Yeah, I get about the same - technically it's 7/768, but due to distance to router it is more like 6/.5. On the plus side, CenturyLink finally updated the ancient Qwest CO (like a month ago) to be able to carry faster traffic, probably because I think they are getting killed by 4G (both Sprint [formerly Clearwire], aka WiMax and 4G phone carriers). Comcast has offered high speed service in the area for about a decade, but they only seem economical with pay TV, and their pay TV is overpriced. I seriously plan to switch to a faster network soon, as I think their 25Mbit plan is actually cheaper than the old one I have now (to keep it competitive).
My telecom just rolled out 40Mbit service, about 10 years after Comcast did the same. I don't expect to see this any time soon unless Comcast uses it (they're Fiber-to-the-Neighborhood and then copper, so it's possible). I still won't do business with Comcast, even if I can basically make pricing a wash with bundling. I also could get a DirecTV bundle but giving up DISH would be hard, plus I don't give a rip about sports, which is kind of the focus of DirecTV.
Sigh... said it before, but most fourth generation designs including the one the US killed by John Kerry's ignorance burn nuclear waste as fuel. Russia continued, and their once through versions like the BN-600 burn 80% of their nuclear fuel and would burn nearly 100% if they used continuous reprocessing, but that is considered a proliferation risk. 80% - vs
In any case, one of the primary reasons nuclear experimentation was killed off was that it was corrupt and in the pocket of reactor owners - from the NRC site itself:
AEC to NRC
By 1974, the AEC's regulatory programs had come under such strong attack that Congress decided to abolish the agency. Supporters and critics of nuclear power agreed that the promotional and regulatory duties of the AEC should be assigned to different agencies. The Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 created the Nuclear Regulatory Commission; it began operations on January 19, 1975.
The NRC (like the AEC before it) focused its attention on several broad issues that were essential to protecting public health and safety.
The NRC rubber stamps everything too, so not much has changed.
But prior to the American Civil War
Actually including at least part of the American Civil War - specifically until the National Banking Acts of 1863 and 1864 (the Civil War ended in 1865). Very close though - I doubt most people know that at all. Incidentally, there were numerous State banks until 1866 when further legislation taxed them to death (don't know a lot about these, but pretty sure they were unconstitutional, anyway).
Yeah, I have the same predicament, but probably not as many as you. Most of the kit robots I built as a kid and they now live on a shelf, but every once in a while I throw in a 9 volt and fire them up - kids still are entertained by the one that dodges walls and obstacle and crawls over obstacles about half its height on its 6 legs. The other ones aren't quite as much fun because they follow set patterns.
I also own a Roomba.
While that may be a useful measurement for scientists, it isn't a very useful measurement for humans - a better one is about 1 in 142000 jumps (2010 numbers).
This is probably why one of my life insurance specifically prohibits skydiving and hang gliding (my work one has no prohibitions, but pays less money). It also prohibits SCUBA diving over (under?) 150ft, but I only recreational dive (less than 110ft).
The simple answer - both China and the US depend far too much on coal for electricity, and there is currently almost no control over CO2 emissions from these plants.
45% of US electricity is coal and about 23% after that the 1/3 less polluting natural gas (which can be derived from coal, but isn't), after that is 20% nuclear and the rest mostly "green" energy. The EPA has proposed forcing new coal plants to adopt carbon capture technology, but Republicans (and yes, I call out Republicans, some of this info is from their coddling "news" site) oppose it for various reasons, usually citing it is experimental, expensive, and poses safety risks. What they don't say is it is about 1/3 less efficient in generating electricity and therefore impacts their constituent's profits, since their constituents can't regulate their own rate hikes (such is the life of a regulated monopoly). Thus the EPA has to focus on the other 55%, much of which has already taken place (automobile emissions standards, industrial emission standards, etc).
I don't know Chinese numbers, but the fact that they mine almost 4x what the US does suggests they are far more dependent on coal.
while the summary is laudatory, fawning, even, it is not central to the decision
Funny, I had the same reaction when I read it. He seemed like a salesman for Google or something.
I would like to retain your services in this matter. Please list your bank account information so that I may transfer a retainer payment to you. Thank you. Sincerely, Prince Bernard Koffi Austine Nigeria
Dear Prince Bernard,
If you're talking about my bank account, you're barking up the wrong tree
So, if this stands does this mean it's lawful for Google to make the full text available of these books, or not?
Fair use cases are very fact specific. If you start monkeying with the facts, Judge Chin might not feel the same way about it.
If google can legally copy books (even when profit is involved) then why can't I do the same?
Wouldn't I get hammered with copyright infringement problems if I scanned in books I did not author myself?
I don't know but please hire me as your lawyer when you do.