How many ships will be checking their navigation against the stars or by any means other than GPS. Get it away from the area patrolled by navies and board without that hassle.
The existence of a second chamber in legislatures around the world is odd objectively - and is entirely a result of our House of Lords. A few states have got rid of the second chamber, or never had it - Israel, New Zealand and Nebraska. A lot of other countries struggle to know what to do with it. In that context the UK House of Lords works very well; it provides people who can seriously scrutinise legislation that MPs are too busy to look at properly. It provides a forum where ministers can get a good kicking from people who are actually experts in their topic, as opposed to being a forum for minimally knowledgeable political hacks to play to their party managers. If it didn't exist, you wouldn't invent it, but it works well as a useful check on a governing system that otherwise tends to the dictatorial.
Sure - if you are established in your field, then you can command the big bucks. But to achieve a payout like this if you are a college student would make your resume SHINE. It'
In one of his stories - and I can't remember which - Heinlein discussed an engineer project whose budget was complete with an estimate of the number of people who would be killed in its achievement. His project manager comments that this item isn't included in the public budget, for political reasons! This realistic assessment of the tendency for death to occur was very thought provoking; we SHOULD be honest about risk - instead terrorism is treated as disproportionately terrible, whilst antibiotic resistance, which is vastly more seriously, is labelled as potentially dangerous as terrorism to get people's attention.
But if we don't recognise how it should work, they don't have to make the effort to ensure it doesn't. If a congress person submitted an impeachment bill on that basis, it would stir up the issue. But they don't, so our lords and masters don't have to make the effort to suppress it.
Indeed - if this is proven, the person who signed it off should be sacked. If the NSA won't, congress should impeach the individual. Government agencies MUST tell the truth to the public, and there must be serious consequences if they don't.
If you are an adult, we assume you are capable of intelligence and realise that it is YOUR responsibility to worry about who you may meet via this website.
The fact that we have to include this clause is evidence that our society deserves its status as a bad joke in the rest of the world.
This is because it encourages corruption - the food is diverted away from the poor to be sold instead, and many ghost recipients emerge. As a result India is moving away from this model of poverty relief to one based on cash distribution to individuals on the basis of a unique identity.
The other way to pay for it to begin with is by eliminating the tax threshold before you pay any income tax. This is replaced by a payment equivalent to the value of the tax threshold - so if the threshold is £12,000 and the tax rate is 20%, it's cost free to implement a basic income of £2,400. A bonus of this is that tax calculations are simplified for companies - almost everyone pays 20% of their income. This replaces the basic 'Job Seekers' Allowance' in the UK system, though claimants would still be eligible for housing benefit - to pay rent.
This is not the same scale of basic income as those being proposed, but would start to demonstrate the features of it. Note that a residency requirement to claiming it would allow the targetting of migrants who remain very unpopular in the UK...
It's not PROOF of your presence. However the scenario where someone is murdered in the middle of nowhere and you can track that a person was there at the time gives a reason to pursue that person. Of course it may be a dead end, and it certainly shouldn't be enough evidence on its own, but it will provide leads when nothing else will.
That's why there's a steady flow of convictions despite the relatively low intelligence of the average police officer; after what intelligent person wants to be patrolling the dark and dangerous streets late at night when there are so many other more attractive jobs out there, like computer programmer...
This article brings into focus the traditional justification of states in terms of being something you are subject to because you choose to live within its borders. The failure of the USSR to allow its citizens to leave was therefore one of the reasons why it was illegitimate. By contrast forgoing the benefits of FB out of a sense of a lack of democracy does not pass the rationality test; what am I seriously losing here by using FB? And remember the line about emails; the bad news is that MS reads your emails. The good news is that it reads ALL your emails - and can't actually do anything significant with them.
However this debate is about the existence or otherwise of options if an abortion doesn't occur. By definition this generates an unwanted infant, which is the wanted type.
I've heard the claim that pro-lifers should do more, and in this context it's clear that it's a false argument. There's a much more complex debate as well about providing ongoing quality of life for the poor, but that's not strictly relevant given the adoption option.
IF there was a shortage of parents wanting to adopt, then I would agree that this is a reasonable requirement. Since the reality is that people go to extraordinary lengths including travelling abroad, it is clear that there is no shortage.
There seem to be three different elements to this story:
1) What is the data being held? Is is merely the biometric' - i.e. what they would get if they took bits of me from me / photographs of me, or is it an awful lot more?
2) Who is the data being held about? The fact that the FBI has data about X means that at some point they've got that biometric data about X from somewhere. How they got it may be significant, that they have it may indicate that there's a human source collecting the nail clippings...
3) Who has access to this when? The most basis element - the biometric - must be available in the case of a disputed identification issue. It's the stuff beyond that that's the problem.
Part of the issue here is that the FBI is part police force, part intelligence agency. Having the same database for those different functions will tend to end in tears. The UK separation of MI5 from the police makes for a clearer distinction. Similarly the UK Data Protection Act gives subject access to anyone to obtain and challenge the facts that the POLICE hold about you - though certain information 'held for the prevention of crime' can be redacted.
