I was thinking of the assymetric extradition arrangements between the UK and the USA, where US courts won't extradite to the UK without evidence but the UK will extradite to the USA without evidence.
Catholicism has a history of marrying off prepubescents until very recently, it still happens in Africa. It is a problem with all religious forms of marriage as far as I know.
Whereas the non-religious just have the paedophilia problem, without the marriage. That must make it so much better.
Simply that saying that it's legal to be a parent at 20 does not mean that it's not legal to be a parent at some other age. And I wonder how somebody could become a parent at 12 without some offence being committed. What the Americans call statutory rape would be the most likely, but it's not the only possibility.
I don't see why you have a problem with it. 20 is old enough to legally be a parent, at least here in the UK. 30 is old enough to legally be a parent. 40 is legally old enough to be a parent. But if somebody becomes a parent at the age of 12 then unless it's the second coming of Christ (good luck persuading the court) an offence has been committed.
The kid counting his candies is still establishing a bijection between the candies and his fingers whether he knows it or not. Anyway, my point was that thinking "arithmetic is the base operations for math" is a pretty fundamental misunderstanding of what math is for somebody who claims to be a mathematician.
Hm. Not that this should be allowed, but if a student is willing to go the extra mile like that to prepare for a test, don't you think that it demonstrates some resourcefulness which could be useful in the real word? No excuse for cheating, but I'd still look somewhat favorably on someone that actually knows how to get the most out of the tools he's given.
So what's the issue? If the school standardizes on a calculator then if you've any sense that's the one you'll use and get familiar with. What you describe is only an issue if the school is going to keep the calculator model a secret and surprise you in the exam.
Yes [1], but when talking about figures like 1 in 100,000, probably a larger proportion of the population than that will be excluded by the test process, and many of those excluded would be worse than the "complete morons who have no business in control of a large machine moving at high rates of speed" who are on the road. Those on the road have at least been told which is the gas pedal and which is the brake, and have demonstrated that they can remember the difference at least sometimes.
It does make you trained and qualified. It doesn't mean that the training is sufficient, or that the qualification is sufficiently rigorous, but it does mean that you are trained and qualified.
It weeds out some. The totally blind, for example [1]. And those with certain types of learning difficulties will be put off trying in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
a fully elected second chamber is the only democratic way forward...
Pretty much by definition. But is a fully elected second chamber the best way forward?
Everybody who reads Playboy does so for the articles. But how many read it?
I'm sure they do. But linzeal seemed to be suggesting that paedophilia was specifically a religious problem. It isn't.
I was thinking of the assymetric extradition arrangements between the UK and the USA, where US courts won't extradite to the UK without evidence but the UK will extradite to the USA without evidence.
I don't think it's anti-American as such, just a recognition that there are asymmetries the other way too.
Catholicism has a history of marrying off prepubescents until very recently, it still happens in Africa. It is a problem with all religious forms of marriage as far as I know.
Whereas the non-religious just have the paedophilia problem, without the marriage. That must make it so much better.
Is it me, or is everything reported that is IT related these days a conspiracy?.
Damn. He's on to us. Time to change plan, guys.
Read further down in the comments on this article: "With noscript enabled I reckon about 70% of the sites load without trouble and they load FAST."
Chrome is much less stable than Firefox here. Even with loads of Firefox addins, no Chrome ones.
Every reason people used to give in favor of Firefox now applies to Chrome, times ten.
What? Zotero is now available on Chrome? Ah, no, apparently not.
In any case, I would argue that the intercourse is the legally problematic bit, not the "becoming a parent" part.
Hence my careful phrasing.
Simply that saying that it's legal to be a parent at 20 does not mean that it's not legal to be a parent at some other age. And I wonder how somebody could become a parent at 12 without some offence being committed. What the Americans call statutory rape would be the most likely, but it's not the only possibility.
I don't see why you have a problem with it. 20 is old enough to legally be a parent, at least here in the UK. 30 is old enough to legally be a parent. 40 is legally old enough to be a parent. But if somebody becomes a parent at the age of 12 then unless it's the second coming of Christ (good luck persuading the court) an offence has been committed.
Who cares who is to blame? Whatever is causing it, if we don't do something about it then we're stuffed, and it's denying that that's the issue.
The kid counting his candies is still establishing a bijection between the candies and his fingers whether he knows it or not. Anyway, my point was that thinking "arithmetic is the base operations for math" is a pretty fundamental misunderstanding of what math is for somebody who claims to be a mathematician.
Hm. Not that this should be allowed, but if a student is willing to go the extra mile like that to prepare for a test, don't you think that it demonstrates some resourcefulness which could be useful in the real word? No excuse for cheating, but I'd still look somewhat favorably on someone that actually knows how to get the most out of the tools he's given.
Or whose dad can afford to pay somebody to do it.
So what's the issue? If the school standardizes on a calculator then if you've any sense that's the one you'll use and get familiar with. What you describe is only an issue if the school is going to keep the calculator model a secret and surprise you in the exam.
Three Yorkshiremen? Luxury! When I were a lad I had to make do with only one, and even 'e wus really from Derbyshire.
Back then we didn't even have calculators and it was tough to write a crib on your slide rule.
But if you forgot the value of pi or e then it was marked for you!
How are you planning to load that software in the exam?
Um, no. Without set theory you don't have math. Without math you don't have arithmetic.
So there are probably times when they can't
Sure. But less often than those who don't even know the difference and wouldn't understand it if told.
Yes [1], but when talking about figures like 1 in 100,000, probably a larger proportion of the population than that will be excluded by the test process, and many of those excluded would be worse than the "complete morons who have no business in control of a large machine moving at high rates of speed" who are on the road. Those on the road have at least been told which is the gas pedal and which is the brake, and have demonstrated that they can remember the difference at least sometimes.
[1] Well, maybe not "most", but I'd grant "many".
It does make you trained and qualified. It doesn't mean that the training is sufficient, or that the qualification is sufficiently rigorous, but it does mean that you are trained and qualified.
It weeds out some. The totally blind, for example [1]. And those with certain types of learning difficulties will be put off trying in the first place.
[1] I assume. The UK test would.