These same files are staged so that the features can easily be added back to the running OS without additional media. This staging is important feedback we have received from customers who definitely do not like to dig up the installation DVD.
and
A second decision is that we also continue to support the APIs available for features where these APIs are necessary to the functionality of Windows or where there are APIs that are used by developers that can be viewed as independent of the component. As many of you know these are often referred to as âoedependenciesâ and with Windows the dependencies can run both internal to Windows and external for ISVs.
Removing your name from a picture is as simple as clicking a "remove" button beside your name on said picture.
I believe after that if anyone tries to "retag" you, you get sent a notification stating someone wants to tag you in the photo.
I'm not sure if there are archives kept of who has been previously tagged in a photo etc.
So what do you suggest?
We abandon vaccines altogether? To the best of my knowledge all medical proceedures have a risk of side effects, and at the end of the day, if the benefit far outweighs the risk.
If there is no possible way to know something, there is no reason they should be held responsible for their actions. I'm no lawyer, but to the best of my knowledge, the liability of a company depends on them exercising sound judgment.
I would much rather have doctors decided which vaccines I need to take than, well any politician, parent, or myself.
Imagine the public outrage if a company developed a vaccination against AIDS/HIV, but found out that 0.00001% of those who take the vaccine developed a deadly side effect - and as such they decided to hold it back.
We can't have it both ways - the human body and nature is filled with ambiguity, and unless we offer protection to side effects which had no reasonable way of determining, the incentive to release a vaccine or treatment would be next to nothing.
I can't find the link right now, but I beleive my university (Univeristy of Waterloo) and Georgia have signed a nice little deal. Both are investing huge amounts of money into nanotechnology (our Centre for Nanotechnology and Quantum computing is supposed to be completed in 2010). I'm actually lucky enough to be in that first batch of graduating Nanotechnology engineers. Cost of ours is around the same, we're getting tons of money from RIM. Here's the link:) http://www.nanotech.uwaterloo.ca/research/qnc.html and for mearly bragging rights, our nano building's bigger than yours...wait...is that a good thing?
he's our hero
gonna take B.T. down to zero.
Earth...err...
Music
Video
Print
Art
we are the 4 sides to copywrite, and together - we can change the world
While caution is needed - one of the main things we are taught in my nanotech program, and one thing you can learn from some research is much of nanotechnology that is being used now, is essencially 'old' technology. This reduced size is good (ofcourse), but it is not like TiO2 wasn't used before it was being marketed as nanotechnology in foods, its just now it is in a - lets say pure form.
I think one of the main problems with "nanotechnology" (yes nanotechnology, the legendary technology covering transistors, biomedical drug delivery systems, and the amazing ability to cure wrinkles) is that the term is too broad. Where do you draw the line between what is and what isn't nanotechnology? Is everything below 100nm considered nanotechnology? If that's the case, then all these new processors/chips being produced are just that. However, in terms of production - they're basically the same as the 101nm chips.
If groups are calling for special regulation on nanotechnology then we need a clear definition of what that is. But the truth is there isn't one, the term is now mostly a catch phrase. Just to show this scare, I recently read an article at (www.smalltimes.com) about a (I think German) product that was marketed as a nanospray, which you could put on walls. Wow - amazing isn't it? What happened, people said they were caughing and getting sick due to these nanoparticles. "This nanotechnology product must be removed from the market immediatly". What did it turn out? Well there were no nanoparticles in the product at all, it was simply called nano-something because the can was able to spray a coating that was 100nm thick, that consisted of oil, water, and silicon-dioxide. The actual problem, the droplets were smaller than 10micro-metres - thus could be breathed in. Now while this example shows that regulation is required, the fact that nano was in the name, meant there is an exaggeration over it.
Why don't we just keep regulations consistant? Shouldn't testing and requirements be equally rigorous no matter what the product? Let's forget about this nanotechnology scare that people seem to like, and realize that chemical testing shouldn't depend on the size of a molecule, more on what that molecule is made up of.
Slashdot Mirror
RIMs official blog post on their website that is linked to states "bring our...email integration capabilities to the tablet category." Only BBM is being delayed with no view in sight. http://blogs.blackberry.com/2011/10/blackberry-playbook-2-update/
I believe Google responded stating that the Google+ violations were not banning site wide, this is outlined in their ToS as well.
