If the landlord was acting as the employee of the company, then the company should be paying social security payments on his earnings, and his rent includes pay as an employee. It's an approach that worked against Al Capone...
The purpose of branding is to offer consumers information about the product - in this case if an organisation is branded 'Scouts', then it carries an assurance that it conforms to their rules, procedures etc. If the name is released from having that meaning, information for parents is lost. Therefore it is reasonable for the scouts national organisation to require the hacker scouts to use an alternative title.
Given that 'theism' is the belief that there is a god who does intervene in the world, (Deism being the belief that a god set the world going but now is no longer involved) atheism is a belief that there is NOT a god who can or has intervened in the world. It's a belief in a negative, which every logician will tell you is unprovable. Atheism, on the strict definition, is therefore illogical. Claiming a seat on the 'end of the fence' and labelling it 'atheism' won't actually do - it's a piece of Humpty-Dumptyism, making words mean what you want them to, not what they are defined as meaning.
On the subject of alien, I'm suggesting that since it's obvious that any 'god' will be external to this world in some sense, it can therefore be argued to be alien. Actually it's possible to translate 'holy' as 'alien'... But it's not an important point; the core point is that there can be no certainty that there isn't something out there that matches the features of a 'god'.
A brief saunter through the Oxford English Dictionary http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/161944?redirectedFrom=religion#eid seems to support your definition of 'religion' as having rites and worship associated with it. I guess it's more accurate to describe atheism as a 'personal belief' or 'faith'; thanks for making the point. And thanks for reminding me that the agnostic who lives as though there is no god is showing a faith in there not being one, and is, actually, therefore a 'weak atheist' rather than an agnostic; a true agnostic should probably try to propitiate ALL the gods anyone has ever reported!
Interesting point, though as even the Christian tradition uses the term 'god' of beings other than the 'prime mover', you're probably out of line with the common usage of the term. But of course the point does still stand; proving a negative is of course impossible, especially for such a being.
It's a definite belief that nowhere in the universe is there an alien species that corresponds to the characteristics of a 'god'. It is a claim to certainty that is wholly unsustainable; noone's been able to look under every rock in this solar system, let alone the rest of the galaxy. Now agnosticism - that's at least honest...
It's about constructing a story to fit the fact that are available. By contrast physics offers the possibility of repeatable experiments: I can experience gravity because I engage with it every day. Evolution is a story made up about facts, but is not testable like gravity. When the facts about 'garbage DNA' changed, evolutionists were immediately able to construct an explanation for why the new facts are consistent with evolution - as were the old facts. Evolution may or may not be true - but its claims on truth are on the level of history, not the level of chemistry
The fallacy in this argument lies in the claim that evolution is a 'fact'; the truth is that it is a step of faith to accept evolution, a conclusion drawn from 'loads of evidence', but boosted by a desire NOT to invoke a creator because that's unfashionable, and the way to never get tenure; the fairly desperate step of faith required to believe that very complex coincidences in nature 'just happened' is really only possible because there is perceived to be no alternative. The creationist do ask some good questions see http://evidenceweb.net/index.php?pr=MainPage There may be answers - but the BELIEF that evolution is the right interpretation of the evidence is just that - it's a belief, not a fact.
The famous case of the UK hacker who got into US government computers looking for an alien cover up established that the US will seek to extradite people who do that even if they don't set foot in the US.
Great theory; won't happen of course - it's incredibly difficult to stop the 'deep state' - the only recent example would appear to be Turkey where the military had a history of coups but does now appear to have been defanged. But here's hoping!
The UK police site (www.police.uk) offers a facility to view the crimes in a neighbourhood. It's got nothing to do with race - just what's happening on the streets. And that appears to be the purpose of these apps; the fact that the commentariat immediately assumes it's got a racial component is a sign of how deeply pathological the American liberal establishment is.
Remember: the definition of a conservative is a liberal who's just been mugged. One's almost inclined to suggest that one might want to see a few of them mugged...
Make it an absolute defence in law to a charge of murder or assault on an employee of the NSA that the NSA was breaching the given clause; the jury in the case to decide whether the defendant had grounds for believing the NSA was guilty.
Actually I'm surprised it's as many as that; usually American Presidents have been allergic for a mixture of xenophobic and pseudo-legal reasons to place American troops under the command of any other nation.
There are treaties governing the presence of the UN on US soil. If these have been breached by the NSA action, the US has broken treaty obligations. Now, as the Native American Tribes of the US will testify, this usually doesn't make a lot of difference, but there's a chance that such a breach is actionable in US courts, which could get VERY messy.
