I just had a great Idea for Rockstar: Their next game should be based on the bible. Picking out some of the most violent scenes, the gamer can perform execution on hundreds of people as the game progresses. All based on the bible of course. Stonings and throat-cuttings, all the way through the game.
Those things have been around since before Immersion Corp existed. If I remember correctly, their patent amounted to "put two vibrators in a gaming controller", and that's the reason Nintendo didn't get sued: they used one.
That was my idea. You know far more than me here, so maybe you can say what happens to the rest of the contract if it hasn't got such a clause. I was under the impression that (here where I live anyway) that applies to practically any contract, whether it says it in text or not.
In this case, the clause would be of advantage to the Norwegian schools. "You have to pay for a Microsoft licence for every computer" might be considered unlawful, and thus be invalidated. But the "You can get X copies of Windows for this and that price" part can still be considered a legally binding part of the document. Maybe it's different in the US.
Factory farming is anything but efficient, it just allows for more intensive production, maximizing profits for a few people. They have huge energy demands, not to mention the amount that went into producing the feed.
they're usually cleaner than the wide outdoors
You ever been inside a factory farm? There's shit and piss everywhere, and it doesn't get cleaned. Cows are covered in it, even though they would be relatively clean if they were kept outside. They slip all over the place because of it, and it gets all over the udder.
What is it about people who think that their food has to be "clean", in that it can't have come in contact with "the dirt outdoors"? It really irritates me when I hear people say things like this. Humans are integrated in a food cycle, permanently recycling the matter that makes up the food. Everything you eat comes from "dirt". Of course, many people in western societies have forgotten this, thanks to factory farming and supermarkets, so that most people haven't the faintest idea of how food is produced.
Yes, you should know how to protect yourself from disease, but being scared of food that, OMG, has been outside, is hysterical.
when you're doing a factory farm, you're using a lot less land to produce the same amount of meat, which saves more room for other things.
Yeah, cause we so need land for "other things", which is why a large amount of agricultural land is permanently set-aside in Europe. (BTW, what about the land used to produce the crops for the animal feed?)
You wouldn't believe the amount of joy I received when I discovered that each Pokémon had its own sprite thanks to the technical capabilities of the GBA.
In most circumstances "Speed of light" translates to "speed of light in vacuum", which is an invariably physical constant. The only reason the speed of light appears to be slower in a medium is because the photons interact with matter, which causes a delay. But when the light travels from one particle to another, it does so with the speed of light in vacuum. And no, to the knowledge of modern physics, it is impossible for anything to travel faster than light, even light itself (which can't travel any slower either, it only appears to travel slower in a medium)
and no, the light would not still catch up to you in a second - where are you getting this from?
It's called relativistic velocity addition. Read up on it.
matter is plenty capable of moving at the speed of light... the blue glow in a nuclear reactor comes from electrons exceeding the speed of light.
They travel faster than the perceived speed of light in water. As I said, the (vacuum) speed of light is constant, and light only appears to travel slower in a transparent medium. The electrons don't take as long to travel through the medium because the photons are being "captured", stored and released. But the electrons will never travel faster than the true (vacuum) speed of light, it's impossible.
The speed of light is indeed finite. But for a particle (with a rest mass) to travel at the speed of light, you need infinite energy.
We know that you can give particles as much energy as you want. We know that you can accelerate particles to 99% the speed of light, and if you give them a bajillion times that energy, they might be something like 99.999999999% the speed of light. OTOH, saying that something is travelling at the speed of light means it has infinite energy and infinite mass.
Anyhow, speed is not a scalar, but a vector. This is particularly interesting in this case. Say you're one light-second away from a lightsource, and you're travelling away from it at 99.9999% the speed of light. Contrary to what you might first assume, the light will still only take one second to catch up with you. When you look at some other crazy considerations, you can see that, in a sense, the speed of light is travelling "infinitely" faster than something at 99.999999999% the speed of light.
Sure, you can always say that there might be something different or new out there, but to the best knowledge of modern physics, you just shouldn't say it. Full stop. Exactly the same as dividing by zero.
In some areas of physics it's not such a good idea, especially relativistic physics. The problem is you're working with infinitesimal values. A Physicist will never work with values such as 99.9999% the speed of light, but will give you the particle's energy, or just "speed of light minus x".
In this case, they were able to give a lower limit of the speed. This then translates to "more than x kinetic energy". If they were to say that they found matter travelling at 1.0 the speed of light, that would disprove known laws of physics. It would have a load of crazy implications, which aren't needed here.
Saying that something's the speed of light just because you can't measure more accurately is simply a big no-no, the same as dividing by zero.