It seems likely that the FBI will use this to hide data that they shouldn't have. We need to see a grand jury empanelled to investigate data abuse at the FBI and elsewhere as a criminal case. This would be on the basis of the laws used to bring federal charges against people who escaped prosecution for racist murderers in the past: 'deprivation of civil rights'. Any bets on that happening?
Of course if it were a legal purchase, then paying less would be more likely. Of course the fact that it wasn't so much is a hint that it's a scam. OTOH we may speculate that this was a set up by the media to try to discourage people from buying these things on the net.
"Only an idiot would show up stoned for a job in a building full of lethal machinery, but the universe is constantly refining and expanding the idiot supply. "
Think of it as evolution in action. Unfortunately evolution takes a long time...
"Just because I drank alcohol today doesn't mean I cannot drive safely tomorrow"
Not quite true; if you drink enough alcohol - and it's not that much - then you WILL still be a danger on the roads the next morning. You're logic's right - your facts are flawed.
"Whether it’s okay to drive the next morning depends on how much you’ve drunk – and if you’ve left enough time for your system to get rid of the alcohol. “The amount of alcohol in your bloodstream depends on three things,” says Dr Paul Wallace, Drinkaware's Chief Medical Adviser. “The amount you take in, over what period of time and the speed at which your body gets rid of it.” In general, alcohol is removed from the blood at the rate of about one unit an hour. But this varies from person to person. It can depend on your size and gender, as men tend to process alcohol quicker than women; how much food you’ve eaten; the state of your liver, and your metabolism (how quickly or slowly your body turns food into energy). “Imagine you’re drinking until three or four in the morning and you wake up at 8am,” says Dr Wallace. “If you’ve had six or seven units, you could still have several units of alcohol in your body when you start your day. This is because your body can only process around one unit an hour. With several units of alcohol still in your body you would still be over the drink drive limit.”
The FBI is doing it, so it must be legal.../sarcasm
It's time that these abuses of rights were charged as criminal offences. Sadly this requires an organisation with the ability to investigate the FBI and bring charges. The US constitution gives that power to a grand jury, but it would be a brave prosecutor who enpanelled one to do it.Oh well - here's hoping...
Slashdot Mirror
How many ships will be checking their navigation against the stars or by any means other than GPS. Get it away from the area patrolled by navies and board without that hassle.
Great idea though...
One is a German owned car company, the other a more general engineering company producing aeroplane engines and marine equipment, thus this report
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
v
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Now totally unrelated companies
The existence of a second chamber in legislatures around the world is odd objectively - and is entirely a result of our House of Lords. A few states have got rid of the second chamber, or never had it - Israel, New Zealand and Nebraska. A lot of other countries struggle to know what to do with it. In that context the UK House of Lords works very well; it provides people who can seriously scrutinise legislation that MPs are too busy to look at properly. It provides a forum where ministers can get a good kicking from people who are actually experts in their topic, as opposed to being a forum for minimally knowledgeable political hacks to play to their party managers. If it didn't exist, you wouldn't invent it, but it works well as a useful check on a governing system that otherwise tends to the dictatorial.
Sure - if you are established in your field, then you can command the big bucks. But to achieve a payout like this if you are a college student would make your resume SHINE. It'
In one of his stories - and I can't remember which - Heinlein discussed an engineer project whose budget was complete with an estimate of the number of people who would be killed in its achievement. His project manager comments that this item isn't included in the public budget, for political reasons! This realistic assessment of the tendency for death to occur was very thought provoking; we SHOULD be honest about risk - instead terrorism is treated as disproportionately terrible, whilst antibiotic resistance, which is vastly more seriously, is labelled as potentially dangerous as terrorism to get people's attention.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/heal...
Sometimes the fact that 'if voting could change things, it wouldn't be allowed', should be taken as a comfort.
That wouldn't be a slap on the wrist - and is self regulating
But if we don't recognise how it should work, they don't have to make the effort to ensure it doesn't. If a congress person submitted an impeachment bill on that basis, it would stir up the issue. But they don't, so our lords and masters don't have to make the effort to suppress it.
Indeed - if this is proven, the person who signed it off should be sacked. If the NSA won't, congress should impeach the individual. Government agencies MUST tell the truth to the public, and there must be serious consequences if they don't.
If you aren't GO AWAY
If you are an adult, we assume you are capable of intelligence and realise that it is YOUR responsibility to worry about who you may meet via this website.
The fact that we have to include this clause is evidence that our society deserves its status as a bad joke in the rest of the world.
This is because it encourages corruption - the food is diverted away from the poor to be sold instead, and many ghost recipients emerge. As a result India is moving away from this model of poverty relief to one based on cash distribution to individuals on the basis of a unique identity.
http://www.economist.com/node/...
The other way to pay for it to begin with is by eliminating the tax threshold before you pay any income tax. This is replaced by a payment equivalent to the value of the tax threshold - so if the threshold is £12,000 and the tax rate is 20%, it's cost free to implement a basic income of £2,400. A bonus of this is that tax calculations are simplified for companies - almost everyone pays 20% of their income. This replaces the basic 'Job Seekers' Allowance' in the UK system, though claimants would still be eligible for housing benefit - to pay rent.
