I'm no lawyer, but I would suspect the key question is "how violent?" For instance, I don't think anyone is (yet, pending euthanasia legislation) permitted to consent to their own murder. Is someone allowed to consent to being physically injured? It, er, beats me.
It bears observing, for the benefit of those who won't read the article, that this stuff is already illegal to produce and distribute. I can't see how one could possess it without having already been involved in an offence, and having encouraged the same. Well, apart from getting it from overseas, but that's like suggesting that bringing drugs in from overseas is fine, but producing them locally isn't. The point is that we don't want drugs in our country, and the same is true for this kind of material.
The only reason anyone can have for opposing this ban is that the belief that people have the right to look at this kind of material. I don't agree, but it's an understandable position of principle. Waffling about its being impractical (like that matters with child porn) or being an unwarranted intrusion on privacy (because the police have been given *such* extended new powers) misses the point. Fundamentally, they don't see any problem with people producing, distributing or using such material. As I say, that's an understandable position of principle, but of course, it would lose anyone their hearing as soon as they tried to articulate it in public.
Even ignoring the tedious hyperbole, I fail to follow. I'm a "religious type" who is uncomfortable with stem cell research when it involves the destruction of embryos to obtain the aforementioned cells, and I have been waiting and hoping that eventually, researchers will find a way to produce stem cells without destroying embryos. (Actually, this kind of thing is relatively old news. I seem to recall that other results in the production of stem cells from adult cells have been kicking round for a few months, too.) Funny how the accusation of "fundamentalist!" comes from the narrow-minded secularist who cannot conceive of someone holding consistently to a different moral system. Pot-kettle-black?
Hmm... I flew PEK-CPH-LHR at the beginning of the week, and we had to sort out our hand luggage at PEK before they let us on the plane, but there was no security checking in CPH; not a sausage. Had me puzzled, I can tell you.
And why shouldn't you mean centrifugal force? It's not like the human body can tell the difference between one force and another, except for the Coriolis effects. And at a large enough radius of acceleration, those will be pretty negligible. Of course, the engineering difficulties in building a ship large enough are not inconsiderable, but it's a heck of a lot better than trying to apply gravitomagnetics (your common-or-garden sci-fi artificial gravity).
Being terribly boring, if you read the blurb to the left, it explain why there's a picture of C&C:G. If you read the blurb to the left of the first slide, you'll find why there's a blurb to the left of all the others.
Ever played a strategy game which has had whole swathes of the game that you had to unlock level by level? I mean games where you couldn't even do basic stuff -- like a space RTS where you couldn't build stuff or carry out research -- until you'd advanced a level. In that instance, it was coupled with a first level which was very easy to fail just by blind bad luck: a recipe for complete disaster.
Note to designers: if you're going to make things unlockable, make sure the game's still playable without them, yeah? And make sure it is genuinely easy to get to a stage where your players have the freedom to do whatever they want, within the confines of the game engine.
Chambers. Also 23 years of living in the UK, speaking British English. I'm almost native, now. ; )
Further, the OED Online, which is subscription-only I'm afraid, has no listed occurrences of mosquitoe. It lists dozens of creative spellings from the seventeenth century and earlier (like musketa, moscheto, musqueeto, muscato &c.) but no mosquitoe. How old's that printed reference you're using?
I assume you're over-stating the matter, but of course, it's by no means certain that he will serve time at all. The sheriff's department is reviewing the case, and if they decide that there is a case to answer for, the courts will have their say. In many senses, it would be better for everyone if a simple case (not this one, because of the trespass concerns as well as the unrelated previous convictions) went to court, as the precedent would clear the air.
The "dark side of the Moon" isn't dark all the time. It's just we can never see it. Think about it: half the Moon is always in light, and the other half, in shade, yeah? And we can only ever see one side of the Moon, yeah? And we have these periods where there's only part of the Moon visible, yeah? So we can conclude that when the Moon is in the sky but not totally visible, that's because the Sun is shining on the other side, which is the side we never see. Ergo, the Moon does have a day-night cycle; it lasts 28 (Earth) days.
Ah, hinges! I've been trying to think how to get a decent gravitational field into a Moonbase, and came up with the idea of rotating something perpendicular to the surface, but couldn't see how to incorporate the Moon's own gravity. What an elegant, simple solution. Many thanks.
The change wouldn't be that large for a sufficiently large Moonbase, either. Since the angular velocity is the same at all radii out from the axis of rotation, acceleration due to rotation is simply proportional to the radius of rotation. So, using metres as our units, if your base has a perpendicular radius (from axis of rotation to feet of worker) of r, then you'll get a lower gravitational acceleration at the head than at the feet by a maximum of about 2/r. I'm not a biodynamicist, but that doesn't sound too unhealthy for r about 20m or greater. I'd be more worried about Coriolis forces and motion sickness.