It's interesting because in the earliest days of the net dubious sites with porn on them often sported 'NO entry for police' notices. They've now gone out of fashion, but it appears that this ruling may enable them to have a legal effect, which given the significance of due process in US jurisprudence, could be huge.
as a number of the nasty KKK creeps discovered when they were charged with such violations after state juries failed to convict. Therefore is there any reason why those making the 'human errors' can't be charged under similar legislation?
Make access to the key dependent on cooperation of employees of different CLIENTS of the firm located in highly problematic jurisdictions for enforcing injunctions: Switzerland, Gaza, Somalia and India spring to mind.
The Feds are playing legal games; we should do likewise.
Ultimately there are two reasons why - apart from the yuck factor, which is legitimate - why you don't want the NSA reading your email
1) If you say or do something which generates a shadow of suspicion, the probability that the Russians will act on it, to the extent of a SWAT team beating your door down and shooting your dog, is lower
2) If you are politically active, it's going to be less likely that the Russians will provide data to the FBI about your dubious activities
Sure - avoiding either is a better ideal - but perversely I would prefer the KGB, unless I am resident in Russia, in which case they would be a very bad idea.
In the US maybe, but in the UK and Western Europe gun ownership hasn't shifted and crime has fallen just as much. As a matter of record, the world is NOT the USA, despite the impression that some Americans seem to have (as I found when spending some otherwise very happy times with you....)
That's the pessimistic interpretation. The optimistic one is that a student will recognise that there WILL be others out there able to improve on his contribution and so welcome changes that genuinely achieve that, whilst maintaining a watch for vandalism in a corner of Wikipedia that might otherwise go untended.
The whole point of using a good academic standard essay is that it will provide solid references to reliable sources of information. Of course nobody in their right mind uses Wikipedia as an academic reference, and every school should teach kids what sort of online resources are reliable and which should be treated with great suspicion. However one of the virtues of a GOOD wikipedia article is that it provides a list of references / bibliography which allows further research / information gathering on a topic.
One of the features of the academic world is that we students sweat over our essays, only to see them read 2 or 3 times before never being seen or heard of again. If teachers got their classes to write essays on areas needing a Wikipedia article but presently lacking it, there is the potential for good quality new items to enter Wikipedia. And of course once started, additional material, references and corrections can easily made. And the original author gets a sense of ownership of the topic.
Slashdot Mirror
If the landlord was acting as the employee of the company, then the company should be paying social security payments on his earnings, and his rent includes pay as an employee. It's an approach that worked against Al Capone...
The purpose of branding is to offer consumers information about the product - in this case if an organisation is branded 'Scouts', then it carries an assurance that it conforms to their rules, procedures etc. If the name is released from having that meaning, information for parents is lost. Therefore it is reasonable for the scouts national organisation to require the hacker scouts to use an alternative title.
Data exported from the EU already has to maintain certain data protection standards: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Safe_Harbor_Privacy_Principles though one suspects the law may not be well enforced. All this does is add a tax on top, which is, relatively, a detail
Given that 'theism' is the belief that there is a god who does intervene in the world, (Deism being the belief that a god set the world going but now is no longer involved) atheism is a belief that there is NOT a god who can or has intervened in the world. It's a belief in a negative, which every logician will tell you is unprovable. Atheism, on the strict definition, is therefore illogical. Claiming a seat on the 'end of the fence' and labelling it 'atheism' won't actually do - it's a piece of Humpty-Dumptyism, making words mean what you want them to, not what they are defined as meaning. On the subject of alien, I'm suggesting that since it's obvious that any 'god' will be external to this world in some sense, it can therefore be argued to be alien. Actually it's possible to translate 'holy' as 'alien'... But it's not an important point; the core point is that there can be no certainty that there isn't something out there that matches the features of a 'god'.
A brief saunter through the Oxford English Dictionary http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/161944?redirectedFrom=religion#eid seems to support your definition of 'religion' as having rites and worship associated with it. I guess it's more accurate to describe atheism as a 'personal belief' or 'faith'; thanks for making the point. And thanks for reminding me that the agnostic who lives as though there is no god is showing a faith in there not being one, and is, actually, therefore a 'weak atheist' rather than an agnostic; a true agnostic should probably try to propitiate ALL the gods anyone has ever reported!
Interesting point, though as even the Christian tradition uses the term 'god' of beings other than the 'prime mover', you're probably out of line with the common usage of the term. But of course the point does still stand; proving a negative is of course impossible, especially for such a being.
It's a definite belief that nowhere in the universe is there an alien species that corresponds to the characteristics of a 'god'. It is a claim to certainty that is wholly unsustainable; noone's been able to look under every rock in this solar system, let alone the rest of the galaxy. Now agnosticism - that's at least honest...
