Not really, I was sitting corporate IQ test 40yrs ago and licensed psychologists will still run the test for you if you pay them to do so. The results are just a convenient way to filter applicants, in no way do they define who you are, or what you are capable of.
If your child is not 'with it' enough to recognize the fact swallowing inedible objects is really really stupid and dangerous then they need constant supervision at all times.
ALL small children will put anything they find in their mouth, it's a hard wired instinctive behaviour that's starts as soon as they are born and is mostly gone by time they hit school. Very young babies spend most of their waking hours staring at their hands and punching themselves in the face in an attempt to figure out how to use their arms to get stuff into their face. And yes, you do have to keep an eye on them 24x7.
I cannot agree with the court. The were clearly marked not for children, the labels are aimed at the parents who buy them, not the kids that swallow them. If the problem is common then it probably indicates a low awareness of the hazard by parents so perhaps I can agree with withdrawing them from stores. However the product is in no way "defective" so I certainly don't agree the company (let alone the CEO personally) should be liable for the cost of recalling stock that was bought and sold legally and in good faith. To me that smacks of retrospective punishment.
That must be why anyone expressing skepticism towards global warming/climate change is labelled a "denier. Might as well be truthful and call them "heretic".".
I know I shouldn't feed the climate trolls, but here are some obvious facts
All climate scientists are skeptics.
Not all skeptics are climate scientists.
There are many politically powerful pseudo-skeptics in the field (AKA deniers) who deliberately misinform via various front groups and no-think tanks.
The only way to find the "truth" in all this is to stop talking in hyperbole and start studying the science of climate. Personally I've had an interest in the subject for almost 30yrs, very interesting stuff. It's based on the "hard sciences" and is an excellent example of how "the big picture" of Science has practically rewritten our understanding of our planet in my own lifetime. I was literally born before the term Earth sciences was coined.
Agree, plagiarism is a type of fraud so it might reflect badly on the person depending on how rigidly one defines the principle of "fraud", it is not criminal fraud. Also many people here are software developers, sure we can write code from scratch but if you do it for a living it's basically our job to plagiarise code from each other.
Full disclosure: About 45yrs ago I reworded the Beatle's "Eleanor Rigby" for a high school poetry assignment, my teacher was so impressed she wrote "has a talent for poetry" on my final report card.;)
You have a right to use a road but you need a license to drive a vehicle on it. In other words, driving is a privilege, using a public road is a right. There are limits on how you can use the road as a non driver which generally start when you infringe on other people's rights to a safe journey or when the activity is unreasonably detrimental to the road.
If all parties agree, an iron clad contract can be altered or shredded, same deal with the constitution. If this were not the case, if for some reason the constitution was 'read only' you wouldn't have all those amendments such as free speech. Aside from that, anyone who genuinely believes the perfect constitution can even be written is a barking mad authoritarian with zero imagination.
became a friend of the Republicans (a lot of good it did him).
I think Obama (naively) believed that congress was staffed by reasonable people who wanted to work together for the betterment of society. He "reached across the isle", they took one step back and he fell flat on his face in the middle. Neither side has rushed to help him to his feet.
A court jester is the wise fool who speaks truth to power and lives to tell the tale. Stewart is not a journalist, but he is the best court jester to come out of the US since Charlie Chaplin, Colbert is a close second.
Yes, that's the main difference. Here in Oz the commercial channels still have about 10-15minutes of that style at the beginning of a "news hour". Back in the day our version of Walter was a guy called Eric Pearce, and sure a respected anchor-man has some clout as to what stories go to air but these days the networks won't allow "the talent" to gain that sort of clout in the first place.
Great idea, balance global warming with a global "pea souper", what could possibly go wrong. Just repeal all the clean air laws around the globe. The resulting particulate pollution will more or less balance the warming, might need to set off a few volcanoes to even it up. Just one small snag, you will also require an entirely new form of aqua/agriculture that thrives on acid rain, the GM boffins have got that in the bag, right?.
Comprehension tip: "It proposes allowing private citizens to sue someone else for violating existing cruelty laws". AFAIK, there's no law against neutering animals. Now I'm sure there's a handful of people out there demanding such laws but the rest of us want domestic animals properly controlled, so you can stop fretting about PETA because even crusty old "geenies" like me view them as little more than a public nuisance.
and all the glaciers would be gone in 1995, I mean 1998, I mean 2003, sorry that's 2010 now, oh wait 2016. People have no faith in that, and rightfully believe that it's junk science.