Not to mention the irony of having avoided the word irony for fear that it was the wrong word, and not wanting to be picked up on by the grammar Nazis. A pox upon you, Murphy!
So evolved toxic toads are invading Darwin? You just can't make this sort of material up!
I await posts of craven submission from Slashdotters willing to co-operate with the toxic toads.
Actually, my source for the main claims was the news article linked. I do seem to recall that in discussions of foreign aid, it is often observed that the US' foreign aid "as a percentage of budget" is actually very low.
And, d'you know, the US does exactly that? The US government gives the most food aid (in dollar amounts) of any country over the globe. Wanna know how they spend it? About 99% of that aid is spent buying food from US farmers and then shipping it to crisis points, using US-registered vessels, at great expense and an increase in global carbon emissions. Sure beats buying it locally, thus spending less money for the same amount of food, getting the aid there about five months sooner, helping third world farmers and reducing environmental impact all at the same time, huh? (Read p.3 of this. You'll need a free temporary pass.)
Farm subsidies are possibly the greatest barrier to third world agricultural development there is (that's as true for EU subsidies as anyone else's), but talk about a way to make things worse. So, no, you shouldn't be paying farmers to farm, then buying their excess food to send it, using your vessels, to the third world. You should be paying farmers to manage the countryside, and buying food aid as close to famine areas as possible. By all means use it US food to feed the hungry in the US, but please, for the sake of the famine-stricken, keep American food out of African mouths.
But no contract can over-ride the laws of a country with jurisdiction. Norway has jurisdiction, since Apple is operating in Norway, from Norway, and for Norwegian customers. In fact, I can't see how any other country has jurisdiction. So in fact, the Norwegian courts are perfectly competent to strike down unreasonable or unlawful clauses in Apple-NO's contracts. Frankly, I half-suspect an English court would refuse to handle any such case on the grounds that they didn't have jurisdiction. They do it every so often; we have very lazy judges. : )
I'm not too sure what you mean by "broken down into a circular-shaped plane", and I'd much sooner you lost the word "probably". I'll explain the conjecture by means of the two-dimensional version. Before I get there, I've got to explain what I mean by a "sphere", because the mathematical definition is quite specific. A "sphere" is the skin of a ball, okay, so it's all the points lying at a distance r, say, from the origin. Having been so specific about all that, I'm now going to be dreadfully, appallingly loose in the rest of my language. Here we go.
Now, suppose you've got a surface, let's call it S, which is bounded (so it's finite in any direction), closed (so it's not got an edge), and simply-connected (so it's got no holes). Then by twisting, stretching, moving and generally deforming S in any way you like, but without taking scissors to it, you can turn it into a sphere. That's the Generalised Poincaré Conjecture, reduced to 2 dimensions, and it was proved, oh, ages ago. To understand the higher dimension versions, just imagine doing that for an n-sphere, which is the set of all points lying at a distance r from the origin in n-dimensional space.
What kind of mad, crazy system *is* that? The usual way of getting hydrogen is to split it off water; that takes electrical power. And what's the result? You recombine the hydrogen with oxygen to get water and, er, electrical power. Naturally, you're going to get less electrical power out than you put in.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm no lawyer, but I would suspect the key question is "how violent?" For instance, I don't think anyone is (yet, pending euthanasia legislation) permitted to consent to their own murder. Is someone allowed to consent to being physically injured? It, er, beats me.
The only reason anyone can have for opposing this ban is that the belief that people have the right to look at this kind of material. I don't agree, but it's an understandable position of principle. Waffling about its being impractical (like that matters with child porn) or being an unwarranted intrusion on privacy (because the police have been given *such* extended new powers) misses the point. Fundamentally, they don't see any problem with people producing, distributing or using such material. As I say, that's an understandable position of principle, but of course, it would lose anyone their hearing as soon as they tried to articulate it in public.
Even ignoring the tedious hyperbole, I fail to follow. I'm a "religious type" who is uncomfortable with stem cell research when it involves the destruction of embryos to obtain the aforementioned cells, and I have been waiting and hoping that eventually, researchers will find a way to produce stem cells without destroying embryos. (Actually, this kind of thing is relatively old news. I seem to recall that other results in the production of stem cells from adult cells have been kicking round for a few months, too.) Funny how the accusation of "fundamentalist!" comes from the narrow-minded secularist who cannot conceive of someone holding consistently to a different moral system. Pot-kettle-black?
Hmm... I flew PEK-CPH-LHR at the beginning of the week, and we had to sort out our hand luggage at PEK before they let us on the plane, but there was no security checking in CPH; not a sausage. Had me puzzled, I can tell you.
Or, given that we're talking the Lords, *snore* "what? oh, hyah, hyah" *snore*.
