This. The BBC has been a mindless lapdog since Hutton.
Interestingly, under the much more authoritarian Thatcher, it remained a thorn in the government's side. (It required a decades or two to remove all the activist management and gradually replace them with stooges.)
While handsfree is obviously a far better solution than something you have to hold, the real risk is not that you will have an accident - most idiots on the road are regularly avoided by more sensible drivers who have their wits completely about them.
The risk is that if there is a dangerous scenario, you will respond more slowly if your brain is distracted, and you'll cause more damage to (yourself and) others.
This is one of the main reasons motor insurance for young men has historically been higher: it's not that men have more accidents, but that when they do it is accompanied by such insane behaviour that everyone comes out a fucking mess.
So, what happens now is what happens in every democracy, someone drafts a bill, other people critisize it, and we have no clue yet what is going to happen in the end.
Perhaps your democracy is not old enough to be operating optimally. In Westminster, it works like this:
1) One or more big businesses lobby government;
2) Government produces draft legislation to benefit these businesses, but including all sorts of bullshit in it too;
3) There is a "debate" in which the government "concedes" to removing all the bullshit that no-one was expecting to be included anyway;
I regret not doing more mathematics the first time round at A level, but there are problems to be addressed. I did turn my degree ("major", as Americans seem to call it) toward mathematics, and for preparatory work ended up doing another math A-level via private study, for which I received the top % in the country for that exam board. But all I really did was cram the study books published by the same company which produced the exams.
At a ceremony thing, following a long discussion with some of the staff at the board, I was immediately offered a trial position. I stupidly didn't take it. Well, I know at the time I was recovering from an illness which had just appeared and wasn't really thinking straight about what I could do long term. But I would like to have played at least some part in turning it more from a "learn for the test" thing into a "learn problem-solving" thing.
I only see an obligation to "face up to a charge" if you believe you're going to receive a fair trial.
If there's a risk that you're going to be extradited to a third country and face internment and torture, it really doesn't matter how bad the charges against you are - you avoid the trial.
Assange's main mistake was to be politically dangerous while not also being celibate.
The modern world is based on statistics and conforming to expectations, whether that's an aptitude test determining what you're "probably" good at to some crude metrics determining whether you're "probably" a safe driver. Everyone is fitted into neat little categories and self-fulfilling prophecies are created, reinforcing existing prejudices and providing little scope for social improvement.
No more is this true than with driving: young men are essentially told that they are high risk. It's like the classical story of parents who started being fined for picking up their kids late from school, so ended up doing it more because they thought they'd now paid for the right to fetch their kids late.
Except that "You're too stupid to work here" would say more about the employer. Interviewing and testing are statistical exercises - based on your past experience, you make an educated guess on who you feel is likely to be most suitable. A good employer knows this, and understands that he isn't making a general judgment on intelligence.
Fair reasons include "you haven't sufficiently demonstrated the talents we require" or "you would be a poor fit for our culture".
It has always observed life with the sophistication of a high schooler, but once occasionally spouted undergrad trivia. Today the author seems to have forgotten even that.
Perhaps you're confusing "childish" and "childlike". Calvin&Hobbes has a childlike attitude but is far from childish.
Certainly you wouldn't want them to "fit" into your existing team.
To avoid stagnation, I would only want them to fit so far into my existing team. That's how groups evolve: they don't kill off the kids who don't quite fit in.
Can someone please clarify for me whether people in Spain of working age must unconditionally pay 40% of the actual cost of prescriptions?
Doesn't this mean that anyone poor on expensive medication essentially won't be able to afford it? This means that Spain doesn't have a comprehensive healthcare system at all.
Please consider that your understanding of the context or of the law might be at fault, and not the original summary.
The lowest bar to justify an arrest of this guy would be his indecency/obscenity. The facts that he made some non-menacing threats and that he is a dick are irrelevant - ask yourself instead what stupid laws you have broken which mean that you can be easily arrested when you annoy the wrong person.
Slashdot Mirror
Implying that it's the music which matters, rather than the fact that this guy was a professional musician.
Implying that fairly specific activities are neatly allocated into areas.
Implying that any neat division exists across a majority of people.
This. The BBC has been a mindless lapdog since Hutton.
Interestingly, under the much more authoritarian Thatcher, it remained a thorn in the government's side. (It required a decades or two to remove all the activist management and gradually replace them with stooges.)
These experiments based on one or a very small group of individuals are all too prevalent in neuro research.
Maybe this particular guy remembered music/songs in a unique way. Maybe he's acting.
Stop blaming the victim.
While handsfree is obviously a far better solution than something you have to hold, the real risk is not that you will have an accident - most idiots on the road are regularly avoided by more sensible drivers who have their wits completely about them.