Look closely and you'll see that most EU resolutions protect your freedom, give you more freedom, and protect consumers. I wouldn't know of any EU law that criminalizes something that would not have been an offence previously, unless you're talking about industrial regulations and so forth, which would have come in time come anyway, with or without an EU requirements.
The media did actually make quite a thing about it. It was like "OMG, they found Counter-strike on his PC, and he had some violent films. Everyone knows that 19 year olds normally watch Disney films and play educational software. These must have made him to a sicko"
There's nothing to say against being involved in your kid's life, but what is unreasonable about wanting them to not be able to buy explicit material without you knowing? If the parent thinks it's okay, then he can buy it for them, no questions asked.
I don't know if you're a parent or not, but how would you feel if your kids could go buy alcohol an pornography as much as they want and there was nothing you could do about it? (except try punishment etc.)
It seems to be an American thing that people apply "freedom of speech" to "kids can buy violent material and their parents can't stop them". Pornography laws haven't been struck down as unconstitutional, so why does the supreme court accept this violation to "free speech"?
The thing is, file sharing of copyrighted material is pushing it a bit when talking about fair use. Even in the old days, fair use would not have really applied to most of the copying going on.
The RIAA suing people is pathetic, but bear in mind that the scale of the piracy some of these kids are doing pwnes the old Cassette pirates of the 80s. (many of whom received quite harsh penalties I would like to remind)
Sky broadcasts encrypted subscription based television on Astra 2 satellites, and the BBC broadcasts unencrypted on the same satellite. Other than the fact that it's on the same satellite, and that they try to focus the signal on the UK, there isn't much difference from any of the other satellite services. You definitely do not need a subscription for the BBC channels.
Slashdot Mirror
There was some splatter movie back in the 80s that was advertised as being "banned in 20 countries", though they made that up.
I just had a great Idea for Rockstar: Their next game should be based on the bible. Picking out some of the most violent scenes, the gamer can perform execution on hundreds of people as the game progresses. All based on the bible of course. Stonings and throat-cuttings, all the way through the game.
I don't know.
Abraham is supposed to kill his son because of some voices he heard in his head? And he gets rewarded?
Sounds pretty crazy to me. And there's much more. For more fun and violence in the Bible, visit here
BTW, throughout the biblical text, God gets round to killing over 2 million people. Wonder how that compares to the game.
One of my favourites: A man gives his guest's concubine to a mob, who rape her all night, and in the morning, he cuts her up into pieces. Judges 19:22
Those things have been around since before Immersion Corp existed. If I remember correctly, their patent amounted to "put two vibrators in a gaming controller", and that's the reason Nintendo didn't get sued: they used one.
He said "Yea it cost a bit more but it is worth it. PC.", not marketshare. I've no Idea if that's true or not for Dell.
That was my idea. You know far more than me here, so maybe you can say what happens to the rest of the contract if it hasn't got such a clause.
I was under the impression that (here where I live anyway) that applies to practically any contract, whether it says it in text or not.
In this case, the clause would be of advantage to the Norwegian schools. "You have to pay for a Microsoft licence for every computer" might be considered unlawful, and thus be invalidated. But the "You can get X copies of Windows for this and that price" part can still be considered a legally binding part of the document.
Maybe it's different in the US.
Factory farming is anything but efficient, it just allows for more intensive production, maximizing profits for a few people. They have huge energy demands, not to mention the amount that went into producing the feed.
You ever been inside a factory farm?
There's shit and piss everywhere, and it doesn't get cleaned. Cows are covered in it, even though they would be relatively clean if they were kept outside. They slip all over the place because of it, and it gets all over the udder.
What is it about people who think that their food has to be "clean", in that it can't have come in contact with "the dirt outdoors"?
It really irritates me when I hear people say things like this.
Humans are integrated in a food cycle, permanently recycling the matter that makes up the food. Everything you eat comes from "dirt". Of course, many people in western societies have forgotten this, thanks to factory farming and supermarkets, so that most people haven't the faintest idea of how food is produced.
Yes, you should know how to protect yourself from disease, but being scared of food that, OMG, has been outside, is hysterical.
Yeah, cause we so need land for "other things", which is why a large amount of agricultural land is permanently set-aside in Europe. (BTW, what about the land used to produce the crops for the animal feed?)
If a contract's content is unlawful, that part can be ignored.
You'll just be orbiting the milky way's center of gravity.
You wouldn't believe the amount of joy I received when I discovered that each Pokémon had its own sprite thanks to the technical capabilities of the GBA.
Remember the special Pikachu edition?
