Dunno about the others, but in the UK we're running as fast as we can to catch up with the US in terms of charging for university education. When I started my degree (2003) it cost approx £1000 a year, with grants for poorer incomes etc, and with up to about £4000 a year student loans (which you don't start repaying until you earn more than a set threshold). Couple of years later it goes to £3000 a year tuition, and in the last couple of years got changed to a maximum £9000 a year - which is what the majority of respectable institutions are charging now.
You are arguing that we shouldn't have society? What is best for society and best for an individual are not always the same thing. It may be best for you not to pay for other people's education - I presume you paid for yours? - but it is better for society for people to be educated.
In the case of people with difficulties the moral argument is that we can afford, as a society, to help those who are less fortunate. Tell me: if you ever lose your job will you and your family starve to death on principle, because you can't morally justify accepting support that society may give you?
So if the plurality of people around you want to own other people, or to decide that some people don't deserve the same rights as others, or any other number of things, then you should put up or up and move? From what I know of US history that's not what always happened...
If you're developing a control application then something that disappears off looking for garbage every once in a while might be a bad thing. Obviously this is not hard real-time, but even if it's a soft real-time application the GC might be a bit much.
Nor does the person texting... it is a privilege with certain requirements such as licensing, sobriety etc. Or would you rather we just ditched all the rules regarding driving? No lights, no speed limits, no white lines, no rules and no responsibility? If that's your opinion then fair enough, I can't begin to describe the depths of the stupidity I think you must possess to believe that, but at least you're committed. I'd wager that it's not though.
You think you are safe when driving on the phone, maybe you are. People think they are safe when they are drunk, tired, incompetent, speeding, have a poorly maintained vehicle and countless other reasons. So given that body of evidence, what are the odds that you only think you are safe - herein lies the problem with being distracted: you don't actually _know_ how you are driving because you are not paying attention - when in fact you are not? Making that kind of rational assessment of one's own abilities, especially related to something as ego charged as driving is difficult and rarely achieved.
Oh, also since they are public highways I _do_ have a right to be on the road where I live, you fuckwit, and the requirements for the privilege of driving (or any other road use) are that you do not, through intent or negligence, endanger other road users. You are also required to give extra consideration to more vulnerable road users than yourself. Perhaps the laws are backwards where you are, but that's what they are here - of course also texting and non-hands-free calls are also illegal. People also get charged for eating whilst driving, having music on at a distracting volume, and a number of other driving while distracted offences.
For a reductio ad absurdium: Would you allow someone to drive a car with great big spikes, packed with sensitive explosives, whilst drunk, near a school at chucking out time, taking pot-shots at road furniture with an automatic weapon? As long as no-one gets hurt then no harm done right?
The thing that irritates me most is that I never see people like you arguing to repeal laws that protect you from people who might be a bit upset when your ridiculous actions endanger them. You want no ban on texting, fine, I want no ban on following you home and smashing up your car, burning down your house and kicking you hard in the nuts when your selfish actions endanger me. That can be the risk you take for driving with unconscionable disregard for others.
Because as someone who also uses the roads I'd prefer not to be selected out of the gene pool by some cunt who has some desperate need to send texts and make calls whilst in the middle of dense, fast moving rush hour traffic. Not all rules are there to protect you from yourself...
Those are digits in the 0-10 range right? So you have a key space of 10^13, which is 0x918 4e72 a000, or 44 bits. So the 90 pixels could easily be more than enough. My information theory is a bit wobbly, but I think that works. Unless your encoding is horribly inefficient you've got plenty of samples there. Also if you're being smart you could probably read the barcode diagonally to gain some extra information.
I'm with you on the taking personal responsibility front, but I think you have to accept that some people are pretty damned stupid. You've got a guy Bob who doesn't read too well, who doesn't have a grasp of numbers past what he can manage on his fingers and you're suggesting that it is entirely his responsibility when the guy Bill, in a suit, who probably introduced himself as an adviser (when he's actually just a salesman), who claims to know what's best for Bob and Bob's family, and hey Bill's got to be right - look at his swanky office and shiny car - tells Bob he can have everything he's ever wanted, just sign here and let Bill worry about it. You can't see anything wrong with that?
