No such treaty and you have it backwards. There are statements by various countries (US included, also China) that they won't use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear countries.
"The United States will not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons states that are party to the Non Proliferation Treaty and in compliance with their nuclear non-proliferation obligations"
The funny thing is that originally a gram was defined by the weight of water in a set volume (cube of 1/100 of a meter) - so it could have been standardized with universal constants. Guess they have their reasons.
Actually, the mass of one cc of water is not necessarily exactly 1 gram. You need to account for the concentration of hydrogen and oxygen isotopes in that water which will alter the mass. You can get a cc of water that weighs about 1.2 grams if you mix deuterium and oxygen-18.
It's also assuming CO2 emissions don't increase. It's a google-assisted back-of-the-envelope calculation and isn't intended to be used for anything serious.
Though you'd need a lot of sequestration to even make a dent.
My rough estimate says if you used the entire US logging industry (assumptions : production of 70 billion board-feet per year and wood density of about 600kg/m^3. Ignoring CO2 produced during milling, transport, etc. as I can't find useful numbers for those.) for sequestration (i.e. building houses with it or something), you'd only put away about 100 million tonnes of C02 per year.
Only if you figure expenses (especially basic stuff like food, housing, etc.) scale linearly with income. Do you figure your 1M/year family is spending 40 times as much on food as the 25k/year family is?
5% is a fair bit when you only need a 20% increase (15% from current, roughly 2C global average temperature increase from current or 3.6C from 1850.) to start causing noticeable effects. Also consider it doesn't take very long to get that.
Total global CO2 emissions for 2009 were about 31 billion tonnes. Earth's atmosphere is about 15 quadrillion tonnes, roughly 5.85 trillion tonnes (0.039%) of which is CO2. We're releasing roughly 0.5% of the total amount of C02 in the atmosphere per year. That means we'll hit that 15% from current increase within 30 years.
Glacial cycles are not usefully comparable as they occurred over much longer timespans. The last glacial retreat in North America happened over the course of roughly 11,000 years (from 21,000BP to 10,000BP) and with a temperature change of about +3C. We're looking at the same kind of increase over a few decades.
Ice age cycles aren't comparable either. At the end of the ice age before the last one (about 125,000 years ago), there was a global rise in temperature of about 11C (from -8C to +3C relative to 1850. We're currently at +1.6C relative to then) over roughly 25,000 years. That +3C above normal is the hottest it's ever been while humans have existed and we're on course to go clear past it in a matter of decades.
What are you on about? The drives have always required a power connection. The enclosure just runs the +5V line on the USB port to the drive, which provides enough current (500mA) for most drives or you can gang 2 ports together with a double-headed cable and get up to a full amp of current, which should spin up any 2.5" drive.
Just because your enclosure doesn't do that doesn't mean it doesn't work.
Yes, but unions keep down superior workers, prohibit going above the call of duty, leech your hard earned money, send managers death threats, and are run by the mob.~
Well, being as he's never attained a majority in the house and the other 3 parties appear to be against it, what do you expect him to have done?
Also, I'm reasonably sure that making the senate subject to election would require a real amendment to the constitution, meaning he either needs a 7/50 or a national referendum.
AFAIK, it's the same crudely. The only difference that comes to mind is that the AUS senate is elected, unlike the Canadian senate and the British House of Lords, which are appointed by the PM by way of the Monarch/GG.
Slashdot Mirror
Wikipedia has a nice list of state things.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_United_States_state_insignia
Doesn't appear to be a state rock band, at least not according to wikipedia.
Lots of other state stuff though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_United_States_state_insignia
No such treaty and you have it backwards. There are statements by various countries (US included, also China) that they won't use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear countries.
"The United States will not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons states that are party to the Non Proliferation Treaty and in compliance with their nuclear non-proliferation obligations"
The funny thing is that originally a gram was defined by the weight of water in a set volume (cube of 1/100 of a meter) - so it could have been standardized with universal constants. Guess they have their reasons.
Actually, the mass of one cc of water is not necessarily exactly 1 gram. You need to account for the concentration of hydrogen and oxygen isotopes in that water which will alter the mass. You can get a cc of water that weighs about 1.2 grams if you mix deuterium and oxygen-18.
It's also assuming CO2 emissions don't increase. It's a google-assisted back-of-the-envelope calculation and isn't intended to be used for anything serious.
Though you'd need a lot of sequestration to even make a dent.
