"Neither $skin_color people nor $sexual_preference people have a body part that fails to function correctly. In the case of color-blind people, our eyes do not function correctly."
So I was in Cuba and I was left with a terrible burn as I'm quite pale. I can't help but think that my skin with its pale colour failed to function correctly while my friend's darker skin functioned well.
And, as for the converse, I've never seen this personally before, but I have heard of people with dark skin developing rickets in the UK for example.
Do you think US + Allies would just sit around twiddling their thumbs while China built up arms and took strategic positions around the globe? Why do you think the US tries to maintain military superiority...just for show but without any force behind the threat? The US has already invaded and dominated one neighbour of China in the past decade on the flimsiest of pretenses (Afghanistan) and has bombed parts of another (Pakistan), and has more than once threatened to invade one of China's few allies (North Korea). But China hasn't come within an ocean's breadth of the mainland US. If China set themselves on a path toward military dominance, why wouldn't the US take action before China reached it? I mean, if you're playing a game of chess and you see your enemy has a chance to take a dominant position, why wouldn't you do something about it before they took it, rather than after? So for example, if China inclined themselves toward setting up military bases in Cuba or Venezuala, don't you think the US would prefer to invade these countries and set up their own puppet states before China ever set up those bases? If China sent a carrier group (they don't even have a single carrier yet, indeed just building one may be enough for the US to take military action against China -- note this need not be direct military action, but could be arming East Turkestan nationalists, or invading North Korea, or arming and backing the ROC in a declaration of independence, which would hurt the PRC's legitimacy and air of authority greatly) to a few dozen miles off the coast of California and started performing war games and demanding that their ships be allowed to dock in San Fransisco (the US does this frequently to China), then the US would probably send an intervening force.
But it's not like that. Markets are open to the Chinese and they are becoming more prosperous for it, and with this prosperity, they don't want to go to war with the US. So they are not trying to become militarily dominant so as to provoke the US.
If we didn't involve eating carbohydrates, then how come lactose (a carbohydrate) occurs at greater frequencies in regions where there is a tradition of drinking dairy products (1% of Dutch being intolerant versus 95% of Chinese being intolerant)? The theory I've heard is that populations in these regions evolved to have this trait at a greater frequency because of the reproductive benefit of being able to consume dairy products later in life. So then at least some of us have evolved eating them?
Why pay the fine? There is a religious exemption. You have religious beliefs which prevent you from getting insurance. When you get sick -- change your religion. I mean, obviously it's not the right religion if you get sick.
"We're talking about government agents using Facebook or Twitter the exact same way that you or I would use it."
When I read the TOS for Facebook it said I was not allowed to supply false information, but this story says that the law enforcement personnel are doing just that. So they are not using Facebook just as you or I would use it.
How many pieces did he have to generate to get the two sample tracks in TFA (not that the sample tracks were particularly stunning -- the first was pleasant at least, though)? If you spend just as much time setting parameters and listening through duds as it does to write your own of comparable quality...then what's the point? Obviously a grand number of monkeys on typewriters would eventually come up with Shakespeare -- same principle here. I'm not trying to knock his/his program's accomplishment, I just want to know. I think there is a real future though for AI in all domains, including music.
And a lot of composers are trying to express their own particular idea, and I'm not sure how much automatic generation of the notes is going to help them (obviously some are satisfied pulling from such a source). And there are lot of listeners engage with a composer's work not just on the level of individual pieces, but they study works' relations to each other and to the life and times of the composer as well.
I know that's wrong and I don't even have to look it up, but since others may:
Source: "Modern editions of the Greek text of Aristotle are based on the Greek manuscripts copied in the Byzantine period (mostly during the tenth century and later) from manuscripts derived indirectly from the edition of Aristotle works produced by Andronicus in the first century B.C."
I don't really see how your link supports your assertions. It says: " Archimedes' work was translated into Arabic by Thbit ibn Qurra (836-901 AD), and Latin by Gerard of Cremona (c. 1114-1187 AD). " That does not say that Archimedes' work comes to us through Arabic, it just says that it was at one point translated into Arabic. Indeed, this source seems to contradict your position: a collection of Archimedes works in 9th-century Constantinople form the "basis of the texts we have today." Why would Greek scholars in the 9th century who didn't know much Arabic, if any, make a collection of Archimedes in Arabic, instead of Greek, when the Greek manuscripts were clearly still available in the 9th century (how else would bin Qurra have translated Archimedes into Arabic?)? I think I'd believe that that collection (which "is the basis of the texts we have today") which they are is mentioned here was in Greek, unless you can provide some evidence that it was not...
