Because they can, and because iPhone users (and to some extent all smartphone users) are accustomed to paying extra for random things.
On a semi-OT note, this sort of thing happening with "normal" internet connections (like the one your house has) is one of the things net-neutrality campaigners are worried about.
So not only does this do Mach 6, but it also uses its own sonic booms to help with propulsion? Or did they just choose Waverider because it sounds neat?
It uses it's own shockwave for lift, not propulsion. This does, however, help it go faster, by eliminating the drag that adding wings would cause.
"Faith" is a license to believe arbitrary stuff with absolute certainty. If you have weird beliefs, it tells you that it's OK that everybody else is looking at you funny, and that all evidence that contradicts your worldview is by definition false.
There are no "true and false Christians" - the Bible is a rorschach that will justify anything.
I...doubt it's the solar panels alone which allow it to stay up there so long. Although, if it runs primarily on solar energy I'm frankly stunned at how powerful solar panels are. Arguably since they're getting pure sunlight rather than atmosphere diffused sunlight it's probably stronger, but still.
It isn't using solar panels for propulsion. It needs hardly any propulsion, once it's in orbit, since it will naturally tend to stay in its orbit, "flying" by its own momentum (though it will use a bit to counteract the tiny atmospheric resistance that exists even at that altitude). The panels allow it to go on long missions not by keeping it in the sky, but by giving it power to run its computers, comms, and its payload, assuming the payload uses electricity. This avoids the expense of launching very large batteries.
Whatever the legal status of a device is, Apple has demonstrated on plenty of occasions that it doesn't think one really "owns" something bought from them.
Obvious troll, but I'll bite. How is this any different than the rampant and completely unsupervised genetic twiddling that has been happening in nature for the last few billion years?
The genome was produced by machine (from a digital copy of a sequenced genome). Presumably, if somebody wrote a brand new genome, it could be inserted into a living organism by the same procedure.
I guess we can now start finding out which genes are really necessary for an organism to function...
Of course, it does tend to err towards telling people to go to hospital/GP if they have symptoms with many possible interpretations, but that is probably the right thing to do. It also gives sensible advice about issues like weight, where almost everybody else is trying to sell snake oil.
I do not mean this to offend, or taint your argument, or as a direct attack on your character: but that is precisely what Karl Marx argues in the Communist Manifesto.
I know this sounds like a heresy to many Americans, but perhaps that's because Marx had a point.
I have mostly stopped using Firefox and Thunderbird largely due to their increasingly terrible Linux integration (and I used Fx from before the first name change, and Mozilla Suite before that). The most bizarre example of this is requiring one to specify the location of an executable when telling it which program to open downloaded files with. Linux users don't necessarily pay attention to the path that is being used when they put a command in their "run" box, and the only obvious way to add parameters to the command is to create a shell script. On a unix system, it really gives you the feeling that other OSs are the software's 'proper' targets.
I understand your general point, but there are things like "conspiracy to commit murder" as well, in addition to (1st, 2nd degree) murder and attempted murder.
Conspiracy to commit murder is a sensible crime, and coincidentally is probably the correct way to prosecute somebody if there is evidence they were going to carry out an attack using information from a "terrorist manual". A law allowing you to lock up people that just looked at such things (or, potentially, a lot of more innocuous things) out of curiosity is not the same thing.
Criminalising everybody only works if you absolutely trust the state and your local police to enforce such things nicely. In reality, given sufficiently vague laws, some of them would be just as likely to arrest you because they were fed up of you complaining about the drunken Doberman owner and it presents an easier way to make you leave them alone.
The article says that the son was convicted only of the thoughtcrime. I would've thought that if he was actually involved with making the poison, both could've been convicted for that.
Like most overreaching laws, the first few people convicted will obviously deserve it, and could've been convicted for a proper crime if people were prepared to do their jobs properly. Serious misuse will happen when we've all accepted the necessity of the new law.
Is there a list of what we can't read? Are there especially accurate works of fiction we can be arrested for reading? Perhaps the law will be used against people collecting information about unpleasant things our government does (remember, taking photos of police is already illegal, if the photos could be "useful for terrorism")?
For example, there are people that try to discover the routes taken by trucks transporting nuclear materials in the UK, in order to inform communities along the routes and peacefully protest. I guess they are terrorists now.
I was under the impression that there are three colour channels because the human eye has three colour channels (although the exact colours used could be debated). Could somebody explain?
Oh and thank you for not forwarding silly videos and pictures to all and sundry over the already overloaded cellphone networks. Social networking sites are there for a reason.
