if the concept of private property is now only the province of libertarians
The way it's going, if you "still" believe in private property you're either a libertarian or you've given up on compulsory political systems entirely. All the other factions believe in some degree of community ownership of everything.
That makes the whole concept dead on arrival. Anything that requires a connection is no damn good, aside from a remote terminal, I suppose
How else do you plan to distribute a CRL? The firmware can get programmed with the updated certificate store when you have access to the CRL, but it can operate fine offline without it (accepting the enhanced risk).
I wonder if either of you see the irony-- because the government arguably overstepped its bounds by forcing everyone to buy health insurance, now it gets to claim it can overstep its bounds even further by telling you what you can do with your body.
Government is the cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems.
Looking at the pictures of Skellig Michael [aside: didn't Michael Skelling used to be an NPR reporter?] it seems very likely that the stacked-stone huts will be used in the new films.
If this is a sign that there's no nexus around Tatooine, this thing might actually have legs!
They are a Finnish company and that fact is well known worldwide.
Most people knew them for their snow tires before their cell phones. He must not live in the snow belt. I'm glad they separated the two businesses - I still buy Nokian snow tires and I sure as hell don't want Microsoft involved in my winter traction!
You might want to learn the difference between its and it's
I know the difference, but how should I go about teaching this difference to the virtual keyboard of a mobile device? Or is there a key ACM paper on how to guess where "its" or "it's" should go in context?
Maybe it would help if we checked my calculations step by step. Start with conservation of energy just inside the chamber walls at equilibrium: power in = power out.
We don't need to check your calculations because you're making a straw-man argument again. You are not refuting what Latour was actually arguing. And either you know that, or you just haven't paying attention. And the latter would be rather bizarre, given the nature of what you have been saying.
Stop making straw-man arguments. You aren't impressing anybody. You're making yourself look like a fool.
Once again, if Dr. Latour understood the second law refers to net heat, he'd agree that adding a cold plate makes the heated plate lose heat slower. That's okay because net heat still flows from hot to cold, i.e. more heat moves from hot to cold than vice versa.
Absolute nonsense. He didn't do that simply because that was not the argument he was refuting. The argument he was refuting was clearly described, discussed, and linked to in his essay.
Jesus, get a clue. This is just more bullshit. I repeat: either you know it's wrong and are just spewing bullshit to make yourself look good (or in an attempt to make me look bad), or you just haven't done your due diligence.
My opinion is that you're just grasping at straws because you were shown to be wrong yet again. But those straws don't really exist. You were just plain wrong.
Modded down, nice. There's a special place in Hell for people who mod down humor.
Wow! The double-down. I didn't (but probably should have) see that coming. So did I summarize your position accurately: You are not a birther. You are certain that someone faked Obama's birth certificate (because you read it on the internet), but you are not willing to speculate who did this or why. You have no idea where the president of the USA was born (hint: Hawaii, USA).
No, I am not certain "because I read it on the Internet". I am certain because I downloaded a copy of it and examined it myself, layer by layer. I did read analyses on the Internet, but I confirmed the truth of some of them myself. Not all of them, of course. Some were just plain bullshit. Like your posts here. But some were true.
what the DOJ failed to do.
Well not quite. The DOJ proposed splitting microsoft in half. Chinas solution to corruption tends to involve ventilating the CEOs brain with lead, 15 minutes after the judge declares "Fuck this guy!".
The only one who seemed to be advocating caping bill G here was probably ESR, because ESR is kind of a mentalist (RMS doesnt do guns)
The Chinese officials, like the US officials, are more interested in kickbacks. All this "anti-monopoly" stuff is meme pap for consumption by voters.
It's the way things have gone through history. Just the wrappers change, to obfuscate it and feign justification. Microsoft learned, and now donates vast sums in US elections.
System working as intended...by the politicians. We get in the way so we can get paid to get back out of the way. This rule of thumb has never failed.
> "Unesco is now concerned"
Who cares what those gigantic cow-sheep-tick thingies think?
No man is an island if he's on at least one mailing list.
