I really don't see any need for any plugs or ports on a smartphone. I haven't plugged my phone into anything for at least a year.
It charges wirelessly, backs itself up wirelessly and communicates (WiFi, cellular data, NFC, Bluetooth) with everything.
Why would I ever want to fiddle with a plug?
If they are summaries of cases, they probably could be considered creative works and eligible for copyright. However, if they are being used by the courts to decide cases, we would have the odd situation where a private party was writing law... and if they were then considered "law" then probably not eligible for copyright.
Are the annotations creative works of a third party? If so, why are they being used to decide cases?
If they are "indexes" they are not eligible for copyright.
I was wondering... What are these "annotations"?
Are they creative interpretations of the law written by a third party? (probably copyright eligible but odd to have a third party creatively interpreting the law and having that used by the courts)
- Are they "indexes" (as some have stated)? (probably not copyright eligible since no "creative" work done)
- Are they "case law examples"? (probably not copyright eligible since these cases would be a product of the court system and therefore not copyright eligible)
They don't include refining costs for fossil fuel... major flaw.
You could have Googled this yourself but here are a few references:
http://winephysicssong.com/201...
http://www.sourcewatch.org/ind...
The fact that they agree with me on one point about my car has nothing to do with the quality of their study or whether or not "I agree with them".
Extraction and distribution of coal and oil are probably about equal. However, refining oil takes about as much energy as cars get out of the gas or diesel. In fact, if you took the electricity that oil refineries use and put that into an electric car, it would drive the car as far as the gas and diesel that the refinery produces (without all that nasty pollution).
Either way, its a major flaw in the study when they don't include major costs of fossil fuel but do include those costs for electricity. Flagrant bias.
You are right. The study did not take the costs of extraction, refining and transportation of fossil fuels into account. Major flaw.
The NBER is a right wing think tank (climate change deniers) and this is a biased hit piece against electric cars.
I guess these electric boats don't exist, then:
The NBER is a conservative think tank with an climate change denier agenda and this "study" is deeply flawed and intended to disseminate misinformation about electric cars which are a threat to the fossil fuel industry.
My electric car is solar powered and costs about $0.04/mile for electricity so much better for the environment (and my wallet) than any fossil fuel or hybrid vehicle.
The NBER is a conservative funded "think tank". It gets most of its money from large corporations and people with an interest in the oil and gas industries.
This "study" is just a hit piece against electric cars funded by the oil and gas industries... it's worthless.
One example of its bias: It uses a "well to wheels" analysis of electric car energy use but for fossil fueled vehicles, it only uses the "pump to wheels" emissions, leaving out all of the energy impacts of extraction, refining and transportation of fossil fuels.
Nuclear power has gone from "too cheap to meter" to "too expensive to matter".
There are many problems with nuclear but its high cost will end up killing it.
Solar and wind are cheaper and battery storage can match supply to demand.
The Guardian has been doing a lot of research on police killing people in the US compared to the rest of the world.
Here's a good summary article:
http://www.theguardian.com/us-...
A few statistics from the article:
Fact: Police in the US have shot and killed more people – in every week this year – than are reportedly shot and killed by German police in an entire year.
Fact: Police in the US fatally shot more people in one month this year than police in Australia officially reported during a span of 19 years.
Fact: Police in Canada average 25 fatal shooting a year. In California, a state just 10% more populous than Canada, police in 2015 have fatally shot nearly three times as many people in just five months.
Fact: Police fired 17 bullets at Antonio Zambrano-Montes, who was “armed” with a rock. That’s nearly three times what police in Finland are reported to have fired during all of 2013.
Fact: In the first 24 days of 2015, police in the US fatally shot more people than police did in England and Wales, combined, over the past 24 years.
The willingness of soldiers to fire on the enemy has been long debated. There is good evidence that most soldiers, even when they are in danger of being overrun by the enemy, don't fire their rifles (only about 30% fired against enemy in WWII). We are raised to value human life and it's really difficult to overcome that prohibition.
Interesting article here:
http://www.historynet.com/men-...
"May your future be limited only by your dreams." -- Christa McAuliffe
