That's because words can have several meanings. (The OED says that "share" can also mean "To cut the fleece off an animal".)

But share as in "sharing an idea" is not the meaning that we are talking about HERE is it?

You may also wish to look up the word "equivocation".

Richard Stallman is clearly a man of at least average intelligence and hence is aware that copying and sharing are entirely different things. "Sharing", means that there is only one copy of the resource and I am simply giving you a share of my resource, whether that's lending you something or giving you half my pie.

Copying means there are now two of them and you and I have one each.

It's called COPYright not SHAREright for a reason, which is also why the whole libraries comparison is irrelevant.

Thieves make a great effort to steal unlocked phones as that typically allows them access to financial/pay apps.

It's a valid question: the earth's geothermal heat flux is 100mW per square meter so the first-order renewable component is pretty negligible. Anything more than that and you are cooling rocks.

Rock has a heat capacity of around 2MJ per degree per cubic meter, suggesting that a cubic km of rock gives you 2E15 J of energy per degree, meaning that cooling it by 1.5 degree per year would provide 100MW of heat as opposed to the 100KW of natural heat flux.

Hopefully what happens then is that the lower temperature of the rock you are directly cooling cools the surrounding rock enough that your thermal effective area and volume are much larger than the area and volume you are cooling directly.

First, Ms Simons, who is presumably not a science graduate, has yet to realise that neither wine or beer are 100% alcohol. That 5-ounce pour of wine contains around 0.6 - 0.7 ounces of alcohol. In fact, 25g of alcohol is one third of a typical bottle of wine.

Second, it DOES show that moderate drinking decreases mortality for men.

This study is extremely good new for people (men in particular) who like a drink. In the UK, government advice is a maximum of 112 grams (14*8g) of alcohol per week, whereas this study shows that 0-25g PER DAY slightly decreases mortality in both sexes (although to be fair for women the figure is small enough to be lost in the noise).

For men 25-45g per day only increases mortality by 1%.

The post is misleading. As you say the loop won't execute, the problem is that after the loop the program accesses argv[n] on the assumption that it's the last argument.

Obviously this is a problem if argc is zero, but it's presumably also a problem if argc is 1.

The original summary stated that the IRS reckon that running a car costs 58c per mile. The driver drove 291 miles that week, meaning that the IRS estimate that cost him $169, so his claimed income of $257 was only in fact $88.

It is particularly strange that the driver did not think to consider his car costs when calculating his income given that only that week he had spent $430 on car maintenance.

He made $257 before expenses at the cost of putting 291 miles ($169) on his car, which he ignores by only counting the fuel cost despite having spent $430 on car maintenance that week. So that's a nett of $88 for 13.75 hours work.

Many other numerate people have made the same point: car-based gig work only appears to make sense if you ignore the cost of running the car.

This is a common misconception. Measuring the preserved photon alone tells you nothing about the remote photon. It's only when you measure both photons that you see that the correlation between the value pairs is different than if the photons were not entangled.
The article makes it clear you would need to measure the reflected photon.

By far the most interesting statement on this comes from Iain Martin at the Daily Telegraph, who says that at the time RBS (a fairly small bank) took over the much-larger and more established NatWest bank:

> His team worked out quickly that the NatWest system was superior to the RBS computer system.... Then they crunched the numbers and
> confirmed that sticking with plan A and migrating NatWest's customers onto RBS's inferior and cheaper to run system would save more money.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/iainmartin1/100248741/why-the-rbs-computer-keeps-saying-no/

The rest, as they say, is history...

This isn't just Volvo, it was passed into law in 1997 by the Swedish parliament and now drives road design, etc.

I know, I didn't believe it either.

John