Sayonara

Exeem is still in public beta. Give it a while.

If they can, they'll reverse engineer it and develop their own version from there. You can't patent "doing something", only how it's done.

One can feel hungry. She should learn to phrase her questions less ambiguously.

So there's no moral differentiation between ****ing another nation over for oil during a time of plentiful resources, and during a time of resource dearth?

OK, fine. You go attack NK for no real reason, and see what happens.

They weren't caught either. They weren't even approached afaik. The decision to close Suprnova was internal and tactical. They were already developing Exceem, and quite rightly pulled the plug early on the service that other providers were being legally beasted for.

That's. The. POINT. Now you have acknowledged that unambiguously, I expect this discussion to move on. I have not said I think that, so I can't imagine why you're asking me.

That's somewhat disturbing.

And yet it still happens. Get that through your skull, and you might see what all the fuss is about.

Suprnova did not "sell out".

That's simply not true (the last bit, not the first bit), since they had shelved their entire nuclear programme, and only reactivated it last year. It's not like this all happened in secret.

Then we will simply have to disagree.

I have fully migrated all my web dev stuff and email accounts etc to Linux now, so it's only Half Life 2, FirstClass and Macromedia Studio that can drag me back to WinXP. Linux is ace.

Despite any laziness or denial going on, this question has been answered.

Agreed - it's nice to have a proper debate once in a while Like you I'm up to my tired eyes in stuff, so I'll reply just as soon as I can!

Basically it exagerrated everything. There was a media shit-storm over it; I'm surprised you don't remember reading it in the massive "War on Iraq?" thread.

Quantum computing is not a "hoax", you idiot.

Directing the thread in a way that keeps it on-topic is (a) not "complaining", and (b) part of my job. It's funny you should ask that, because the majority of the posts I see you making ask irrelevant questions, or poke fun at the imprecise wording of posts. I suggest you stop it.

I am not interpreting the meaning of his question. What I am doing is stating what he is asking for, because your response was not it. His question is vague, but that doesn't mean we should reinvent it for him as something else and then answer that instead, or ask questions that don't make sense in the context he is using. If this is the case (and I'm not saying I subscribe to that notion, since agriculture uses the calendar as a general notifier, not a means of synchronisation) then the appropriate response would be in the form "one minimum requirement is the ability to track time." Whether or not the society actually does fulfill that requirement does not matter to you or to me (not least of all because he's obviously considering a hypothetical society that will be based on the requirements.)

He's asking for the minimum requirements of an arbitrary entity. Nebulous attributes such as "level of technology" are self-evidently not a factor. [edit] I should probably expand on that: The aforementioned attribute is a criterion for a method, not for the requirement that calls that method.

A quick search reveals that - as I suspected - it was atm's argument and not yours: http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=6332 The post that made me say that appears to have been deleted. Damned communists.

Well, you can call that what you like, but the bottom line is that in my original post - which you are taking issue with - I posed no requirements either for sole consideration of invasion conditions, nor for consideration of invasion conditions per se. Hello strawman. The daisy cutters themselves are merely an easily-remembered pointer for a temporal location. If you want me to be more specific, or less glib, say so; don't turn to semantic pedantry. Actually I can, and I have done - as has atinymonkey. We* did make promises, and have not fulfilled them. I am quite aware that "not yet fulfilled this promise" is not the same as breaking a promise, but then I have not at any point accused anyone of breaking promises, so I am not beholden to that criterion. * by which I mean variously the UK, the coalition, and/or the signatories to the Bonn Agreement.

You're telling us about objectivity? Mr "this elephant-shaped rock on Mars is evidence of current elephant life"?

I don't care; not about their relationship, and not about any implications the tabloids can make up. "Royal man in normal human responses shocker" is a complete non-story. (...does that count as an opinion?)