Richest society in the world (the US) and they can't provide an education system that means Bob can do the simple maths and reasoning you suggest he should. Culture that emphasises get rich quick, that denies that hard work is the way most people have done well for themselves, and hence leads people to believe the guy telling them that they can have whatever they want if they would only ask. Politics so polarised and detached from reality that passing regulation to protect Bob and many like him who may not make the best decisions for themselves would be seen as un-American - and a government so tarnished in the populace's eyes that they cannot believe the government would ever do anything to help them (look at healthcare - you're in Belgium, I'm in the UK, how's the healthcare for the low income people where we are? We all know what it's like in the US...) and so they'll rail against the guy who is actually trying to do something that will make their lives better. If you as an investor bought shares in a company you don't expect to be bailed out if the company fails - you should have researched better the stability and potential of the country, and you accept some amount of loss due to the unpredictable. All investments have an element of risk. If you give all your money to the guys that put up posters on roadsigns "make $300 a week for just $50!!!!!" then you're a fool, but if the bank gives all their money to an equally ludicrous scheme then apparently they don't take any responsibility? Doesn't seem quite right to me.
You can argue for no regulation, no protection, no nanny-state etc. but you have to see that there is a limit to that train of thought. Otherwise let's remove all the speed limits, legalize all the drugs, remove all the workplace safety standards, living standards, construction standards. Get rid of the EPA and the FDA. Sell booze and cigarettes to children and on and on... We have speed limits because people are bad at calculating the risks of driving too fast, we make drugs illegal because most people can't control their drug usage (I'm not saying it works, but it's the justification), we have health and safety/OHSA/whatever because our employers wouldn't worry too much about killing us otherwise. The thing is whilst you may be an excellent judge of risk, the guy who runs you down doing 90mph in the middle of town isn't. The junkie who knifes you for your wallet is probably beyond accounting for risks. Perhaps when your son/daughter gets that first minimum wage job at a factory the unsafe machine dismembers their hand. For you as an individual these protections may make no sense - you can clearly make sound financial judgements - but as a society we need these protections because the mistakes of some people affect all of us. Everyone has been in some way affected by the fallout from sub-prime mortgages, whether they made good decisions, bad decisions or no decisions. Like it or not we are all interconnected (except, to some extent, that top 1% who have so much they really aren't materially affected by the same stuff as the rest of us) and thus we need rules and protection for ourselves against ourselves.
So given that you have a choice, and that you consider there to be a right and a wrong choice, and that not everyone will agree with you about that right and wrong choice what are you actually proposing? On an individual level if you choose a course that harms you that is your problem, and I don't really care what people choose to do with their lives and their bodies as long as it doesn't impact on other peoples lives. If you are enacting social policy to control the spread of disease then that's not really relevant. You can remove the people perceived as causing harm (e.g. leper colonies), you can make it simple, easy and almost inexcusable to cause harm (free condoms, free needles, free blood tests etc.) and you can educate people about the consequences of their actions which should lead them to make the right choice. The first option is, for various reasons, far from ideal and certainly not humanitarian even if possible. The third option is the only way to achieve what you propose: that people determine what is best for themselves and act accordingly - but I think the evidence that this approach doesn't work for an awful lot of people is fairly apparent: the prisoners, the drug addicts, the STD sufferers, the drunk drivers, the teenage mothers, the morbidly obese, the smokers and whoever else you can think of that has not made good decisions for themselves (and bear in mind that they may think that they _have_ made good decisions for themselves) all suggest that there is large proportion of people who don't always make those choices. So that leaves the second option: accept human nature and minimize harm through whatever means are available.
Answers to the following please: What is wrong with promiscuity except for the risk of spreading disease and unwanted pregnancy (since both of those are, without religious interference, effectively solved problems)? Why does the desire to have sex need to be controlled in a way that the desire to eat unhealthily doesn't? Why, if we are willing to accommodate so many of people's different desires, personal choices and individual differences is it such a problem to accommodate their sexual desires, choices and differences?
Spontaneous refers to the lack of any obvious ignition source (except the cigarettes they smoked, or the fire they 'fell asleep' next to - but I digress). If an empty desk in my office were to start smoldering and eventually flames appeared that would be spontaneous combustion as much as if the whole thing suddenly burst into flame.
I concur. Everyone gets stuck on what (programming) language to teach, rather than just teaching some useful fundamental skills in whatever language happens to be convenient. My Dad has a better variety of better tools in his garage than the school DT (shop or whatever else you want to call it) labs did, that didn't stop me learning how to measure things, the difference between a wasting and non-wasting process, the basic properties of woods, metals and plastics and various other things. I'm no cabinet maker, but it has served me well in life to have some basic understanding of the principles, the specific tools used to gain those skills aren't nearly as relevant.
