They are tunable in the sense that chemists can play around with them in order to change the bandgap (from Lowest Unoccupied Molecular Orbital to Highest Unoccupied Molecular Orbital), thus changing the wavelength produced.
I don't know what you mean by changing the color "in real time", but it seems to me that you're talking about electrochemical display devices. They're ridiculously simple to build and can cover a wide range of contrasts. Granted, PEDOT:PSS or similar materials can only go from transparent to dark blue (through a lot of shades of blue), and switching time is quite slow, but let's not forget that this field is at its infancy. Hang around, organic electronics might be huge in the medium term.
I tried installing it on Ubuntu 8.04, and it complained about some non-existing Hyperspace file. I tried again by selecting the "Install for this user only" option, and it went smoothly.
It's pretty neat. Beats having to scrape torrents...
Tying a product with something else violates article L122-1 of the French law. The argument is that some giant corporation might convince or coerce somebody to bundle one of its products, creating a de facto monopoly. This is the same reason no telecom operator can force you to buy a subscription with your iPhone.
If you don't like the law, stay out of France. The majority of the population here like it very much as it keeps the competition alive and healthy.
I believe Shi'ites view descendants of Mohammed as sacred. So people in Tehran may take offense to the statement above depending on how it is said. Bit of trivia for the day: Iranian shops used to sell portraits of Mohammed on a regular basis prior to the Jyllands-Posten affair.
As for England, I understand that most mosques are financed by the Al-Sauds to preach Wahabism. And one only needs to look at freedom of religion in Saudi Arabia (or lack thereof) to understand how they reserve the right to smack anyone whom they disagree with.
Thing is, what would I be achieving by going to Syria and testing your hypothesis? It'd be as silly as going to Thailand and insulting the royal family just to make a point. When all said and done, there are a handful of countries where freedom of speech is really essential. And judging by the the way things are going, the future doesn't look bright for them either.
What you are missing, dear sir, is that Life of Brian is highly offensive to Muslims. In case you didn't know, Jesus of Nazareth is highly revered in Islam. His miracle birth coupled with his sinless life, puts him in a very special pedestal that not even Mohammed (the prophet of said religion) can claim.
Only a severely misinformed person would make such a statement. First of all, the bulk of the "Muslim world" as you call it is made off Indonesia and Pakistan. Secondly, the Lebanese have every reason to shoot at Israeli soldiers. After Sabra and Shatila, decades of occupation, regular incursions and violation of their sovereignty came the destruction of Beirut two years ago. They could be Buddhists and it wouldn't change a thing. In fact, Muslims hardly account for 2/3 of the country. As for the Palestinians, their struggle is anything but religious. Hamas was de facto supported by Tel-Aviv in the 80s because it was seen as a good opposition to the secular nationalists. It bit them right in the ass as is often the case in such cases - a lesson which the US learned the hard way in 2001.
In the minds of the Palestinians, the wound is still too fresh. After all, it's only been a few decades since a massive influx of Europeans debarked on their lands, and their situation went downhills from there. So, they will never forgive nor forget. Israelis, on the other hand, have sacrificed way too much to make any concessions now. Hence, the deadlock. The status quo is largely in favor of Israel. There are still millions of Palestinian refugees scattered around the world, the proposed two states solution amounts to bantustans, Israeli settlements are still being built and the IDF is reigning in supremacy. Why would any Palestinian with a drop of blood in his/her veins put down their weapons is beyond me.
No. Washington is arguing that anyone with the capability to produce WMDs is a threat, which literally puts every place with a decent chemistry and biology department in a university on the list of "threats". Washington isn't after nukes as much as it's after the Iranian's civilian program and its uranium enrichment.
I think the US substantially values the lives of foreigners and human life in general.
How about the nukes in Japan, agent orange in Vietnam, incendiary bombs in Iraq, etc.
The US has killed (and is still killing!) people all over the world. That hardly qualifies it for the title of "substantially values the lives of foreigners and human life in general".
It's not a matter of propaganda, or anything of the sort.
A nuclear-armed country is likely to nuke other countries if, and only if they are don't have nuclear capabilities. And while I don't think Israel is stupid enough to bomb Iran (for obvious reasons), I do consider it a client-state of the US and the latter never hid its intentions to overthrow (yet again!) the Iranian government.
There's this MAD thing that makes it a lot more likely for Israel to strike Iran with nukes they have than Iran to do the same with nukes they might potentially acquire in the future.
False dichotomy.
Besides, Iran would be moving towards a more progressive and democratic society if some countries stops fueling the radicals.
And between an autocratic regime run by compatriots and a puppet regime subservient to former colonial powers, I'll take the former anytime.
The 20G Xandros Eee seems like a classic case of bait-and-switch to me. A company that couldn't even deliver the 8G is now supposed to sell us 20Gs? I'm not convinced. I smell a deal with MS whereby there is always a severe shortage of Xandros and everyone walking into the store will be forced to get the XP version. And no, I'm not usually a cynic.