The risk is that if there is a dangerous scenario, you will respond more slowly if your brain is distracted, and you'll cause more damage to (yourself and) others.
This is one of the main reasons motor insurance for young men has historically been higher: it's not that men have more accidents, but that when they do it is accompanied by such insane behaviour that everyone comes out a fucking mess.
So, what happens now is what happens in every democracy, someone drafts a bill, other people critisize it, and we have no clue yet what is going to happen in the end.
Perhaps your democracy is not old enough to be operating optimally. In Westminster, it works like this:
1) One or more big businesses lobby government;
2) Government produces draft legislation to benefit these businesses, but including all sorts of bullshit in it too;
3) There is a "debate" in which the government "concedes" to removing all the bullshit that no-one was expecting to be included anyway;
4) The bill passes.
Demand for cheap labour visas, especially in the USA, is still outstripping supply
FTFY.
I regret not doing more mathematics the first time round at A level, but there are problems to be addressed. I did turn my degree ("major", as Americans seem to call it) toward mathematics, and for preparatory work ended up doing another math A-level via private study, for which I received the top % in the country for that exam board. But all I really did was cram the study books published by the same company which produced the exams.
At a ceremony thing, following a long discussion with some of the staff at the board, I was immediately offered a trial position. I stupidly didn't take it. Well, I know at the time I was recovering from an illness which had just appeared and wasn't really thinking straight about what I could do long term. But I would like to have played at least some part in turning it more from a "learn for the test" thing into a "learn problem-solving" thing.
Now there's less exposure to alternative works, people are less like to buy.
The only reason not to support Assange is that some people might think he's on the side of Ron Paul.
and clears his name
No, that's not how criminal justice works at all.
I only see an obligation to "face up to a charge" if you believe you're going to receive a fair trial.
If there's a risk that you're going to be extradited to a third country and face internment and torture, it really doesn't matter how bad the charges against you are - you avoid the trial.
Assange's main mistake was to be politically dangerous while not also being celibate.
The modern world is based on statistics and conforming to expectations, whether that's an aptitude test determining what you're "probably" good at to some crude metrics determining whether you're "probably" a safe driver. Everyone is fitted into neat little categories and self-fulfilling prophecies are created, reinforcing existing prejudices and providing little scope for social improvement.
No more is this true than with driving: young men are essentially told that they are high risk. It's like the classical story of parents who started being fined for picking up their kids late from school, so ended up doing it more because they thought they'd now paid for the right to fetch their kids late.
If you have to ask the question, you've already lost.
No it isn't.
I can say what I want but I can't publish what I want in your newspaper.
Everyone may have freedom of speech. The freedom of the press belongs to the owners of the presses.
Try again.
Before C20, I'd agree.
Today, there is no greater con than capitalism.
Which is why anyone feels the need for an iPhone and its apps at all.
Except that "You're too stupid to work here" would say more about the employer. Interviewing and testing are statistical exercises - based on your past experience, you make an educated guess on who you feel is likely to be most suitable. A good employer knows this, and understands that he isn't making a general judgment on intelligence.
Fair reasons include "you haven't sufficiently demonstrated the talents we require" or "you would be a poor fit for our culture".
Pssh, I know. It hardly ever talks about Mondays.
It has always observed life with the sophistication of a high schooler, but once occasionally spouted undergrad trivia. Today the author seems to have forgotten even that.
Perhaps you're confusing "childish" and "childlike". Calvin&Hobbes has a childlike attitude but is far from childish.
Certainly you wouldn't want them to "fit" into your existing team.
To avoid stagnation, I would only want them to fit so far into my existing team. That's how groups evolve: they don't kill off the kids who don't quite fit in.
Twitter is a collection of newsgroups where each message is limited to 160 characters.
Newsgroups have been around for over thirty years.
Twitter is optimal in serving the "communication" desires of an idiot generation, but has no useful purpose.
Can someone please clarify for me whether people in Spain of working age must unconditionally pay 40% of the actual cost of prescriptions?
Doesn't this mean that anyone poor on expensive medication essentially won't be able to afford it? This means that Spain doesn't have a comprehensive healthcare system at all.
Is that like a mobile speed camera detection system?
Mediocrity loves company.
who is stupid? anyone who says stupid things, or anyone with low IQ?
Bingo. At least someone understands the problem here.
(The police will of course also know this when they're finding a reason to arrest him.)
Please consider that your understanding of the context or of the law might be at fault, and not the original summary.
The lowest bar to justify an arrest of this guy would be his indecency/obscenity. The facts that he made some non-menacing threats and that he is a dick are irrelevant - ask yourself instead what stupid laws you have broken which mean that you can be easily arrested when you annoy the wrong person.