This page seem to contradict your statement about Euclid's elements. If a 4th century edition formed the basis of texts until the 19th century, then the texts until the 19th century were not based on Arabic, because there is no way that 4th century text was in Arabic. And then that text was improved with another Greek version, to form the Heiberg edition, which, so it says (in 1971), "still stands". There's no mention of Arabic.
Other responders have similar problems (Ptolemy's Almagest: http://www.ibiblio.org/expo/vatican.exhibit/exhibit/d-mathematics/Greek_astro.html). But one of the other responders mentions Hero of Alexandira, and appears to be partly right: of his 14 works listed in this article [PDF], 1 comes to us from Arabic (the Metrica), and 1 comes from Arabic with some Greek fragments (the Mechanica). Both seem to be significant works.
So I still think there is this myth that "lots" of Greek works are transmitted to us through Arabic, although I'm happy now to have some examples of significant texts (2 of Hero's 14) that do actually fit this model.
"a lot of Greek learning went into Arabic and came back out into Latin or Greek."
Can you give me an example of a significant text? I'm pretty sure it is a myth that lots of Greek learning has gone through this process. I see the claim made a lot, but I've never come across a text which has done this (the philosophers, the dramatists, the historians, the lyric poets, all seem to come from the original Greek).
I saw a job offer that said, in the small print, something along the lines of: "We are committed in our hiring and operating practises not to discriminate on the basis of gender, religion, race, ethnicity, or ability."
We can see what they wanted to say: They wanted to say "disability" (which itself would read strangely except that by now it has taken on a particular meaning in these situations which is broadly recognised), but because that word is not politically correct they were brought into saying something which reads as if it were patently absurd: That they actually don't take the abilities of the applicants into consideration when they hire. So...what, they cut open a bird and look at the entrails for divine signs?
Much like how every university is now fully committed to diversity, which reads strange every time I see some such statement on the matter.
"An uncertain consequence to Canada, of non-compliance with ACTA, will likely be stronger ties with China, but at the moment, they, at least, seem willing to respect our democracy."
If 3% of "tech firms" and 1% of "high-tech firms" were founded by women, and yet 19% are primarily owned by women, that seems to suggest that women position themselves very well in terms of getting to the top of these companies.
In terms of founding firms, if one gender wants to found more firms --- then maybe they should just found more firms? I don't see how anything but the most abstruse and heavy-handed affirmative action is going to change that. ("Oh, you want a business license? But you're a male and we've already completed our quota of patri-licenses! Try again next decade.")
Maybe male-dominance of firms can be explained by three facts: (1) founding a firm is one of the more risky ways to try to secure wealth for oneself; (2) tendency to take greater risks is positively associated with testosterone levels (link and link); and (3) males have higher testosterone levels than women.
Sure, there is much more that needs to be done in the realm of women's rights. But that men tend to want to found firms and women do not, is not really high up on the list. Let's try making sure women do not get assaulted as much as they do. This will probably increase their mental well-being and self-confidence such that they will be even more able to succeed in things like finance and high-tech as well!
I've always understood "read between the lines" to be a metaphor. You don't actually read between the lines. In fact, what you are reading is the lines themselves -- the metaphor describes reading the lines closely, so closely that you not only see every detail in them but you also metaphorically read "between" them. That is, you're reading so closely that you're "reading" things which aren't actually there. It's an hyperbole. Anyway, from this close reading of the text you determine the intent. So what you call reading between the lines I take to be reading the law -- it's just a close reading of the law. I can only take it then that you are saying that one determines the spirit of the law by grasping the meaning of the letter of the law. So really, the spirit of the law is what is expressed by the letter of the law in such a case. But feel free to contest anything I say.