Thing is, that run of failed predictions never happened. People who believe it did have abandoned critical thinking and put their faith in propaganda. However your claim is so obviously false that it is useless as real propaganda so I can only assume you're trolling.,
As soon as they gave him one years asylum he became a Russian pawn. What happens to him after the one year is up will now be determined at various negotiating tables where his fate will be just another bargaining chip.
Yes, I think that has a lot to do with it. When I was at HS in the 70's boys were prohibited from taking either typing or cooking classes, for girls those classes were compulsory for the first 2yrs. Girls were prohibited from taking mechanical drawing and woodwork, again, those subjects were compulsory for boys for the first 2yrs. I'm 54 and have been a developer for more than 20yrs, I still can't touch type, because I can do 35wpm the wrong way and I would now have to slow down significantly to break those bad habits. Teacher's would brush it aside with comments such as "women don't build houses, they build homes".
But seriously, you're right. Same "chilling effect" is now in play with the NSA scandal, many people now believe the NSA are omniscient and this tends to make them act as if "god is watching". Detaining that reporter at Heathrow and shredding the laptop at the Guardian's office had nothing to do with the files themselves, it was a blunt warning to the press delivered directly from a "high ranking official" to the editor over the phone, specifically; "You have had your fun, now give us our stuff back".
I was born in 1959, and started HS in 1970 (semi-rural) Australia. Yes, they were all loosely aligned, collectively they were known as the "civil rights movement", they were fighting for blacks right to vote, women's rights to equal pay, the end of conscription, the right to contraception, and later in 70's gay rights. Western governments regularly infiltrated these groups with the aim of disrupting their operations and neutering their influence.
MLK and his followers were the moral leaders of the movement, which started in the US but quickly spread through the western world. Their Ghandi like approach to civil disobedience in the face of public beatings by police and bystanders alike shone a harsh light on society, most decent American's were rightly disgusted enough to get off the couch and join them on the streets. TV played no small part in the success of the movement, there's a famous clip where some cops start throwing people into a paddy wagon, "each with a superfluous whack of a nightstick", the crowd spontaneously burst into the now well known protest chant the whole world is watching.
Learn English, what you are talking about is a particular type of investment, specifically private financial investments that have a monetary return. Governments do that all the time and have massive traditional investment portfolios, but they also make "investments" in infrastructure and such where the returns are meaused by how much they benifit society. For instance the government may choose to invest in a (say) new bridge, the ROI will be measured in reduced travel times and transport costs, the ROI cannot be measured in dollars because there is no such profit to be had. A private bridge would charge a toll to make money and therefore is of less benifit to the community since the toll redirects the bulk of the transport cost savings into the bridge owners pocket. You see the difference? - Government invests in society, private enterprise profits from society, both methods can be implemented with varying degrees of success depending on circumstance, neither group has a monopoly on inefficentcy.
IMHO, the single biggest problem in the US is that there are way too many people like you who reduce ALL government activity to a single simple minded complaint; "Waaaa.....they're spending my money...Waaaaa!"
I don't understand insightful rating of the above post.
Just another long running conspiracy theory, a minority of Americans believe the UN is run by totalitarians that are planning to destroy the US and take over the world. Then there's the other minority that believe only the US and her allies are worthy of a vote in the general assembly. Basically these people are isolationists, it's the same ideology that saw the US sit on it's hands at the start of WW2 in Europe, they will point at (and even invent) scandals to show that the UN are "bad people" and ignore everything else. Also it's cool to be a cynic these days, don't find out what it's about just dismiss any and all political cooperation out of hand.
The study is about testing a common-sense assumption. As other's have pointed out the study has basically confirmed that "a bear shits in the woods". But that's what most science is about, identifying a common-sense assumption that does not hold up under scrutiny, eg "time and space are constants". As in most cases, the common-sense assumption was upheld in this study. Sure it's not very interesting as a news story, but make no mistake, there is a point.
Yes, the statue of David is a great work of art and there are plenty of good quality copies. I just don't want one in my house. It's a good way to raise money for the museum so I don't really see a problem, they will most likely release a bigger (cheaper) batch in the future and the "exclusivity" will become all about the serial number. Personally when I've spent a couple of hundred on "real art" it's been from "unknowns", I choose it because I like it, it's genuinely unique, and there's always a slim chance the "unknown" will be my grandkids version of Picaso when they are my age. Such items make ideal 21st/wedding gifts from a parent or close friend and help support not so famous (and not so dead) artists.
Slashdot Mirror
Not really, I was sitting corporate IQ test 40yrs ago and licensed psychologists will still run the test for you if you pay them to do so. The results are just a convenient way to filter applicants, in no way do they define who you are, or what you are capable of.
