The whole point of B&N (or Amazon) releasing their own e-reader is to lock people into buying e-books exclusively from them.
Then why do many readers (including both the Nook and Kindle)accept DRM-free content from other sources. And, I believe, the Nook even accepts DRM-laden content from other sources using compatible DRM.
Because, that seems incompatible with locking people in to buying from the vendor's store exclusively.
Now, buy bundling the vendor's store with the product and making it convenient, they are certainly making it more convenient to buy from the vendor's store, which then locks you into a relationship with the vendor to access the content. Which is clearly something that the vendors want to encourage with the devices. But nothing forces you into exclusivity with most of the existing e-readers. They aren't locked down for e-book content the way, say, an Apple iOS devices is for apps, where the only way you can get them is through the vendor's store.
Or you can buy the Samsung Galaxy Tab, which doesn't need to be jailbroken.
And costs twice as much as a NOOKcolor.
THe question is "how much is not jailbreaking worth to you". For most users, probably a lot -- but for plenty of geeks, jailbreaking isn't much of a cost (for some, even, its a negative cost.)
That I can then get _my_ books off of my nook onto my laptop in a readable format?
AFAIK, any book you buy from the Nook store can be used on the Nook, on the free Nook PC app, on the free Nook iOS app, and on the free Nook Android app.
Of course, nothing is requiring you to buy books from the Nook store to get use out of a Nook -- the Nook supports DRM-free ebooks in a number of popular formats (most importantly epub and PDF), which are available through a number of sources (both free and for-pay) on the internet.
Because the Clinton candidacy was strong when he chose Palin, and McCain assumed (with good reason) that if Clinton got the Democratic nomination that the election would end up being about opening up a new era of equality in politics with regards to female candidates. By making Palin his running mate he got a physically attractive woman on the ticket who I presume he thought would make the election less about whether women were qualified to be President (and who would want to be on the wrong side of that historical judgement?) and more about whether you wanted to guarantee the "old guard" of women Democrats a place at the table or whether you wanted some eye candy in a politician who presumably had a decent future ahead of her.
That's an interesting theory. The problem is that the August 24, 2008 meeting with advisors at which Sarah Palin became the top choice to be McCain's running mate occurred several months after Clinton's conceded the race for the Democratic nomination and endorsed Barack Obama on June 7, 2008; the August 27 meeting at which she was offered the #2 spot on the ticket took place during the Democratic Convention, on the same day Barack Obama was formally nominated as the Democratic Party's candidate for the Presidency.
So, its historically indefensible to claim that the McCain campaign was nominating Palin in response to the perceived current strength of the Clinton campaign at the time.
It's more defensible to claim that they did it in response to the defeat of Hillary Clinton, in belief that that defeat might provide an opening to pick up some disappointed Clinton supporters that really were focussed on seeing a woman on the ticket. (I'm not saying this is true, or that, if true, it was a reasonable expectation on their part -- but its an argument I've heard that is certainly more plausible than the explanation that the choice was made because they thought the Clinton campaign was still going strong and that that is who they would have to face in the general.)
The FTC handles monopolies, not the FCC. The fact that you are forced to a single ISP is either due to a poor choice of location (e.g. some place only one provider is willing to spend the money to give access) or due to local government enforcing a monopoly (e.g. most towns in New jersey which enforce cable monopolies). None of these are the FCC.
Actually, cable franchising agreements, to the extent that they are within the jurisdiction of a federal regulatory agency, are within the jurisdiction of the FCC. (see, generally, 47 U.S.C. chapter 5 subchapter V-A.)
What does the FCC have to do with this, again? Last I checked, internet was not transferred directly over the air like traditional television, so they have no more jurisdiction over internet than cable TV.
As you are perhaps unaware, the FCC's jurisdiction is not limited to broadcast transmissions; it also has jurisdiction cable, among other things.
"The FCC was established by the Communications Act of 1934 and is charged with regulating interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable." (About the FCC)
No, they are striking it down. In many instances, they interpret it, conclude it cannot stand, and then strike it down.