Anyway, you've given a case where avoiding hitting the pedestrian, although the avoidance itself is completely safe, is against the law. (This does not describe the case I actually occupy -- because the law of my jurisdiction says that any reasonable measure can be used to avoid such an accident, and that any sections otherwise prohibiting such behaviour are inapplicable in such situations.) So I take it that this is a case where the law itself is unjust. Well of course I wouldn't follow it then -- that's just an unjust law, like a law which prohibits me from feeding my children or something. I may just not ride on those roads since they have such silly laws, just as I would probably leave any jurisdiction which banned me from feeding my kids. Or I would continue to ride with no intention of following that law -- and if it went to court I would argue against conviction on the grounds that the law is unjust, which I always take to be an acceptable defense.
But I will not break the law just because someone wants the vain convenience of travelling faster than I am travelling. I won't expose myself to all the liability with none of the reward. That's not a contract I'll ever sign. If motorists want me to break the law in order to please them, then I need assurances from them, not just angry honks or jeers. Of course, such assurances are impossible to deliver in these situations.
Here's something sub-optimal, which perhaps you haven't thought of:
If you get hit, but you are not following the law, and the person who hit you was not particularly neglectful or malicious -- I fear that you're not going to receive a thin dime in compensation, because his slick lawyer will raise just the points that you: 1) were impossible to deal with because your behaviour was unlawful, unexpected, and hence random and dangerous; and 2) showed yourself not to care at all about your own safety.
If I'm ran down and left in traction and/or a wheelchair for months (or worse), I want more than just medical expenses covered (most of that is covered by the state-run healthcare in Canada anyway). But what's the chances of me getting decent compensation if I'm hit while running through a stop sign, failing to signal, riding on the sidewalk, or otherwise breaking the law? Pretty slim I would think.
If someone hits me he'll be paying for it, because for him to know what I'm doing and where I'm going on my bike so that he may not ram into me, all he has to do is exactly what he's expected to do: pay attention and remember the Highway Traffic Act which he should have read.
But we can debate "letter" versus "spirit" of the law if you want. Here's my argument: If your intention is to follow the spirit of the law, how do you first determine the spirit of the law? Through reading the written law, through having received some "folk" wisdom passed to you unofficially from some other persons, or some mixture of the two? If the first, then you are just following the letter of the law. If the second, then why not just write down that folk-wisdom and make that the letter of the law? For the third, mutatis mutandis, as for the second. Any "spirit" of the law which you can actually cogitate on necessarily takes the form of some meaningful language. If it's that language which you suppose one should take into consideration when you seek to follow the law, then why not use that language as the letter of the law? Or do you think that one can understand intentions which are neither expressed nor expressible in meaningful language?
Okay, I bike everyday, in Canada. Whether snow, ice, or -40 Celsius. I hate this just as much as you. Because I stop, and I follow all the laws to the best of my ability -- little useless bell (voice is much louder) on my handlebars and all. Here's one I also follow: the speed-limit. However, pretty much every automobile driver I meet does not follow the speed limit. So, it's not like motorists are somehow more law-abiding than cyclists -- because almost 100% of motorists break the speed limit. There's this one road I go down -- 30kph speed limit, and yet every car behind me always seems to catch up and pass me rather quickly when I'm going along at 30kph. In fact, I would say that most are going 50kph. That's more than 66% over the speed limit. Is every motorist continuously late for work or something? And in 50kph zones, it seems that 70kph or greater is the norm amongst motorists. On the highway you would be as lucky as a lottery-winner to see someone cruising not more than 90kph, the speed limit.
And cars seem to have trouble with stop-signs as well. They slow-down for them, but as for a complete stop -- that's a rarity. They seem to like to just crawl through them at 1 to upward of 5 kph.
Really the only group of motorists with which I'm continually impressed are the school-bus drivers.
But I've been semi-facetious so far. This is how it actually is: The motorist thinks on the highway: "Well, this highway is still safe at 100kph. It's only 10kph over the speed limit and visibility and conditions are fine. So even though it is breaking law, I'll do it." If he actually thought that he would get into an accident, he wouldn't do it. This is what the cyclist is thinking at the stop-sign: "No one else is coming, so, if I just go through, it will be fine. So even though it is breaking the law, I'll do it." If he actually thought that he would get into an accident, he wouldn't do it.
