Ah but in England at least trespassing is usually only a civil crime
Fixed that for ya. The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act of 1994 criminalised some cases of trespass.
Fixed that for you.
Don't generalize England to the entire UK.
I didn't make any such generalisation. I was fully aware of the different situation in Scotland (it may well be different again in Northern Ireland -- I don't know), so what I wrote was carefully phrased so avoid any such generalisation. Read it again.
Because it smooths out the idiot factor and the lunatic fringe. Children are not their parents' property, to be done with as the parents wish; there comes a point where keeping them ignorant of the world becomes abuse. Now, I'm not saying that not letting a child read 1984 is abusive, but it does seem indicative of a mindset that might be. It doesn't ring alarm bells, but it does flash a discreet amber warning light.
Such a framework seems like a very bad idea. For one thing, on the scale of the US such a thing would be unworkable. But even if you scale it to a manageable size, I don't think it's appropriate. Dictating that level of control over the classroom in a bureaucratic fashion works in something of a least common denominator fashion in my experience.
I agree that there's a debate to be had about the level of smoothing needed, and the USA as a whole might be too big an entity, might provide such heavy damping that nothing at all can be done and might lead to the least common denominator effect. I think in the UK the syllabus setting is at the right level, but there is too much bureaucratic interference in how it is taught. But a teacher having to ask permission before even recommending (not mandating) a book to a child, as one person cited, is way too much parental power, and quite simply makes the situation for kids of idiots and/or bigots even worse than it already is.
In any event, and for any book, I don't see how there's possibly any problem with a teacher asking the parent if he/she is comfortable with a suggestion.
I don't see anything wrong with the teacher asking. I see a lot wrong with the teacher feeling that they had to ask.
It is sad that you see Freedom of Expression, one of the Human Rights, as a privilege that can be taken away instead of an inalienable right.
The right to liberty is also one of the Human Rights, at least according to the Univeral Declaration of Human Rights, but I notice that you didn't complain about "If you beat a guy with an iron bar you go to jail."
Another Human Right is "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment", and it could be argued that some cases of internet lying and bullying constitute "cruel" or "degrading" treatment, so the issue is balancing conflicting rights. How do you propose that be managed, without restricting the rights of those who abuse them?
But you might notice that the real story bears practically no resemblance whatsoever to the story posted -- the AC is entirely correct that what the Express [spit] says is going to happen ain't going to happen in the forseeable (because nobody is proposing it -- yet, at least), and is entirely correct that the gutter press has seriously misrepresented this story. The bit that is pure 1984 (yes, I have read it) is that the press is lying to us, not the surveillance aspect.
In a world where everyone has a degree, only those with PhDs will get the good jobs. The other difference will be that you will need a degree in transportation in order to drive a van.
There's a degree of truth in that. At my gym all of the receptionists -- whose job is to swipe my membership card and hand me a towel, and to maintain the trainers' appointment book -- all proudly display their degree certificates in "Hospitality Management". I don't know what the degree entails, but assuming it really is a degree level course I'm damn sure you don't need it to do their job, and those who might be far better at the meet-and-greet public-facing work but who are not academically able are unnecessarily excluded.
I disagree with your first point. Without the welfare state, they would have to work, because the alternative would be worse for them.
Nice theory -- when there is work. But I don't think unemployment is rising in the UK at the moment because fewer people want to work, or because not working has been made more attractive. It's because their services are not wanted by anybody -- at least, not enough to pay them. And if they have no legal way to support themselves a few will commit suicide and the vast majority will turn to illegal ways. That would be a pretty certain way to make this a very dangerous place to be.
Your reaction is pure hyperbole, even though I do not agree with some of the social engineering that is being down by the state (such as the issuance of ASBOs as a step under the criminal justice system).
It has also led to the systematic demonisation of the working class
The chavscum this is aimed at are shirking class, not working class. Some of them are third generation dole bludgers, and most have never done an honest day's work in their lives.
A single 357 magnum round to just about any part of this thing will have it crashing to the ground. These things are way more fragile than a biker on PCP.
A single round from *any* gun would be enough to persuade me to stop chasing him.
I disagree almost completely. It sounds like you're urging a bureaucratic solution whereby there's no direct contact between teachers and parents.
Not "no contact", but I don't think a local group of parents should be able to set the syllabus. Here in the UK the syllabus is set nationally, and although I do have reservations about the amount the government dictates *how* the syllabus is taught, I think it's a good thing we have a national syllabus.