CRRRHHH -- PIIIIIIIII - CRRHHHHHHHSSSS - KAAAAAAAAA - KRRSSSSCCCHHHHHFFFFFFFF - CHUUUUUUUUUU _ SSSSCFCCCCCCRRRRFFFFFF
BTW, have they prevented cheating in online play? They didn't even stop people playing with pirated games on the WFC, at least for some of the games.
The only reason the speed of light appears to be slower in a medium is because the photons interact with matter, which causes a delay. But when the light travels from one particle to another, it does so with the speed of light in vacuum.
And no, to the knowledge of modern physics, it is impossible for anything to travel faster than light, even light itself (which can't travel any slower either, it only appears to travel slower in a medium)
It's called relativistic velocity addition. Read up on it.
They travel faster than the perceived speed of light in water. As I said, the (vacuum) speed of light is constant, and light only appears to travel slower in a transparent medium. The electrons don't take as long to travel through the medium because the photons are being "captured", stored and released. But the electrons will never travel faster than the true (vacuum) speed of light, it's impossible.
The speed of light is indeed finite. But for a particle (with a rest mass) to travel at the speed of light, you need infinite energy.
We know that you can give particles as much energy as you want. We know that you can accelerate particles to 99% the speed of light, and if you give them a bajillion times that energy, they might be something like 99.999999999% the speed of light.
OTOH, saying that something is travelling at the speed of light means it has infinite energy and infinite mass.
Anyhow, speed is not a scalar, but a vector. This is particularly interesting in this case. Say you're one light-second away from a lightsource, and you're travelling away from it at 99.9999% the speed of light. Contrary to what you might first assume, the light will still only take one second to catch up with you. When you look at some other crazy considerations, you can see that, in a sense, the speed of light is travelling "infinitely" faster than something at 99.999999999% the speed of light.
Sure, you can always say that there might be something different or new out there, but to the best knowledge of modern physics, you just shouldn't say it. Full stop. Exactly the same as dividing by zero.
If inflation keeps going the way it has in the past few years, it will pennies a ride.
In some areas of physics it's not such a good idea, especially relativistic physics. The problem is you're working with infinitesimal values. A Physicist will never work with values such as 99.9999% the speed of light, but will give you the particle's energy, or just "speed of light minus x".
In this case, they were able to give a lower limit of the speed. This then translates to "more than x kinetic energy".
If they were to say that they found matter travelling at 1.0 the speed of light, that would disprove known laws of physics. It would have a load of crazy implications, which aren't needed here.
Saying that something's the speed of light just because you can't measure more accurately is simply a big no-no, the same as dividing by zero.
Look closely and you'll see that most EU resolutions protect your freedom, give you more freedom, and protect consumers. I wouldn't know of any EU law that criminalizes something that would not have been an offence previously, unless you're talking about industrial regulations and so forth, which would have come in time come anyway, with or without an EU requirements.
The media did actually make quite a thing about it. It was like "OMG, they found Counter-strike on his PC, and he had some violent films. Everyone knows that 19 year olds normally watch Disney films and play educational software. These must have made him to a sicko"
Actually, when you put it that way, getting rid of the countless Counter-strike zombies doesn't seem like such a bad idea.
There's nothing to say against being involved in your kid's life, but what is unreasonable about wanting them to not be able to buy explicit material without you knowing? If the parent thinks it's okay, then he can buy it for them, no questions asked.
I don't know if you're a parent or not, but how would you feel if your kids could go buy alcohol an pornography as much as they want and there was nothing you could do about it? (except try punishment etc.)
It seems to be an American thing that people apply "freedom of speech" to "kids can buy violent material and their parents can't stop them". Pornography laws haven't been struck down as unconstitutional, so why does the supreme court accept this violation to "free speech"?
I read of a guy who decided to pay some 1000$ fine in pennies, and he was then required to get a third party to verify that it was the correct amount.
So you're suggesting that if someone would carefully analyse the rendered footage of Spiderman to model a public building, Sony would come and sue?
UK =! USA
Get the facts right. Works created by UK government are very well copyrighted, and there are some quite obscure examples of extended copyright.
The thing is, file sharing of copyrighted material is pushing it a bit when talking about fair use. Even in the old days, fair use would not have really applied to most of the copying going on.
The RIAA suing people is pathetic, but bear in mind that the scale of the piracy some of these kids are doing pwnes the old Cassette pirates of the 80s. (many of whom received quite harsh penalties I would like to remind)
Heck yes! It wasn't too long ago that I spent 80$ for the privilege of having the inconceivable amount of one gigabyte of space.
Sky broadcasts encrypted subscription based television on Astra 2 satellites, and the BBC broadcasts unencrypted on the same satellite. Other than the fact that it's on the same satellite, and that they try to focus the signal on the UK, there isn't much difference from any of the other satellite services. You definitely do not need a subscription for the BBC channels.