If your child is not 'with it' enough to recognize the fact swallowing inedible objects is really really stupid and dangerous then they need constant supervision at all times.
ALL small children will put anything they find in their mouth, it's a hard wired instinctive behaviour that's starts as soon as they are born and is mostly gone by time they hit school. Very young babies spend most of their waking hours staring at their hands and punching themselves in the face in an attempt to figure out how to use their arms to get stuff into their face. And yes, you do have to keep an eye on them 24x7.
I cannot agree with the court. The were clearly marked not for children, the labels are aimed at the parents who buy them, not the kids that swallow them. If the problem is common then it probably indicates a low awareness of the hazard by parents so perhaps I can agree with withdrawing them from stores. However the product is in no way "defective" so I certainly don't agree the company (let alone the CEO personally) should be liable for the cost of recalling stock that was bought and sold legally and in good faith. To me that smacks of retrospective punishment.
That must be why anyone expressing skepticism towards global warming/climate change is labelled a "denier. Might as well be truthful and call them "heretic".".
I know I shouldn't feed the climate trolls, but here are some obvious facts
All climate scientists are skeptics.
Not all skeptics are climate scientists.
There are many politically powerful pseudo-skeptics in the field (AKA deniers) who deliberately misinform via various front groups and no-think tanks.
The only way to find the "truth" in all this is to stop talking in hyperbole and start studying the science of climate. Personally I've had an interest in the subject for almost 30yrs, very interesting stuff. It's based on the "hard sciences" and is an excellent example of how "the big picture" of Science has practically rewritten our understanding of our planet in my own lifetime. I was literally born before the term Earth sciences was coined.
Agree, plagiarism is a type of fraud so it might reflect badly on the person depending on how rigidly one defines the principle of "fraud", it is not criminal fraud. Also many people here are software developers, sure we can write code from scratch but if you do it for a living it's basically our job to plagiarise code from each other.
;)
Full disclosure: About 45yrs ago I reworded the Beatle's "Eleanor Rigby" for a high school poetry assignment, my teacher was so impressed she wrote "has a talent for poetry" on my final report card.
You have a right to use a road but you need a license to drive a vehicle on it. In other words, driving is a privilege, using a public road is a right. There are limits on how you can use the road as a non driver which generally start when you infringe on other people's rights to a safe journey or when the activity is unreasonably detrimental to the road.
If all parties agree, an iron clad contract can be altered or shredded, same deal with the constitution. If this were not the case, if for some reason the constitution was 'read only' you wouldn't have all those amendments such as free speech. Aside from that, anyone who genuinely believes the perfect constitution can even be written is a barking mad authoritarian with zero imagination.
became a friend of the Republicans (a lot of good it did him).
I think Obama (naively) believed that congress was staffed by reasonable people who wanted to work together for the betterment of society. He "reached across the isle", they took one step back and he fell flat on his face in the middle. Neither side has rushed to help him to his feet.
A court jester is the wise fool who speaks truth to power and lives to tell the tale. Stewart is not a journalist, but he is the best court jester to come out of the US since Charlie Chaplin, Colbert is a close second.
There was very little editorializing
Yes, that's the main difference. Here in Oz the commercial channels still have about 10-15minutes of that style at the beginning of a "news hour". Back in the day our version of Walter was a guy called Eric Pearce, and sure a respected anchor-man has some clout as to what stories go to air but these days the networks won't allow "the talent" to gain that sort of clout in the first place.
Great idea, balance global warming with a global "pea souper", what could possibly go wrong. Just repeal all the clean air laws around the globe. The resulting particulate pollution will more or less balance the warming, might need to set off a few volcanoes to even it up. Just one small snag, you will also require an entirely new form of aqua/agriculture that thrives on acid rain, the GM boffins have got that in the bag, right?.
Comprehension tip: "It proposes allowing private citizens to sue someone else for violating existing cruelty laws". AFAIK, there's no law against neutering animals. Now I'm sure there's a handful of people out there demanding such laws but the rest of us want domestic animals properly controlled, so you can stop fretting about PETA because even crusty old "geenies" like me view them as little more than a public nuisance.
and all the glaciers would be gone in 1995, I mean 1998, I mean 2003, sorry that's 2010 now, oh wait 2016. People have no faith in that, and rightfully believe that it's junk science.
Thing is, that run of failed predictions never happened. People who believe it did have abandoned critical thinking and put their faith in propaganda. However your claim is so obviously false that it is useless as real propaganda so I can only assume you're trolling.,
As soon as they gave him one years asylum he became a Russian pawn. What happens to him after the one year is up will now be determined at various negotiating tables where his fate will be just another bargaining chip.
