Such "knighting" of people who are not subjects of the Crown is strictly an honorary recognition.
You can get an honorary doctorate from a university in some circustances too... but it does not have all of the same implications as the real deal nor is it treated the same.
The previous poster said "they", not "we", suggesting that he or she is not British... I'm pretty sure that you need to be a citizen of the UK to receive knighthood.
If a person doesn't want to see employment opportunities outside of a certain radius where they already happen to live, do they have the freedom to restrict that, for example?
When he protested and said somebody made an error, he said one of the investigators asked him if the case did go to trial, who would the jury believe -- a bank security expert or him?
That kind of retort honestly makes me think that the investigator who said that was involved in a conspiracy to frame the guy.
Who says that except someone who knows that they are lying, or at least consciously realizes there is some significant probability that the information they have is in error.
Nobody with any integrity would ever say "who will the jury believe" when the credibility of their accusation is challenged... they would retort with "we have proof", or something to that effect.
Or, I imagine, simply assuming full responsibility for the crash outright and stating that you weren't paying enough attention to driving would probably not leave them with any cause to search your phone either.
They'll ding you for distracted driving, which is what they'd ding you for if they found you'd been using your phone, but hey.... at least you protected your rights, right?
You'd have to be pretty quick about it then. My understanding is that this search would be performed right at the scene of a vehicle collision. How many people carry all the tools they need to hack their phone in their car?
It bears noting that this isn't even an issue unless you got in accident... and both party's phones would be checked.
As for probable cause, the simple fact that an accident occurred may present probable cause that at least one party was not paying enough attention to the road, so there's that.
Adding unwanted robocallers to a blacklist doesn't do any good because they don't ever use the same number twice.
You might stop 99% of them from getting through with the technique, but only until they adapt... at which point, you will be forced to utilize a more sophisticated means.
In actuality, I think the only way that robocalling can be controlled is via an independent reverse lookup on an incoming call. If the caller isn't really calling from the number that they say they are, then when you do the reverse lookup, that lookup is going to be querying a different exchange than the one the actual caller is from, so the reverse lookup would fail and you could know that any claimed number is spoofed.
rises of 3C to 5C in the Arctic are now inevitable even if the world succeeds in cutting greenhouse gas emissions in line with the Paris agreement
vs
Even if all carbon emissions were to be halted immediately, the Arctic region would still warm by more than 5C
Since the Paris agreement did not require that *all* carbon emissions be halted, I'm not sure how these two statements reconcile with eachother unless the point of the story is to trigger an emotional response rather than a rational one.
How about we just start by building rockets and exploring the solar system a little bit before we start thinking about using black holes to get around space?
. And if just ending slavery had solved the problem, we wouldn't have affirmative action now
We're getting a bit OT, but I think affirmative action is B.S. too... it just perpetuates racial discrimination which is what kept slavery alive in the US for as long as it was... long after virtually every other nation had outlawed it.
If they had paid just reparations back then, we wouldn't be hearing about demands for reparations now.
While it's probably true that simply freeing the slaves did not go far enough, I believe that the right thing to have done at the time would be to have also given the blacks equal rights much like what was finally done in the 1960's. Again, it's a matter of doing everything you can to do the right thing and move forward rather than necessarily try and make some artificial reparations that if they were successful would ultimately only serve to suggest that the original wrongdoing was somehow worth it.
But since nothing was done to bridge the gap created by all the years of slavery, black people are still at a substantial (and substantially well-documented) disadvantage.
Those disadvantages are real, yes... but I expect what we are seeing in that regard are the effects of far more recent unfair treatment whose generation has not even died off yet.
My point is that trying to undo the damage only gives further license to continue to cause it, because you are doing commensurately less net harm, and social and economical inertia will tend to keep people going in the direction that they are, presently. The only way I know of to overcome that inertia, I'm afraid, is with legal consequences for failure to do so.
Eventually, yes, some of the things you mention may very well have to be done, but if we don't fucking stop what we are doing first before we start trying to fix it, then at best we are just running up steep a glass hill, and at worst, giving ourselves license to not have to change as much in the first place.
Not to mention that if we did eventually stop polluting and we've already successfully employed these cooling measures, we might very well find ourselves facing another ice age.
