Good luck getting a less broken version of Windows to work on the Microsoft Surface even if you do get past Secure Boot. At least Linux would be possible, because the source is available.
I would insist on a jury of shrinks from no less than four different mental health agencies.
A jury of shrinks all working to DSM. If the powers-that-be manage to get "disagreement with government" as a key indicator of a serious disorder in a future edition of the DSM, the job is done.
A constant theme around these is that plenty of people noticed "red flags" in the person, and yet none of them did anything about it to get them help. I think this is probably more 20/20 hindsight than useful observation. And then everyone gets the idea that if only the system worked better, they'd have got help.
You're nitrate is no good without diesel. Unless your form of terrorism is making me now the lawn 3 times a week.
Frankly, I'd be more scared of that than the other sort of terrorism. I'm far far more likely to be the victim of being made to mow the lawn 3 times a week than the victim of any terrorist attack.
The only RAs in the story were to the previous announcement that has allegedly been overturned. The Daily Mail article that the story is about is here, though as it's the Daily Mail I take it with an emetic-scale pinch of salt.
Well, in practice it's completely untestable (you'd have to let a randomised selection of "high-risk" subjects into the country and see how many of them commit terrorist acts, and nobody is going to allow that)
Or you could, you know, use the information you have already gathered on convicted terrorists and work backwards from that.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why superstition is still so pervasive.
Well, in practice it's completely untestable (you'd have to let a randomised selection of "high-risk" subjects into the country and see how many of them commit terrorist acts, and nobody is going to allow that), so the only remaining grounds for belief in the system are more or less religious. That doesn't make "some kind of crazy psychopathic paranoia" inevetable, but it makes it unsurprising.
Europe (including the UK) is special too: "Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. this right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers."
Unfortunately that's followed by the proviso "The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or the rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary." Yes, we had our equivalent to the Patriot Act written in from the outset.
PAYE means that the tax withheld from your paycheck is what you owe, no more no less.
Not quite. There's typically an adjustment needed at the end of the financial year due to things that don't appear in your paycheck (share dividends, interest on savings accounts and so on), although if the adjustment is small here in the UK it can be carried over into the next year. I usually end up having to pay a couple of hundred pounds. My wife usually manages a small rebate.
If you aren't doing anything illegal, you have nothing to worry about
If you aren't doing anything illegal and the present and all future authorities are completely benign and the present and all future authorities never make mistakes, you have nothing to worry about..
It would have to be a lot better than the average driver. A few reasons:
People are far far more willing to accept risks that they control than risks they do not control, and are more willing to accept risks due to human actions than due to automated systems. That is one reason they are happier driving than flying, even though flying is much safer. I recall being at a safety conference at which there was discussion of a robotic system for doing prostate operations. The most serious failure mode was leaving the patient incontinent, and the research showed that the robotic system would have to be more than ten times more reliable than the human surgeon before it would be accepted by the public.
It shifts legal liability. Even if the system prevents a million serious accidents for every one it causes (which would be a great benefit, of course), the legal liability for that one accident would land squarely on the manufacturer, whereas the accidents it would have prevented would come down to the drivers. The manufacturers are going to be reluctant to accept that liability.
As soon as there is a serious accident caused by a system error then (no matter how many serious accidents the system has prevented) there would be media outrage and massive lobbying to have the system outlawed.
If there were evidence it wouldn't be religion, it would be science.
Only if you accept science's definition of "evidence" and don't question that which science takes on faith.
Science only accepts evidence that is objective. Religious people often have subjective evidence, which is valid for them if not for others. (Of course, both sides tend to fudge the issue of whether any evidence emcan be truly objective.) Note, by the way that evidence != proof. Listen to a court case and you will hear both sides present evidence, but only one side will prove their case.
And, of course, science has it's own metaphysical assumptions, such as materialism (or possibly some forms of dualism) that are every bit as unverifiable as religion's. Those with a scientific mindset tend to dismiss discussion of those assumptions because they're "obvious" -- something they criticise the religious for doing.
Don't get me wrong, I'm on the side of science. But 99% of the science v. religion arguments I see from both sides are uninformed bullshit.
Vue from Tufts university supports cyclic relationships. It also has good tools for plotting routes through a mind map which are good for getting a linear form out of a model. I use it a lot for complex reports and essays, with good results.
Yes, my TomTom does that, as does my wife's NavMan. And they both very often get the local speed limit wrong, for a number of reasons -- dynamic speed limits, temporary speed limits, speed limits dependent on weather conditions (common in France), insufficient precision to determine which of 2 roads we are on (especially when the roads are stacked vertically, such as the A4/M4 in West London). GPS is a good way of determining one's speed (when one has a signal), but it's a crock at comparing that to the speed limit. Looking out of the window at roadsigns is always going to be better than a satnav devices database.
I thought that was a matter of screen resolution. At the resolutions commonly available when most studies were done, serifs would have been hard to render accurately and consistently. Heck, even on the screen and size I am using to type this, if I switch to Times New Roman the anti-aliasing struggles with the serifs on 's' and 'n' with the result that they look blurry.
The stereotypical "I'm going to have more babies" person doesn't exist.
The stereotypical "I'm going to have more babies" person does exist -- I know one personally. If you meant "the stereotypical 'I'm going to have more babies' person is very very much rarer than right-wing commentators would have you believe" then I agree.
