Here's something I've always thought would be worth trying:
Study what you want. Generous loans will be provided, but your educational institution bills you for the true cost of the services they provide. That's important so that people can then know what education actually costs whether or not they ultimately pay for it themselves.
When you pay income tax, the government puts up an amount equal (or a percentage - that part is negotiable) and applies it to the student loan. Be a productive member of society and pay your taxes, and the student loan eventually vanishes on its own.
And if you get an expensive advanced degree like medicine and then work abroad, they're come after you for the full cost of your education.
I don't think real scientists in linguists thought that people, or all people anyway, read by recognizing individual letter, assembling them into sounds, and figuring out the words that went with the sounds.
Reading words will certainly activate the sound patterns stored in the brain, but there are many possible correlations.
The old meaning of 'beg' is ask - what's so idiomatic about it?
"Beg the question" has two perfectly legitimate meanings: something with no explanatory merit that simply re-asks the same question, or something with no explanatory merit that immediately implies asking a new question.
The point is not that established interests are opposed to marijuana because it has serious public or individual health issues.
It's because it doesn't.
Some people in this world have a core belief that anything pleasurable must have a cost, and become hysterical in the face of any pleasurable activity that is consequence-free. To them, pleasure without cost is an outrage, and it goes against their whole identity. They can't enjoy it without giving up their beliefs, and they can't allow someone else to enjoy it either without offending their internalized belief system. Unable to change their beliefs, they attempt to change reality around them, no matter the cost. Things like ideological consistency and democracy are expendable.
For example, alcohol is okay, because there is a price to pay for abuse, such as hangovers in the short term and more serious health issues longer term. In contrast, before 1950s contraceptive technologies, it genuinely was the case that sex outside of marriage was an irresponsible high-risk anti-social activity with serious real-world consequences. But then because of technology, the world changed, and unable to change their belief system, they fall back on morality arguments with no rational basis. Some thing with cannabis.
I work as a transcriptionist, including transcribing political debates, and having to listen to people word for word I can attest that you can get a sense of when people are lying, and when they are saying something new versus something already known from their perspective, although it's not clear how reliable the correlations really are.
I'm wondering what their control group was. If they're analysing the speech of people "when talking about their crimes", then they presumably are not comparing them with the general population who have no convictions.
This doesn't even make sense in Canadian law, but it is the kind of wording used in authoritarian laws in the US, like some draft versions of the legislation for the bailout scam or the terror laws eliminating human rights. I would suggest this is a big clue as to the true origins of the proposal.
Given the difficulties in merely detecting, much less observing, exoplanets, and the fact that we haven't been doing this for very long and the technologies are new, the only surprise that there aren't more undecided cases like this.
Marx did have great insights, but there were two very serious errors that don't get the attention they deserve:
He assumed that there was no more potential for generating wealth through innovation, that is, that there would be no new industrial products developed (this was before the computer, the automobile, etc.)
Given that redistribution of wealth was counted as a virtue to a communist mentality, he failed to recognize that the people most motivated to run a communist party (as opposed to simply voting for one) would be people who believed in unrestricted theft.
Capitalism has its own flaws, of course, such as how people are seduced by the theoretical notion of equality while overlooking that fact that in practice wealth tends to flow to those who already have the most.
People on the Internet should know better about finding reliable information. Informed experts, as opposed to sensationalist "journalists", were saying the issue was the sheer geographical size and what that implied for rainfall, not the intensity of the anticipated winds.
It's an issue of adaptation, not intent. Lots of parasites alter their hosts' behaviour, which is mind control by definition. The control may be crude but that's not the point.
They seem to be using a very narrow (i.e. unscientific) understanding of what evolutionary theory predicts. It is adaptive to adopt altruism in the face of a crisis that requires higher than usual degrees of co-operation.
Also I'm guessing "[l]inking early epidemics to the emergence of disease" was supposed to refer to something more than the definition of epidemic being the emergence of a widespread disease.
They're trying to say 'petrified' (in its figurative meaning) but they think it will sound more impressive if they incorrectly use a somewhat similar word.
The headline did overstate the matter. I was expecting to learn about virtual rats escaping their simulation and carrying people out of burning buildings.
Slashdot Mirror
The program may be failing...
and that may mean the policy is succeeding.
Here's something I've always thought would be worth trying:
Study what you want. Generous loans will be provided, but your educational institution bills you for the true cost of the services they provide. That's important so that people can then know what education actually costs whether or not they ultimately pay for it themselves.
When you pay income tax, the government puts up an amount equal (or a percentage - that part is negotiable) and applies it to the student loan. Be a productive member of society and pay your taxes, and the student loan eventually vanishes on its own.