If you're talking about reading over and above the syllabus, back in the 1960s I was given a very extensive recommended reading list (1984 was on it) and my parents decided which of the books I could read (they didn't place any restrictions on it, because my teachers were perfectly aware of what was appropriate for my age). A couple of years ago my daughter was given a very extensive recommended reading list (1984 was on it) and I decided which of the books she could read (I didn't place any restrictions on it, because her teachers were perfectly aware of what was appropriate for her age). In neither case did the teachers ask or need permission from the parents to recommend the books.
Many years ago when procuring a data processing system for air traffic control, one bidder had buried in their small print that they retained copyright on all data produced by their system. We didn't buy that system (the copyright claim was an influence) so I don't know how it would have played out in court.
You are dead right. I for one would call "not being poisoned by organophosphorus residues" a health benefit.
I wonder who paid for this study and then chose the report's title.
If you follow the links (yes, I know, this is/.) you will find that it covered overall health effects, not just nutrition. You will also find that it was paid for by the UK's Food Standards Agency (FSA). I don't know who chose the report's title ("Organic Health Effects Review"). Presumably the FSA chose the title of the press release ("Organic Review Published"). Why? Do you find those titles biased or controversial?
However, the FSA press release doesn't seem to match the content of the report. The report was on a study of studies, looking at existing work rather than doing any new research. It found that the "because of the limited and highly variable data available, and concerns over the reliability of some reported findings, there is currently no evidence of a health benefit from consuming organic compared to conventionally produced foodstuffs". That is not the same as the FSA's claim that "there are no important differences in the nutrition content, or any additional health benefits, of organic food when compared with conventionally produced food" as the FSA say on the press release. The study showed that we don't know whether there are any health benefits, not that there are no health benefits. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. This suggests at least incompetence on the part of whoever did the press release, and possibly malice.
And lately, the past year or so, I wouldn't necessarily call them "hypermilers" but so many people seem unwilling to even get up to the speed limit, let alone exceed it by a few miles per hour, as if you're going to get a ticket for 48 in a 45... I know the police aren't going to give me a ticket for 5 miles over, and I often get passed by cops when doing so.
May be different in the USA to the UK. My wife recently had to do some speed awareness training to avoid losing her license, and one of the guys on the course had been ticketed for doing 32 in a 30 limit.
I'm sort of with that, except it means that you don't know what you can and can't do.
Actually, I would be amazed if there isn't such a clause in your laws in whatever country you live in already.
The offence here (UK) seems to be based on something going wrong with the actual driving -- an example given is "someone missing a traffic light turning green because they are singing along to their favourite tune a little too excitedly"; just "singing along to their favourite tune a little too excitedly" doesn't look as if it will do it.
The police and judges can't actually determine how much attention you were paying to what, and the person who is actually the safety driver on the road could end up in court because the authorities can't tell. I think there's a lot to be said for the sharp steel spike from the steering wheel to the driver's chest...
That is the price we pay for "innocent until found guilty--- lots of people gets off the hook until they actually cause some damage. Or learns how to drive with whatever distraction the world offers.
I'm more concerned with people failing to get off the hook when there was really nothing wrong with their driving.
And I know a lot of people who would not be distracted by your cute girl:)
True enough. Did I mention the hunky guy on the other side?
I see no other reasonable legislative route than "though shall not engage in overly distracting behavior while driving.", and letting the police & judges handle the rest.
I'm sort of with that, except it means that you don't know what you can and can't do. The police and judges can't actually determine how much attention you were paying to what, and the person who is actually the safety driver on the road could end up in court because the authorities can't tell. I think there's a lot to be said for the sharp steel spike from the steering wheel to the driver's chest...
The trouble is that everyone seems to be combining a huge spread of risks as if they were all the same. I don't see how anybody sane could try to text whilst driving, it just takes too much attention off the road. Talking on a hands-free isn't in the same league, and although it does represent some degree of distraction from the road I reckon it's not so much of a distraction as a cute girl in her summer clothes on the sidewalk. But maybe I shouldn't mention that, or the safety lobby will try to get them banned too:-(
Slashdot Mirror
This is because the client best knows the users browsing proclivities (most often viewed pages, favorite search engines, etc).
Nowadays I have a horrid suspicion that the server knows the user's browsing proclivities better than the client.
Ah but in England at least trespassing is usually only a civil crime
Fixed that for ya. The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act of 1994 criminalised some cases of trespass.
Fixed that for you.
Don't generalize England to the entire UK.
I didn't make any such generalisation. I was fully aware of the different situation in Scotland (it may well be different again in Northern Ireland -- I don't know), so what I wrote was carefully phrased so avoid any such generalisation. Read it again.
Does this mean that folks will only go there if their daughter has been murdered and they want to complain to God about it?