Why would they have any familiarity with informal English at all? Indeed, the English-language requirement in their graduate program (if they indeed have an English requirement at all) would be the ability to read formal English, not informal. And why would they be tech-savvy in such as way at to make them familiar with SMS or informal English? I'd say that that is unlikely to be a requirement of their program at all.
So, if the airbag and seatbelt were working ideally (gave you constant deceleration), in that case of 65mph to 0 in 3 feet, you would suffer something like 47 g-forces. What's the chances of surviving that? Wikipedia says: "The record for peak experimental horizontal g-force tolerance is held by acceleration pioneer John Stapp, in a series of rocket sled deceleration experiments in which he survived forces up to 46.2 times the force of gravity for less than a second. Stapp suffered lifelong damage to his vision from this test.[14]" !
Don't forget about the number of students who are not native English speakers. For most Canadian universities, this population forms a sizable chunk. For many freshmen students, this is their first time in an English-speaking country. They have some experience -- enough to fulfil the entry requirements, but not enough to perform well with the language in every context.
' Jared Diamond (1999 winner of the Medal of Science award and UCLA evolutionary biologist) points out flaws in these theories.
"Among tropical peoples," he writes "anthropologists love to stress the dark skins of African blacks, people of the southern Indian peninsula, and New Guineans and love to forget the pale skins of Amazonian Indians and Southeast Asians living at the same latitudes." [Emphasis mine.]
He notes that dark peoples of equatorial West Africa and the New Guinea mountains get no more UV radiation than the light-skinned folk in Switzerland, if you take cloud cover into account.... Charles E. Taylor, UCLA evolutionary biologist, thinks so, too. "Diamond argues for sexual selection because nothing else seems to fit," Taylor says. "This is a cop-out, of course, but it makes sense to me."... "It is not impossible that white skin color originated in Northern Africa," says Taylor. '
Slashdot Mirror
Dubhaltach_Mac_Fhirbhisigh
"Neither $skin_color people nor $sexual_preference people have a body part that fails to function correctly. In the case of color-blind people, our eyes do not function correctly."
So I was in Cuba and I was left with a terrible burn as I'm quite pale. I can't help but think that my skin with its pale colour failed to function correctly while my friend's darker skin functioned well.
And, as for the converse, I've never seen this personally before, but I have heard of people with dark skin developing rickets in the UK for example.
Do you think US + Allies would just sit around twiddling their thumbs while China built up arms and took strategic positions around the globe? Why do you think the US tries to maintain military superiority...just for show but without any force behind the threat? The US has already invaded and dominated one neighbour of China in the past decade on the flimsiest of pretenses (Afghanistan) and has bombed parts of another (Pakistan), and has more than once threatened to invade one of China's few allies (North Korea). But China hasn't come within an ocean's breadth of the mainland US. If China set themselves on a path toward military dominance, why wouldn't the US take action before China reached it? I mean, if you're playing a game of chess and you see your enemy has a chance to take a dominant position, why wouldn't you do something about it before they took it, rather than after? So for example, if China inclined themselves toward setting up military bases in Cuba or Venezuala, don't you think the US would prefer to invade these countries and set up their own puppet states before China ever set up those bases? If China sent a carrier group (they don't even have a single carrier yet, indeed just building one may be enough for the US to take military action against China -- note this need not be direct military action, but could be arming East Turkestan nationalists, or invading North Korea, or arming and backing the ROC in a declaration of independence, which would hurt the PRC's legitimacy and air of authority greatly) to a few dozen miles off the coast of California and started performing war games and demanding that their ships be allowed to dock in San Fransisco (the US does this frequently to China), then the US would probably send an intervening force.
But it's not like that. Markets are open to the Chinese and they are becoming more prosperous for it, and with this prosperity, they don't want to go to war with the US. So they are not trying to become militarily dominant so as to provoke the US.
If we didn't involve eating carbohydrates, then how come lactose (a carbohydrate) occurs at greater frequencies in regions where there is a tradition of drinking dairy products (1% of Dutch being intolerant versus 95% of Chinese being intolerant)? The theory I've heard is that populations in these regions evolved to have this trait at a greater frequency because of the reproductive benefit of being able to consume dairy products later in life. So then at least some of us have evolved eating them?
I was under the impression that ground beef had to be thoroughly cooked. Is this only true for certain cases then?
