Of course given that's the basis on which the USA came into existence in the first place, maybe we shouldn't be surprised if people are still offering that sort of justification...;)
"Meanwhile, U.S. intelligence officials are reportedly investigating whether Donald Trump's foreign policy adviser "opened up private communications with senior Russian officials -- including talks about the possible lifting of economic sanctions if the Republican nominee becomes president."
WTF? There's no reason for the 'intelligence officials' to get involved with this, it's perfectly legal behaviour for a candidate. That it is being sprayed about is a measure of desperation of some people to stop Trump. Whilst I have sympathy with their purpose, their behaviour is deeply wrong.
Seven year warranties are reasonably common for cars, reflecting the fact that reliability has increased massively. Applying this to other industries would be interesting; in cars I get the impression that it was the Koreans who broke ranks on the issue and used this to overcome people's suspicion of this new source. There's an interpretation of British law that suggests a six year warranty is now part of the package, but it's not being enforced as such.
The problem of course is that for the poor, the extra cost which manufacturers would legitimately impose to raise the standards of their products to make them last longer would be a serious burden. In the longer term they would benefit from cheaper second hand good; the rich will replace white goods, furniture etc long before they wear out, leaving a good amount of life in them. But in the short term there will be an issue.
Good reply. The problem is that even if a resource is free, it doesn't mean that a use for it can be created, otherwise no garbage would have to go to landfill. However this article is a reminder that there is an 'industry' of making corrupt money out of inadequately enforced legislation.
It's all about who pays for what how. The fact that it is far easier to chuck the broken kit and buy new than get the upgrade / repair is a result of the incredible efficiency of mass production. If you want to avoid waste, you have to make the waste worth something - a standard trick in the Chemical industry, but one not associated with electronics because of the speed of change - or make visibly recycling electronics a mandatory requirement, to be paid for by a visible tax on electronic items. Which is the problem; the price of virtue is too high...
An organisation causes an otherwise safely operating piece of machinery to stop operating by means of a sent message. Does that not constitute criminal damage? A few thousand convictions in courts around the world will probably do wonders for their behaviour in future. However it requires someone with imagination to bring the charge!
The new standards are not retrospective, but provide rules for the future. They are not a function of a court order, but a change implemented by the FBI on its own initiative. It therefore has no impact on previous events.
I'm disappointed to see you retreating so inelegantly. It is a fact of history that the elite's view, defended by unjustified certainty, proves to be wrong when the elite doesn't ensure it's listening. To describe a view as racist - and on the whole I'm probably only being anti-Muslim, not anti-Arab - and therefore untrue, which is all the logic you offer, is foolish. It shows an unwillingness to THINK, the disease of our hedonist degenerate culture. But having fun is our society's highest value these days; on the whole we're not prepared to make the effort to think. May you enjoy your float down stream; of course that's not the sound of the Niagara Falls you're hearing.
Please clarify what statements or steps of logic you reject as untrue rather than dismissing what I regard as a reasonable analysis of the history of the area and of Islam. You may not like my challenge, but hiding behind the label 'propaganda' would appear to reflect an unwilling to engage with difficult facts. You wouldn't happen to be a Trump supporter by any chance? This approach is typical of his political discourse - though his material barely deserves the title.
"Israel is like a trained martial artist vs a kid yelling "I'm going to kick your ass!". The proper response to that is to ignore it, because it is not a viable threat, not to brutalise the kid into the hospital."
Given the existence of riots where large rocks are being thrown at Israeli soldiers, what are they supposed to do? Ignore it? To return to your parallel, if the kid is about to do serious damage to trained martial artist's knee, he's got to respond.
Somewhere deep in your personal creed are the beliefs:
1) There must be a solution to all problems 2) People of other cultures are ultimately reasonable and will 'play nicely' if only given the chance.
In practice the Middle East demonstrates these are fantasies; the failure of the Arabs to be willing to engage in peace negotiations before 1967 and their continuing use of the refugees as a weapon against Israel reflect a pathological ideology - probably from Islam - that allows no compromise. By contrast Israel has not gone on and on about those whom it accepted as refugees from the ethnic cleansing of Arab countries after their defeat in 1948, a number remarkably similar to the number of those Arabs who were, for whatever reason, no longer resident within the ceasefire lines of 1948.