Why do you like a national syllabus?
Because it smooths out the idiot factor and the lunatic fringe. Children are not their parents' property, to be done with as the parents wish; there comes a point where keeping them ignorant of the world becomes abuse. Now, I'm not saying that not letting a child read 1984 is abusive, but it does seem indicative of a mindset that might be. It doesn't ring alarm bells, but it does flash a discreet amber warning light.
Such a framework seems like a very bad idea. For one thing, on the scale of the US such a thing would be unworkable. But even if you scale it to a manageable size, I don't think it's appropriate. Dictating that level of control over the classroom in a bureaucratic fashion works in something of a least common denominator fashion in my experience.
I agree that there's a debate to be had about the level of smoothing needed, and the USA as a whole might be too big an entity, might provide such heavy damping that nothing at all can be done and might lead to the least common denominator effect. I think in the UK the syllabus setting is at the right level, but there is too much bureaucratic interference in how it is taught. But a teacher having to ask permission before even recommending (not mandating) a book to a child, as one person cited, is way too much parental power, and quite simply makes the situation for kids of idiots and/or bigots even worse than it already is.
In any event, and for any book, I don't see how there's possibly any problem with a teacher asking the parent if he/she is comfortable with a suggestion.
I don't see anything wrong with the teacher asking. I see a lot wrong with the teacher feeling that they had to ask.
It is sad that you see Freedom of Expression, one of the Human Rights, as a privilege that can be taken away instead of an inalienable right.
The right to liberty is also one of the Human Rights, at least according to the Univeral Declaration of Human Rights, but I notice that you didn't complain about "If you beat a guy with an iron bar you go to jail."
Another Human Right is "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment", and it could be argued that some cases of internet lying and bullying constitute "cruel" or "degrading" treatment, so the issue is balancing conflicting rights. How do you propose that be managed, without restricting the rights of those who abuse them?
But you might notice that the real story bears practically no resemblance whatsoever to the story posted -- the AC is entirely correct that what the Express [spit] says is going to happen ain't going to happen in the forseeable (because nobody is proposing it -- yet, at least), and is entirely correct that the gutter press has seriously misrepresented this story. The bit that is pure 1984 (yes, I have read it) is that the press is lying to us, not the surveillance aspect.
In a world where everyone has a degree, only those with PhDs will get the good jobs. The other difference will be that you will need a degree in transportation in order to drive a van.
There's a degree of truth in that. At my gym all of the receptionists -- whose job is to swipe my membership card and hand me a towel, and to maintain the trainers' appointment book -- all proudly display their degree certificates in "Hospitality Management". I don't know what the degree entails, but assuming it really is a degree level course I'm damn sure you don't need it to do their job, and those who might be far better at the meet-and-greet public-facing work but who are not academically able are unnecessarily excluded.
I disagree with your first point. Without the welfare state, they would have to work, because the alternative would be worse for them.
Nice theory -- when there is work. But I don't think unemployment is rising in the UK at the moment because fewer people want to work, or because not working has been made more attractive. It's because their services are not wanted by anybody -- at least, not enough to pay them. And if they have no legal way to support themselves a few will commit suicide and the vast majority will turn to illegal ways. That would be a pretty certain way to make this a very dangerous place to be.
Your reaction is pure hyperbole, even though I do not agree with some of the social engineering that is being down by the state (such as the issuance of ASBOs as a step under the criminal justice system).
If you actually go to the source -
http://www.respect.gov.uk/members/article.aspx?id=8678
You can see that these families are offending and creating a poor environment for their communities.
I don't see anything in there about CCTVs -- are you sure that's the source?
Somebody mod parent insightful, even though they are AC.
The chavscum this is aimed at are shirking class, not working class. Some of them are third generation dole bludgers, and most have never done an honest day's work in their lives.
QED.
> I need to be afraid or can I outrun it?
No, because you are an American.
A single 357 magnum round to just about any part of this thing will have it crashing to the ground. These things are way more fragile than a biker on PCP.
A single round from *any* gun would be enough to persuade me to stop chasing him.
I disagree almost completely. It sounds like you're urging a bureaucratic solution whereby there's no direct contact between teachers and parents.
Not "no contact", but I don't think a local group of parents should be able to set the syllabus. Here in the UK the syllabus is set nationally, and although I do have reservations about the amount the government dictates *how* the syllabus is taught, I think it's a good thing we have a national syllabus.