Yeah! The networks are quite right: their inability to provide the services customers pay them for is the fault of the customers, for actually using said services instead of just paying for them.
Slashdot Mirror
Because they can, and because iPhone users (and to some extent all smartphone users) are accustomed to paying extra for random things.
On a semi-OT note, this sort of thing happening with "normal" internet connections (like the one your house has) is one of the things net-neutrality campaigners are worried about.
It uses it's own shockwave for lift, not propulsion. This does, however, help it go faster, by eliminating the drag that adding wings would cause.
I don't have "faith" that the sun will rise tomorrow - I can prove it.
"Faith" is a license to believe arbitrary stuff with absolute certainty. If you have weird beliefs, it tells you that it's OK that everybody else is looking at you funny, and that all evidence that contradicts your worldview is by definition false.
There are no "true and false Christians" - the Bible is a rorschach that will justify anything.
Two different gospels from the same translation ought to do.
No passengers. Less space than a pickup. Lame.
Forgot to mention that the ISS has been continually powered by solar panels since 1998.
It isn't using solar panels for propulsion. It needs hardly any propulsion, once it's in orbit, since it will naturally tend to stay in its orbit, "flying" by its own momentum (though it will use a bit to counteract the tiny atmospheric resistance that exists even at that altitude). The panels allow it to go on long missions not by keeping it in the sky, but by giving it power to run its computers, comms, and its payload, assuming the payload uses electricity. This avoids the expense of launching very large batteries.
Whatever the legal status of a device is, Apple has demonstrated on plenty of occasions that it doesn't think one really "owns" something bought from them.
The genome was produced by machine (from a digital copy of a sequenced genome). Presumably, if somebody wrote a brand new genome, it could be inserted into a living organism by the same procedure.
I guess we can now start finding out which genes are really necessary for an organism to function...
(I am not a biologist.)
The computer was not invented in America.
The UK's NHS has a website: http://www.nhsdirect.nhs.uk/
Of course, it does tend to err towards telling people to go to hospital/GP if they have symptoms with many possible interpretations, but that is probably the right thing to do. It also gives sensible advice about issues like weight, where almost everybody else is trying to sell snake oil.
I know this sounds like a heresy to many Americans, but perhaps that's because Marx had a point.
Oh, the irony...
I have mostly stopped using Firefox and Thunderbird largely due to their increasingly terrible Linux integration (and I used Fx from before the first name change, and Mozilla Suite before that). The most bizarre example of this is requiring one to specify the location of an executable when telling it which program to open downloaded files with. Linux users don't necessarily pay attention to the path that is being used when they put a command in their "run" box, and the only obvious way to add parameters to the command is to create a shell script. On a unix system, it really gives you the feeling that other OSs are the software's 'proper' targets.
Conspiracy to commit murder is a sensible crime, and coincidentally is probably the correct way to prosecute somebody if there is evidence they were going to carry out an attack using information from a "terrorist manual". A law allowing you to lock up people that just looked at such things (or, potentially, a lot of more innocuous things) out of curiosity is not the same thing.
Criminalising everybody only works if you absolutely trust the state and your local police to enforce such things nicely. In reality, given sufficiently vague laws, some of them would be just as likely to arrest you because they were fed up of you complaining about the drunken Doberman owner and it presents an easier way to make you leave them alone.
The article says that the son was convicted only of the thoughtcrime. I would've thought that if he was actually involved with making the poison, both could've been convicted for that.
Like most overreaching laws, the first few people convicted will obviously deserve it, and could've been convicted for a proper crime if people were prepared to do their jobs properly. Serious misuse will happen when we've all accepted the necessity of the new law.
Is there a list of what we can't read? Are there especially accurate works of fiction we can be arrested for reading? Perhaps the law will be used against people collecting information about unpleasant things our government does (remember, taking photos of police is already illegal, if the photos could be "useful for terrorism")?
For example, there are people that try to discover the routes taken by trucks transporting nuclear materials in the UK, in order to inform communities along the routes and peacefully protest. I guess they are terrorists now.
Works in Konqueror with WebKit.
http://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/272750-pic-funny-bill-gates-pics-from-1983/#entry585309992 /Ducks
It's just how you sell that sort of thing in today's climate. National security is much more interesting than public health, for some reason.
I was under the impression that there are three colour channels because the human eye has three colour channels (although the exact colours used could be debated). Could somebody explain?
The bright side is that this codec idiocy might actually get people interested in fixing software patents.
Yeah! The networks are quite right: their inability to provide the services customers pay them for is the fault of the customers, for actually using said services instead of just paying for them.
VOIP is kinda nice on phones...