For some reason, it still blows my mind that it can be cheaper to manufacture a vehicle and then transport it halfway across the world than it could be to manufacture the vehicle locally.
I believe the China factory will be producing for the Chinese market. The Solihull factory is still making LRs.
I would prefer neither. They're both WAY past their primes. With a few rare exceptions, most directors get about 10 years of their best work. After that, it's mediocrity. I would much prefer a newer director still doing his best work.
If it is, it doesn't matter if the estimated methane output 150 million years ago is 100% correct. Its effect on the climate would still be unpredictable.
The problem with the human sciences is that humans read the discoveries and change what they're doing because of them. By comparison, large scale physical systems (the climate, the cosmos) don't give a fig what we think about them
"Large-scale" is a bit of a weasel word here. The "observer effect" has famously been (aprioristically) posited to hold in all empirical sciences. No need to publish to affect the system being studied;-).
I think the true dichotomy between sciences is their aprioristic or empirical nature, with the latter being more akin to reverse engineering physical reality. Einstein had an inkling about this (for a sufficiently materialistic concept of "reality"):
"As far as the theorems of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."
Slashdot Mirror
For some reason, it still blows my mind that it can be cheaper to manufacture a vehicle and then transport it halfway across the world than it could be to manufacture the vehicle locally.
I believe the China factory will be producing for the Chinese market. The Solihull factory is still making LRs.
What did those last questions have to do with the first one?
Those are all state-backed monopolies.
That "Oracle lawyer" is none other than David Boies.
hell, you could cause a real by blowing up a dam and claiming insanity and probably get off with less
Probably even less if you claim you accidentally that real!
Monopoly: Good or Bad?
If good, why anti-trust?
If bad, why patents, copyright, central banking?
Or maybe neither and government should get just get out of the "picking losers and winners" business.
I would prefer neither. They're both WAY past their primes. With a few rare exceptions, most directors get about 10 years of their best work. After that, it's mediocrity. I would much prefer a newer director still doing his best work.
On second thought, you're absolutely right.
But I hope Tony gets to direct it instead of Ridley.
Will the UK compensate someone for that life-long disability?
Automatic qualification for an event of your choice in the Paralympics!
International law does not seem to apply to any state powerful enough
Quite right, but it is simpler to think of this situation as sovereign countries being in a state of anarchy vis-a-vis each other.
The French "classique" should be translated as "traditional".
N/T
FTFS:The patent comes from a quirky Outland Research IP portfolio acquired by Google
In other news: The Onion Spins off R&D Department, Eyes IPO in April 2013
This pretty much boils down to a principal-agent problem
If it is, it doesn't matter if the estimated methane output 150 million years ago is 100% correct. Its effect on the climate would still be unpredictable.
...gets it right twice a day.
TSA agents give it right at least twice a day.
Gore is an Apple board member and a partner of Bloom Energy owner Kleiner Perkins.
The problem with the human sciences is that humans read the discoveries and change what they're doing because of them. By comparison, large scale physical systems (the climate, the cosmos) don't give a fig what we think about them
"Large-scale" is a bit of a weasel word here. The "observer effect" has famously been (aprioristically) posited to hold in all empirical sciences. No need to publish to affect the system being studied ;-).
I think the true dichotomy between sciences is their aprioristic or empirical nature, with the latter being more akin to reverse engineering physical reality. Einstein had an inkling about this (for a sufficiently materialistic concept of "reality"):
"As far as the theorems of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."
That is why, for sufficiently complex systems such as economics, psychology, sociology, or theology, other assumptions must be used.
You forgot climatology and cosmology. Or are the objects of these "sciences" not sufficiently complex?
I think your tinfoil hat's on a bit too tight.
Not to mention inside out. I mean, the federal government is the good guy here? WTF?
FTFS: "One of the instruments includes a sensor that can detect a single molecule of DNA or other nucleotide."
I wonder how many DNA molecules the probe might encounter on its way to Mars.
I stopped using Lonely planet for travel advice because everything they suggested was congested with other Lonely planet users.
"Nobody goes there anymore. It's too crowded."
21st century version of the Mechanical Turk
Democracy
They order two martinis. The guy behind the bar pours them two Budweisers.
"This martini is great," rave Larry and Timmy, "what's your secret?"
"I dunno, the bartender went out to get some cigarettes, I'm just the owner."
Relax, it's just oregano