Sea claims are secondary to and dependent on land territorial claims. The territorial sea rule is 12 nautical miles or halfway to the nearest land claimed by another power (approximately, the law is somewhat more complex); the Exclusive Economic Zone and seabed claims are similarly 200 nm or halfway to the nearest land claimed by another power. Since Jersey is land under british rule, France's territorial sea and EEZ end halfway to Jersey.
Permanent man-made structures in the sea, no matter who built them or when, however, do not qualify for territorial claims, no matter who mades the claim or when. They are always under the soverign jurisdiction of the entity that has the claim to the seabed they are anchored in. You only get seabed claims if you control land; artificial structures don't get any.
Period, end of story, that's international law. Sealand's claim is invalid, and it doesn't matter when they made it. It wouldn't matter if the French claimed and occupied the platform in 1967 or 1067, as an artificial structure where it is, it is British territory now. There is no question as to its status.
Okay, we can't explain the pattern of ice ages, we don't know what caused the Medieval Warm Period or the Little Ice Age, and we have yet to find a generally accepted explanation as to why upper troposphere temperature reading badly conflict with surface temperature readings, in defiance of all theoretical models.
Yet, despite the fact that we can't explain climate, you think we can predict it?
And under the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (entered in force 1994, and to which the United Kingdom is a party as of 1997), as a fixed location man-made structure within the 12 nautical mile territorial waters and 200 nautical mile Exclusive Economic Zone of the United Kingdom, Sealand is without question under the soverign jurisdiction of the United Kingdom.
A small nitpick regarding your terminology: two organisms that are able to breed to produce offspring are by definition the same species.
Incorrect. There are breeds of dog that cannot safely interbreed, yet they are all considered the same species. On the other hand, cross-species breeding can happen -- horses and donkeys, lions and tigers, and several "jungle" cats with domestic cats can, even sometimes producing fertile offspring.
(And that, of course, doesn't even consider the vast numbers of asexually reproducing species that such a definition couldn't even possibly apply to, or things like goat-sheep and quail-chick tetragametic chimeras.)
A species is whatever the current biological consensus calls a species. Factors like if crossbreeds occur naturally or normally produce fertile offspring for sexually reproducing species are taken into account, but a hard-and-fast definition does not and cannot exist.
In fact, the 1773 Tea Act, which provoked the Boston Tea Party, remitted a significant English tea tax. The result was that Americans could buy British East India Company tea after the Tea Act for significantly less than they previously were being charged for either legal British tea or smuggled Dutch tea. And this cheaper tea was of generally higher quality than the Dutch tea, too.
So what was the issue? The extent of Parliamentary authority.
The small three-penny Townsend duty was left on the tea by Prime Minister Lord North as a statement of the principle that Parliament could tax the colonies, and the Tea Act granted a monopoly on the tea trade to the British East India Company.
Even though the result was higher quality and lower prices, the American colonies denied that Parliament had the right to do either. Indignation was high enough that the ships to New York and Philadelphia were ordered back to England by the local authorities, lest the ships be attacked. In Boston, the ship was brought in under guard, and got attacked. Americans continued to drink more expensive, smuggled Dutch tea (and increasingly coffee instead) rather than concede Parliamentary authority.
Americans did not revolt against Britain because of high tax rates; Parliament never imposed taxes in America even approaching those it imposed in Britain itself. They revolted because they did not accept the King-in-Parliament as the soverign authority in the colonies. While they were subjects of the King, they did not consider themselves subject to the authority of a Parliament in which they lacked representation any more than Britain was subject to the colonial legislatures in which Britain's people did not have representation.
Except that those aren't omissions, because this isn't a research project list, it's a facilities list. You don't need multi-billion-dollar dedicated research facilities to study batteries, biodiesel, fuel cells, or microturbines. Therefore they won't be on a list of major new research facilities.
I'm disappointed to see a lack of any brain research in the list . . . Why they would ignore such a field, I can only speculate
How about that this is a list of major facilities, not a list of research projects?
Now, yes, some of the facilities are narrowly focused on one specific type of research (fusion, dark energy), but some are general-purpose research assistance (like the computer projects) and some are fairly broadly applicable within a field (like the protein synthesizer).
Wal-Mart already sells a massive volume of music. That gives them the leverage to drive down the record company cut of sales. "I think we'll have to cut our CD pre-orders if you can't bend on your cut of the download sales" is an incredibly useful threat to be able to use at the bargaining table.
And forget just CD orders. How many of the major labels are owned by companies that sell other things retail? Sony sells electronics. Sony, Time Warner, and Vivendi Universal sell DVDs. Wal-Mart's purchasing power, as the #1 retailer in the U.S., is tremendous on those things, too.
