Sam's feelings for Frodo. Sam is my favorite character, and, by my reading, the hero of the story.
-Peter
The word for what you describe is "enabling". Helping a country be comfortable with bad leaders doesn't do anyone any favors.
-Peter
I would have been very dissapointed if no one had posted that.
Perhaps we should modify it to "The opposing team's endzone is down."
-Peter
Have you looked at the picture? It has an opaque, rubberized shell with a little round window for the camera to look out through.
-Peter
The first time you were right, but the question was a little different this time.
What if you throw it into a room and it lands facing a corner?
Maybe that's why they come two to a set?
-Peter
Where does this board get the authority (or the stones) to "override" state law?
-Peter
Any text embedded in a quotation, but not part of the quotation, should be set off by square brackets as: [sic].
-Peter
Right, but screwing your customers allows you to maximize this quarter's profits.
This, in my opinion, is one of the biggest problems in our (American) form of capitalism.
-Peter