No, they interpret the whole of the law, and conclude that the purported law at issue is not a valid part of the law, based on provisions of law which supercede it.
I don't disagree that "striking it down" is a reasonable description of the practical effect, but the context of GP was a response to a question about courts having the ability to strike a law down in response to a statement about separation of powers in the US system, and the fact that courts in the US system do not have legislative power. GP was responding to that question in a manner designed to make clear that while courts in the US do in effect strike down laws, the fact that they do so is within and consistent with their interpretative role, not something that stems from some power that extends beyond the interpretive role.
Why you're doing this, I've no idea, but I'd be willing to guess it's because you want to defend the elementary school notion that the legislature makes, executive applies, and judiciary interprets the law.
That "elementary school" notion is, in fact, just the express division of responsibilities set out in Articles I-III of the U.S. Constitution.
And the fact that SCOTUS has to shed load just to avoid drowning in paperwork is a testament to the abuse of the legal system.
Its more of a testament to the scale of the United States. The number of cases the Supreme Court can practically hear in a term is fairly constant. It doesn't scale up with technology, and it doesn't scale up with the number of seats on the Court.
OTOH, assuming the share of interactions between persons that results in problems requiring resolution in the Courts is fairly constant, and supposing the proportion of those that are appealed at each level is constant, the number of expected legal cases does scale up both with population density and technology that expands the manners and distance over which people can interact.
Most businesses may be small, but what is their slice of the economic pie?
Collectively, much larger than that of large businesses. Large businesses are just larger individually, and have more concentrated interests, so, because individual large businesses are more likely to be newsworthy, to bring substantial political power to bear on their own, or to post really big numbers, it is often perceived that large businesses are most of the economy. There's obviously certain sectors of the economy where a handful of large businesses actually do, together, hold a lion's share of the market, but in the economy overall small businesses account for most of the activity.
Can the Supreme Court not strike down an existing law? (Curious non-USian)
The Supreme Court can rule that, e.g., an Act of Congress purporting to be a law is not a law, because it is outside of Congress's Constitutional authority, or that a state law, because it conflicts with federal law (whether the Constitution, statute, treaty, etc.) cannot be enforced by the State. These actions are often described as "striking down existing law", but they are, actually, interpreting existing law.
No, SCOTUS is doing exactly what it's supposed to be doing. It interpolates *existing* laws
First, I think you mean "interpret".
Second, in refusing to hear the case here which raised a question of whether the lower court correctly applied the existing law to the facts of this case, the Supreme Court isn't interpreting any law (except, implicitly, the Constitutional provision granting it discretionary rather than mandatory appellate jurisdiction), it is choosing not to bother to here the arguments and interpret the existing law.
This is, of course, completely within its discretionary power, but it has nothing to do with your argument that its role is to interpret existing law rather than change the law.
Not quite. That's precisely why Alito says they SHOULD hear the case. The reason why they're not hearing the case is because there is no dissent among the lower courts, so really they have no grounds to hear it.
This is not correct. The Supreme Court has "grounds" to hear any case appealed on a question of law from a lower court (as well as those cases within its original jurisdiction.) The Supreme Court's apellate jurisdiction is, however, generally discretionary, so it may choose whether or not to here any case that someone wants it to hear on appeal. An inconsistency between the Courts of Appeals on a legal issue is one factor that is often cited, in the Court's decisions on whether or not to here an appeal, as weighing in factor of the Court exercising its discretionary jurisdiction, but it is not a prerequisite, and cases are not-infrequently heard where this condition does not apply.
He hopes to eventually hear this case when the lower courts do disagree, as written in the summary, he thinks that the law is outdated.
No, he says they should hear this specific case now, citing one of the specific factors that is frequently cited as weighing in favor of the Supreme Court exercising its discretionary jurisdiction when there is not a division among the Courts of Appeals -- specifically, the fact that "not many cases presenting this issue are likely to reach the Courts of Appeals". His position was a dissent from the decision of the court to not hear the appeal.
