What idea? You didn't address the problem of power consumption. You simply offered a solution to not watch cable TV. Of course if you still have internet access, you still have cable right...not too mention: Is your antenna using a preamp? Do you have a dvr for your antenna tv viewing? Do you a device to turn your antenna in order to make channel reception better. Lastly, roku boxes use power too. So how much electricity did you save by removing the cable box???? Think before you post.
They are not taking college courses in high school. The student is not going to a local college and taking the course there. They are taking a "college like" course in high school. The two are not the same, not even close. High Schools like to say AP courses are the real thing but they are not. College professors laugh at you when you tell them you took a AP class.
Really? That's not what the NSA was instructed to do. The NSA was instructed to hold *some* information that was involved in a court case. They were not forced to hold it for years nor were they forced to hold everything. In fact when the NSA was asked to do so they did not say they couldn't do it. Instead they said they didn't think the hold order applied to the information they deleted.
Please stick to the topic on hand and not make up a scenario that did not happen.
What regulations? There were no new regulations. There no regulations were placed on the derivatives market. The only change was how much capital each bank had to have on hand.
Really zippy? That's a subsidy. Money that would otherwise go to the US goes to the oil industry. Money they don't need since they make billions in net profits per quarter. The point in providing a subsidy/tax break is to help a industry. The oil industry hasn't needed help in a long time.
They should be catching typos, but they didn't. This points to a lax review process. There was also a conflict of interest between Nature and Riken, which was not disclosed.
You obviously don't know know about the mistakes made in the paper which made it through the review process. Stop now you are out of your depth. Or put another way, how much is Nature paying you to defend them.
I do and supposedly experts (referees) in your field of research are suppose to review the material. Mistakes, easily identifiable, made it past them which should not have:
"First, to take a random example, the Obokata et al. article refers to “pasture pipettes” rather than “Pasteur pipettes.” The existence of such an obvious error suggests that the nine authors, as well as the referees, editors, and copy editors were all, to put it bluntly, slackers. Some of the actions taken by the authors in apparently inappropriately editing and recycling figures might arguably have been uncatchable by the referees and editors, but surely this simple typo should have been caught by someone. Maybe the referees and editors who missed this should be put out to pasture.
More seriously, Nature has some heavy-duty explaining to do. An earlier version of the Obokata et al. paper was rejected, but then the problem-beset version published in late January was finally accepted. I’d like to see Nature, while protecting the identity of the referees, disclose (on their website) all of the editorial correspondence (redacted appropriately) and every version of the submitted papers, so we can all judge whether or not the decision by Nature to accept the papers was appropriate based on the information available to them at the time."
Really? RTFA: "The analysis explicitly says that it will not lead to more jobs since the models are full employment models. It may lead to somewhat higher wages, but it is not a way to employ the unemployed. Furthermore, the discussion notes that in the transition, some workers may end up unemployed as the economies adjust to the new rules."
Which has nothing to do with using a 3-D printer to make a gun. No one is outlawing the use of a 3-D printer. However, they are restricting the use of a 3-D printer to make guns. Thanks for missing the point.
Somebody keeps failing to read about the Espionage Act.
1.) How is a Jury going to ignore the law if they can't hear Snowden's side? Think Potsy, think.
2.) An appeal will only overturn a verdict based on the technical points of a trial not the substance of the verdict. Thus is there no issues with the way the trial was conducted, the verdict will not be over-turned. Swing and a miss.
3.) What is the likelihood the President will commute the sentence? Strike two.
4.) What is the likelihood the President will pardon Snowden? Strike three.
Yo pin-head, that point is under the Espionage Act Snowden will not be able to tell his side of the story. He will not be able to give a defense. That's the point. But please continue to ignore this fact.
You really are an idiot aren't you. Espionage Act. Read it sometime. He would not be able to tell his story:
"As I know from my own case, even Snowden's own testimony on the stand would be gagged by government objections and the (arguably unconstitutional) nature of his charges. That was my own experience in court, as the first American to be prosecuted under the Espionage Act – or any other statute – for giving information to the American people
But when I finally heard my lawyer ask the prearranged question in direct examination – Why did you copy the Pentagon Papers? – I was silenced before I could begin to answer. The government prosecutor objected – irrelevant – and the judge sustained. My lawyer, exasperated, said he "had never heard of a case where a defendant was not permitted to tell the jury why he did what he did." The judge responded: well, you're hearing one now.."
Because you claimed he was guilty, then continued he could get a fair trial, while ignoring your bias of his guilt and the Espionage Act. Makes you look quite the fool. You really should read what Daniel Ellsberg wrote.
Yeah because Amazon is looking out for you: "Amazon, which is under immense pressure from Wall Street to improve its profit margins, is trying to get better terms on e-books out of Hachette, the smallest of the top five New York publishers, as well as Bonnier." Douche bag.
Reall? FTA: "“Your actions to raise the prices of our books, place banners touting books that ‘are similar but lower in price’ and saying that our books will ship in 3-5 weeks when they are in stock is not only a disgusting negotiation practice, but it has made me tell my readers to shop elsewhere — and they are and will,” she wrote."
Slashdot Mirror
What idea? You didn't address the problem of power consumption. You simply offered a solution to not watch cable TV. Of course if you still have internet access, you still have cable right...not too mention: Is your antenna using a preamp? Do you have a dvr for your antenna tv viewing? Do you a device to turn your antenna in order to make channel reception better. Lastly, roku boxes use power too. So how much electricity did you save by removing the cable box???? Think before you post.