If smoking causes cancer, but the cancer is curable, then why bother quitting smoking?
Utilizing mechanisms that will actually undo the environmental damages that we have caused ultimately gives license to continue to cause those damages, because if we can undo them, then there is less incentive to have to worry about the consequences of our actions.
The first thing we need have happen is pass laws which force manufacturers to make environmentally cleaner solutions, today, not 10 years from now. And it's not like we don't have the fricken technology to do this, it's just that companies don't want to because it's too expensive, it's too much work, it's not profitable enough..... Please, somebody call a waaahmbulance.
Ultimately yes, we might need to start employing technologies that will undo the damages we have done... but we need to have fully embraced the social and technological changes that are environmentally friendly first, and to let the inertia of that carry us forward for a while or else all that is going to happen is we are going to fuck this planet up even worse than we have.
You don't solve a problem by trying to tip the scales in the other direction. You solve it by doing things in a balanced way from now on so that over time, the net result is balanced.
It's not like Lincoln said "okay, that's enough with black slavery, let's make the white man be slaves for a couple of centuries to balance things out"
You fix a problem by doing the right thing, today, and moving forward.
In this particular case, it means passing laws which put stricter limits on emissions than what currently exist, so that manufacturers are forced (yes forced, because as much as we might want them to, they aren't going to do it entirely voluntarily... or certainly not at the speeds that are required) to innovate and come up with long term environmentally friendly solutions to the problems that we are facing.
The vomit comet isn't a regular passenger aircraft. It weighs maybe only a quarter as much as a typical passenger airline craft. With less mass, it is far more receptive to changes in direction and velocity.
Try doing that with an aircraft that weighs 40+ tons, not including the mass of the fuel.
There's this thing called "inertia", y'see... and it's going to put an upper limit on the pilot's ability to subject the plane's occupants to sudden changes that might knock a person off balance while still actually having real control of the plane.
Slashdot Mirror
Such "knighting" of people who are not subjects of the Crown is strictly an honorary recognition.
You can get an honorary doctorate from a university in some circustances too... but it does not have all of the same implications as the real deal nor is it treated the same.
Emphasis mine.
People who never went to university can get honorary doctorates too... but it's not the same thing as a real one, and isn't treated the same either.
Fair correction. Thanks.
The previous poster said "they", not "we", suggesting that he or she is not British... I'm pretty sure that you need to be a citizen of the UK to receive knighthood.
Is it discriminatory if the advertiser isn't choosing it, but the would-be viewer is?
Or is it now even prohibited to discriminate against yourself?
If a person doesn't want to see employment opportunities outside of a certain radius where they already happen to live, do they have the freedom to restrict that, for example?
Yeah, I know full well this point of view will be seen as flamebait, but I think the point merits a valid discussion.
Uh... no.
Insult, by definition, means only to "treat disrespectfully". Veracity is irrelevant.
Insults are subjective, truth is not. What one person considers insulting, another might find amusing or irrelevant.
That kind of retort honestly makes me think that the investigator who said that was involved in a conspiracy to frame the guy.
Who says that except someone who knows that they are lying, or at least consciously realizes there is some significant probability that the information they have is in error.
Nobody with any integrity would ever say "who will the jury believe" when the credibility of their accusation is challenged... they would retort with "we have proof", or something to that effect.
Or, I imagine, simply assuming full responsibility for the crash outright and stating that you weren't paying enough attention to driving would probably not leave them with any cause to search your phone either.
They'll ding you for distracted driving, which is what they'd ding you for if they found you'd been using your phone, but hey.... at least you protected your rights, right?
You'd have to be pretty quick about it then. My understanding is that this search would be performed right at the scene of a vehicle collision. How many people carry all the tools they need to hack their phone in their car?
It bears noting that this isn't even an issue unless you got in accident... and both party's phones would be checked.
As for probable cause, the simple fact that an accident occurred may present probable cause that at least one party was not paying enough attention to the road, so there's that.
Adding unwanted robocallers to a blacklist doesn't do any good because they don't ever use the same number twice.
You might stop 99% of them from getting through with the technique, but only until they adapt... at which point, you will be forced to utilize a more sophisticated means.
