Don't forget Spain, France, Portugal, Aztec, Navajo . . . (the list goes on) There were a lot of nations killing nations in the Americas, even before Europeans joined. Of course, that doesn't excuse anyone, individual or nation.
FTA: "Under the deal, HP has a license for all Intergraph patents for any use, while Intergraph has access to HP patents in specific fields in which it has products."
It seems that HP paid for more than just a dropped lawsuit. They also paid for the use of a lot of patents.
Don't add that functionality to the police cameras. This ability is not inherent in cameras. The camera has to be built for it, and it has to be compatible with the not-for-me widget.
This is the first (only) non-inflamatory, balanced, reasonable article I have seen that supports global warming. Interestingly, he has concrete, objective evidence that some of the most famous "scientists" and organizations are deliberately misrepresenting research to support their own opinions.
It is an extremely uninformative sunmmary. Even the points where it quotes from the report suggest that the report contains no actual science. Everything is said in one-sided extremes. Everything is worst-case, without best-case to balance it, or even most-likely-case to give a baseline. There may be actual, real, levelheaded, factual, balanced, non-alarmist science to support the theory of human-induced catastrophic global warming, but I haven't seen any, and I've looked.
I couldn't see where it said that it was Atkinson that forgot. It seemed to give the impression that someone else was supposed to have done it, but it didn't really say.
Using Nobel Prizes as an objective measure of much more than who is popular with the committee(s) is not a very good idea. Nobel Prizes are often political statements, though not necessarily government politics. There is plenty of politics in arts and sciences. I don't know if this is becoming more common, or if Nobel Prizes have always been this way.
Who has a right to the money is not determined by who needs it, not should it be determined that way. I should be willing to give to those who need, but they shouldn't be able to take it just because I don't need it.
It would probably be more fun to BE a government like the Chinese government, because you'd have a lot more power and control. It's much better to LIVE UNDER a government like that in the US.
People form habits. For most of us it is VERY easy to get into the habit of living without contributing, whether you are actually able to work or not. It is also VERY easy to see someone else living without contributing and want the same privelige/curse. This does not mean that being on welfare means you're lazy. It means that being on welfare (as it is setup in the US) engourages (not forces) you and others to be lazy.
The other side: Not all welfare programs give someting for nothing, but they are more difficult to manage.
Re-check taxes again. Your number line would have to be in the wrong order if you think that the US has higher taxes than either of those two countries.
Renting may be more work and risk than is immediately obvious.
A bad tenant can easily reduce the value of a house by $20,000 in a few months. (Students are notoriously bad tenants.) Non-paying and destructive tenants are very hard to get rid of (depending on local laws). Damage control and rent collection aren't necessarily work-free, even with decent tenants.
Buying rental properties may be a wise choice for you, but it's not automatically wise for everyone.
Mentioning the cost that way makes it seem that expensive research is more reliable/accurate/honest. Cost doesn't necessarily make the research better or the conclusions more accurate. Funding does, however attract more people that are in it for the money.
Eg. Several companies spent a lot of money to "prove" that smoking isn't harmful.
Note to those who are low on logic fluid: This doesn't mean that expensive research is less worthwhile either.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't forget Spain, France, Portugal, Aztec, Navajo . . . (the list goes on)
There were a lot of nations killing nations in the Americas, even before Europeans joined.
Of course, that doesn't excuse anyone, individual or nation.
There was a live liger named "Shasta".
Dead for some years, though. I saw her stuffed at Hogle Zoo.
Sorry, no limerick.
FTA: "Under the deal, HP has a license for all Intergraph patents for any use, while Intergraph has access to HP patents in specific fields in which it has products."
It seems that HP paid for more than just a dropped lawsuit. They also paid for the use of a lot of patents.
Don't add that functionality to the police cameras.
This ability is not inherent in cameras. The camera has to be built for it, and it has to be compatible with the not-for-me widget.
In fact, they will officially engourage pirating by charging legal customers more.
FTA: "by offering discounts to users of pirated copies of Windows"
Pirate a copy, then ask for the discount.
Government censorship is (nearly) always very bad.
Personal self-censorship is essential to civilization.
Business self-censorship, if done correctly, is good business, and is closer to personal than to governmental censorship.
I had a foot pedal for my computer, once.
But then I called tech support and they told me that it was the mouse.
This is the first (only) non-inflamatory, balanced, reasonable article I have seen that supports global warming.
Interestingly, he has concrete, objective evidence that some of the most famous "scientists" and organizations are deliberately misrepresenting research to support their own opinions.
"I have read the Independent on and off for the last 15"
That statement doesn't inspire much hope for lack of bias in your opinion of the Independent, no matter what it is really like.
It is an extremely uninformative sunmmary. Even the points where it quotes from the report suggest that the report contains no actual science.
Everything is said in one-sided extremes. Everything is worst-case, without best-case to balance it, or even most-likely-case to give a baseline.
There may be actual, real, levelheaded, factual, balanced, non-alarmist science to support the theory of human-induced catastrophic global warming, but I haven't seen any, and I've looked.
I couldn't see where it said that it was Atkinson that forgot. It seemed to give the impression that someone else was supposed to have done it, but it didn't really say.
Using Nobel Prizes as an objective measure of much more than who is popular with the committee(s) is not a very good idea.
Nobel Prizes are often political statements, though not necessarily government politics. There is plenty of politics in arts and sciences.
I don't know if this is becoming more common, or if Nobel Prizes have always been this way.
Who has a right to the money is not determined by who needs it, not should it be determined that way.
I should be willing to give to those who need, but they shouldn't be able to take it just because I don't need it.
It would probably be more fun to BE a government like the Chinese government, because you'd have a lot more power and control.
It's much better to LIVE UNDER a government like that in the US.
That't not time spent.
That's fun earned, and cheaper fun than most things.
Even better, choose a job that you are good at and that you actually like.
The trouble with most welfare programs:
People form habits.
For most of us it is VERY easy to get into the habit of living without contributing, whether you are actually able to work or not.
It is also VERY easy to see someone else living without contributing and want the same privelige/curse.
This does not mean that being on welfare means you're lazy. It means that being on welfare (as it is setup in the US) engourages (not forces) you and others to be lazy.
The other side:
Not all welfare programs give someting for nothing, but they are more difficult to manage.
Re-check taxes again.
Your number line would have to be in the wrong order if you think that the US has higher taxes than either of those two countries.
I thought that nobody remembered Max Headroom anymore.
Renting may be more work and risk than is immediately obvious.
A bad tenant can easily reduce the value of a house by $20,000 in a few months. (Students are notoriously bad tenants.)
Non-paying and destructive tenants are very hard to get rid of (depending on local laws).
Damage control and rent collection aren't necessarily work-free, even with decent tenants.
Buying rental properties may be a wise choice for you, but it's not automatically wise for everyone.
Maybe not individual cells, but tissue samples anyway.
People have kept chicken heart cells alive for decades.
That may not be forever, but it's probably long enough for most things.
Language is not the only thing that can be edited, thus is not necessarily the domain of every editor.
"why is all my spam in American english "
I can think of at least a couple of possibilities:
- A lot of Americans have a lot of disposable income.
- While the Internet is international, it did start primarily in American English.
- - "(cost ~25million (pounds?))"
Mentioning the cost that way makes it seem that expensive research is more reliable/accurate/honest. Cost doesn't necessarily make the research better or the conclusions more accurate. Funding does, however attract more people that are in it for the money.
Eg. Several companies spent a lot of money to "prove" that smoking isn't harmful.
Note to those who are low on logic fluid:
This doesn't mean that expensive research is less worthwhile either.