But my point is, in all my experience as scientist. I've never seen one of my colleagues say "we should hide this", but I've often heard "I would like to tell about this, but I don't know of a paper that would accept it".
Absolutely. I proposed the idea of an online journal of failed ideas a few years ago while I was doing my PhD. The problem is that, even if we'd accept the paper, you don't get much recognition for trying stuff that doesn't work. Reputations are built on success, not effort, and so it's not worth much time writing something up in a publication-ready form for such a journal. You'd save other people the time and effort of failing in the same way as you, but that doesn't actually benefit you - if anything it's better if your competition is trying approaches you already know won't work because it makes it less likely that they will try the approach that you are working on that does work and publish the success before you.
OK...a more reasoned response for you.
"The British government has two choices: either solve it now by harshly cutting out any part of the Muslim population that looks even remotely likely it sympathizes with Islamists, or face the prospect that in 20 years as demographics shift, a group like the BNP will stage a coup and take matters into its own hands militarily."
This is an attempt to shift the blame to those you wish to expel for the actions against them. You state that you wish to 'cut out' any part of the Muslim population that might be 'remotely likely' to sympathise with extremist Islamic views. You have also stated that 40% of the UK Islamic population support Sharia law. Do the people you wish to cut out include that 40%?
I would conjecture that that this would in fact radicalise many more people as the UK state apparently undertook a war against versions of Islam it disliked. It would also be a direct breach of ECHR rights to free speech. I am curious what specific actions you would call for to cut out people from the population, especially given that incitement to terrorism is illegal already. Are you referring to deportation?
"The British government should infiltrate radical mosques and monitor them. Over time, if the agents feel that the congregation is too radical, identify the non-citizens and mark them for deportation."
We do this. MI5 has experience infiltrating the IRA, and certainly runs agents in the more extreme anti-Western mosques. However you appear to have stated that anyone that might be remotely likely to sympathise should be cut out. Does this then include citizens?
Please note when suggesting solutions that
a) you cannot make a mere opinion that the state should change legal system (even to Sharia law) punishable without a breach of the ECHR Art.9 and
b) this would arguably also breach ECHR Art.6(1) as the state action would itself be illegal, and so the trial would be unfair due to ultra vires actions.
Yes...yes! Maybe we could make them wear yellow crescents!
Nice strawman. Do you realize that you just validated the grandparent's point? He talks about deporting immigrants who've expressed hostility towards their host culture, some to the point of committing crimes, even murder, and you come out and call him a nazi. That gives him the option of either giving up - which, in his view, results in his nation getting destroyed - or moving towards more radical methods.
Congratulations. You've prevented the matter from being discussed in a calm and reasonable manner, thus making sure that anyone concerned has little choice but to radicalize. Well done.
Could we cut them out by some kind of economic sanctions based on religious belief? Maybe just prevent them from owning businesses and stuff. Or deport them! Do you know if this plan has ever been tried before?
Yes, I'm pretty sure that hostile immigrants have been deported before. Are these hostile immigrants? Who knows, you cut the discussion short in favour of shouting "Nazi nazi nazi", so now I'll just have to assume the worst or risk my country. Again, congratulations. Pat yourself on the back.
"Fit to width" function of Opera deals with the problem of webpages no fitting quite nicely, usually (plus this browser is generally very snappy, Opera Turbo proxy also helps a lot)
So I'd say netbooks don't even really have the problem of "not the best speed". For every sensible thing one wants to do on a netbook, there's still modern software that will be light enough.
They should know him for this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Festival
How is this +5 informative? It's completely false.
The reason it didn't make it to mainline is because the Google code was reviewed and found to have problems that stopped it being accepted into mainline. Because there are user space items in Android that would be affected, only Google could make the changes without breaking Android.
Think about it, if you were unable to build the Android kernel because Google were withholding stuff, it would be in direct violation of GPL v2. Do you see Greg KH complaining that Android violates the Linux licence? No.
Thank you very much, you explained it well and I understand more now.
Wouldn't a quench have a huge back-EMF associated with it as the field collapses? I don't see any alternative but for much of that energy to go through the coil-bar circuit and heat the coil up more.
There's a third possibility which the article fails to consider:
The third one you bring up rings home for me, absolutely. I attempted different perspectives and extremes to break my own cycle, most of them never hitting the root cause for depression.
It wasn't until I opened up to my girlfriend about what I wanted in our sex life that I began the steps towards a satisfying sexual relationship. A few weeks passed by and I noticed I wasn't surfing "sexually gratifying websites", I just didn't need too.
Yea, pr0n isn't a bad thing, nor does it exclusively cause depression. In my case, it was an escape. Like with anything else, overtime the escape is problematic and will muddy the waters.
Dynamically binding, you realize the magic. Statically binding, you see only the hierarchy.