Google's preference order for the structure of the mobile market, from most preferred to least preferred, is probably something like:
1) Android is a popular, unified platform controlled by Google. 2) Android is a popular but fragmented platform, with carriers and handset makers doing whatever they like. 3) Android is an unpopular platform. Apple dominates the market, and has the power to lock Google out of mobile advertising.
Based on Google's behavior, it's clear their primary goal with Android was simply to avoid #3
I'm not convinced that #1 is even a strong interest of Google's. When Google bought Android they could, after all, have kept it and made it available to handset makers under attractive terms. Instead, they set up the Open Handset Alliance -- which they don't control -- and transferred ownership of Android to the OHA. I think that, for Google, as with Chrome in the browser market, the two main purposes of Android in the smartphone OS market are: 1. Prevent any one non-Google vendor from dominating the market and using that to dictate which services can be accessed, either directly or simply by favoring their own services or their partners, 2. Drive expectations in the market so that future offerings, from whatever vendor, provide an excellent platform for the online services at the core of Google's business.
Mod parent "woosh" for completely missing the point of the article (which he probably didn't read).
Read the article. Its stupid. Seriously.
The point is that Google has said many times that it should be immune to anti-trust scrutiny because its search results are unbiased, among other reasons.
Sure, and if you want to make an argument that their actively promoted, publicly announced, documented Universal Search feature is inconsistent with those statements, there may be a legitimate argument to be made about that.
OTOH, most of TFA was an attempt to "prove" that Google was doing something secret and underhanded by pretending that Universal Search wasn't a publicly disclosed, widely promoted, well-documented feature and pretending to "discover" the feature.
Also, the idea of persistent programs has been thought before. Heck, I once came up with it myself when I was studying (>12 years ago), and talked about it with a professor (Janina Mincer). She immediately pointed a number of flaws: * you'll lose all your data the moment your program crashes. Trying to continue from a badly inconsistent state just ensures further corruption. COWing it from a snapshot is not a solution since you don't know if the original snapshot didn't already have some hidden corruption.
This isn't any different from traditional saved data separate from the program, really.
* there is no way to make an upgrade -- even for a trivial bugfix
Hot upgrades to running code are very common in certain environments. They certainly are not impossible.
* config files are human-editable in sane systems for a reason, having the setup only in internal variables would destroy that
Having the setup live in internal variables doesn't prevent either having the program itself having a user-friendly method of accessing the configuration data, or having a mechanism where it can receive such updates from the outside.
However, I think the idea is kind of bogus, because you don't want every application having access to all blocks on the disk
Just because you have hardware that allows for something to be done doesn't mean that the OS has to allow "every application" to make full unsupervised use of that capability.
OTOH, if the hardware doesn't support it well, then no application -- and no part of the operating system -- can effectively leverage the capacity.
And at some point you have to reboot even if just because you upgraded your OS kernel.
There is no reason that needs to be the case. Even though most operating systems are currently not designed to avoid that need, there is at least one combination of software and service for Linux (Ksplice) which obviates the need for that for Linux kernel updates, and there is no reason that an OS couldn't be maintained in such a way that that was the norm for updates in the form usually distributed rather than something done by a combination of third-party software (automatically handling most of the work) and aftermarket programming effort (adding code to handle the minority of changes that the automated software can't handle.)
When I search goog, in google I get a link to google finance and then in the line right under it yahoo finance, MSN money, CNN money, Daily finance and Reuters. So what exactly is the problem? It seems like perhaps someones just nitpicking.
Someone seems to think they've "discovered" Google secretly "manipulating" search results when all they've done is "discover" a feature that Google is quite open about that certain search results get a special result which is not a product of the normal web-search put at the top.
Google has for quite some time been building in features that attempt to recognize the special meaning of search terms, and will respond to searches that match one of the mechanisms they have for potential meaning with a special result.
This is just as algorithmic as regular web search, but is a result of a term triggering a special algorithm (either a stock ticker symbol, which gives a special result that presents Google Finance info with links to other financial information sources, a formula that can be processed by Google Calculator in which case the calculator result appears before the normal web search results, etc.)