If you're talking about reading over and above the syllabus, back in the 1960s I was given a very extensive recommended reading list (1984 was on it) and my parents decided which of the books I could read (they didn't place any restrictions on it, because my teachers were perfectly aware of what was appropriate for my age). A couple of years ago my daughter was given a very extensive recommended reading list (1984 was on it) and I decided which of the books she could read (I didn't place any restrictions on it, because her teachers were perfectly aware of what was appropriate for her age). In neither case did the teachers ask or need permission from the parents to recommend the books.
Of course they should have a say. They should exercise it through the ballot box.
Ah but in the UK at least trespassing is usually only a civil crime
Fixed that for ya. The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act of 1994 criminalised some cases of trespass.
Unlike Tourette's, clearly.
Many years ago when procuring a data processing system for air traffic control, one bidder had buried in their small print that they retained copyright on all data produced by their system. We didn't buy that system (the copyright claim was an influence) so I don't know how it would have played out in court.
You are dead right. I for one would call "not being poisoned by organophosphorus residues" a health benefit. I wonder who paid for this study and then chose the report's title.
If you follow the links (yes, I know, this is /.) you will find that it covered overall health effects, not just nutrition. You will also find that it was paid for by the UK's Food Standards Agency (FSA). I don't know who chose the report's title ("Organic Health Effects Review"). Presumably the FSA chose the title of the press release ("Organic Review Published"). Why? Do you find those titles biased or controversial?
However, the FSA press release doesn't seem to match the content of the report. The report was on a study of studies, looking at existing work rather than doing any new research. It found that the "because of the limited and highly variable data available, and concerns over the reliability of some reported findings, there is currently no evidence of a health benefit from consuming organic compared to conventionally produced foodstuffs". That is not the same as the FSA's claim that "there are no important differences in the nutrition content, or any additional health benefits, of organic food when compared with conventionally produced food" as the FSA say on the press release. The study showed that we don't know whether there are any health benefits, not that there are no health benefits. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. This suggests at least incompetence on the part of whoever did the press release, and possibly malice.
Hmmmmm, interesting point. So how would you scientifically calculate the asshole "saturation point" when their effectiveness plateaus off?
You look for all the D&D geeks rolling d20s to decide whether or not to be a jerk (with modifiers according to alignment).
And lately, the past year or so, I wouldn't necessarily call them "hypermilers" but so many people seem unwilling to even get up to the speed limit, let alone exceed it by a few miles per hour, as if you're going to get a ticket for 48 in a 45... I know the police aren't going to give me a ticket for 5 miles over, and I often get passed by cops when doing so.
May be different in the USA to the UK. My wife recently had to do some speed awareness training to avoid losing her license, and one of the guys on the course had been ticketed for doing 32 in a 30 limit.
yeah it is pretty cool but it's not worth carrying an umbrella all the time.
We don't have to carry umbrellas all the time -- we've had roofs for, ooh, years now.
I'm sort of with that, except it means that you don't know what you can and can't do.
Actually, I would be amazed if there isn't such a clause in your laws in whatever country you live in already.
The offence here (UK) seems to be based on something going wrong with the actual driving -- an example given is "someone missing a traffic light turning green because they are singing along to their favourite tune a little too excitedly"; just "singing along to their favourite tune a little too excitedly" doesn't look as if it will do it.
The police and judges can't actually determine how much attention you were paying to what, and the person who is actually the safety driver on the road could end up in court because the authorities can't tell. I think there's a lot to be said for the sharp steel spike from the steering wheel to the driver's chest...
That is the price we pay for "innocent until found guilty--- lots of people gets off the hook until they actually cause some damage. Or learns how to drive with whatever distraction the world offers.
I'm more concerned with people failing to get off the hook when there was really nothing wrong with their driving.
And I know a lot of people who would not be distracted by your cute girl :)
True enough. Did I mention the hunky guy on the other side?
I see no other reasonable legislative route than "though shall not engage in overly distracting behavior while driving.", and letting the police & judges handle the rest.
I'm sort of with that, except it means that you don't know what you can and can't do. The police and judges can't actually determine how much attention you were paying to what, and the person who is actually the safety driver on the road could end up in court because the authorities can't tell. I think there's a lot to be said for the sharp steel spike from the steering wheel to the driver's chest...
The trouble is that everyone seems to be combining a huge spread of risks as if they were all the same. I don't see how anybody sane could try to text whilst driving, it just takes too much attention off the road. Talking on a hands-free isn't in the same league, and although it does represent some degree of distraction from the road I reckon it's not so much of a distraction as a cute girl in her summer clothes on the sidewalk. But maybe I shouldn't mention that, or the safety lobby will try to get them banned too :-(
And as for racism, everyone is racist to some degree.
I think you mean Everyone's a little bit racist".