And if Wal-Mart can just get better "invoicing" terms than Apple gets, that can make it profitable just on the interest earned on the consumer's money between sale and paying the record company.
Okay, SCO has, as part of this legal battle, challenged the legality and even the constitutionality of the GPL.
RMS says "I am concerned about long-term entrenched confusions such as referring to a version of our GNU OS as 'Linux' and thinking that our work on free software was motivated by the ideas associated with 'open source.' These confusions lead users away from the basic issue: their freedom. By comparison, the events involving SCO are transitory and almost trivial."
So, let me get this straight. SCO is trying to overtun the legal basis of the entire GNU project, the General Public License, but that's "almost trivial" compared to people calling an operating system built on GNU code "Linux".
I know you didn't make it up. That's why I pointed out that you're using it without thinking it through, like the other people that use it.
And no, I'm not offended by its use, it's just that "Xtian" is an unwise construction. Which was my point. "Christian" avoids the problem of people not getting it, and it avoids looking like a fool because of the superfulous T. All for the low, low cost of typing a mere twelve extra letters in your original post -- an economy wasted by the necessity of your clarification anyway. The very dfinition of a foolish economy.
The FAQ entry itself suggests it is worthwhile to note that for some, even with the historical basis, the term remains offensive and those wishing to avoid offending those bothered by terms such as these might consider choosing alternate phrases. Your familiarity with the FAQ would thus suggest you were familiar with those clauses, and thus gives the impression that you prefered potentially giving offense to merely typing four extra letters. Since only a fool give offense unnecessarily, it again makes you look like a fool.
Finally, yeah, a lot of Christians can be touchy. What that has to do with my comment or me (given that I'm an atheist) is rather vague. So did you jump to a premature conclusion about my beliefs, or did you just throw in a gratuitous offensive comment about Christians?
If the fomer, you look foolish; if the latter, you undermine your claim that you weren't trying to be derisive, which is stupid. Either way, it doesn't seem very bright.
Okay, if Chistmas == Xmas, then X == Chist, so Xtian=Chisttian.
What the hell is a Chisttian, then?
Hell, even if you'd gotten the first part right (Christmas == Xmas) you've still got Xtian == Christtian. What's that? Or did you repeatedly use "Xtian" because you thought it was a neat way to say "Christian" (perhaps somewhat derisively) without ever thinking it through even once?
Humans have a VNO, but whether it works or not is a disputed question; there's both physiological and genetic reasons to believe that it's vestigial in humans, and possibly apes and Old World monkeys. If it is, then pheremones, which we know affect humans, must be detected by another system.
So what the researchers in this case did was see if pheremones could cause reactions in the main olfactory system of mice. If they did (and they did), it explains how humans can be affected by pheremones despite a possibly vestigial VNO.
Re:No! Now everyone will move to DHTML popups.
on
IE To Block Pop-Ups
·
· Score: 1
Well, at least those don't create new windows/tabs all over the place; they're on the level of interstials for irritation.
Don't worry about the advertisers . . .
on
IE To Block Pop-Ups
·
· Score: 4, Informative
No, they aren't. The UltraSPARC III's ass is kicked around the block by both the IBM POWER4 and Intel-HP's Itanium 2. There's no rerason to belive the UltraSPARC IV won't be handed its ass by POWER5.
Hell, Sun isn't really good at designing SPARC processors; the Fujitsu SPARC64 V kicks Sun UltraSPARC III's ass, and the dual-core SPARC64 VI will kick the dual-core UltraSPARC IV's ass.
Sun builds complete systems, and the complete systems are pretty good. But their processors are not first-rate, and haven't been for a while.
1) Anyone remember this rumor? So, the Xbox2 is going to use ATI and PPC technology, just like the Game Cube. Maybe backwards compatibility is going to be in the box, just not with the Xbox . ..
2) Now if you hack an Xbox2 to run Linux, do you get a cheap, MOL-capable G5-based machine? Wouldn't that be nice and Apple-infuriating . . .
Sure they would. It's a side effect of the inertial compensator that keeps the pilot from being splattered by the high accelerations, which itself is a development of the artificial "gravity" that is clearly demonstrated in a number of scenes.
Geez, didn't they teach Physics 101 at your school?
Since the alternative to using the computer is the U.S. government actually detonating nuclear weapons in underground tests, I'd say it's a pretty good use of the computer, myself.
Slashdot Mirror
Precisely? Precisely wrong.
Sea claims are secondary to and dependent on land territorial claims. The territorial sea rule is 12 nautical miles or halfway to the nearest land claimed by another power (approximately, the law is somewhat more complex); the Exclusive Economic Zone and seabed claims are similarly 200 nm or halfway to the nearest land claimed by another power. Since Jersey is land under british rule, France's territorial sea and EEZ end halfway to Jersey.