We got an LG 3D TV at work which has LG's truemotion. At first glance, with slow FPS material this does 'smooth' the image a lot - the slow FPS stuff has noticeable flicker almost like a cinema screen - the truemotion looks more 'solid'. After a few seconds you see how they've done it - it's almost like MPEG motion detection - you will see certain blocks that move across the screen. Quite often this is effective, but some material confuses it - in one sequence following a bicycle down the street the gravel on the pavement appears to start moving with the bicycle - clearly the noisy material has confused the algorithm and it has interpreted it as a moving patch rather and predicted some motion to generate extra frames. Occasionally pieces of things (including one guys head) get attached to something and start moving with it. Hard to spot if you aren't looking for it, but very weird when you do
On that note, someone needs to educate people on the correct occasions to use foglights (there's a clue in the name somewhere). Yes it's cool to have front foglights on your car, but you don't actually need them for anything but very bad conditions (so bad you should be turning your headlights off and using the front foglights exclusively). Turning them on in the rain reflects a lot of light back into your eyes and makes your night vision worse, and reflects a lot of light into my eyes, making me very scared. Heading towards some idiot who can't see where he's going, and is preventing you from seeing where you're going when you don't have the big steel safety box around you is not pleasant...
Sorry but you've missed the point. Here's an example: Let's say that someone develops a system that can record smells - a camera for bouquet if you will - in a numerical format. At a similar time someone develops a system that can reproduce a huge range of smells based on a numerical input. For argument these inventions will be considered public domain - no patents, licenses etc. Using them has all the legal liabilities of using addition. Now to you, me and anyone who is still reading this gibberish it is quite obvious that there is probably a way of taking the numbers from the first system and feeding them into the second to reproduce a smell. You could add in some storage to reproduce smells at a later point. You could add in a computer and process smells, combining them etc. You could put the machines at either end of the world via the internet and transmit smells. I'm sure that we could come up with a huge list of things that could be done, because given the two technologies there are _obvious_ applications. You argue that the first person to think of them should be granted a monopoly on them.
Patents should apply to the revolutionary and ground breaking inventions. The first transistor changed the world and is a patentable work. What we have at the moment is a situation where people patent 'using two transistors', 'using three transistors', 'using four transistors and a light bulb' as if they had come up with some revolutionary new invention, when actually all they did was join a few things together.
I'm not sure taxing essential safety equipment is prudent. With that thinking you might as well start taxing brake pads (people who drive inefficiently will wear them faster). What could possibly go wrong...
In some areas the eradication of DDT lead to increased harm because it's really good at killing off mosquitoes. Things are rarely black and white. As an example you mention lung cancer in another post. Excepting smoking the most likely cause I presume is air pollution. So should we remove all sources of air pollution that may cause lung cancer? Turn off all our fossil-fuelled power plants, industry and scrap our cars?
And they recovered a handgun from the scene. There aren't a lot of armed police in the UK, and they don't just open fire because you looked at them funny. The very fact that they were present for an organised arrest suggests the police considered him to be very dangerous. We won't know exactly what happened for a while because every single police shooting gets investigated thoroughly, but my money is on the guy having done something that made the police officer(s) think he was reaching for a gun and therefore shot him to prevent him from injuring anyone. The UK law only permits the police (and the public for that matter) to use deadly force if they have good reason to believe that deadly force will be used against them or someone else.
Except that the poor appear to be taking on the poor. They're not running into the city and burning porsches, they're burning down small family businesses in their own neighbourhoods. Listen to this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14458424 and tell me that these people are making some kind of thought out protest against their oppressors.
Thing is though, if we could somehow send information (for want of a better term) at a speed greater than light then we'd be able to tell our past selves just that....
There are some quite interesting videos from Dounreay Site Restoration showing some of their work - feeding cameras deep into the reactor and through bits of pipework to check if there are traces of the coolant left etc.
I thought that was dependent on you wanting to maintain your citizenship. Presumably one of the implications of 'if you don't like it then leave' is that you would give up US citizenship. The UK also requires you to pay income tax so long as you are treated as a resident, and will give you a tax credit for many countries where you have already paid income tax. I doubt it's just the UK and US - the potential for tax-dodging is enormous otherwise.