I don't think you remember quite how bad the Tories were when they didn't have another party to restrain them, even if they can only restrain them a little. That's the point about coalitions and non-majority governments. They still tend to have very much the flavour of the largest party, but at least the other party or parties manage to limit some of the more severe extremes.
Slashdot Mirror
Good luck getting a less broken version of Windows to work on the Microsoft Surface even if you do get past Secure Boot. At least Linux would be possible, because the source is available.
It wants its complaints back.
I would insist on a jury of shrinks from no less than four different mental health agencies.
A jury of shrinks all working to DSM. If the powers-that-be manage to get "disagreement with government" as a key indicator of a serious disorder in a future edition of the DSM, the job is done.
A constant theme around these is that plenty of people noticed "red flags" in the person, and yet none of them did anything about it to get them help. I think this is probably more 20/20 hindsight than useful observation. And then everyone gets the idea that if only the system worked better, they'd have got help.
And it's nothing new.
You're nitrate is no good without diesel. Unless your form of terrorism is making me now the lawn 3 times a week.
Frankly, I'd be more scared of that than the other sort of terrorism. I'm far far more likely to be the victim of being made to mow the lawn 3 times a week than the victim of any terrorist attack.
The only RAs in the story were to the previous announcement that has allegedly been overturned. The Daily Mail article that the story is about is here, though as it's the Daily Mail I take it with an emetic-scale pinch of salt.
Well, in practice it's completely untestable (you'd have to let a randomised selection of "high-risk" subjects into the country and see how many of them commit terrorist acts, and nobody is going to allow that)
Or you could, you know, use the information you have already gathered on convicted terrorists and work backwards from that.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why superstition is still so pervasive.
Well, in practice it's completely untestable (you'd have to let a randomised selection of "high-risk" subjects into the country and see how many of them commit terrorist acts, and nobody is going to allow that), so the only remaining grounds for belief in the system are more or less religious. That doesn't make "some kind of crazy psychopathic paranoia" inevetable, but it makes it unsurprising.
Europe (including the UK) is special too: "Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. this right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers."
Unfortunately that's followed by the proviso "The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or the rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary." Yes, we had our equivalent to the Patriot Act written in from the outset.
PAYE means that the tax withheld from your paycheck is what you owe, no more no less.
Not quite. There's typically an adjustment needed at the end of the financial year due to things that don't appear in your paycheck (share dividends, interest on savings accounts and so on), although if the adjustment is small here in the UK it can be carried over into the next year. I usually end up having to pay a couple of hundred pounds. My wife usually manages a small rebate.
If you aren't doing anything illegal, you have nothing to worry about
If you aren't doing anything illegal and the present and all future authorities are completely benign and the present and all future authorities never make mistakes, you have nothing to worry about..
Worried yet?
All your briefs are belong to us.
Yep!
The very nice ones aren't.
If there were evidence it wouldn't be religion, it would be science.
Only if you accept science's definition of "evidence" and don't question that which science takes on faith.
Science only accepts evidence that is objective. Religious people often have subjective evidence, which is valid for them if not for others. (Of course, both sides tend to fudge the issue of whether any evidence emcan be truly objective.) Note, by the way that evidence != proof. Listen to a court case and you will hear both sides present evidence, but only one side will prove their case.
And, of course, science has it's own metaphysical assumptions, such as materialism (or possibly some forms of dualism) that are every bit as unverifiable as religion's. Those with a scientific mindset tend to dismiss discussion of those assumptions because they're "obvious" -- something they criticise the religious for doing.
Don't get me wrong, I'm on the side of science. But 99% of the science v. religion arguments I see from both sides are uninformed bullshit.
10,000 uses was before servicing, not before complete replacement.
Vue from Tufts university supports cyclic relationships. It also has good tools for plotting routes through a mind map which are good for getting a linear form out of a model. I use it a lot for complex reports and essays, with good results.
Yes, my TomTom does that, as does my wife's NavMan. And they both very often get the local speed limit wrong, for a number of reasons -- dynamic speed limits, temporary speed limits, speed limits dependent on weather conditions (common in France), insufficient precision to determine which of 2 roads we are on (especially when the roads are stacked vertically, such as the A4/M4 in West London). GPS is a good way of determining one's speed (when one has a signal), but it's a crock at comparing that to the speed limit. Looking out of the window at roadsigns is always going to be better than a satnav devices database.
My dad always reckoned that when my mum stopped knitting it meant she was nervous about his driving, so you might be on to something!
How accurately and consistently can you judge your speed?
So what icons do you propose for the numbers on the speedometer?
I thought that was a matter of screen resolution. At the resolutions commonly available when most studies were done, serifs would have been hard to render accurately and consistently. Heck, even on the screen and size I am using to type this, if I switch to Times New Roman the anti-aliasing struggles with the serifs on 's' and 'n' with the result that they look blurry.
The stereotypical "I'm going to have more babies" person doesn't exist.
The stereotypical "I'm going to have more babies" person does exist -- I know one personally. If you meant "the stereotypical 'I'm going to have more babies' person is very very much rarer than right-wing commentators would have you believe" then I agree.
I don't think you remember quite how bad the Tories were when they didn't have another party to restrain them, even if they can only restrain them a little. That's the point about coalitions and non-majority governments. They still tend to have very much the flavour of the largest party, but at least the other party or parties manage to limit some of the more severe extremes.