Davies, religion and Christmas
on
Dr Who Rolls On
·
· Score: 1
Many people's reaction upon reading 'christmas special' is 'huh?'
It's important to keep in mind that Russell T. Davies is someone who's not afraid to tackle controversial subjects, and that includes religion. For prove that he can pull it off, I recommend you to check out another Russell T. Davies production (featuring none other than Christopher Eccleson), which intelligently handled the subject of christianity: The Second Coming.
Is regeneration akin to resurrection?
on
Dr Who Rolls On
·
· Score: 1
Regeneration sequence on Christmas? Remember that this is from the actor-writer team which brought us The Second Coming. Expect controversial, semi-subversive religious allegory.
They want more cheap labour everywhere. Flooding the US job market, or any job market for that matter, with an excess of programmers is still good for them, because it lowers the cost of programmers globally.
If businesses switch to the 'thin client' model, or anything similar, then this will be a step backwards, technologically speaking, and it will be a decision which is based entirely on financial motives. Those who appreciate technology will have little reason to follow this lead, and therefore will not.
Um, no. It's simply a realization that for some users within an organization, a full fledged workstation is not required. If someone is only using their computer for Office, web and email, it doesn't merit paying for a full workstation; a thin client will suit them just fine. Such a move does not imply a failure to appreciate technology.
Also, I wouldn't quickly right off thin-client server systems as being technologically backwards. It takes some amount of neat tech to make a thin client seem as, or near as, rich as a full workstation.
I believe it was in "A Brief History Of Time" I read that a black hole with the mass of a mountain would emit hawking radiation equivalent to 1000 times humanities combined power output.
Therefore, you could not artificially create one without having many times humanities power output, as you would have to cram whatever matter you wanted to put into the black hole against the force of all that hawking radiation.
So I think the earth is safe from these mad scientists. For now.
OT: Ugh! Why do you question my understanding of how monopolies are policed? Where did I say that being a monopoly is illegal?
So the question is not whether they are a monopoly, but do they do things, which are against the law, that ensure their monopoly status.
As you mentioned, Anti-trust law does not just apply to using anti-competitive tactics to ensure their monopoly status, it also applies to using their monopoly status to anti-competitively "extend their control over an area", such as another marked.
A key example is one of bundling products together, such as, perhaps, a search service with a set of preferred recommendations.
It's perfectly legal for a non-monopoly to bundle products together, but it is anti-competitive for a monopoly to bundle a new product with a monopolized product, because people have to buy the bundle even if there are better alternatives to the new product from the monopolies competitors.
Therefore, the question of whether or not Google is a monopoly is relevant.
You won't rank highly on Google, but that reward is in Google's gift... and you have no right to dictate what they do.
The validity of this is dependant upon whether Google is a monopoly or not.
If Google is considered to have a monopoly on web searching, then this kind of behaviour could be considered in violation of anti-trust principles, since they are essentially bundling a new product (their own content) with their monopoly product (their search service), forcing users of the monopoly product to use the bundled product.
Actually, there are several pleasure centers (after all, there ain't just one kind of pleasure), each one corresponding to different areas of the brain and different kinds of stimulation (eg sexual pleasure, eating pleasure etc).
Don't have time to scrounge up a link since I'm at work, but google should be able to help you out.
- This article isn't talking about embryonic stem cells, so any references to the Bush administration embryonic stem cell policy are utterly irrelevant
It's very relevant when those against embryonic stem cell research start touting these results as arguments against the necessity for embryonic stem cell, as you are doing.
- There isn't a "ban" on any kind of stem cell research in the US. There is a restriction on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research - entities are still free to perform embryonic stem cell research (see California's recent US$3 billion bond initiative to support such research in the state)
The ban is on federal funding for research involving any embryonic stem cell lines except those few, very limited lines derived before Bush's announcement of the ban. Additionally, the consensus among stem cell researchers is that those few lines which are available are fairly poor, most being contaminated. Oh, and the California Initiative? That's California attempting a legal run around the ban. You can't claim it as an example of it's merit.
- The Bush administration is the first administration to allow any federal funding at all for embryonic stem cell research. Granted, this is partly due to timing, but it's still a point of information.
Slashdot Mirror
It's important to keep in mind that Russell T. Davies is someone who's not afraid to tackle controversial subjects, and that includes religion. For prove that he can pull it off, I recommend you to check out another Russell T. Davies production (featuring none other than Christopher Eccleson), which intelligently handled the subject of christianity: The Second Coming.
Regeneration sequence on Christmas? Remember that this is from the actor-writer team which brought us The Second Coming. Expect controversial, semi-subversive religious allegory.
They want more cheap labour everywhere. Flooding the US job market, or any job market for that matter, with an excess of programmers is still good for them, because it lowers the cost of programmers globally.
When you've spent 4 hours trying to clean a friends computer 'cuz IE infected it with viruses, then you'll care that they use firefox
um, yeah, I am.
Um, no. It's simply a realization that for some users within an organization, a full fledged workstation is not required. If someone is only using their computer for Office, web and email, it doesn't merit paying for a full workstation; a thin client will suit them just fine. Such a move does not imply a failure to appreciate technology.
Also, I wouldn't quickly right off thin-client server systems as being technologically backwards. It takes some amount of neat tech to make a thin client seem as, or near as, rich as a full workstation.
I believe it was in "A Brief History Of Time" I read that a black hole with the mass of a mountain would emit hawking radiation equivalent to 1000 times humanities combined power output.
Therefore, you could not artificially create one without having many times humanities power output, as you would have to cram whatever matter you wanted to put into the black hole against the force of all that hawking radiation.
So I think the earth is safe from these mad scientists. For now.
So the question is not whether they are a monopoly, but do they do things, which are against the law, that ensure their monopoly status.
As you mentioned, Anti-trust law does not just apply to using anti-competitive tactics to ensure their monopoly status, it also applies to using their monopoly status to anti-competitively "extend their control over an area", such as another marked.
A key example is one of bundling products together, such as, perhaps, a search service with a set of preferred recommendations.
It's perfectly legal for a non-monopoly to bundle products together, but it is anti-competitive for a monopoly to bundle a new product with a monopolized product, because people have to buy the bundle even if there are better alternatives to the new product from the monopolies competitors.
Therefore, the question of whether or not Google is a monopoly is relevant.
The validity of this is dependant upon whether Google is a monopoly or not.
If Google is considered to have a monopoly on web searching, then this kind of behaviour could be considered in violation of anti-trust principles, since they are essentially bundling a new product (their own content) with their monopoly product (their search service), forcing users of the monopoly product to use the bundled product.
Don't have time to scrounge up a link since I'm at work, but google should be able to help you out.
It's very relevant when those against embryonic stem cell research start touting these results as arguments against the necessity for embryonic stem cell, as you are doing.
- There isn't a "ban" on any kind of stem cell research in the US. There is a restriction on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research - entities are still free to perform embryonic stem cell research (see California's recent US$3 billion bond initiative to support such research in the state) The ban is on federal funding for research involving any embryonic stem cell lines except those few, very limited lines derived before Bush's announcement of the ban. Additionally, the consensus among stem cell researchers is that those few lines which are available are fairly poor, most being contaminated. Oh, and the California Initiative? That's California attempting a legal run around the ban. You can't claim it as an example of it's merit.
- The Bush administration is the first administration to allow any federal funding at all for embryonic stem cell research. Granted, this is partly due to timing, but it's still a point of information.
It's entirely a matter of timing; the Clinton administration was aiming to put a much more liberal federal funding scheme which would not limit researchers to a few poor cell lines
I agree, quality shocker.