In actuality, I think the only way that robocalling can be controlled is via an independent reverse lookup on an incoming call. If the caller isn't really calling from the number that they say they are, then when you do the reverse lookup, that lookup is going to be querying a different exchange than the one the actual caller is from, so the reverse lookup would fail and you could know that any claimed number is spoofed.
Press a number? Or enter a number? One has a 1 in 10 chance of getting through, the other is much lower if the number of digits is allowed to vary.
You know that you can still buy pdfs of the old rules, right?
Out of print does not mean that you can't play it anymore or that you cannot introducce new players into the game.
I still play 1st edition, personally.
vs
Since the Paris agreement did not require that *all* carbon emissions be halted, I'm not sure how these two statements reconcile with eachother unless the point of the story is to trigger an emotional response rather than a rational one.
As long as you don't let disappointment stop you from trying, you'll be fine.
How about we just start by building rockets and exploring the solar system a little bit before we start thinking about using black holes to get around space?
Wasn't there a similar catch phrase used by a fictional megacompany in a dystopian future?
I sounds eerily familiar.... I just can't place where i heard it.
We're getting a bit OT, but I think affirmative action is B.S. too... it just perpetuates racial discrimination which is what kept slavery alive in the US for as long as it was... long after virtually every other nation had outlawed it.
While it's probably true that simply freeing the slaves did not go far enough, I believe that the right thing to have done at the time would be to have also given the blacks equal rights much like what was finally done in the 1960's. Again, it's a matter of doing everything you can to do the right thing and move forward rather than necessarily try and make some artificial reparations that if they were successful would ultimately only serve to suggest that the original wrongdoing was somehow worth it.
Those disadvantages are real, yes... but I expect what we are seeing in that regard are the effects of far more recent unfair treatment whose generation has not even died off yet.
My point is that trying to undo the damage only gives further license to continue to cause it, because you are doing commensurately less net harm, and social and economical inertia will tend to keep people going in the direction that they are, presently. The only way I know of to overcome that inertia, I'm afraid, is with legal consequences for failure to do so.
Eventually, yes, some of the things you mention may very well have to be done, but if we don't fucking stop what we are doing first before we start trying to fix it, then at best we are just running up steep a glass hill, and at worst, giving ourselves license to not have to change as much in the first place.
Not to mention that if we did eventually stop polluting and we've already successfully employed these cooling measures, we might very well find ourselves facing another ice age.
If smoking causes cancer, but the cancer is curable, then why bother quitting smoking?
Utilizing mechanisms that will actually undo the environmental damages that we have caused ultimately gives license to continue to cause those damages, because if we can undo them, then there is less incentive to have to worry about the consequences of our actions.
The first thing we need have happen is pass laws which force manufacturers to make environmentally cleaner solutions, today, not 10 years from now. And it's not like we don't have the fricken technology to do this, it's just that companies don't want to because it's too expensive, it's too much work, it's not profitable enough..... Please, somebody call a waaahmbulance.
Ultimately yes, we might need to start employing technologies that will undo the damages we have done... but we need to have fully embraced the social and technological changes that are environmentally friendly first, and to let the inertia of that carry us forward for a while or else all that is going to happen is we are going to fuck this planet up even worse than we have.
That is, IMO, the only chance that we have.
You don't solve a problem by trying to tip the scales in the other direction. You solve it by doing things in a balanced way from now on so that over time, the net result is balanced.
It's not like Lincoln said "okay, that's enough with black slavery, let's make the white man be slaves for a couple of centuries to balance things out"
You fix a problem by doing the right thing, today, and moving forward.
In this particular case, it means passing laws which put stricter limits on emissions than what currently exist, so that manufacturers are forced (yes forced, because as much as we might want them to, they aren't going to do it entirely voluntarily... or certainly not at the speeds that are required) to innovate and come up with long term environmentally friendly solutions to the problems that we are facing.
The vomit comet isn't a regular passenger aircraft. It weighs maybe only a quarter as much as a typical passenger airline craft. With less mass, it is far more receptive to changes in direction and velocity.
Try doing that with an aircraft that weighs 40+ tons, not including the mass of the fuel.
There's this thing called "inertia", y'see... and it's going to put an upper limit on the pilot's ability to subject the plane's occupants to sudden changes that might knock a person off balance while still actually having real control of the plane.