I'm not even sure that's accurate. One signal is the "inverse" of the other? Then how is it Wi-Fi?
Already possible? That's just two people. This is three, and would allow a lesbian couple to have a biological child with a Y chromosome lent by a third party, so they could have a son.
The technology to pick and choose single chromosomes out of one nucleus to replace a chromosome in another nucleus simply does not exist and may not for quite some time since DNA does not wrap itself up neatly into little X's until cellular division. No, the techniques involved are far cruder than that.
Similarly, the technology to combine two egg nuclei into a single, viable diploid cell also does not yet exist.
When men can donate eggs, "unaffiliated" will make sense.
On the other hand, it will break physics so bad that astronomers will just throw up their hands and leave all stellar objects classified as "spatial anomalies."
I think if what he wants is a supported operating system that's as close as possible to Ubuntu as it is now but without the newer changes he dislikes, switching to something that isn't remotely related to Ubuntu isn't going to help him. That'd be like a Windows 7 user switching to Mac OS X because he doesn't like Windows 8.
Ha, yes, the tschyo-kyu first ones.Very yinteres ting siri. Rots of kara-kiter.
Man, that German DRM sure is getting out of hand!
Presumably, they would rather go to work than shop for a new car.
The Constitution wasn't written to be subject to interpretation by arcane legal rules, but by citizens.
Yeah, that's a common misconception. Most of the drafters of the Constitution were legal scholars themselves. That's why the Constitution has reference to all kinds of terms of the art well-understood in 18th century common law but not defined for the common man like "corruption of the blood," "habeas corpus," and "due process." (Seriously. What the heck is "due process," formally defined? Do you think the average citizen of 18th century America had the faintest foggiest clue?)
The founders knew the the courts would be the ones to interpret and ensure the fair application of the law. As Hamilton said in the Federalist Papers, "The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts."
You may rage and fume when said interpretation goes against your "common sense," but the public's "common sense" has just as often been terribly, terribly wrong. After all, Dred Scott was "common sense" in the South when it was decided. Plessy v. Ferguson, which gave us "separate but equal" was considered "common sense" at the time by many. "Common sense" is nothing but personal biases and confident ignorance wrapped up in the robes of wisdom.
Half of all people score in the lower 50% of intelligent tests.
Actually, that depends on how you define the lower 50% and how fine-grained the test results are.
Let's say (for simplicity) that 5 people take a 2 question IQ test. As with most IQ tests, we get a bell curve of results: 1 person gets both right, 1 person gets both wrong, and 3 people only get 1 right. How many people scored in the lower 50%? Is it 1? Is it 4? It's certainly not 2.5.
Even if you expand the test taking population and add more questions, you still run into the possibility that you won't necessarily hit 50%.
That's not how car dealerships work. You don't walk into a dealership that has both Ford and GM franchises and see, say, Mercury Grand Marquis's next to the Chevy Suburbans. Dealerships are generally required to keep seperate lots, virtually always by manufacturer, and frequently even by brand.
Apple? Apple didn't start Apple Stores because Best Buy's sales people were saying "You like this iMac? I don't want to sell it to you, why don't you buy this HP instead?", Apple wasn't, by and large, having much luck getting Macs into large chain stores in the first place. By and large, you had to get it from an Apple dealer, and Apple dealers were too few and far between.
With plenty of cash to use, Apple bankrolled the creation of an owned-and-operated dealer network, which had the side effect that they had more control over the branding and buying experience.
Yes, I'm sure Musk is after controlling the branding and buying experience, but what he and Apple have in common is that when the Apple Store system first started, Macs were a platform that virtually nobody was interested in, and as a result, few stores wanted to sell. Being at the mercy of the car dealership system means, in practice, not having a presence in much of the country, as nobody wants to own a car dealership that sells one car a month on a good month.
Preventing one state from erecting barriers to trade with another is exactly what that clause had in mind.
I think it's more of a gray area than that. After all, Texas can easily argue both that they're not doing anything most other states aren't doing, and more importantly, that their rules are non-discriminatory and have nothing to do with in-state or out-of-state businesses. That is to say, if Texas had a car industry, it would be bound by the same marketing rules, and that the rules have applied to Ford, GM, and other out-of-state manufacturers for decades with no apparent problem.
As I've said before, FWIW, SCOTUS is not the legislature, and it doesn't exist to protect us from stupid decisions made by legislatures we elected in the first place. It has a relatively narrow scope to shoot down bad laws, and unfortunately "The law is clearly stupid" is not one. If it was the case that its job was to protect us from bad legislation then:
1. I wouldn't want the current members to be the current members. Would you? Nine elderly partisans some of whom appear to be batshit insane regardless of their grasp of law.
2. We'd already have much fewer stupid laws.
I don't give a crap because it's not even slightly comparable. JPEG is not a proprietary format, it's documented, it's a defacto standard, and it's easy for web browser creators to incorporate functionality to implement it (whether using libpr0n or otherwise) into their own browsers, which they do.
It is not even in the same ballpark as unknown proprietary plug-ins that depend upon APIs that are not standardized.
While there are many misogynist myths about women that have a basis in truth, I find it highly unlikely that women exist as a single, collective, shared intelligence, as would be required to accept the logic above. That's assuming you didn't make the mistake of believing the GP was claiming that while women-as-sex-objects might cause long term harm to women generally, it would only cause harm to women who themselves engage in such marketing and no other women.
Don't tell me how hard you work. Tell me how much you get done. -- James J. Ling