I would say that would be about one third the effect of adding three bazillion joules of energy into the wheather system by nuclear reactors with 33% thermal efficiency.

I don't find a reference now, but wasn't there a lawsuit about Popeye where the court decided that if the copyright is expired a trademark can't prevent copying of the work? Isn't this a similar situation?

I mean, if Internet Brands adds text containing the trademark "WikiTravel" to a CC work, they gave permission to use the trademark in the work under the CC license.
If they use their own trademark as the title of the work, I don't see how they can prevent people to refer to the work using the trademark

The study is about kids who grow up in housholds where the parents speak different languages.

Not about kids who are taught a second language on purpose by a teacher. No discipline involved.

I agree that the maintenace required by a diesel plant is low, but it is still much higher than that of solar. You will spent more man hours refilling the fuel than the total maintenance for the solar plant.

The rest of the post tries to compare apples to oranges. Either we compare technology currently available on the market. In that case the comparison I made is accurate.

Or you compared anticipated technolgies. In this case you have on the nuclear side proposals for inexpensive fuel cycles with greatly reduced risk. All of these designs will use more concrete per Watt electrical output so the energy paypack time will be greater than for current designs. But still these advanced reactors would be great improvements compared to current designs.

On the solar side there are concepts for designs that use much less material and less exotic materials. Thin film and metal based cells are on the verge of beeing market ready and there might be a breakthrough in polymere cells any time (so it is not guaranteed). By the time generation 4 reactors will be market ready solar power might be almost free.

Essentially it comes down to a bet that most of the industry currently is not willing to make: Gen 3 and Gen 4 reactors are designed to operate 65 years after a 15 year design time. Currently solar has a 20% to 30% cost improvement every year for 10 years now. Anybody putting his money on nuclear is betting that this progress suddenly stops before solar passes all other technologies. This might very well happen, but it might be smart to wait a few more years before commiting to an 80 year project competing with solar.

I read this a few year ago and current can't find it again.
It might be that this number ist the energy for producing the plant divided by the average electrical power. This would mean that the energy for running the plant and for producing the fuel is not considerd. Sorry I don't have a better source.
What I do find a lot are sources on the average amount of CO2 produced by nuclear power. It is a lot worse than wind and hydro but somewhat better than solar if the uranium does not come from south africa.

> Also this BS argument I constantly see without facts to back it up that some how solar cells release so much CO2 in their manufacture that they can't possibly offset the CO2 over their lives.

You here the same for energy saving light bulbs, etc.
As a first ballpark estimate you can assume that even manufacturers have to pay for their energy. So if it is economical feasible the CO2 balance can't be that bad.

Actual there is data on that available. It is called energy pay back time. It is less than a year for solar thermal and wind energy. It is about 2 years for current nuclear plants. It is about 3 years for solar cells rapidly going down to 1 year anticipated for thin film technology.
Of course there are big variations (about a faktor of two in both directions) depending on many parameters.

> Solar panels do require a lot of maintenance if you want good performance.
Compared to a small diesel plan? Definitely not.

> Look up how much energy is used to produce one square centimetre of a solar panel.
Energy parity is achieved quicker for solar panels than for nuclear power plants in some cases.
Accoring to this source by the German government, CO2 emissions of a nuclear plant driven by Uranium from South Africa
were higher than those of solar panels in 2007.
http://www.bundestag.de/dokumente/analysen/2007/CO2-Bilanzen_verschiedener_Energietraeger_im_Vergleich.pdf
Don't underestimate the CO2 emissions for creating concrete (6% of world CO2 production) and of Uranium enrichment
and Uranium mining.

Solar has an annual improvement in efficicency in the order of 20% per year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Trade_Balance_1980_2011.svg

Authentication is something different, but the thread is about DNS. BIND, probably the same DNS that your IP-Hoster is running so it is likely proven that your laptop is playing nicely with it, is available for windows. The DHCP server in your router can tell all local machines that they should ask your local DNS to resolve addresses.

Or, you could add all your local devices IP numbers to the hosts file on all machines. For a small number of machines this should be feasible.

I am not an expert on authetification and file sharing, but Samba, LDAP, Kerberos, etc. are all available for windows.

Are you aware that you can run software on windows machines that is not provided by microsoft but by other vendors?

Only if you store the electricity infinitely. Most of the electricity is converted to heat pretty quickly. The solar panel has a lower reflectivity as most materials so actually placing a solar panel might increase Earths temperature.

> Why after 7+ years is it all of a sudden an urgent matter that needs to be resolved immediately?

That is exactly the main question that a judge ruling an injunction has to decide and I am pretty sure that the German court will decline the injunction on this ground.

But I still don't see on which ground a foreign court shall deny the right to have this question checked by a competent court. (No, the US court is not competent to decide this.) The questions really are independent. The result of the US law suit will have no legal consequences for the relationship of the two companies in Germany.
 

How can doing something legal be a threat? They had to file the patent in dozens of countries, pay patent fees in dozens of countries and they can sue in each and every of these countries.

The result of the dispute will be resolved in each country seperately and may differ from country to country and will only be binding for that country. The lawsuit will be irrelevant for the use of the patented technology in europe and vice versa. So why should that wait?

Also: I agree that the injunction will not be granted in Germany, so it is even less a threat. We are talking Microsoft here, not private persons who are scared of courts or are forvce to settle because they can't pay the lawyers.

But the same patent might be valid in one jurisdiction and invalid in another one. So essentially it is necessary to argue seperately in both jurisdictions.

Yeah, and by that time the injunction in Germany will be denied because Motorola did not take immediate action. Injunctions must be filed within a certain timeframe after detecting the violation. So the US judge is trying to overrule the German court which clearly is illegal.

You mean, like this:
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/02/25/article-1253724-0876E885000005DC-28_233x368.jpg
?