And why shouldn't you mean centrifugal force? It's not like the human body can tell the difference between one force and another, except for the Coriolis effects. And at a large enough radius of acceleration, those will be pretty negligible. Of course, the engineering difficulties in building a ship large enough are not inconsiderable, but it's a heck of a lot better than trying to apply gravitomagnetics (your common-or-garden sci-fi artificial gravity).
Being terribly boring, if you read the blurb to the left, it explain why there's a picture of C&C:G. If you read the blurb to the left of the first slide, you'll find why there's a blurb to the left of all the others.
Note to designers: if you're going to make things unlockable, make sure the game's still playable without them, yeah? And make sure it is genuinely easy to get to a stage where your players have the freedom to do whatever they want, within the confines of the game engine.
Chambers. Also 23 years of living in the UK, speaking British English. I'm almost native, now. ; )
Further, the OED Online, which is subscription-only I'm afraid, has no listed occurrences of mosquitoe. It lists dozens of creative spellings from the seventeenth century and earlier (like musketa, moscheto, musqueeto, muscato &c.) but no mosquitoe. How old's that printed reference you're using?
I assume you're over-stating the matter, but of course, it's by no means certain that he will serve time at all. The sheriff's department is reviewing the case, and if they decide that there is a case to answer for, the courts will have their say. In many senses, it would be better for everyone if a simple case (not this one, because of the trespass concerns as well as the unrelated previous convictions) went to court, as the precedent would clear the air.
The "dark side of the Moon" isn't dark all the time. It's just we can never see it. Think about it: half the Moon is always in light, and the other half, in shade, yeah? And we can only ever see one side of the Moon, yeah? And we have these periods where there's only part of the Moon visible, yeah? So we can conclude that when the Moon is in the sky but not totally visible, that's because the Sun is shining on the other side, which is the side we never see. Ergo, the Moon does have a day-night cycle; it lasts 28 (Earth) days.
The change wouldn't be that large for a sufficiently large Moonbase, either. Since the angular velocity is the same at all radii out from the axis of rotation, acceleration due to rotation is simply proportional to the radius of rotation. So, using metres as our units, if your base has a perpendicular radius (from axis of rotation to feet of worker) of r, then you'll get a lower gravitational acceleration at the head than at the feet by a maximum of about 2/r. I'm not a biodynamicist, but that doesn't sound too unhealthy for r about 20m or greater. I'd be more worried about Coriolis forces and motion sickness.
Not to mention the irony of having avoided the word irony for fear that it was the wrong word, and not wanting to be picked up on by the grammar Nazis. A pox upon you, Murphy!
So evolved toxic toads are invading Darwin? You just can't make this sort of material up! I await posts of craven submission from Slashdotters willing to co-operate with the toxic toads.
Actually, my source for the main claims was the news article linked. I do seem to recall that in discussions of foreign aid, it is often observed that the US' foreign aid "as a percentage of budget" is actually very low.
Farm subsidies are possibly the greatest barrier to third world agricultural development there is (that's as true for EU subsidies as anyone else's), but talk about a way to make things worse. So, no, you shouldn't be paying farmers to farm, then buying their excess food to send it, using your vessels, to the third world. You should be paying farmers to manage the countryside, and buying food aid as close to famine areas as possible. By all means use it US food to feed the hungry in the US, but please, for the sake of the famine-stricken, keep American food out of African mouths.
At the rate they're going, they will be able to manage to rush Duke Nukem forever. They've been rushing it for nine years now.
Like airports?
But no contract can over-ride the laws of a country with jurisdiction. Norway has jurisdiction, since Apple is operating in Norway, from Norway, and for Norwegian customers. In fact, I can't see how any other country has jurisdiction. So in fact, the Norwegian courts are perfectly competent to strike down unreasonable or unlawful clauses in Apple-NO's contracts. Frankly, I half-suspect an English court would refuse to handle any such case on the grounds that they didn't have jurisdiction. They do it every so often; we have very lazy judges. : )
Now, suppose you've got a surface, let's call it S, which is bounded (so it's finite in any direction), closed (so it's not got an edge), and simply-connected (so it's got no holes). Then by twisting, stretching, moving and generally deforming S in any way you like, but without taking scissors to it, you can turn it into a sphere. That's the Generalised Poincaré Conjecture, reduced to 2 dimensions, and it was proved, oh, ages ago. To understand the higher dimension versions, just imagine doing that for an n-sphere, which is the set of all points lying at a distance r from the origin in n-dimensional space.
The usual consequences of listening to the Rolling Stones, in fact.
'Pologies, I did indeed mean JavaScript.
In re collapsible sections, just realised you need not to be blocking Java, if you're using a browser with that capability.
The triangles.
What kind of mad, crazy system *is* that? The usual way of getting hydrogen is to split it off water; that takes electrical power. And what's the result? You recombine the hydrogen with oxygen to get water and, er, electrical power. Naturally, you're going to get less electrical power out than you put in.