My rough estimate says if you used the entire US logging industry (assumptions : production of 70 billion board-feet per year and wood density of about 600kg/m^3. Ignoring CO2 produced during milling, transport, etc. as I can't find useful numbers for those.) for sequestration (i.e. building houses with it or something), you'd only put away about 100 million tonnes of C02 per year.
Only if you figure expenses (especially basic stuff like food, housing, etc.) scale linearly with income. Do you figure your 1M/year family is spending 40 times as much on food as the 25k/year family is?
5% is a fair bit when you only need a 20% increase (15% from current, roughly 2C global average temperature increase from current or 3.6C from 1850.) to start causing noticeable effects. Also consider it doesn't take very long to get that.
Total global CO2 emissions for 2009 were about 31 billion tonnes. Earth's atmosphere is about 15 quadrillion tonnes, roughly 5.85 trillion tonnes (0.039%) of which is CO2. We're releasing roughly 0.5% of the total amount of C02 in the atmosphere per year. That means we'll hit that 15% from current increase within 30 years.
Glacial cycles are not usefully comparable as they occurred over much longer timespans. The last glacial retreat in North America happened over the course of roughly 11,000 years (from 21,000BP to 10,000BP) and with a temperature change of about +3C. We're looking at the same kind of increase over a few decades.
Ice age cycles aren't comparable either. At the end of the ice age before the last one (about 125,000 years ago), there was a global rise in temperature of about 11C (from -8C to +3C relative to 1850. We're currently at +1.6C relative to then) over roughly 25,000 years. That +3C above normal is the hottest it's ever been while humans have existed and we're on course to go clear past it in a matter of decades.
Do you run your hard drive with a write block on it?
If data is corrupted in memory or on the drive controller, you're going to end up with corrupt data written to the drive.
What are you on about? The drives have always required a power connection. The enclosure just runs the +5V line on the USB port to the drive, which provides enough current (500mA) for most drives or you can gang 2 ports together with a double-headed cable and get up to a full amp of current, which should spin up any 2.5" drive.
Just because your enclosure doesn't do that doesn't mean it doesn't work.
Just that Khan is probably as easy to spell as John. You hardly ever see anyone misspelling it Jhon (which is actually how it is pronounced!).
Yes, but a better comparison is how many people mix up "Jon" and "John". Both "Khan" and "Kahn" are actual names.
As a side note, Jhon is also an actual, though uncommon, name.
A large legal department and the fact it would cost more money to sue them over it than it would to just pay.
Poe's law strikes again. I intended that post as sarcasm. Apparently I wasn't blatant enough.
This is why IT workers need unions though...
Yes, but unions keep down superior workers, prohibit going above the call of duty, leech your hard earned money, send managers death threats, and are run by the mob.~
In this case, I would be more worried about the ultra-conservative nuts (like the Texas republican party) harassing for allowing any rights at all.
Canada post has never (At least as long as I've been around) had Saturday delivery, but the post office is open 7 days a week.
Seems like that would work fine for you.
I have NEVER had Fedex actually deliver anything to me. They punt it to Canada Post for final delivery.
Purolator will hand deliver stuff, provided the shipper can figure out where I live.
UPS takes a fun route through STC and 2 local couriers who will hand deliver on Tuesday or Thursday or I can pick it up at their office.
Were self-supporting. The rise in fuel prices has driven them into the red, hence why they're looking for places to cut costs.
Of course, coca-cola.xxx is not ambiguous at all.
Or do you think trademark holders won't buy up those domains to cover their bases?
I seriously doubt we're going to have any web site *forced* to be put on .xxx even if the owner doesn't consider it to be porn.
I have considerably less doubt about that eventuality.
That's all it will do. Make porn stand out as porn.
Maybe, maybe not. Depends what trademark holders do/are allowed to do. What do you figure will be at, say, coca-cola.xxx or mcdonalds.xxx?
Do you figure that trademark holders aren't going to buy up their .xxx domains?
Do you also figure that the US Congress isn't going to try shepherding sites into the new TLD?
but it's one rule that can block 100% porn with no false positives.
Only if you make the assumption that your definition of porn matches their definition of porn.
Well, being as he's never attained a majority in the house and the other 3 parties appear to be against it, what do you expect him to have done?
Also, I'm reasonably sure that making the senate subject to election would require a real amendment to the constitution, meaning he either needs a 7/50 or a national referendum.
Nope, they call it a Constitutional Monarchy.
AFAIK, it's the same crudely. The only difference that comes to mind is that the AUS senate is elected, unlike the Canadian senate and the British House of Lords, which are appointed by the PM by way of the Monarch/GG.