They are not taking college courses in high school. The student is not going to a local college and taking the course there. They are taking a "college like" course in high school. The two are not the same, not even close. High Schools like to say AP courses are the real thing but they are not. College professors laugh at you when you tell them you took a AP class.
Then not commenting is your best option.
Then don't make up a scenario they weren't asked with which to comply.
Really? That's not what the NSA was instructed to do. The NSA was instructed to hold *some* information that was involved in a court case. They were not forced to hold it for years nor were they forced to hold everything. In fact when the NSA was asked to do so they did not say they couldn't do it. Instead they said they didn't think the hold order applied to the information they deleted.
Please stick to the topic on hand and not make up a scenario that did not happen.
What regulations? There were no new regulations. There no regulations were placed on the derivatives market. The only change was how much capital each bank had to have on hand.
"They have no grasp of practical problem solving."
What U.S. corporation does.
Really zippy? That's a subsidy. Money that would otherwise go to the US goes to the oil industry. Money they don't need since they make billions in net profits per quarter. The point in providing a subsidy/tax break is to help a industry. The oil industry hasn't needed help in a long time.
I didn't know opinion passed for news these days....
They should be catching typos, but they didn't. This points to a lax review process. There was also a conflict of interest between Nature and Riken, which was not disclosed.
You obviously don't know know about the mistakes made in the paper which made it through the review process. Stop now you are out of your depth. Or put another way, how much is Nature paying you to defend them.
I do and supposedly experts (referees) in your field of research are suppose to review the material. Mistakes, easily identifiable, made it past them which should not have:
"First, to take a random example, the Obokata et al. article refers to “pasture pipettes” rather than “Pasteur pipettes.” The existence of such an obvious error suggests that the nine authors, as well as the referees, editors, and copy editors were all, to put it bluntly, slackers. Some of the actions taken by the authors in apparently inappropriately editing and recycling figures might arguably have been uncatchable by the referees and editors, but surely this simple typo should have been caught by someone. Maybe the referees and editors who missed this should be put out to pasture.
More seriously, Nature has some heavy-duty explaining to do. An earlier version of the Obokata et al. paper was rejected, but then the problem-beset version published in late January was finally accepted. I’d like to see Nature, while protecting the identity of the referees, disclose (on their website) all of the editorial correspondence (redacted appropriately) and every version of the submitted papers, so we can all judge whether or not the decision by Nature to accept the papers was appropriate based on the information available to them at the time."
http://www.ipscell.com/tag/rob...
Really? RTFA: "The analysis explicitly says that it will not lead to more jobs since the models are full employment models. It may lead to somewhat higher wages, but it is not a way to employ the unemployed. Furthermore, the discussion notes that in the transition, some workers may end up unemployed as the economies adjust to the new rules."
Which has nothing to do with using a 3-D printer to make a gun. No one is outlawing the use of a 3-D printer. However, they are restricting the use of a 3-D printer to make guns. Thanks for missing the point.
Yo ass munch, he'll go to jail for the rest of his life. But I guess the fact he won't receive a fair trial doesn't bother you.
Somebody keeps failing to read about the Espionage Act.
1.) How is a Jury going to ignore the law if they can't hear Snowden's side? Think Potsy, think.
2.) An appeal will only overturn a verdict based on the technical points of a trial not the substance of the verdict. Thus is there no issues with the way the trial was conducted, the verdict will not be over-turned. Swing and a miss.
3.) What is the likelihood the President will commute the sentence? Strike two.
4.) What is the likelihood the President will pardon Snowden? Strike three.
You really didn't think about this.
Yo pin-head, that point is under the Espionage Act Snowden will not be able to tell his side of the story. He will not be able to give a defense. That's the point. But please continue to ignore this fact.
You really are an idiot aren't you. Espionage Act. Read it sometime. He would not be able to tell his story:
"As I know from my own case, even Snowden's own testimony on the stand would be gagged by government objections and the (arguably unconstitutional) nature of his charges. That was my own experience in court, as the first American to be prosecuted under the Espionage Act – or any other statute – for giving information to the American people
But when I finally heard my lawyer ask the prearranged question in direct examination – Why did you copy the Pentagon Papers? – I was silenced before I could begin to answer. The government prosecutor objected – irrelevant – and the judge sustained. My lawyer, exasperated, said he "had never heard of a case where a defendant was not permitted to tell the jury why he did what he did." The judge responded: well, you're hearing one now.."
Do you get it now.
Those are your words. That fact that you are now saying they aren't is sad.
You might want to RTFA before claiming someone can get a fair trial under the Espionage Act. You look very foolish.
Because you claimed he was guilty, then continued he could get a fair trial, while ignoring your bias of his guilt and the Espionage Act. Makes you look quite the fool. You really should read what Daniel Ellsberg wrote.
You also ignore the point of the article that Snowden cannot get a fair trial under the Espionage Act. So your comments are pointless.
You said he was guilty. The contradicts a fair trial.
But that would never happen under the Espionage Act, which is the point of the article.
Yeah because Amazon is looking out for you: "Amazon, which is under immense pressure from Wall Street to improve its profit margins, is trying to get better terms on e-books out of Hachette, the smallest of the top five New York publishers, as well as Bonnier." Douche bag.
Reall? FTA: "“Your actions to raise the prices of our books, place banners touting books that ‘are similar but lower in price’ and saying that our books will ship in 3-5 weeks when they are in stock is not only a disgusting negotiation practice, but it has made me tell my readers to shop elsewhere — and they are and will,” she wrote."