Actually, I do, and I'm familiar with the apologetic interpretations of the Koran, but even if they were justifiable, they are irrelevant. What is relevant is how modern readers actually interpret the Koran and how they will act based on it.
My mistake then for assuming you were clueless in Arabic.
So what you are basically saying, is that you reserve the right to call the Quran all sort of names - or even ban it - based solely on the actions of some people who claim to follow its message. I really don't think that position is tenable.
If a church issues death threats against citizens, then that church has gone beyond what is acceptable under freedom of religion. And if you declare yourself to be a member of such a church, your freedom of religion ends.
Hmmm...you are clueless when it comes to Islam. The whole concept of "church" is unacceptable. One of the ideas the prophet defended is that, authority will eventually be abused for political reasons, and only a fool would trust an institution who's going to tell you how to live you life.
Islamic spiritual leaders have issued (and carried out!) death threats, and if you declare yourself to be a Muslim without further qualifications, then you declare yourself to be a member of an organization with branches that engage in terrorism.
What you just wrote is at the essence of the problem and the reasoning behind modern Islamophobia.
If you and other Muslims want to disassociate themselves from the terrorism and violence of some parts of Islam, then it is your responsibility to make the necessary distinctions between the different branches of Islam and be completely clear about where your loyalties lie.
Don't hold your breath. I have no more responsibilities than a Christian to denounce the torching of abortion clinics or a Jew to dissociate him/herself from Zionism. If you are not educated enough and must associate all Muslims with the actions of Ben-Laden or other criminals, then suit yourself.
I am a Muslim, and by definition, my only spiritual leader is God. That the brainwashed followers of a twat preaching hatred and/or violence claim to be Muslims does not make it so.
That's a nice fiction, but non-discrimination doesn't apply to immigrants, since immigrants aren't citizens. You don't have a right to immigrate and countries can be quite selective about their immigrants.
That's a good point. Immigration is not a Human right, but freedom of religion definitely is.
As far as I'm concerned, you should be able to let whoever you damn please into your country. If you want to discriminate against race, religion, sexuality or any other attribute, it is your country, and you should be able to lobby for that. I just don't see how you can get your compatriots to go along in that plan of yours.
And you didn't answer the question as to how you're envisaging to deal with Muslims who are citizens. I know for a fact that there are a lot of them. Do you give them signs to display prominently? Stack 'em up in camps? Boats? And if so, how do you plan on getting away with that legally?
Well, Mr. Anonymous Coward, if you knew anything about Islam, you'd know that a "shiek"[sic] has no business telling a Muslim what to believe or not believe.
Slashdot Mirror
They are tunable in the sense that chemists can play around with them in order to change the bandgap (from Lowest Unoccupied Molecular Orbital to Highest Unoccupied Molecular Orbital), thus changing the wavelength produced.
I don't know what you mean by changing the color "in real time", but it seems to me that you're talking about electrochemical display devices. They're ridiculously simple to build and can cover a wide range of contrasts. Granted, PEDOT:PSS or similar materials can only go from transparent to dark blue (through a lot of shades of blue), and switching time is quite slow, but let's not forget that this field is at its infancy. Hang around, organic electronics might be huge in the medium term.
I tried installing it on Ubuntu 8.04, and it complained about some non-existing Hyperspace file. I tried again by selecting the "Install for this user only" option, and it went smoothly. It's pretty neat. Beats having to scrape torrents...
Tying a product with something else violates article L122-1 of the French law. The argument is that some giant corporation might convince or coerce somebody to bundle one of its products, creating a de facto monopoly. This is the same reason no telecom operator can force you to buy a subscription with your iPhone.
If you don't like the law, stay out of France. The majority of the population here like it very much as it keeps the competition alive and healthy.
I believe Shi'ites view descendants of Mohammed as sacred. So people in Tehran may take offense to the statement above depending on how it is said. Bit of trivia for the day: Iranian shops used to sell portraits of Mohammed on a regular basis prior to the Jyllands-Posten affair.
As for England, I understand that most mosques are financed by the Al-Sauds to preach Wahabism. And one only needs to look at freedom of religion in Saudi Arabia (or lack thereof) to understand how they reserve the right to smack anyone whom they disagree with.
Thing is, what would I be achieving by going to Syria and testing your hypothesis? It'd be as silly as going to Thailand and insulting the royal family just to make a point. When all said and done, there are a handful of countries where freedom of speech is really essential. And judging by the the way things are going, the future doesn't look bright for them either.
Guantanamo is not within the US.
So what if it wasn't his quote? If you hide behind a Jewish Nazi's quote to deny the Holocaust, you're still a Holocaust-denier in my book.
I find all this debate asinine. Canada is a democracy, and the Canadians voted for a government to legislate and enforce the laws of the land. This fake outrage around the decision of a Canadian tribunal to prosecute a man, is tantamount to a Dutch citizen getting all riled up because he read in the news that an American was jailed for possession of weed. Or, an American bashing the Elysée because a Frenchman was arrested for possession of firearms.
Each country's got its own laws, and what it does within its borders shouldn't be anybody else's business.