Given the inability of the American government to prevent its police forces from murdering African Americans on its streets, the assumption that Israel can be expected to do better shows a gratuitous willingness to expect more of a foreign country that seems problematic. Similarly the assumption that it was possible to identify the perpetrators of the arson attack you refer to when many crimes everywhere go unsolved is dubious. However you do appear to have left out the fact that there are now people charged with that offence, so let's wait for the final outcome of the proceedings before claiming: 'punishment against Jews are laughable at best and non-existent on the whole'.
The right question to ask about the situation in Israel is not: 'Is Israel perfect?' That will never happen. The question should be: 'Is Israel's response to the presence of a large group of people committed to its destruction avoiding the death of innocents as much as possible?' Yes they've made mistakes, but so does everyone.
Ultimately, given the collapse of Gaza into being a terrorist state which has no problem with randomly dropping bombs on the houses of civilians, the claim that there is a realistic negotiating partner for a peace deal can be legitimately questioned. Similarly the failure of Lebanon as a multi-confessional state offers evidence that legal structures to maintain minority rights are not a basis for a negotiated peace.
The absurd obsession of human rights activists with Israel in contrast to the blatant abuses elsewhere in the Middle East, let alone Africa, China etc strikes me as perverse. The nearest thing to an excuse - that Israel may respond to pressure but those other abusers will not - would appear to be actually racist: Africans and Chinese can't be expected to behave right, but the Jews can? Isn't that what is being implied?
The problem is that endorsing violence undermines the whole basis of a democratic state. If I am allowed to call for armed resistance to the government every time I am upset about what they are proposing, you are providing a recipe for civil war tomorrow. There must be a general commitment to accepting the right of the government to make unpopular decisions, or your state WILL crumble.
It's also important to note that threats of violence in themselves limit freedom of speech. This is most obviously demonstrated in the Islamic world, where women campaigning for equal treatment often do not get treated politely.
I block the recruitment by mass murdering jihadi You stop incitement to violence against civilians He censors free speech
Given the flow of low level attacks against civilian targets in Israel over the years, the idea of allowing Facebook to leave proponents of such attacks unchallenged is unreasonable. It's a matter of degree, but let's not pretend there aren't some out there who should be censored - or doesn't commending 9/11 with a call to complete it by hitting the White House and Capitol Hill strike you as unacceptable?
"Man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much—the wheel, New York, wars and so on—whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man—for precisely the same reasons.”
Demographers agree that we are on course to seeing the world's population maxing out and starting to fall. We can debate as to whether we will survive peak population
Which is the quick reply. The fact that you never hear from your mother or your child doesn't prove that they don't exist. They may have stopped communicating, or you aren't listening.
Given that if God does exist He will require major changes in your life, then it's not a surprise if you choose to interpret the data that is there to exclude the possibility of His trying to communicate with you. If you are insistent that He doesn't exist, then nothing will convince you.
The best single piece of evidence is the resurrection of Jesus. Those who try to prove it didn't happen by engaging with the evidence tend to get convinced it did. Of course those who rule it out a priori - dead men don't rise from the dead therefore Jesus didn't rise from the dead - need to be aware of the impossible things that many generations of scientists have denied as possible, only to see them come along.
Also it is totally irrational to be confident that somewhere among the stars there is no race whose technology is such that if we encountered a member of the species, it would seem to be a god to us. We are nowhere near equipped to make that search; to assume to know the result is foolish!
To release data without a legal justification would constitute an offence. The fact that it happens routinely and is seldom prosecuted is disappointing, but the potential is there.
Their affection for the electric chair and more recently poison injection executions over the old, and more reliable means of execution, hanging, are further examples of this. The result is that their democratic process IS at risk.
In a US high school you won't do anything like 25% on chemistry, so they start way back At uni you won't do 50% of your time on your major. So total study time will be less than 2.5 years.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course given that's the basis on which the USA came into existence in the first place, maybe we shouldn't be surprised if people are still offering that sort of justification... ;)
"Meanwhile, U.S. intelligence officials are reportedly investigating whether Donald Trump's foreign policy adviser "opened up private communications with senior Russian officials -- including talks about the possible lifting of economic sanctions if the Republican nominee becomes president."