Why is this presented as if it was a discovery of a secret nefarious plot? Google is very open with the fact that for certain search terms, they put a special result (often from another Google service) as the first result, before the normal web search results. (This is true of, aside from terms that are Google Health keywords and stock ticker symbols, anything that matches a pattern that is a valid Google Calculator calculation [e.g., "1 furlong/fortnight"]
The 35% income tax plus the 8.5% sales tax I pay are more than enough of a sacrifice to pay in "exchange for citizenship".
Even in a high income tax state, you'd have to have both a pretty enormous income and a complete absence of any deductions and credits -- a combination of factors that generally do not occur together -- to actually pay a 35% income tax rate.
That supports OP's bigger point though - that oil fields can replenish themselves.
That isn't in dispute. The geological processes by which oil fields have been understood for quite some time to have been created aren't something which magically stopped when we started extracting oil from the fields, they just create oil many orders of magnitude slower than the pace at which we are currently extracting oil.
The bigger point to take away from all this IMHO though is that, if true, it means the assumption of carbon neutrality used in many models is wrong.
No, it doesn't.
Up to now we've pretty much assumed that carbon isn't destroyed or lost, it's either locked up in hydrocarbons and biological matter, or it's floating around in the air as CO2, and the total amount of it in the system is relatively constant.
To the extent that this is true of what has been believed previously, these results don't challenge that.
But this paper seems to imply that hydrogen and carbon from inside the earth are percolating up to the surface all the time. So where is the excess carbon going?
You know the process by which it has long been understood that oil has formed? Its part of the reverse flow.
Is it being removed from the system somehow?
It depends where you draw the system boundary. If you draw it at the top of the Earth's crust and are talking about the "system" which exist above that boundary, yes, there are well-understood process by which carbon and other materials are "removed from the system" by going from above to below the boundary, just as there are processes by which carbon and other materials "enter the system" by going from below the boundary to above the boundary.
If you draw the system boundary at, say, the outside of the Earth's atmosphere, and talk about the "system" within that boundary, then there is a lot less entering or leaving the system.
Ergo the oil argument that much of our oil supply is made from bacteria and not old dinosaurs. If the bacteria is supplied from the crust inside the earth, the oil fields can replenish and oil becomes much more sustainable than before.
You seem to miss the part where TFA notes that bacteria found deep in the crust degrade the hydrocarbons, which are produced by abiotic processes. That's pretty much the opposite of having an oil supply made from bacteria.
As a developer you have to support both non-motion control and motion control controller interfaces for your games on those platforms.
No, you don't. Just as you don't have to support systems both with and without microphones in a singing game on any of the three platforms(microphones being an add-on option on all), or systems with and without musical instrument controllers (ditto.)
You can support both, or you can target the subset of the market that has the kind of controller you want to focus the game around, or you can have two packages for the game, one of which bundles the needed add-on.
Microphones, cameras like the EyeToy, single guitar controllers and full bandkits, and every other specialized control option in the history of console gaming has demonstrated this.
I doubt very much that the value of these direct sales are taken into account in these comparisons whereas what really matters from a developer's point of view is what their (sales revenue - costs) is for each market segment, not whether their sales are done through a centralized app distributor.
Actually, what really matters to a developer is what their total revenue stream is, not what their application sales revenue is, from whatever venue. Now, some developers revenue is just from selling the app itself, but lots of developers get revenue from other places -- e.g., advertisements, online services for which the app provides a convenient mobile UI, etc.
In 1990, California passed a law mandating that by a certain year (2000 I think), all manufacturers who wished to sell gasoline-powered cars in California also had to offer at least one ZEV (zero emissions vehicle). The only technology which fit the bill was electric. Most automakers complained, but GM went out and actually built the thing.
GM EV-1 Toyota RAV4 EV Honda EVplus
GM wasn't the only one that actually built one.
As the deadline approached, the other auto manufacturers started to panic. They lobbied California asking for the deadline to be delayed.
In the real world, it wasn't just "other auto manufacturers", and it wasn't just lobbying. Automakers -- including GM -- sued California to invalidate the ZEV mandate. In fact, GM was the first automaker to file suit against the mandate.