Why pay the fine? There is a religious exemption. You have religious beliefs which prevent you from getting insurance. When you get sick -- change your religion. I mean, obviously it's not the right religion if you get sick.
"We're talking about government agents using Facebook or Twitter the exact same way that you or I would use it."
When I read the TOS for Facebook it said I was not allowed to supply false information, but this story says that the law enforcement personnel are doing just that. So they are not using Facebook just as you or I would use it.
How many pieces did he have to generate to get the two sample tracks in TFA (not that the sample tracks were particularly stunning -- the first was pleasant at least, though)? If you spend just as much time setting parameters and listening through duds as it does to write your own of comparable quality...then what's the point? Obviously a grand number of monkeys on typewriters would eventually come up with Shakespeare -- same principle here. I'm not trying to knock his/his program's accomplishment, I just want to know. I think there is a real future though for AI in all domains, including music.
And a lot of composers are trying to express their own particular idea, and I'm not sure how much automatic generation of the notes is going to help them (obviously some are satisfied pulling from such a source). And there are lot of listeners engage with a composer's work not just on the level of individual pieces, but they study works' relations to each other and to the life and times of the composer as well.
I don't really see how your link supports your assertions. It says: " Archimedes' work was translated into Arabic by Thbit ibn Qurra (836-901 AD), and Latin by Gerard of Cremona (c. 1114-1187 AD). " That does not say that Archimedes' work comes to us through Arabic, it just says that it was at one point translated into Arabic. Indeed, this source seems to contradict your position: a collection of Archimedes works in 9th-century Constantinople form the "basis of the texts we have today." Why would Greek scholars in the 9th century who didn't know much Arabic, if any, make a collection of Archimedes in Arabic, instead of Greek, when the Greek manuscripts were clearly still available in the 9th century (how else would bin Qurra have translated Archimedes into Arabic?)? I think I'd believe that that collection (which "is the basis of the texts we have today") which they are is mentioned here was in Greek, unless you can provide some evidence that it was not...
This page seem to contradict your statement about Euclid's elements. If a 4th century edition formed the basis of texts until the 19th century, then the texts until the 19th century were not based on Arabic, because there is no way that 4th century text was in Arabic. And then that text was improved with another Greek version, to form the Heiberg edition, which, so it says (in 1971), "still stands". There's no mention of Arabic.
Other responders have similar problems (Ptolemy's Almagest: http://www.ibiblio.org/expo/vatican.exhibit/exhibit/d-mathematics/Greek_astro.html). But one of the other responders mentions Hero of Alexandira, and appears to be partly right: of his 14 works listed in this article [PDF], 1 comes to us from Arabic (the Metrica), and 1 comes from Arabic with some Greek fragments (the Mechanica). Both seem to be significant works.
So I still think there is this myth that "lots" of Greek works are transmitted to us through Arabic, although I'm happy now to have some examples of significant texts (2 of Hero's 14) that do actually fit this model.
"a lot of Greek learning went into Arabic and came back out into Latin or Greek."
Can you give me an example of a significant text? I'm pretty sure it is a myth that lots of Greek learning has gone through this process. I see the claim made a lot, but I've never come across a text which has done this (the philosophers, the dramatists, the historians, the lyric poets, all seem to come from the original Greek).
What if an ignorant yeast called you a bacteria, wouldn't you be offended? Fungi have feelings too!
I saw a job offer that said, in the small print, something along the lines of: "We are committed in our hiring and operating practises not to discriminate on the basis of gender, religion, race, ethnicity, or ability."
We can see what they wanted to say: They wanted to say "disability" (which itself would read strangely except that by now it has taken on a particular meaning in these situations which is broadly recognised), but because that word is not politically correct they were brought into saying something which reads as if it were patently absurd: That they actually don't take the abilities of the applicants into consideration when they hire. So...what, they cut open a bird and look at the entrails for divine signs?
Much like how every university is now fully committed to diversity, which reads strange every time I see some such statement on the matter.
So you assert that things exist of which you don't know?
How is that not an ungrounded assertion then or some really bizarre behaviour.
Letter sender: "Did you get that letter I sent you?"
You: "I don't know of any letters from you which I have received."
Letter sender: "Hmm, but I put it right in your in-box. You actually didn't receive the letter from me?"