WTF? There's no reason for the 'intelligence officials' to get involved with this, it's perfectly legal behaviour for a candidate. That it is being sprayed about is a measure of desperation of some people to stop Trump. Whilst I have sympathy with their purpose, their behaviour is deeply wrong.
Seven year warranties are reasonably common for cars, reflecting the fact that reliability has increased massively. Applying this to other industries would be interesting; in cars I get the impression that it was the Koreans who broke ranks on the issue and used this to overcome people's suspicion of this new source. There's an interpretation of British law that suggests a six year warranty is now part of the package, but it's not being enforced as such.
The problem of course is that for the poor, the extra cost which manufacturers would legitimately impose to raise the standards of their products to make them last longer would be a serious burden. In the longer term they would benefit from cheaper second hand good; the rich will replace white goods, furniture etc long before they wear out, leaving a good amount of life in them. But in the short term there will be an issue.
Good reply. The problem is that even if a resource is free, it doesn't mean that a use for it can be created, otherwise no garbage would have to go to landfill. However this article is a reminder that there is an 'industry' of making corrupt money out of inadequately enforced legislation.
It's all about who pays for what how. The fact that it is far easier to chuck the broken kit and buy new than get the upgrade / repair is a result of the incredible efficiency of mass production. If you want to avoid waste, you have to make the waste worth something - a standard trick in the Chemical industry, but one not associated with electronics because of the speed of change - or make visibly recycling electronics a mandatory requirement, to be paid for by a visible tax on electronic items. Which is the problem; the price of virtue is too high...
An organisation causes an otherwise safely operating piece of machinery to stop operating by means of a sent message. Does that not constitute criminal damage? A few thousand convictions in courts around the world will probably do wonders for their behaviour in future. However it requires someone with imagination to bring the charge!
Where it never gets cold...
Given that is already happening, there's a slight chance this will allow people to avoid working at home. Sadly it's probably not a good one.
The new standards are not retrospective, but provide rules for the future. They are not a function of a court order, but a change implemented by the FBI on its own initiative. It therefore has no impact on previous events.
I'm disappointed to see you retreating so inelegantly. It is a fact of history that the elite's view, defended by unjustified certainty, proves to be wrong when the elite doesn't ensure it's listening. To describe a view as racist - and on the whole I'm probably only being anti-Muslim, not anti-Arab - and therefore untrue, which is all the logic you offer, is foolish. It shows an unwillingness to THINK, the disease of our hedonist degenerate culture. But having fun is our society's highest value these days; on the whole we're not prepared to make the effort to think. May you enjoy your float down stream; of course that's not the sound of the Niagara Falls you're hearing.
"Oh fuck off with your Likud propaganda."
Please clarify what statements or steps of logic you reject as untrue rather than dismissing what I regard as a reasonable analysis of the history of the area and of Islam. You may not like my challenge, but hiding behind the label 'propaganda' would appear to reflect an unwilling to engage with difficult facts. You wouldn't happen to be a Trump supporter by any chance? This approach is typical of his political discourse - though his material barely deserves the title.
"Israel is like a trained martial artist vs a kid yelling "I'm going to kick your ass!". The proper response to that is to ignore it, because it is not a viable threat, not to brutalise the kid into the hospital."
Given the existence of riots where large rocks are being thrown at Israeli soldiers, what are they supposed to do? Ignore it? To return to your parallel, if the kid is about to do serious damage to trained martial artist's knee, he's got to respond.
Somewhere deep in your personal creed are the beliefs:
1) There must be a solution to all problems
2) People of other cultures are ultimately reasonable and will 'play nicely' if only given the chance.
In practice the Middle East demonstrates these are fantasies; the failure of the Arabs to be willing to engage in peace negotiations before 1967 and their continuing use of the refugees as a weapon against Israel reflect a pathological ideology - probably from Islam - that allows no compromise. By contrast Israel has not gone on and on about those whom it accepted as refugees from the ethnic cleansing of Arab countries after their defeat in 1948, a number remarkably similar to the number of those Arabs who were, for whatever reason, no longer resident within the ceasefire lines of 1948.
http://www.independent.co.uk/n...
And SHUT UP about Jewish treatment of Arabs until you've cleaned up your own abattoir.
Note the response: 'I'm sure there's more to this story...' will not be consistent with your critiques of Israel.