The industry lawsuits -- and the support they received from the Bush Administration -- were what eventually led to the mandate being scrapped.
GM, which stood to make $billions licensing their technology from the EV1 to other auto manufacturers so they could comply with California law, basically had the rug pulled out from under them. They'd sunk $billions in R&D into the EV1 to comply with California's law, then they got screwed over when California basically said "never mind", and dropped the law without giving GM a chance to recoup their sunk costs. GM then essentially went on a temper tantrum, recalling and destroying all EV1s. Not altogether unjustified either - if California wants to encourage new technologies by drafting legal requirements, then pulls a double-cross by dropping the requirements before companies can recoup the money spent creating those new technologies, why should the companies be obligated to let California benefit from said technologies?
Yeah, GM was double-crossed when California did exactly what GM was trying to force California to due through legal action.
Slashdot Mirror
Then why do many readers (including both the Nook and Kindle)accept DRM-free content from other sources. And, I believe, the Nook even accepts DRM-laden content from other sources using compatible DRM.
Because, that seems incompatible with locking people in to buying from the vendor's store exclusively.
Now, buy bundling the vendor's store with the product and making it convenient, they are certainly making it more convenient to buy from the vendor's store, which then locks you into a relationship with the vendor to access the content. Which is clearly something that the vendors want to encourage with the devices. But nothing forces you into exclusivity with most of the existing e-readers. They aren't locked down for e-book content the way, say, an Apple iOS devices is for apps, where the only way you can get them is through the vendor's store.
And costs twice as much as a NOOKcolor.
THe question is "how much is not jailbreaking worth to you". For most users, probably a lot -- but for plenty of geeks, jailbreaking isn't much of a cost (for some, even, its a negative cost.)
AFAIK, any book you buy from the Nook store can be used on the Nook, on the free Nook PC app, on the free Nook iOS app, and on the free Nook Android app.
Of course, nothing is requiring you to buy books from the Nook store to get use out of a Nook -- the Nook supports DRM-free ebooks in a number of popular formats (most importantly epub and PDF), which are available through a number of sources (both free and for-pay) on the internet.
That's an interesting theory. The problem is that the August 24, 2008 meeting with advisors at which Sarah Palin became the top choice to be McCain's running mate occurred several months after Clinton's conceded the race for the Democratic nomination and endorsed Barack Obama on June 7, 2008; the August 27 meeting at which she was offered the #2 spot on the ticket took place during the Democratic Convention, on the same day Barack Obama was formally nominated as the Democratic Party's candidate for the Presidency.
So, its historically indefensible to claim that the McCain campaign was nominating Palin in response to the perceived current strength of the Clinton campaign at the time.
It's more defensible to claim that they did it in response to the defeat of Hillary Clinton, in belief that that defeat might provide an opening to pick up some disappointed Clinton supporters that really were focussed on seeing a woman on the ticket. (I'm not saying this is true, or that, if true, it was a reasonable expectation on their part -- but its an argument I've heard that is certainly more plausible than the explanation that the choice was made because they thought the Clinton campaign was still going strong and that that is who they would have to face in the general.)
Actually, cable franchising agreements, to the extent that they are within the jurisdiction of a federal regulatory agency, are within the jurisdiction of the FCC. (see, generally, 47 U.S.C. chapter 5 subchapter V-A.)
As you are perhaps unaware, the FCC's jurisdiction is not limited to broadcast transmissions; it also has jurisdiction cable, among other things.
"The FCC was established by the Communications Act of 1934 and is charged with regulating interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable." (About the FCC)
No, they interpret the whole of the law, and conclude that the purported law at issue is not a valid part of the law, based on provisions of law which supercede it.
I don't disagree that "striking it down" is a reasonable description of the practical effect, but the context of GP was a response to a question about courts having the ability to strike a law down in response to a statement about separation of powers in the US system, and the fact that courts in the US system do not have legislative power. GP was responding to that question in a manner designed to make clear that while courts in the US do in effect strike down laws, the fact that they do so is within and consistent with their interpretative role, not something that stems from some power that extends beyond the interpretive role.