What you are missing, dear sir, is that Life of Brian is highly offensive to Muslims. In case you didn't know, Jesus of Nazareth is highly revered in Islam. His miracle birth coupled with his sinless life, puts him in a very special pedestal that not even Mohammed (the prophet of said religion) can claim.
Ooops. The link didn't parse. http://www.thefire.org/index.php/article/9255.html
There's this guy who was presumed guilty of racial harassment by mere ownership of a book.
The community updates on the Openmoko wiki talk about mass production starting later this week. I'll take the Neo 1973 over an iPhone anyday.
The what??? Muslim world?
Only a severely misinformed person would make such a statement. First of all, the bulk of the "Muslim world" as you call it is made off Indonesia and Pakistan. Secondly, the Lebanese have every reason to shoot at Israeli soldiers. After Sabra and Shatila, decades of occupation, regular incursions and violation of their sovereignty came the destruction of Beirut two years ago. They could be Buddhists and it wouldn't change a thing. In fact, Muslims hardly account for 2/3 of the country. As for the Palestinians, their struggle is anything but religious. Hamas was de facto supported by Tel-Aviv in the 80s because it was seen as a good opposition to the secular nationalists. It bit them right in the ass as is often the case in such cases - a lesson which the US learned the hard way in 2001.
In the minds of the Palestinians, the wound is still too fresh. After all, it's only been a few decades since a massive influx of Europeans debarked on their lands, and their situation went downhills from there. So, they will never forgive nor forget. Israelis, on the other hand, have sacrificed way too much to make any concessions now. Hence, the deadlock. The status quo is largely in favor of Israel. There are still millions of Palestinian refugees scattered around the world, the proposed two states solution amounts to bantustans, Israeli settlements are still being built and the IDF is reigning in supremacy. Why would any Palestinian with a drop of blood in his/her veins put down their weapons is beyond me.
No. Washington is arguing that anyone with the capability to produce WMDs is a threat, which literally puts every place with a decent chemistry and biology department in a university on the list of "threats". Washington isn't after nukes as much as it's after the Iranian's civilian program and its uranium enrichment.
It's not a matter of propaganda, or anything of the sort. A nuclear-armed country is likely to nuke other countries if, and only if they are don't have nuclear capabilities. And while I don't think Israel is stupid enough to bomb Iran (for obvious reasons), I do consider it a client-state of the US and the latter never hid its intentions to overthrow (yet again!) the Iranian government. There's this MAD thing that makes it a lot more likely for Israel to strike Iran with nukes they have than Iran to do the same with nukes they might potentially acquire in the future.
False dichotomy. Besides, Iran would be moving towards a more progressive and democratic society if some countries stops fueling the radicals. And between an autocratic regime run by compatriots and a puppet regime subservient to former colonial powers, I'll take the former anytime.
In other news, chairs are expected to rain...
I sense a lot of hate in you.
The 20G Xandros Eee seems like a classic case of bait-and-switch to me. A company that couldn't even deliver the 8G is now supposed to sell us 20Gs? I'm not convinced. I smell a deal with MS whereby there is always a severe shortage of Xandros and everyone walking into the store will be forced to get the XP version. And no, I'm not usually a cynic.
How is this a hoax? It's a bloody SCAM!
Not in electrical engineering.
AFAIK, there are already 7800mAh and 10400mAh batteries on the market.
How do they know it's the caffeine molecule and not the heaps of antioxidants present in coffee?
Does that mean there is a chance I can finally watch YouTube video on my Ubuntu-powered iMac G4?
So what you are basically saying, is that you reserve the right to call the Quran all sort of names - or even ban it - based solely on the actions of some people who claim to follow its message. I really don't think that position is tenable. Hmmm...you are clueless when it comes to Islam. The whole concept of "church" is unacceptable. One of the ideas the prophet defended is that, authority will eventually be abused for political reasons, and only a fool would trust an institution who's going to tell you how to live you life. What you just wrote is at the essence of the problem and the reasoning behind modern Islamophobia. Don't hold your breath. I have no more responsibilities than a Christian to denounce the torching of abortion clinics or a Jew to dissociate him/herself from Zionism. If you are not educated enough and must associate all Muslims with the actions of Ben-Laden or other criminals, then suit yourself.
I am a Muslim, and by definition, my only spiritual leader is God. That the brainwashed followers of a twat preaching hatred and/or violence claim to be Muslims does not make it so. That's a good point. Immigration is not a Human right, but freedom of religion definitely is.
As far as I'm concerned, you should be able to let whoever you damn please into your country. If you want to discriminate against race, religion, sexuality or any other attribute, it is your country, and you should be able to lobby for that. I just don't see how you can get your compatriots to go along in that plan of yours.
And you didn't answer the question as to how you're envisaging to deal with Muslims who are citizens. I know for a fact that there are a lot of them. Do you give them signs to display prominently? Stack 'em up in camps? Boats? And if so, how do you plan on getting away with that legally?
Peace,
Well, Mr. Anonymous Coward, if you knew anything about Islam, you'd know that a "shiek"[sic] has no business telling a Muslim what to believe or not believe.