Slashdot Mirror
Dunno about the others, but in the UK we're running as fast as we can to catch up with the US in terms of charging for university education. When I started my degree (2003) it cost approx £1000 a year, with grants for poorer incomes etc, and with up to about £4000 a year student loans (which you don't start repaying until you earn more than a set threshold). Couple of years later it goes to £3000 a year tuition, and in the last couple of years got changed to a maximum £9000 a year - which is what the majority of respectable institutions are charging now.
You are arguing that we shouldn't have society? What is best for society and best for an individual are not always the same thing. It may be best for you not to pay for other people's education - I presume you paid for yours? - but it is better for society for people to be educated.
In the case of people with difficulties the moral argument is that we can afford, as a society, to help those who are less fortunate. Tell me: if you ever lose your job will you and your family starve to death on principle, because you can't morally justify accepting support that society may give you?
So if the plurality of people around you want to own other people, or to decide that some people don't deserve the same rights as others, or any other number of things, then you should put up or up and move? From what I know of US history that's not what always happened...
If you're developing a control application then something that disappears off looking for garbage every once in a while might be a bad thing. Obviously this is not hard real-time, but even if it's a soft real-time application the GC might be a bit much.
Nor does the person texting... it is a privilege with certain requirements such as licensing, sobriety etc. Or would you rather we just ditched all the rules regarding driving? No lights, no speed limits, no white lines, no rules and no responsibility? If that's your opinion then fair enough, I can't begin to describe the depths of the stupidity I think you must possess to believe that, but at least you're committed. I'd wager that it's not though.
You think you are safe when driving on the phone, maybe you are. People think they are safe when they are drunk, tired, incompetent, speeding, have a poorly maintained vehicle and countless other reasons. So given that body of evidence, what are the odds that you only think you are safe - herein lies the problem with being distracted: you don't actually _know_ how you are driving because you are not paying attention - when in fact you are not? Making that kind of rational assessment of one's own abilities, especially related to something as ego charged as driving is difficult and rarely achieved.
Oh, also since they are public highways I _do_ have a right to be on the road where I live, you fuckwit, and the requirements for the privilege of driving (or any other road use) are that you do not, through intent or negligence, endanger other road users. You are also required to give extra consideration to more vulnerable road users than yourself. Perhaps the laws are backwards where you are, but that's what they are here - of course also texting and non-hands-free calls are also illegal. People also get charged for eating whilst driving, having music on at a distracting volume, and a number of other driving while distracted offences.
For a reductio ad absurdium: Would you allow someone to drive a car with great big spikes, packed with sensitive explosives, whilst drunk, near a school at chucking out time, taking pot-shots at road furniture with an automatic weapon? As long as no-one gets hurt then no harm done right?
The thing that irritates me most is that I never see people like you arguing to repeal laws that protect you from people who might be a bit upset when your ridiculous actions endanger them. You want no ban on texting, fine, I want no ban on following you home and smashing up your car, burning down your house and kicking you hard in the nuts when your selfish actions endanger me. That can be the risk you take for driving with unconscionable disregard for others.
Because as someone who also uses the roads I'd prefer not to be selected out of the gene pool by some cunt who has some desperate need to send texts and make calls whilst in the middle of dense, fast moving rush hour traffic. Not all rules are there to protect you from yourself...
Actually in this universe not all days are the same length...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leap_second
Those are digits in the 0-10 range right? So you have a key space of 10^13, which is 0x918 4e72 a000, or 44 bits. So the 90 pixels could easily be more than enough. My information theory is a bit wobbly, but I think that works. Unless your encoding is horribly inefficient you've got plenty of samples there. Also if you're being smart you could probably read the barcode diagonally to gain some extra information.
I'm with you on the taking personal responsibility front, but I think you have to accept that some people are pretty damned stupid. You've got a guy Bob who doesn't read too well, who doesn't have a grasp of numbers past what he can manage on his fingers and you're suggesting that it is entirely his responsibility when the guy Bill, in a suit, who probably introduced himself as an adviser (when he's actually just a salesman), who claims to know what's best for Bob and Bob's family, and hey Bill's got to be right - look at his swanky office and shiny car - tells Bob he can have everything he's ever wanted, just sign here and let Bill worry about it. You can't see anything wrong with that?