"They're starving back in China, so finish what you've got". - John Lennon.
Yes, I think that has a lot to do with it. When I was at HS in the 70's boys were prohibited from taking either typing or cooking classes, for girls those classes were compulsory for the first 2yrs. Girls were prohibited from taking mechanical drawing and woodwork, again, those subjects were compulsory for boys for the first 2yrs. I'm 54 and have been a developer for more than 20yrs, I still can't touch type, because I can do 35wpm the wrong way and I would now have to slow down significantly to break those bad habits. Teacher's would brush it aside with comments such as "women don't build houses, they build homes".
the whole world is watching
I known nothing my commandant, nothing!
But seriously, you're right. Same "chilling effect" is now in play with the NSA scandal, many people now believe the NSA are omniscient and this tends to make them act as if "god is watching". Detaining that reporter at Heathrow and shredding the laptop at the Guardian's office had nothing to do with the files themselves, it was a blunt warning to the press delivered directly from a "high ranking official" to the editor over the phone, specifically; "You have had your fun, now give us our stuff back".
Agree, Liberty vs Safety is not a zero-sum game. That's why Western spying is ok, but Chinese spying is an act of war, right?
I was born in 1959, and started HS in 1970 (semi-rural) Australia. Yes, they were all loosely aligned, collectively they were known as the "civil rights movement", they were fighting for blacks right to vote, women's rights to equal pay, the end of conscription, the right to contraception, and later in 70's gay rights. Western governments regularly infiltrated these groups with the aim of disrupting their operations and neutering their influence.
MLK and his followers were the moral leaders of the movement, which started in the US but quickly spread through the western world. Their Ghandi like approach to civil disobedience in the face of public beatings by police and bystanders alike shone a harsh light on society, most decent American's were rightly disgusted enough to get off the couch and join them on the streets. TV played no small part in the success of the movement, there's a famous clip where some cops start throwing people into a paddy wagon, "each with a superfluous whack of a nightstick", the crowd spontaneously burst into the now well known protest chant the whole world is watching.
Learn English, what you are talking about is a particular type of investment, specifically private financial investments that have a monetary return. Governments do that all the time and have massive traditional investment portfolios, but they also make "investments" in infrastructure and such where the returns are meaused by how much they benifit society. For instance the government may choose to invest in a (say) new bridge, the ROI will be measured in reduced travel times and transport costs, the ROI cannot be measured in dollars because there is no such profit to be had. A private bridge would charge a toll to make money and therefore is of less benifit to the community since the toll redirects the bulk of the transport cost savings into the bridge owners pocket. You see the difference? - Government invests in society, private enterprise profits from society, both methods can be implemented with varying degrees of success depending on circumstance, neither group has a monopoly on inefficentcy.
IMHO, the single biggest problem in the US is that there are way too many people like you who reduce ALL government activity to a single simple minded complaint; "Waaaa.....they're spending my money...Waaaaa!"
I don't understand insightful rating of the above post.
Just another long running conspiracy theory, a minority of Americans believe the UN is run by totalitarians that are planning to destroy the US and take over the world. Then there's the other minority that believe only the US and her allies are worthy of a vote in the general assembly. Basically these people are isolationists, it's the same ideology that saw the US sit on it's hands at the start of WW2 in Europe, they will point at (and even invent) scandals to show that the UN are "bad people" and ignore everything else. Also it's cool to be a cynic these days, don't find out what it's about just dismiss any and all political cooperation out of hand.
Concrete is a major source of C02 emissions, this stuff could be a major C02 sink if it replaced (say) 20% of concrete products.
If it's carbon negative they will get carbon credits that they can sell at the going rate, ...well.... until Tony fucks it all up after the election.
The study is about testing a common-sense assumption. As other's have pointed out the study has basically confirmed that "a bear shits in the woods". But that's what most science is about, identifying a common-sense assumption that does not hold up under scrutiny, eg "time and space are constants". As in most cases, the common-sense assumption was upheld in this study. Sure it's not very interesting as a news story, but make no mistake, there is a point.
Yes, the statue of David is a great work of art and there are plenty of good quality copies. I just don't want one in my house. It's a good way to raise money for the museum so I don't really see a problem, they will most likely release a bigger (cheaper) batch in the future and the "exclusivity" will become all about the serial number. Personally when I've spent a couple of hundred on "real art" it's been from "unknowns", I choose it because I like it, it's genuinely unique, and there's always a slim chance the "unknown" will be my grandkids version of Picaso when they are my age. Such items make ideal 21st/wedding gifts from a parent or close friend and help support not so famous (and not so dead) artists.