Given the inability of the American government to prevent its police forces from murdering African Americans on its streets, the assumption that Israel can be expected to do better shows a gratuitous willingness to expect more of a foreign country that seems problematic. Similarly the assumption that it was possible to identify the perpetrators of the arson attack you refer to when many crimes everywhere go unsolved is dubious. However you do appear to have left out the fact that there are now people charged with that offence, so let's wait for the final outcome of the proceedings before claiming: 'punishment against Jews are laughable at best and non-existent on the whole'.
The right question to ask about the situation in Israel is not: 'Is Israel perfect?' That will never happen. The question should be: 'Is Israel's response to the presence of a large group of people committed to its destruction avoiding the death of innocents as much as possible?' Yes they've made mistakes, but so does everyone.
Ultimately, given the collapse of Gaza into being a terrorist state which has no problem with randomly dropping bombs on the houses of civilians, the claim that there is a realistic negotiating partner for a peace deal can be legitimately questioned. Similarly the failure of Lebanon as a multi-confessional state offers evidence that legal structures to maintain minority rights are not a basis for a negotiated peace.
The absurd obsession of human rights activists with Israel in contrast to the blatant abuses elsewhere in the Middle East, let alone Africa, China etc strikes me as perverse. The nearest thing to an excuse - that Israel may respond to pressure but those other abusers will not - would appear to be actually racist: Africans and Chinese can't be expected to behave right, but the Jews can? Isn't that what is being implied?
The problem is that endorsing violence undermines the whole basis of a democratic state. If I am allowed to call for armed resistance to the government every time I am upset about what they are proposing, you are providing a recipe for civil war tomorrow. There must be a general commitment to accepting the right of the government to make unpopular decisions, or your state WILL crumble.
It's also important to note that threats of violence in themselves limit freedom of speech. This is most obviously demonstrated in the Islamic world, where women campaigning for equal treatment often do not get treated politely.
I block the recruitment by mass murdering jihadi
You stop incitement to violence against civilians
He censors free speech
Given the flow of low level attacks against civilian targets in Israel over the years, the idea of allowing Facebook to leave proponents of such attacks unchallenged is unreasonable. It's a matter of degree, but let's not pretend there aren't some out there who should be censored - or doesn't commending 9/11 with a call to complete it by hitting the White House and Capitol Hill strike you as unacceptable?
Anyone would think something significant happened 15 years ago :(
Will no one think of the children / terrorist threat...
"Man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much—the wheel, New York, wars and so on—whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man—for precisely the same reasons.”
Demographers agree that we are on course to seeing the world's population maxing out and starting to fall. We can debate as to whether we will survive peak population
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/maga...
Which is the quick reply. The fact that you never hear from your mother or your child doesn't prove that they don't exist. They may have stopped communicating, or you aren't listening.
Given that if God does exist He will require major changes in your life, then it's not a surprise if you choose to interpret the data that is there to exclude the possibility of His trying to communicate with you. If you are insistent that He doesn't exist, then nothing will convince you.
The best single piece of evidence is the resurrection of Jesus. Those who try to prove it didn't happen by engaging with the evidence tend to get convinced it did. Of course those who rule it out a priori - dead men don't rise from the dead therefore Jesus didn't rise from the dead - need to be aware of the impossible things that many generations of scientists have denied as possible, only to see them come along.
Also it is totally irrational to be confident that somewhere among the stars there is no race whose technology is such that if we encountered a member of the species, it would seem to be a god to us. We are nowhere near equipped to make that search; to assume to know the result is foolish!
To release data without a legal justification would constitute an offence. The fact that it happens routinely and is seldom prosecuted is disappointing, but the potential is there.
but then being introduced to Monty Python at the age of 12 is liable to do interesting things to one's sense of humour
Their affection for the electric chair and more recently poison injection executions over the old, and more reliable means of execution, hanging, are further examples of this. The result is that their democratic process IS at risk.
Can't add up, can I?
3.534 not 4.534
Study time
AS year one fifth time
A level year one third
BA 3 full time years
Total 4.534 years
In a US high school you won't do anything like 25% on chemistry, so they start way back
At uni you won't do 50% of your time on your major. So total study time will be less than 2.5 years.
Same level? Really?