You: "I didn't say that! In fact, I did receive it, I just don't know of it."
Letter sender (+ everyone else): "What?"
You might want to rethink that one: Chinese Spies in Canada
Sorry, I misread the "19%" as applying to just tech firms, when it was for all firms. That sort of throws out that part of my post.
If 3% of "tech firms" and 1% of "high-tech firms" were founded by women, and yet 19% are primarily owned by women, that seems to suggest that women position themselves very well in terms of getting to the top of these companies.
In terms of founding firms, if one gender wants to found more firms --- then maybe they should just found more firms? I don't see how anything but the most abstruse and heavy-handed affirmative action is going to change that. ("Oh, you want a business license? But you're a male and we've already completed our quota of patri-licenses! Try again next decade.")
Maybe male-dominance of firms can be explained by three facts: (1) founding a firm is one of the more risky ways to try to secure wealth for oneself; (2) tendency to take greater risks is positively associated with testosterone levels (link and link); and (3) males have higher testosterone levels than women.
Sure, there is much more that needs to be done in the realm of women's rights. But that men tend to want to found firms and women do not, is not really high up on the list. Let's try making sure women do not get assaulted as much as they do. This will probably increase their mental well-being and self-confidence such that they will be even more able to succeed in things like finance and high-tech as well!
"Is there an add-on that does this automatically?"
There supposedly is, except its certification is provided by CNNIC...
I've always understood "read between the lines" to be a metaphor. You don't actually read between the lines. In fact, what you are reading is the lines themselves -- the metaphor describes reading the lines closely, so closely that you not only see every detail in them but you also metaphorically read "between" them. That is, you're reading so closely that you're "reading" things which aren't actually there. It's an hyperbole. Anyway, from this close reading of the text you determine the intent. So what you call reading between the lines I take to be reading the law -- it's just a close reading of the law. I can only take it then that you are saying that one determines the spirit of the law by grasping the meaning of the letter of the law. So really, the spirit of the law is what is expressed by the letter of the law in such a case. But feel free to contest anything I say.
Anyway, you've given a case where avoiding hitting the pedestrian, although the avoidance itself is completely safe, is against the law. (This does not describe the case I actually occupy -- because the law of my jurisdiction says that any reasonable measure can be used to avoid such an accident, and that any sections otherwise prohibiting such behaviour are inapplicable in such situations.) So I take it that this is a case where the law itself is unjust. Well of course I wouldn't follow it then -- that's just an unjust law, like a law which prohibits me from feeding my children or something. I may just not ride on those roads since they have such silly laws, just as I would probably leave any jurisdiction which banned me from feeding my kids. Or I would continue to ride with no intention of following that law -- and if it went to court I would argue against conviction on the grounds that the law is unjust, which I always take to be an acceptable defense.
But I will not break the law just because someone wants the vain convenience of travelling faster than I am travelling. I won't expose myself to all the liability with none of the reward. That's not a contract I'll ever sign. If motorists want me to break the law in order to please them, then I need assurances from them, not just angry honks or jeers. Of course, such assurances are impossible to deliver in these situations.
Here's something sub-optimal, which perhaps you haven't thought of:
If you get hit, but you are not following the law, and the person who hit you was not particularly neglectful or malicious -- I fear that you're not going to receive a thin dime in compensation, because his slick lawyer will raise just the points that you: 1) were impossible to deal with because your behaviour was unlawful, unexpected, and hence random and dangerous; and 2) showed yourself not to care at all about your own safety.
If I'm ran down and left in traction and/or a wheelchair for months (or worse), I want more than just medical expenses covered (most of that is covered by the state-run healthcare in Canada anyway). But what's the chances of me getting decent compensation if I'm hit while running through a stop sign, failing to signal, riding on the sidewalk, or otherwise breaking the law? Pretty slim I would think.
If someone hits me he'll be paying for it, because for him to know what I'm doing and where I'm going on my bike so that he may not ram into me, all he has to do is exactly what he's expected to do: pay attention and remember the Highway Traffic Act which he should have read.
