Why not do what the UK does and use a separate piece of paper for each, and maybe vote on fewer things at any one time?
Link to Original Source
This isn't cold fusion. Back in the late eighties a couple chemists thought they had fusion and rushed to publish out of fear of having the credit stolen. It was a complete failure of the scientific process and it set fusion back two decades. This time is different. The project leader has over a decade of experience studying and modeling fusion. The institution has a history of novel technologies and absolutely no reason to risk their credibility.
In short, it really seams like it's more likely there will be a CFR in the next ten years then not. Here's an article for a little background why:
Link to Original Source
How exactly are binary logs more secure? Either they are in a documented, useful format, or they are proprietary ("secure") and useless.
Sounds more like your game needed drivers - if DOS needed them, then you would expect them to be provided with the hardware, you would install them, and then your applications would use them through the OS API. The fact that you had to configure games specifically for your hardware means they were not "DOS drivers" but "game drivers".
It's a problem when your human detector fails to detect human
Says the bot!
Yes, the library buys the book, but that doesn't benefit the author much - one book will be borrowed by many people, none of whom now have to buy the book, so this is a net loss for the author. Public Lending Right compensates for this loss by making a small payment (fractions of a penny I believe in most cases) for each time a book is borrowed. This is totaled up and then paid to the authors (presumably once such payments have exceeded a certain threshold).
Rubbish. Everyone knows the future is WoMF(*)
* Windows on MainFrames
Space-port must always be passed to the left, just the same as Earth-port
You are incorrect. The email may be mis-addressed, but you are still the intended recipient of that email, as given by the fact the email envelope has you as the recipient. You therefore have a legally acceptable record that that individual email was sent directly to you.
I've also seen a creditable argument that because the disclaimer is at the end of the email, and you would have to read the email and therefore all of it's content before reading the disclaimer that warns you not to, that they are particularly worthless.
The problem with that is, is if was sent to your email address, you are the intended recipient.
You are missing the whole point - the idea is that throughout the 7.x release the glibc (/ other software) version will not change, so in 10 years time your *current* software investment will still work, rather than being force to upgrade. Stability means not changing what is deployed *now* in the future. For many deployments this is crucial. If you do not need this form of long-term software stack stability, then, yes, RedHat is not for you - however there is no point criticising RedHat for a policy that is deliberately enforced for a good reason.