Permanent man-made structures in the sea, no matter who built them or when, however, do not qualify for territorial claims, no matter who mades the claim or when. They are always under the soverign jurisdiction of the entity that has the claim to the seabed they are anchored in. You only get seabed claims if you control land; artificial structures don't get any.
Period, end of story, that's international law. Sealand's claim is invalid, and it doesn't matter when they made it. It wouldn't matter if the French claimed and occupied the platform in 1967 or 1067, as an artificial structure where it is, it is British territory now. There is no question as to its status.
Okay, we can't explain the pattern of ice ages, we don't know what caused the Medieval Warm Period or the Little Ice Age, and we have yet to find a generally accepted explanation as to why upper troposphere temperature reading badly conflict with surface temperature readings, in defiance of all theoretical models.
Yet, despite the fact that we can't explain climate, you think we can predict it?
Yep.
And under the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (entered in force 1994, and to which the United Kingdom is a party as of 1997), as a fixed location man-made structure within the 12 nautical mile territorial waters and 200 nautical mile Exclusive Economic Zone of the United Kingdom, Sealand is without question under the soverign jurisdiction of the United Kingdom.
A small nitpick regarding your terminology: two organisms that are able to breed to produce offspring are by definition the same species.
Incorrect. There are breeds of dog that cannot safely interbreed, yet they are all considered the same species. On the other hand, cross-species breeding can happen -- horses and donkeys, lions and tigers, and several "jungle" cats with domestic cats can, even sometimes producing fertile offspring.
(And that, of course, doesn't even consider the vast numbers of asexually reproducing species that such a definition couldn't even possibly apply to, or things like goat-sheep and quail-chick tetragametic chimeras.)
A species is whatever the current biological consensus calls a species. Factors like if crossbreeds occur naturally or normally produce fertile offspring for sexually reproducing species are taken into account, but a hard-and-fast definition does not and cannot exist.
Ah, that old myth.
In fact, the 1773 Tea Act, which provoked the Boston Tea Party, remitted a significant English tea tax. The result was that Americans could buy British East India Company tea after the Tea Act for significantly less than they previously were being charged for either legal British tea or smuggled Dutch tea. And this cheaper tea was of generally higher quality than the Dutch tea, too.
So what was the issue? The extent of Parliamentary authority.
The small three-penny Townsend duty was left on the tea by Prime Minister Lord North as a statement of the principle that Parliament could tax the colonies, and the Tea Act granted a monopoly on the tea trade to the British East India Company.
Even though the result was higher quality and lower prices, the American colonies denied that Parliament had the right to do either. Indignation was high enough that the ships to New York and Philadelphia were ordered back to England by the local authorities, lest the ships be attacked. In Boston, the ship was brought in under guard, and got attacked. Americans continued to drink more expensive, smuggled Dutch tea (and increasingly coffee instead) rather than concede Parliamentary authority.
Americans did not revolt against Britain because of high tax rates; Parliament never imposed taxes in America even approaching those it imposed in Britain itself. They revolted because they did not accept the King-in-Parliament as the soverign authority in the colonies. While they were subjects of the King, they did not consider themselves subject to the authority of a Parliament in which they lacked representation any more than Britain was subject to the colonial legislatures in which Britain's people did not have representation.
Except that those aren't omissions, because this isn't a research project list, it's a facilities list. You don't need multi-billion-dollar dedicated research facilities to study batteries, biodiesel, fuel cells, or microturbines. Therefore they won't be on a list of major new research facilities.
Does terahertz imaging need a multi-billion-dollar dedicated research facility to go forward?
If not, since this is a list of multi-billion-dollar research facilities, it wouldn't be on it, then.
I'm disappointed to see a lack of any brain research in the list . . . Why they would ignore such a field, I can only speculate
How about that this is a list of major facilities, not a list of research projects?
Now, yes, some of the facilities are narrowly focused on one specific type of research (fusion, dark energy), but some are general-purpose research assistance (like the computer projects) and some are fairly broadly applicable within a field (like the protein synthesizer).
Wal-Mart has one major thing Apple doesn't:
Leverage.
Wal-Mart already sells a massive volume of music. That gives them the leverage to drive down the record company cut of sales. "I think we'll have to cut our CD pre-orders if you can't bend on your cut of the download sales" is an incredibly useful threat to be able to use at the bargaining table.
And forget just CD orders. How many of the major labels are owned by companies that sell other things retail? Sony sells electronics. Sony, Time Warner, and Vivendi Universal sell DVDs. Wal-Mart's purchasing power, as the #1 retailer in the U.S., is tremendous on those things, too.
And if Wal-Mart can just get better "invoicing" terms than Apple gets, that can make it profitable just on the interest earned on the consumer's money between sale and paying the record company.