It's about constructing a story to fit the fact that are available. By contrast physics offers the possibility of repeatable experiments: I can experience gravity because I engage with it every day. Evolution is a story made up about facts, but is not testable like gravity. When the facts about 'garbage DNA' changed, evolutionists were immediately able to construct an explanation for why the new facts are consistent with evolution - as were the old facts. Evolution may or may not be true - but its claims on truth are on the level of history, not the level of chemistry
The fallacy in this argument lies in the claim that evolution is a 'fact'; the truth is that it is a step of faith to accept evolution, a conclusion drawn from 'loads of evidence', but boosted by a desire NOT to invoke a creator because that's unfashionable, and the way to never get tenure; the fairly desperate step of faith required to believe that very complex coincidences in nature 'just happened' is really only possible because there is perceived to be no alternative. The creationist do ask some good questions see http://evidenceweb.net/index.php?pr=MainPage There may be answers - but the BELIEF that evolution is the right interpretation of the evidence is just that - it's a belief, not a fact.
The famous case of the UK hacker who got into US government computers looking for an alien cover up established that the US will seek to extradite people who do that even if they don't set foot in the US.
Great theory; won't happen of course - it's incredibly difficult to stop the 'deep state' - the only recent example would appear to be Turkey where the military had a history of coups but does now appear to have been defanged. But here's hoping!
The UK police site (www.police.uk) offers a facility to view the crimes in a neighbourhood. It's got nothing to do with race - just what's happening on the streets. And that appears to be the purpose of these apps; the fact that the commentariat immediately assumes it's got a racial component is a sign of how deeply pathological the American liberal establishment is. Remember: the definition of a conservative is a liberal who's just been mugged. One's almost inclined to suggest that one might want to see a few of them mugged...
Make it an absolute defence in law to a charge of murder or assault on an employee of the NSA that the NSA was breaching the given clause; the jury in the case to decide whether the defendant had grounds for believing the NSA was guilty.
Actually I'm surprised it's as many as that; usually American Presidents have been allergic for a mixture of xenophobic and pseudo-legal reasons to place American troops under the command of any other nation.
There are treaties governing the presence of the UN on US soil. If these have been breached by the NSA action, the US has broken treaty obligations. Now, as the Native American Tribes of the US will testify, this usually doesn't make a lot of difference, but there's a chance that such a breach is actionable in US courts, which could get VERY messy.
In your dream... but it's a cute dream...
It's interesting because in the earliest days of the net dubious sites with porn on them often sported 'NO entry for police' notices. They've now gone out of fashion, but it appears that this ruling may enable them to have a legal effect, which given the significance of due process in US jurisprudence, could be huge.
as a number of the nasty KKK creeps discovered when they were charged with such violations after state juries failed to convict. Therefore is there any reason why those making the 'human errors' can't be charged under similar legislation?
Make access to the key dependent on cooperation of employees of different CLIENTS of the firm located in highly problematic jurisdictions for enforcing injunctions: Switzerland, Gaza, Somalia and India spring to mind. The Feds are playing legal games; we should do likewise.
Ultimately there are two reasons why - apart from the yuck factor, which is legitimate - why you don't want the NSA reading your email 1) If you say or do something which generates a shadow of suspicion, the probability that the Russians will act on it, to the extent of a SWAT team beating your door down and shooting your dog, is lower 2) If you are politically active, it's going to be less likely that the Russians will provide data to the FBI about your dubious activities Sure - avoiding either is a better ideal - but perversely I would prefer the KGB, unless I am resident in Russia, in which case they would be a very bad idea.
Surely the headline - which appears to refer to school exams - needs to be altered. Great story though...
In the US maybe, but in the UK and Western Europe gun ownership hasn't shifted and crime has fallen just as much. As a matter of record, the world is NOT the USA, despite the impression that some Americans seem to have (as I found when spending some otherwise very happy times with you....)
That's the pessimistic interpretation. The optimistic one is that a student will recognise that there WILL be others out there able to improve on his contribution and so welcome changes that genuinely achieve that, whilst maintaining a watch for vandalism in a corner of Wikipedia that might otherwise go untended.
The whole point of using a good academic standard essay is that it will provide solid references to reliable sources of information. Of course nobody in their right mind uses Wikipedia as an academic reference, and every school should teach kids what sort of online resources are reliable and which should be treated with great suspicion. However one of the virtues of a GOOD wikipedia article is that it provides a list of references / bibliography which allows further research / information gathering on a topic.
One of the features of the academic world is that we students sweat over our essays, only to see them read 2 or 3 times before never being seen or heard of again. If teachers got their classes to write essays on areas needing a Wikipedia article but presently lacking it, there is the potential for good quality new items to enter Wikipedia. And of course once started, additional material, references and corrections can easily made. And the original author gets a sense of ownership of the topic.