And if you get an expensive advanced degree like medicine and then work abroad, they're come after you for the full cost of your education.
I don't think real scientists in linguists thought that people, or all people anyway, read by recognizing individual letter, assembling them into sounds, and figuring out the words that went with the sounds.
Reading words will certainly activate the sound patterns stored in the brain, but there are many possible correlations.
The old meaning of 'beg' is ask - what's so idiomatic about it?
"Beg the question" has two perfectly legitimate meanings: something with no explanatory merit that simply re-asks the same question, or something with no explanatory merit that immediately implies asking a new question.
Well, obviously--canals are built below ground level.
The point is not that established interests are opposed to marijuana because it has serious public or individual health issues.
It's because it doesn't.
Some people in this world have a core belief that anything pleasurable must have a cost, and become hysterical in the face of any pleasurable activity that is consequence-free. To them, pleasure without cost is an outrage, and it goes against their whole identity. They can't enjoy it without giving up their beliefs, and they can't allow someone else to enjoy it either without offending their internalized belief system. Unable to change their beliefs, they attempt to change reality around them, no matter the cost. Things like ideological consistency and democracy are expendable.
For example, alcohol is okay, because there is a price to pay for abuse, such as hangovers in the short term and more serious health issues longer term. In contrast, before 1950s contraceptive technologies, it genuinely was the case that sex outside of marriage was an irresponsible high-risk anti-social activity with serious real-world consequences. But then because of technology, the world changed, and unable to change their belief system, they fall back on morality arguments with no rational basis. Some thing with cannabis.
Usually, the big corporation goes after the individual in court because they know they are wrong, not because they believe they are right.
In this case, however, it's parody and plagiarism at the same time, so I can see the point of both sides.
I work as a transcriptionist, including transcribing political debates, and having to listen to people word for word I can attest that you can get a sense of when people are lying, and when they are saying something new versus something already known from their perspective, although it's not clear how reliable the correlations really are.
I'm wondering what their control group was. If they're analysing the speech of people "when talking about their crimes", then they presumably are not comparing them with the general population who have no convictions.
Microsoft says a lot of things.
Well, it looks like yours is the first...
This doesn't even make sense in Canadian law, but it is the kind of wording used in authoritarian laws in the US, like some draft versions of the legislation for the bailout scam or the terror laws eliminating human rights. I would suggest this is a big clue as to the true origins of the proposal.
Given the difficulties in merely detecting, much less observing, exoplanets, and the fact that we haven't been doing this for very long and the technologies are new, the only surprise that there aren't more undecided cases like this.
That seems like more of an anti-soul intent, especially if it's the sole intent.
Marx did have great insights, but there were two very serious errors that don't get the attention they deserve:
He assumed that there was no more potential for generating wealth through innovation, that is, that there would be no new industrial products developed (this was before the computer, the automobile, etc.)
Given that redistribution of wealth was counted as a virtue to a communist mentality, he failed to recognize that the people most motivated to run a communist party (as opposed to simply voting for one) would be people who believed in unrestricted theft.
Capitalism has its own flaws, of course, such as how people are seduced by the theoretical notion of equality while overlooking that fact that in practice wealth tends to flow to those who already have the most.
People on the Internet should know better about finding reliable information. Informed experts, as opposed to sensationalist "journalists", were saying the issue was the sheer geographical size and what that implied for rainfall, not the intensity of the anticipated winds.
It's an issue of adaptation, not intent. Lots of parasites alter their hosts' behaviour, which is mind control by definition. The control may be crude but that's not the point.
...for this very reason, and that's been known for some time.
Either way it's a step forward for human knowledge.
They seem to be using a very narrow (i.e. unscientific) understanding of what evolutionary theory predicts. It is adaptive to adopt altruism in the face of a crisis that requires higher than usual degrees of co-operation.
Also I'm guessing "[l]inking early epidemics to the emergence of disease" was supposed to refer to something more than the definition of epidemic being the emergence of a widespread disease.
Hypocrisy. Or was that a rhetorical question?
They're trying to say 'petrified' (in its figurative meaning) but they think it will sound more impressive if they incorrectly use a somewhat similar word.
The headline did overstate the matter. I was expecting to learn about virtual rats escaping their simulation and carrying people out of burning buildings.
Both the HAL 9000 and SkyNet had perfect operational records right up until they, um, started having issues.
Maybe having a glitch early on is a good sign.
They can both be obsolete.
Wait, it's not the 62nd of August yet... ...you insensitive clod!