That "elementary school" notion is, in fact, just the express division of responsibilities set out in Articles I-III of the U.S. Constitution.
Its more of a testament to the scale of the United States. The number of cases the Supreme Court can practically hear in a term is fairly constant. It doesn't scale up with technology, and it doesn't scale up with the number of seats on the Court.
OTOH, assuming the share of interactions between persons that results in problems requiring resolution in the Courts is fairly constant, and supposing the proportion of those that are appealed at each level is constant, the number of expected legal cases does scale up both with population density and technology that expands the manners and distance over which people can interact.
Collectively, much larger than that of large businesses. Large businesses are just larger individually, and have more concentrated interests, so, because individual large businesses are more likely to be newsworthy, to bring substantial political power to bear on their own, or to post really big numbers, it is often perceived that large businesses are most of the economy. There's obviously certain sectors of the economy where a handful of large businesses actually do, together, hold a lion's share of the market, but in the economy overall small businesses account for most of the activity.
The Supreme Court can rule that, e.g., an Act of Congress purporting to be a law is not a law, because it is outside of Congress's Constitutional authority, or that a state law, because it conflicts with federal law (whether the Constitution, statute, treaty, etc.) cannot be enforced by the State. These actions are often described as "striking down existing law", but they are, actually, interpreting existing law.
First, I think you mean "interpret".
Second, in refusing to hear the case here which raised a question of whether the lower court correctly applied the existing law to the facts of this case, the Supreme Court isn't interpreting any law (except, implicitly, the Constitutional provision granting it discretionary rather than mandatory appellate jurisdiction), it is choosing not to bother to here the arguments and interpret the existing law.
This is, of course, completely within its discretionary power, but it has nothing to do with your argument that its role is to interpret existing law rather than change the law.
This is not correct. The Supreme Court has "grounds" to hear any case appealed on a question of law from a lower court (as well as those cases within its original jurisdiction.) The Supreme Court's apellate jurisdiction is, however, generally discretionary, so it may choose whether or not to here any case that someone wants it to hear on appeal. An inconsistency between the Courts of Appeals on a legal issue is one factor that is often cited, in the Court's decisions on whether or not to here an appeal, as weighing in factor of the Court exercising its discretionary jurisdiction, but it is not a prerequisite, and cases are not-infrequently heard where this condition does not apply.
No, he says they should hear this specific case now, citing one of the specific factors that is frequently cited as weighing in favor of the Supreme Court exercising its discretionary jurisdiction when there is not a division among the Courts of Appeals -- specifically, the fact that "not many cases presenting this issue are likely to reach the Courts of Appeals". His position was a dissent from the decision of the court to not hear the appeal.
99.9% (0.999) is three nines, not one nine.
I'm not convinced that #1 is even a strong interest of Google's. When Google bought Android they could, after all, have kept it and made it available to handset makers under attractive terms. Instead, they set up the Open Handset Alliance -- which they don't control -- and transferred ownership of Android to the OHA. I think that, for Google, as with Chrome in the browser market, the two main purposes of Android in the smartphone OS market are:
1. Prevent any one non-Google vendor from dominating the market and using that to dictate which services can be accessed, either directly or simply by favoring their own services or their partners,
2. Drive expectations in the market so that future offerings, from whatever vendor, provide an excellent platform for the online services at the core of Google's business.
Read the article. Its stupid. Seriously.
Sure, and if you want to make an argument that their actively promoted, publicly announced, documented Universal Search feature is inconsistent with those statements, there may be a legitimate argument to be made about that.
OTOH, most of TFA was an attempt to "prove" that Google was doing something secret and underhanded by pretending that Universal Search wasn't a publicly disclosed, widely promoted, well-documented feature and pretending to "discover" the feature.
It's completely intellectually dishonest.
This isn't any different from traditional saved data separate from the program, really.
Hot upgrades to running code are very common in certain environments. They certainly are not impossible.
Having the setup live in internal variables doesn't prevent either having the program itself having a user-friendly method of accessing the configuration data, or having a mechanism where it can receive such updates from the outside.