Richest society in the world (the US) and they can't provide an education system that means Bob can do the simple maths and reasoning you suggest he should. Culture that emphasises get rich quick, that denies that hard work is the way most people have done well for themselves, and hence leads people to believe the guy telling them that they can have whatever they want if they would only ask. Politics so polarised and detached from reality that passing regulation to protect Bob and many like him who may not make the best decisions for themselves would be seen as un-American - and a government so tarnished in the populace's eyes that they cannot believe the government would ever do anything to help them (look at healthcare - you're in Belgium, I'm in the UK, how's the healthcare for the low income people where we are? We all know what it's like in the US...) and so they'll rail against the guy who is actually trying to do something that will make their lives better. If you as an investor bought shares in a company you don't expect to be bailed out if the company fails - you should have researched better the stability and potential of the country, and you accept some amount of loss due to the unpredictable. All investments have an element of risk. If you give all your money to the guys that put up posters on roadsigns "make $300 a week for just $50!!!!!" then you're a fool, but if the bank gives all their money to an equally ludicrous scheme then apparently they don't take any responsibility? Doesn't seem quite right to me.
You can argue for no regulation, no protection, no nanny-state etc. but you have to see that there is a limit to that train of thought. Otherwise let's remove all the speed limits, legalize all the drugs, remove all the workplace safety standards, living standards, construction standards. Get rid of the EPA and the FDA. Sell booze and cigarettes to children and on and on... We have speed limits because people are bad at calculating the risks of driving too fast, we make drugs illegal because most people can't control their drug usage (I'm not saying it works, but it's the justification), we have health and safety/OHSA/whatever because our employers wouldn't worry too much about killing us otherwise. The thing is whilst you may be an excellent judge of risk, the guy who runs you down doing 90mph in the middle of town isn't. The junkie who knifes you for your wallet is probably beyond accounting for risks. Perhaps when your son/daughter gets that first minimum wage job at a factory the unsafe machine dismembers their hand. For you as an individual these protections may make no sense - you can clearly make sound financial judgements - but as a society we need these protections because the mistakes of some people affect all of us. Everyone has been in some way affected by the fallout from sub-prime mortgages, whether they made good decisions, bad decisions or no decisions. Like it or not we are all interconnected (except, to some extent, that top 1% who have so much they really aren't materially affected by the same stuff as the rest of us) and thus we need rules and protection for ourselves against ourselves.
So given that you have a choice, and that you consider there to be a right and a wrong choice, and that not everyone will agree with you about that right and wrong choice what are you actually proposing? On an individual level if you choose a course that harms you that is your problem, and I don't really care what people choose to do with their lives and their bodies as long as it doesn't impact on other peoples lives. If you are enacting social policy to control the spread of disease then that's not really relevant. You can remove the people perceived as causing harm (e.g. leper colonies), you can make it simple, easy and almost inexcusable to cause harm (free condoms, free needles, free blood tests etc.) and you can educate people about the consequences of their actions which should lead them to make the right choice. The first option is, for various reasons, far from ideal and certainly not humanitarian even if possible. The third option is the only way to achieve what you propose: that people determine what is best for themselves and act accordingly - but I think the evidence that this approach doesn't work for an awful lot of people is fairly apparent: the prisoners, the drug addicts, the STD sufferers, the drunk drivers, the teenage mothers, the morbidly obese, the smokers and whoever else you can think of that has not made good decisions for themselves (and bear in mind that they may think that they _have_ made good decisions for themselves) all suggest that there is large proportion of people who don't always make those choices. So that leaves the second option: accept human nature and minimize harm through whatever means are available.
Answers to the following please: What is wrong with promiscuity except for the risk of spreading disease and unwanted pregnancy (since both of those are, without religious interference, effectively solved problems)? Why does the desire to have sex need to be controlled in a way that the desire to eat unhealthily doesn't? Why, if we are willing to accommodate so many of people's different desires, personal choices and individual differences is it such a problem to accommodate their sexual desires, choices and differences?
Spontaneous refers to the lack of any obvious ignition source (except the cigarettes they smoked, or the fire they 'fell asleep' next to - but I digress). If an empty desk in my office were to start smoldering and eventually flames appeared that would be spontaneous combustion as much as if the whole thing suddenly burst into flame.
I concur. Everyone gets stuck on what (programming) language to teach, rather than just teaching some useful fundamental skills in whatever language happens to be convenient. My Dad has a better variety of better tools in his garage than the school DT (shop or whatever else you want to call it) labs did, that didn't stop me learning how to measure things, the difference between a wasting and non-wasting process, the basic properties of woods, metals and plastics and various other things. I'm no cabinet maker, but it has served me well in life to have some basic understanding of the principles, the specific tools used to gain those skills aren't nearly as relevant.