Okay, SCO has, as part of this legal battle, challenged the legality and even the constitutionality of the GPL.
RMS says "I am concerned about long-term entrenched confusions such as referring to a version of our GNU OS as 'Linux' and thinking that our work on free software was motivated by the ideas associated with 'open source.' These confusions lead users away from the basic issue: their freedom. By comparison, the events involving SCO are transitory and almost trivial."
So, let me get this straight. SCO is trying to overtun the legal basis of the entire GNU project, the General Public License, but that's "almost trivial" compared to people calling an operating system built on GNU code "Linux".
Uh-huh.
Does ice sublimate at 40 K? Because that's the temperature of a permanently shaded lunar south pole crater.
I know you didn't make it up. That's why I pointed out that you're using it without thinking it through, like the other people that use it.
And no, I'm not offended by its use, it's just that "Xtian" is an unwise construction. Which was my point. "Christian" avoids the problem of people not getting it, and it avoids looking like a fool because of the superfulous T. All for the low, low cost of typing a mere twelve extra letters in your original post -- an economy wasted by the necessity of your clarification anyway. The very dfinition of a foolish economy.
The FAQ entry itself suggests it is worthwhile to note that for some, even with the historical basis, the term remains offensive and those wishing to avoid offending those bothered by terms such as these might consider choosing alternate phrases. Your familiarity with the FAQ would thus suggest you were familiar with those clauses, and thus gives the impression that you prefered potentially giving offense to merely typing four extra letters. Since only a fool give offense unnecessarily, it again makes you look like a fool.
Finally, yeah, a lot of Christians can be touchy. What that has to do with my comment or me (given that I'm an atheist) is rather vague. So did you jump to a premature conclusion about my beliefs, or did you just throw in a gratuitous offensive comment about Christians?
If the fomer, you look foolish; if the latter, you undermine your claim that you weren't trying to be derisive, which is stupid. Either way, it doesn't seem very bright.
Okay, if Chistmas == Xmas, then X == Chist, so Xtian=Chisttian.
What the hell is a Chisttian, then?
Hell, even if you'd gotten the first part right (Christmas == Xmas) you've still got Xtian == Christtian. What's that? Or did you repeatedly use "Xtian" because you thought it was a neat way to say "Christian" (perhaps somewhat derisively) without ever thinking it through even once?
Yeah, New Scientist made a hash of it.
Humans have a VNO, but whether it works or not is a disputed question; there's both physiological and genetic reasons to believe that it's vestigial in humans, and possibly apes and Old World monkeys. If it is, then pheremones, which we know affect humans, must be detected by another system.
So what the researchers in this case did was see if pheremones could cause reactions in the main olfactory system of mice. If they did (and they did), it explains how humans can be affected by pheremones despite a possibly vestigial VNO.
Well, at least those don't create new windows/tabs all over the place; they're on the level of interstials for irritation.
They'll still be able to make Notepad Popups
Sun really is good at designing processors.
No, they aren't. The UltraSPARC III's ass is kicked around the block by both the IBM POWER4 and Intel-HP's Itanium 2. There's no rerason to belive the UltraSPARC IV won't be handed its ass by POWER5.
Hell, Sun isn't really good at designing SPARC processors; the Fujitsu SPARC64 V kicks Sun UltraSPARC III's ass, and the dual-core SPARC64 VI will kick the dual-core UltraSPARC IV's ass.
Sun builds complete systems, and the complete systems are pretty good. But their processors are not first-rate, and haven't been for a while.
"Yes, instead of having highly paid programmers at . . . IBM [or] Sun . . . build your critical university systems,"
You can have highly paid programmers at IBM or Sun build your critical university systems.
1) Anyone remember this rumor? So, the Xbox2 is going to use ATI and PPC technology, just like the Game Cube. Maybe backwards compatibility is going to be in the box, just not with the Xbox . . .
2) Now if you hack an Xbox2 to run Linux, do you get a cheap, MOL-capable G5-based machine? Wouldn't that be nice and Apple-infuriating . . .
Actually, the NT PPC port was done by Motorola. IBM did OS/2 PPC.
Atari 7800 played Atarti 2600 games.
Water vapor is a greenhouse gas.
Actually, conversion to resivoirs generally increases evaporative loss, at least as far as people have been able to tell.
Sure they would. It's a side effect of the inertial compensator that keeps the pilot from being splattered by the high accelerations, which itself is a development of the artificial "gravity" that is clearly demonstrated in a number of scenes.
Geez, didn't they teach Physics 101 at your school?
Since the alternative to using the computer is the U.S. government actually detonating nuclear weapons in underground tests, I'd say it's a pretty good use of the computer, myself.