This is not the same scale of basic income as those being proposed, but would start to demonstrate the features of it. Note that a residency requirement to claiming it would allow the targetting of migrants who remain very unpopular in the UK...
It's not PROOF of your presence. However the scenario where someone is murdered in the middle of nowhere and you can track that a person was there at the time gives a reason to pursue that person. Of course it may be a dead end, and it certainly shouldn't be enough evidence on its own, but it will provide leads when nothing else will.
That's why there's a steady flow of convictions despite the relatively low intelligence of the average police officer; after what intelligent person wants to be patrolling the dark and dangerous streets late at night when there are so many other more attractive jobs out there, like computer programmer...
Skynet get to control what I'm posting. That will end well.
Five minutes attention span? Next you're going to tell me you expected Obama to make a difference, and that Hilary can...
This article brings into focus the traditional justification of states in terms of being something you are subject to because you choose to live within its borders. The failure of the USSR to allow its citizens to leave was therefore one of the reasons why it was illegitimate. By contrast forgoing the benefits of FB out of a sense of a lack of democracy does not pass the rationality test; what am I seriously losing here by using FB? And remember the line about emails; the bad news is that MS reads your emails. The good news is that it reads ALL your emails - and can't actually do anything significant with them.
However this debate is about the existence or otherwise of options if an abortion doesn't occur. By definition this generates an unwanted infant, which is the wanted type.
I've heard the claim that pro-lifers should do more, and in this context it's clear that it's a false argument. There's a much more complex debate as well about providing ongoing quality of life for the poor, but that's not strictly relevant given the adoption option.
IF there was a shortage of parents wanting to adopt, then I would agree that this is a reasonable requirement. Since the reality is that people go to extraordinary lengths including travelling abroad, it is clear that there is no shortage.
So it does make sense to land elsewhere. Honest...
There seem to be three different elements to this story:
1) What is the data being held? Is is merely the biometric' - i.e. what they would get if they took bits of me from me / photographs of me, or is it an awful lot more?
2) Who is the data being held about? The fact that the FBI has data about X means that at some point they've got that biometric data about X from somewhere. How they got it may be significant, that they have it may indicate that there's a human source collecting the nail clippings...
3) Who has access to this when? The most basis element - the biometric - must be available in the case of a disputed identification issue. It's the stuff beyond that that's the problem.
Part of the issue here is that the FBI is part police force, part intelligence agency. Having the same database for those different functions will tend to end in tears. The UK separation of MI5 from the police makes for a clearer distinction. Similarly the UK Data Protection Act gives subject access to anyone to obtain and challenge the facts that the POLICE hold about you - though certain information 'held for the prevention of crime' can be redacted.
It seems likely that the FBI will use this to hide data that they shouldn't have. We need to see a grand jury empanelled to investigate data abuse at the FBI and elsewhere as a criminal case. This would be on the basis of the laws used to bring federal charges against people who escaped prosecution for racist murderers in the past: 'deprivation of civil rights'. Any bets on that happening?
Of course if it were a legal purchase, then paying less would be more likely. Of course the fact that it wasn't so much is a hint that it's a scam. OTOH we may speculate that this was a set up by the media to try to discourage people from buying these things on the net.
Isn't conspiracy hunting fun ;)
"Only an idiot would show up stoned for a job in a building full of lethal machinery, but the universe is constantly refining and expanding the idiot supply. "
Think of it as evolution in action. Unfortunately evolution takes a long time...
"Just because I drank alcohol today doesn't mean I cannot drive safely tomorrow"
Not quite true; if you drink enough alcohol - and it's not that much - then you WILL still be a danger on the roads the next morning. You're logic's right - your facts are flawed.
"Whether it’s okay to drive the next morning depends on how much you’ve drunk – and if you’ve left enough time for your system to get rid of the alcohol.
“The amount of alcohol in your bloodstream depends on three things,” says Dr Paul Wallace, Drinkaware's Chief Medical Adviser. “The amount you take in, over what period of time and the speed at which your body gets rid of it.”
In general, alcohol is removed from the blood at the rate of about one unit an hour. But this varies from person to person. It can depend on your size and gender, as men tend to process alcohol quicker than women; how much food you’ve eaten; the state of your liver, and your metabolism (how quickly or slowly your body turns food into energy).
“Imagine you’re drinking until three or four in the morning and you wake up at 8am,” says Dr Wallace. “If you’ve had six or seven units, you could still have several units of alcohol in your body when you start your day. This is because your body can only process around one unit an hour. With several units of alcohol still in your body you would still be over the drink drive limit.”
https://www.drinkaware.co.uk/a...
Surely not...
The FBI is doing it, so it must be legal... /sarcasm
It's time that these abuses of rights were charged as criminal offences. Sadly this requires an organisation with the ability to investigate the FBI and bring charges. The US constitution gives that power to a grand jury, but it would be a brave prosecutor who enpanelled one to do it.Oh well - here's hoping...