You want to work for the TSA?
We got an LG 3D TV at work which has LG's truemotion. At first glance, with slow FPS material this does 'smooth' the image a lot - the slow FPS stuff has noticeable flicker almost like a cinema screen - the truemotion looks more 'solid'. After a few seconds you see how they've done it - it's almost like MPEG motion detection - you will see certain blocks that move across the screen. Quite often this is effective, but some material confuses it - in one sequence following a bicycle down the street the gravel on the pavement appears to start moving with the bicycle - clearly the noisy material has confused the algorithm and it has interpreted it as a moving patch rather and predicted some motion to generate extra frames. Occasionally pieces of things (including one guys head) get attached to something and start moving with it. Hard to spot if you aren't looking for it, but very weird when you do
On that note, someone needs to educate people on the correct occasions to use foglights (there's a clue in the name somewhere). Yes it's cool to have front foglights on your car, but you don't actually need them for anything but very bad conditions (so bad you should be turning your headlights off and using the front foglights exclusively). Turning them on in the rain reflects a lot of light back into your eyes and makes your night vision worse, and reflects a lot of light into my eyes, making me very scared. Heading towards some idiot who can't see where he's going, and is preventing you from seeing where you're going when you don't have the big steel safety box around you is not pleasant...
Sorry but you've missed the point. Here's an example: Let's say that someone develops a system that can record smells - a camera for bouquet if you will - in a numerical format. At a similar time someone develops a system that can reproduce a huge range of smells based on a numerical input. For argument these inventions will be considered public domain - no patents, licenses etc. Using them has all the legal liabilities of using addition. Now to you, me and anyone who is still reading this gibberish it is quite obvious that there is probably a way of taking the numbers from the first system and feeding them into the second to reproduce a smell. You could add in some storage to reproduce smells at a later point. You could add in a computer and process smells, combining them etc. You could put the machines at either end of the world via the internet and transmit smells. I'm sure that we could come up with a huge list of things that could be done, because given the two technologies there are _obvious_ applications. You argue that the first person to think of them should be granted a monopoly on them.
Patents should apply to the revolutionary and ground breaking inventions. The first transistor changed the world and is a patentable work. What we have at the moment is a situation where people patent 'using two transistors', 'using three transistors', 'using four transistors and a light bulb' as if they had come up with some revolutionary new invention, when actually all they did was join a few things together.
I'm not sure taxing essential safety equipment is prudent. With that thinking you might as well start taxing brake pads (people who drive inefficiently will wear them faster). What could possibly go wrong...
In some areas the eradication of DDT lead to increased harm because it's really good at killing off mosquitoes. Things are rarely black and white. As an example you mention lung cancer in another post. Excepting smoking the most likely cause I presume is air pollution. So should we remove all sources of air pollution that may cause lung cancer? Turn off all our fossil-fuelled power plants, industry and scrap our cars?
And they recovered a handgun from the scene. There aren't a lot of armed police in the UK, and they don't just open fire because you looked at them funny. The very fact that they were present for an organised arrest suggests the police considered him to be very dangerous. We won't know exactly what happened for a while because every single police shooting gets investigated thoroughly, but my money is on the guy having done something that made the police officer(s) think he was reaching for a gun and therefore shot him to prevent him from injuring anyone. The UK law only permits the police (and the public for that matter) to use deadly force if they have good reason to believe that deadly force will be used against them or someone else.
Except that the poor appear to be taking on the poor. They're not running into the city and burning porsches, they're burning down small family businesses in their own neighbourhoods. Listen to this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14458424 and tell me that these people are making some kind of thought out protest against their oppressors.
Thing is though, if we could somehow send information (for want of a better term) at a speed greater than light then we'd be able to tell our past selves just that....
Some mod points for AC please? This is a brilliant post.
There are some quite interesting videos from Dounreay Site Restoration showing some of their work - feeding cameras deep into the reactor and through bits of pipework to check if there are traces of the coolant left etc.
http://www.dounreay.com/news-room/dounreay-tv
It's 20%, but books are exempt.
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/vat/forms-rates/rates/goods-services.htm#7
I thought that was dependent on you wanting to maintain your citizenship. Presumably one of the implications of 'if you don't like it then leave' is that you would give up US citizenship. The UK also requires you to pay income tax so long as you are treated as a resident, and will give you a tax credit for many countries where you have already paid income tax. I doubt it's just the UK and US - the potential for tax-dodging is enormous otherwise.