Just because you have hardware that allows for something to be done doesn't mean that the OS has to allow "every application" to make full unsupervised use of that capability.
OTOH, if the hardware doesn't support it well, then no application -- and no part of the operating system -- can effectively leverage the capacity.
There is no reason that needs to be the case. Even though most operating systems are currently not designed to avoid that need, there is at least one combination of software and service for Linux (Ksplice) which obviates the need for that for Linux kernel updates, and there is no reason that an OS couldn't be maintained in such a way that that was the norm for updates in the form usually distributed rather than something done by a combination of third-party software (automatically handling most of the work) and aftermarket programming effort (adding code to handle the minority of changes that the automated software can't handle.)
Someone seems to think they've "discovered" Google secretly "manipulating" search results when all they've done is "discover" a feature that Google is quite open about that certain search results get a special result which is not a product of the normal web-search put at the top.
Google has for quite some time been building in features that attempt to recognize the special meaning of search terms, and will respond to searches that match one of the mechanisms they have for potential meaning with a special result.
This is just as algorithmic as regular web search, but is a result of a term triggering a special algorithm (either a stock ticker symbol, which gives a special result that presents Google Finance info with links to other financial information sources, a formula that can be processed by Google Calculator in which case the calculator result appears before the normal web search results, etc.)
Why is this presented as if it was a discovery of a secret nefarious plot? Google is very open with the fact that for certain search terms, they put a special result (often from another Google service) as the first result, before the normal web search results. (This is true of, aside from terms that are Google Health keywords and stock ticker symbols, anything that matches a pattern that is a valid Google Calculator calculation [e.g., "1 furlong/fortnight"]
Even in a high income tax state, you'd have to have both a pretty enormous income and a complete absence of any deductions and credits -- a combination of factors that generally do not occur together -- to actually pay a 35% income tax rate.
That isn't in dispute. The geological processes by which oil fields have been understood for quite some time to have been created aren't something which magically stopped when we started extracting oil from the fields, they just create oil many orders of magnitude slower than the pace at which we are currently extracting oil.
No, it doesn't.
To the extent that this is true of what has been believed previously, these results don't challenge that.
You know the process by which it has long been understood that oil has formed? Its part of the reverse flow.
It depends where you draw the system boundary. If you draw it at the top of the Earth's crust and are talking about the "system" which exist above that boundary, yes, there are well-understood process by which carbon and other materials are "removed from the system" by going from above to below the boundary, just as there are processes by which carbon and other materials "enter the system" by going from below the boundary to above the boundary.
If you draw the system boundary at, say, the outside of the Earth's atmosphere, and talk about the "system" within that boundary, then there is a lot less entering or leaving the system.
You seem to miss the part where TFA notes that bacteria found deep in the crust degrade the hydrocarbons, which are produced by abiotic processes. That's pretty much the opposite of having an oil supply made from bacteria.
No, you don't. Just as you don't have to support systems both with and without microphones in a singing game on any of the three platforms(microphones being an add-on option on all), or systems with and without musical instrument controllers (ditto.)
You can support both, or you can target the subset of the market that has the kind of controller you want to focus the game around, or you can have two packages for the game, one of which bundles the needed add-on.
Microphones, cameras like the EyeToy, single guitar controllers and full bandkits, and every other specialized control option in the history of console gaming has demonstrated this.
Actually, what really matters to a developer is what their total revenue stream is, not what their application sales revenue is, from whatever venue. Now, some developers revenue is just from selling the app itself, but lots of developers get revenue from other places -- e.g., advertisements, online services for which the app provides a convenient mobile UI, etc.
GM EV-1
Toyota RAV4 EV
Honda EVplus
GM wasn't the only one that actually built one.
In the real world, it wasn't just "other auto manufacturers", and it wasn't just lobbying. Automakers -- including GM -- sued California to invalidate the ZEV mandate. In fact, GM was the first automaker to file suit against the mandate.
The industry lawsuits -- and the support they received from the Bush Administration -- were what eventually led to the mandate being scrapped.
Yeah, GM was double-crossed when California did exactly what GM was trying to force California to due through legal action.
How's that again?