But we can debate "letter" versus "spirit" of the law if you want. Here's my argument: If your intention is to follow the spirit of the law, how do you first determine the spirit of the law? Through reading the written law, through having received some "folk" wisdom passed to you unofficially from some other persons, or some mixture of the two? If the first, then you are just following the letter of the law. If the second, then why not just write down that folk-wisdom and make that the letter of the law? For the third, mutatis mutandis, as for the second. Any "spirit" of the law which you can actually cogitate on necessarily takes the form of some meaningful language. If it's that language which you suppose one should take into consideration when you seek to follow the law, then why not use that language as the letter of the law? Or do you think that one can understand intentions which are neither expressed nor expressible in meaningful language?
Okay, I bike everyday, in Canada. Whether snow, ice, or -40 Celsius. I hate this just as much as you. Because I stop, and I follow all the laws to the best of my ability -- little useless bell (voice is much louder) on my handlebars and all. Here's one I also follow: the speed-limit. However, pretty much every automobile driver I meet does not follow the speed limit. So, it's not like motorists are somehow more law-abiding than cyclists -- because almost 100% of motorists break the speed limit. There's this one road I go down -- 30kph speed limit, and yet every car behind me always seems to catch up and pass me rather quickly when I'm going along at 30kph. In fact, I would say that most are going 50kph. That's more than 66% over the speed limit. Is every motorist continuously late for work or something? And in 50kph zones, it seems that 70kph or greater is the norm amongst motorists. On the highway you would be as lucky as a lottery-winner to see someone cruising not more than 90kph, the speed limit.
And cars seem to have trouble with stop-signs as well. They slow-down for them, but as for a complete stop -- that's a rarity. They seem to like to just crawl through them at 1 to upward of 5 kph.
Really the only group of motorists with which I'm continually impressed are the school-bus drivers.
But I've been semi-facetious so far. This is how it actually is: The motorist thinks on the highway: "Well, this highway is still safe at 100kph. It's only 10kph over the speed limit and visibility and conditions are fine. So even though it is breaking law, I'll do it." If he actually thought that he would get into an accident, he wouldn't do it. This is what the cyclist is thinking at the stop-sign: "No one else is coming, so, if I just go through, it will be fine. So even though it is breaking the law, I'll do it." If he actually thought that he would get into an accident, he wouldn't do it.
Why would they have any familiarity with informal English at all? Indeed, the English-language requirement in their graduate program (if they indeed have an English requirement at all) would be the ability to read formal English, not informal. And why would they be tech-savvy in such as way at to make them familiar with SMS or informal English? I'd say that that is unlikely to be a requirement of their program at all.
So, if the airbag and seatbelt were working ideally (gave you constant deceleration), in that case of 65mph to 0 in 3 feet, you would suffer something like 47 g-forces. What's the chances of surviving that? Wikipedia says: "The record for peak experimental horizontal g-force tolerance is held by acceleration pioneer John Stapp, in a series of rocket sled deceleration experiments in which he survived forces up to 46.2 times the force of gravity for less than a second. Stapp suffered lifelong damage to his vision from this test.[14]" !
Don't forget about the number of students who are not native English speakers. For most Canadian universities, this population forms a sizable chunk. For many freshmen students, this is their first time in an English-speaking country. They have some experience -- enough to fulfil the entry requirements, but not enough to perform well with the language in every context.
The Rickets versus Skin cancer theory for the distribution of skin shades is just one theory.
from http://www.wonderquest.com/evolution-skin-color.htm:
'
Jared Diamond (1999 winner of the Medal of Science award and UCLA evolutionary biologist) points out flaws in these theories.
"Among tropical peoples," he writes "anthropologists love to stress the dark skins of African blacks, people of the southern Indian peninsula, and New Guineans and love to forget the pale skins of Amazonian Indians and Southeast Asians living at the same latitudes." [Emphasis mine.]
He notes that dark peoples of equatorial West Africa and the New Guinea mountains get no more UV radiation than the light-skinned folk in Switzerland, if you take cloud cover into account. ... ...
Charles E. Taylor, UCLA evolutionary biologist, thinks so, too. "Diamond argues for sexual selection because nothing else seems to fit," Taylor says. "This is a cop-out, of course, but it makes sense to me."
"It is not impossible that white skin color originated in Northern Africa," says Taylor.
'
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327222.500-where-does-white-skin-come-from.html
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Evolution-3839/white-skin.htm