I agree about an increased about of burn up in the atmosphere, but I saw it on Discovery channel that it would in fact do more damage. I don't recall why though.
Maybe an increased number of landing sites? Now I'm talking instead of one city sized object, we have several town sized rocks.
Isn't this how copyrights in the US are supposed to work? Won't the same thing happen in the UK that happens over here, some large corportation (read Disney) keeps on spending and spending on lawyers to have the laws changed so their mascot can't be used in explicit material
Did anyone ever, for even a second, think that this would hold true forever?
People call this Moore's "Law", but is it really a law in the same sense as for example, Newton's laws, or the laws of thermodynamics? I mean, these are two examples that are here to stay...
The city is providing a service, something that doesn't exist freely.
In your analogy to the park, if the town didn't provide the park, then they would go into the street, or if the street wasn't there then they would go into the woods. So them providing "space" is not something they can avoid.
Now if the city was providing a large dome, under which there was no surveillance, no police, and nobody checking who goes in and out, and crimes are committed there, then yes, I would say they are liable for being negligent.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree about an increased about of burn up in the atmosphere, but I saw it on Discovery channel that it would in fact do more damage. I don't recall why though.
Maybe an increased number of landing sites? Now I'm talking instead of one city sized object, we have several town sized rocks.
The only problem is what if we fail, and it becomes bird-shot instead of a bullet.
Then it
1. Becomes even harder to prevent from hitting us 2.It does even more damage if it does
Isn't this how copyrights in the US are supposed to work? Won't the same thing happen in the UK that happens over here, some large corportation (read Disney) keeps on spending and spending on lawyers to have the laws changed so their mascot can't be used in explicit material
Did anyone ever, for even a second, think that this would hold true forever?
People call this Moore's "Law", but is it really a law in the same sense as for example, Newton's laws, or the laws of thermodynamics? I mean, these are two examples that are here to stay...
Well we all know that if it was a Tech Support related question India would be prevailed...
I cringe at the thought of how many gallons of Mountain Dew and pounds of Doritos are consumed while this is going on...
The city is providing a service, something that doesn't exist freely.
In your analogy to the park, if the town didn't provide the park, then they would go into the street, or if the street wasn't there then they would go into the woods. So them providing "space" is not something they can avoid.
Now if the city was providing a large dome, under which there was no surveillance, no police, and nobody checking who goes in and out, and crimes are committed there, then yes, I would say they are liable for being negligent.
So what happens in any legal suit where there is unmonitored, illegal activity taking place over this network? Is the city liable?
Is the city monitoring the traffic to prevent kids under the age of 18 from viewing illicit material?
Will the RIAA come after them if someone uses this hardware to download illegal songs?
or if you click on the logo it tells you that its world day for water
Whys he back? He didn't seem to be too entertaining when he was asked questions the other day...
There has to be better news than this...How about how http://www.google.com/ has a crazy logo today...
fp