For reference - http://www.chipworks.com/A4_is_Samsung_45nm.aspx ...about as conclusive as it can get
These same files are staged so that the features can easily be added back to the running OS without additional media. This staging is important feedback we have received from customers who definitely do not like to dig up the installation DVD.
and
A second decision is that we also continue to support the APIs available for features where these APIs are necessary to the functionality of Windows or where there are APIs that are used by developers that can be viewed as independent of the component. As many of you know these are often referred to as âoedependenciesâ and with Windows the dependencies can run both internal to Windows and external for ISVs.
Removing your name from a picture is as simple as clicking a "remove" button beside your name on said picture. I believe after that if anyone tries to "retag" you, you get sent a notification stating someone wants to tag you in the photo. I'm not sure if there are archives kept of who has been previously tagged in a photo etc.
So what do you suggest? We abandon vaccines altogether? To the best of my knowledge all medical proceedures have a risk of side effects, and at the end of the day, if the benefit far outweighs the risk. If there is no possible way to know something, there is no reason they should be held responsible for their actions. I'm no lawyer, but to the best of my knowledge, the liability of a company depends on them exercising sound judgment. I would much rather have doctors decided which vaccines I need to take than, well any politician, parent, or myself. Imagine the public outrage if a company developed a vaccination against AIDS/HIV, but found out that 0.00001% of those who take the vaccine developed a deadly side effect - and as such they decided to hold it back. We can't have it both ways - the human body and nature is filled with ambiguity, and unless we offer protection to side effects which had no reasonable way of determining, the incentive to release a vaccine or treatment would be next to nothing.
I can't find the link right now, but I beleive my university (Univeristy of Waterloo) and Georgia have signed a nice little deal. Both are investing huge amounts of money into nanotechnology (our Centre for Nanotechnology and Quantum computing is supposed to be completed in 2010). I'm actually lucky enough to be in that first batch of graduating Nanotechnology engineers. Cost of ours is around the same, we're getting tons of money from RIM. Here's the link :)l and for mearly bragging rights, our nano building's bigger than yours...wait...is that a good thing?
http://www.nanotech.uwaterloo.ca/research/qnc.htm
he's our hero gonna take B.T. down to zero. Earth...err... Music Video Print Art we are the 4 sides to copywrite, and together - we can change the world
While caution is needed - one of the main things we are taught in my nanotech program, and one thing you can learn from some research is much of nanotechnology that is being used now, is essencially 'old' technology. This reduced size is good (ofcourse), but it is not like TiO2 wasn't used before it was being marketed as nanotechnology in foods, its just now it is in a - lets say pure form. I think one of the main problems with "nanotechnology" (yes nanotechnology, the legendary technology covering transistors, biomedical drug delivery systems, and the amazing ability to cure wrinkles) is that the term is too broad. Where do you draw the line between what is and what isn't nanotechnology? Is everything below 100nm considered nanotechnology? If that's the case, then all these new processors/chips being produced are just that. However, in terms of production - they're basically the same as the 101nm chips. If groups are calling for special regulation on nanotechnology then we need a clear definition of what that is. But the truth is there isn't one, the term is now mostly a catch phrase. Just to show this scare, I recently read an article at (www.smalltimes.com) about a (I think German) product that was marketed as a nanospray, which you could put on walls. Wow - amazing isn't it? What happened, people said they were caughing and getting sick due to these nanoparticles. "This nanotechnology product must be removed from the market immediatly". What did it turn out? Well there were no nanoparticles in the product at all, it was simply called nano-something because the can was able to spray a coating that was 100nm thick, that consisted of oil, water, and silicon-dioxide. The actual problem, the droplets were smaller than 10micro-metres - thus could be breathed in. Now while this example shows that regulation is required, the fact that nano was in the name, meant there is an exaggeration over it. Why don't we just keep regulations consistant? Shouldn't testing and requirements be equally rigorous no matter what the product? Let's forget about this nanotechnology scare that people seem to like, and realize that chemical testing shouldn't depend on the size of a molecule, more on what that molecule is made up of.