Maybe it's cheaper to buy the blu-rays than to archive them...
You don't get it. Mass murderers always have a pretext. Hitler had some justification or other, but we still hanged his generals for invading Poland. Starting an offensive war is a crime against the peace, even if you can find a piece of paper that says you were already at war.
"No one has ever argued that Saddam was co-operating with the inspectors."
The inspectors themselves argued this. You have been lied to. You should look into it and find out who lied to you and why. A lot of people died because of this.
Good story, but it assumes a competent CIA.
Yes, I can come up with a thousand free market answers. And yes, that pretty much answers your question.
Would you buy a vehicle from any company whatsoever if you knew that parts were difficult to acquire? A manufacturer can play a game with parts availability only if they don't plan to stay in business.
Maybe we should go back to renting our phones from ATT as well.
That's revisionist bullshit. You don't need a treaty between two nations to make the act of war illegal. US forces that were shot at were violating Iraqi air space and were firing on Iraqi forces. That's an act of war, alright, but not on the part of the Iraqis.
Not only was the invasion illegal under international law, but under U.S. law as well, since the congressional authorization was conditional, and the conditions were never met.
You must be an old one indeed to have learned to dissemble so smoothly.
Which phones with 128MB or 256MB of RAM run a modern version of Android?
My company does this, but selectively not on some sites, such as my WellsFargo banking account.
No, you're likely to get a recipe.
FWIW, this is a good one. I make it about weekly, though I use chorizo; real andouille is hard to find in the wilds of rural Minnesota.
I'm a quantitative analyst at a bank, you insensitive clod!
(that aside, I have a BS, and 15 years experience in computer programming, and I essentially code solutions I design for internal clients. It's not bad at all!)
On the other hand, if I don't have your data I can't check your results. If you want to keep your data secret for a decade, you really should plan to not publish anything relying on it for that time either. Release all the papers when you release the data.
Also, who gets to decide when a study is a replication and when it is a new result? Few replication attempts are doing exactly the same thing as the original paper, for good reason. If you want to see if it holds up you want to use different analysis or similar anyway. And "use" data? What if another group produces their own data and compares with yours? Is that "using" the data? What if they compare your published results? Is that using it?
A partial solution, I think, is for a group such as yours to pre-plan the data use already when collecting it. So you decide from start to publish a subset of that data early and publish papers based on that. Then publish another subset for further results and so on.
But what we really need is for data to be fully citeable. A way to publish the data as a reserach result by itself - perhaps the data, together with a paper describing it (but not any analysis). ANyone is free to use the data for their own research, but will of course cite you when they do. A good, serious data set can probably rack up more citations than just about any paper out there. That will give the producers the scientific credit it deserves.
Firefox OS is trying to fix much of this.
The Web is the most successful platform of all time and we're leading the pack on bringing a the Web platform to mobile in a way that's integrated rather than fractured like the existing app store models.
People project personhood on lots of things already. Apart from the obvious - search the net for what people think about their roombas - even stuff like cars are designed to evoke it. And it's not as if there's been a dearth of research on these issues already.
making the robot evil is the question
Making the robot evil is not the question. Making the robot evil is the answer. "How do I take over the world?" is the question.
> You've disingenuously defined "people of the United State of America" as being "everyone who agrees with me."
Really? Where? I'm part of that people and I've got a modicum of that power, and what I'm telling you is how I use my tiny little piece of it.
Either you have power or you don't. If you don't then you have to struggle to get it if you want it. If you do have power, then you must decide how to use it. I think those with power have the moral responsibility to use the power for the betterment of the people over whom they have power. You are right in that correctly judging what's best is really an impossible task, but that doesn't alleviate the powerful from the responsibility of making those judgements anyway.