I have no doubt that the North Korean government is repressive, murderous and generally not nice guys. However, whenever someone uses the phrase "crime against humanity," I wonder exactly how many humans are in a humanity. Do the Russian and Chinese governments manage to come in just under the limit, while North Korea goes over? That seems extremely unlikely, given the relative populations of those countries. Maybe it's defined by a fraction: a government can repress up to half of its citizens and just be seen as somewhat evil, but 51% becomes a crime against humanity?
Gorodki, Konek-Gorbunok, Magistral, Balls.
I'm sure there are more.
I don't suppose you have any links to back that up? I suppose the failure of communism at the state level means we'll never be able enjoy the plethora of video games uncorrupted by capitalism.
"Rogers went on to license Tetris to Nintendo, though, so he did just fine." That's the most interesting part of the story - how the best video game product of communism got sidelined into the capitalist computer paradigm.
That's a very odd way to put it. Most of us would never have heard of Tetris if it hadn't been "sidelined." It's not as if the Soviets were exporting copies of Tetris all over the world to support the global struggle against oppressive capitalism. Also, the use of the word "best" implies there was some competition. Can you name any other "video game product of communism?"
I partly agree. I think he should be charged, convicted, then pardoned. Snowden should be charged and convicted because what he did should not be generally legal. He should be pardoned because he broke the law out of necessity, doing a great service to every citizen. I think the trial would be very informative. We would learn things like why the "official channels" Snowden didn't use wouldn't have produced the necessary result.
Yes, Oracle probably hasn't been as bad a Microsoft with regard to changing things that don't need to be changed. From what I understand, most of the frustration which resulted in LibreOffice forking from OpenOffice was because people didn't think Sun and then Oracle allowed contributions at a sufficient rate.
Everything you laud was there before Oracle got ahold of it and remains in both OpenOffice and LibreOffice. Are you saying that Oracle should be praised for not destroying OpenOffice? That seems like a pretty low bar.
Newer technology applied by one side in a conflict have cause important victories before throughout history.
The ability to totally outclass an adversary is from a military point of view desirable.
I did skim the linked article, one issue is that of proportionality, but still, those who win do not really care.
That's exactly why the idea of rules for war has always been a bit silly. At most, they should be thought of as suggestions.
Gan: Corn is defined as a small hard grain/seed
Wheat is corn
Rice is corn
Rye is Corn
Millet is Corn
Maize is also corn
The term Corn used in supermarkets is actually slang....
If you are going to be a vocab critic then at least get the vocab right!
Though "corn" has meant any kind of grain for most its history, it has now come to mean "maize" in America. This has been standard usage and not just slang for well over 100 years. If someone says "corn" in the US, it never means "wheat," "rye," "barley," "rice," or "millet." In an international context, it is most clear to use "maize," but to call "maize" "corn" in America is no less correct than to call a fluffy wheat bun leavened with baking soda a "biscuit."
See also the Scandinavian languages, where "korn" means "grain(s)", and "mais" is yellow and comes on cobs. (Wheat is "hvete".)
I hate to burst your bubble, but the word for the plant in question, whether spelled "maize," "mais," or "maiz," comes from Spanish, which originally borrowed it from the language of the Caribbean Taíno people. All European languages got some form of that word via Spanish. The words "corn," "korn," and "grain" are related and much older in European tradition. Also, maize comes several colors, including white and purple.
After the processing they look quite unlike their source crop.
Are you saying it's reasonable to expect a grain product to look like the grain when it first came off the plant? By that logic, you should look more askance at bread as you do at corn flakes.
I call your "research" into question since you seem to have come to several conclusions which are completely incorrect. You are correct that two Kelloggs experimented with grains including wheat before trying maize. You are incorrect when you say that "corn flakes" were ever made of anything but maize. In America, "corn" never means wheat or any grain other than maize. The original flakes of wheat were called "granose."
You are also incorrect when you say that it was a non-Kellogg who added sugar. In fact, corn flakes were originally marketed by Will Keith Kellogg's Battle Creek Toasted Corn Flake Company and contained added sugar from the beginning.
Will's brother John Harvey Kellogg, who was not part of the business, was not in favor of adding sugar. John's objection to adding sugar had little to do with modern ideas. He thought spicy or sweet foods would increase sexual urges.
I'd never seen a statistic of 22%, which sounds high based on my experience. 12% sounds much more plausible to me.
When both parties work together toward a common goal, we can put a man on the moon.
When both parties work against each other, and try to stop each other every step of the way purely for their own political agenda, we can't even launch a damn website.
Don't forget that the common goal was not something lofty like scientific discovery, but to beat the commies. So, it may have not been a partisan issue in the US, but it was a political agenda.
Anyone who's eaten manioc (also known as cassava) and sweet potatoes knows that they're plants with starchy tubers and that's where the similiarities end. Not knowing the difference could be deadly since much cassava is of the "bitter" variety and must be carefully prepared to remove dangerous levels of cyanide.
Aaaand this is exactly the kind of thing that young-earth creationists and climate change deniers will jump on to show that science (and scientists) can't be trusted.
People who've made up their minds about something often jump on things they think support their position. If you'd read the article, you'd know that's one of the human tendencies that often leads leading to bad science. Science is a process and set of tools for avoiding such human mistakes but since it's humans implementing it, it's a constant struggle.