The context here is 17-year-olds holding up a beer can and posing for the camera. There is a difference between not drinking and not drinking under-age: only one is illegal. There is also a difference between doing something illegal and doing something illegal while posing for your friend to take a photo: one is arguably a bad idea, but the other is plain stupid.
It's not the videos of weapons: it's the voiceovers by gangs telling rival gangs what they'll do to them with the weapons if they stray across the postcode boundary. It's not as extreme as the videos some Mexican gangs post of decapitated rivals, but it's still probably illegal under English law, which has more restrictions on speech than the USA.
If you actually read the blog post you linked, you would find that 'vet' "has been used in Britain since the early years of the 20th century". Actually we use it more widely than the screening of a candidate for public office: I consider it a straight synonym for 'screen' in the sense of investigation and filtering. The BBC usage of vetting videos is one example; another would be the vetting of people who work in a security-conscious environment.
And, when you have a national ID card in circulation, then it is nothing for businesses and institutions to require them in order for you to get along with life.
Yes-ish. In Ecuador I was once asked for my passport number to put on a receipt for $4 of stamps from the post office, so I certainly see your point.
However, in practice what can happen is that people use their national ID number so often that they know it by heart, and then when people ask them for it they simply recite it and are taken at face value. Obviously things like opening bank accounts require proper ID, but department stores etc. don't have proper checks in place.
You're correct to observe that I haven't defined my terms very well - "large-scale evolution" isn't precise. Clearly there is experimental evidence in favour of genotype and phenotype variation within a species due to environmental pressure. What I'm interested in is speciation. In particular:
Is there direct experimental evidence of speciation by evolution? (I haven't heard of any, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist).
Does anyone have a model of species distinctions and evolution which is sufficiently quantitative to create an experiment which aims to evolve a distinct species from an existing species and to predict, statistically, how long such an experiment is likely to take?
If so, is it doable in a short enough time frame that we can sensibly call it falsifiable?
My intention isn't to troll. I'm trying to define the limits within evolutionary theory of how far it is scientific and how far it is, for all practical purposes, unfalsifiable.
Okay, I'll refine the question: what observations possible within three consecutive human lifetimes could disprove it? It's a bit strong than Popper's criterion, but IMAO it's more useful as a distinction between science and faith.
(And string theory is quite clearly on the mathematical side of the admittedly fuzzy line between applied maths and theoretical physics).
IF a theory can be disproved by an observation, then it is a theory.
Maybe you can answer a question I've asked in related/. discussions in the past without ever receiving an answer. What observation could disprove large-scale evolution? Maybe it's my physicist bias, but I regard evolution (and about half of biology in general) as unscientific.
Try to run at a profit or try to grow? If you're running at a loss then you obviously have problems. If you're consistently breaking even then you have no finances to try to expand - and the fundamental reason that churches exist is to expand. I may well be modded down for saying so, because a lot of people don't like the idea (and I can understand that), but it's true.
You had me until "cleverly disguised". Since about 90% of stories on/. nowadays are advertising, it's less a question of cleverly disguising it and more a question of hiding a tree in a forest.
introduced by our country's socialists, I hasten to add, before people start trying to blame the right
Are you saying that the Lib Dems are the puppet-master which is really responsible for Labour's legislative output?
Re:We need to go in the other direction
on
Chrome Vs. IE 8
·
· Score: 1
I have cnn.com mapped to 127.0.0.1 in my hosts directory because at one point any time I went to a CNN page it would start some Flash applet which would crash and take down Firefox. It's possible that with more recent versions of Flash, Flashblock and CNN's website this is no longer a problem, but I can't be bothered to find out.
Slashdot Mirror
The context here is 17-year-olds holding up a beer can and posing for the camera. There is a difference between not drinking and not drinking under-age: only one is illegal. There is also a difference between doing something illegal and doing something illegal while posing for your friend to take a photo: one is arguably a bad idea, but the other is plain stupid.
It's not the videos of weapons: it's the voiceovers by gangs telling rival gangs what they'll do to them with the weapons if they stray across the postcode boundary. It's not as extreme as the videos some Mexican gangs post of decapitated rivals, but it's still probably illegal under English law, which has more restrictions on speech than the USA.
How did the English, who once ruled a vast empire, become such sissified little bitches?
Simple: we were always sissified little bitches. But now we can't send the people who upset us to serve time in Australia or the army in the Raj.
If you actually read the blog post you linked, you would find that 'vet' "has been used in Britain since the early years of the 20th century". Actually we use it more widely than the screening of a candidate for public office: I consider it a straight synonym for 'screen' in the sense of investigation and filtering. The BBC usage of vetting videos is one example; another would be the vetting of people who work in a security-conscious environment.
Either you misread the GPP or you think that "late 20s" qualifies as "older drivers". My money's on the former...
Does it no longer work? Has the warranty expired?
It still works, but I think it's fair to say that it no longer qualifies as "News for Nerds".
In a 3D world, that would be represented by a telephone or computer or mailbox etc.
I would find that a lot easier to believe if the current de facto standard were to use a 2D image of a telephone / computer / mailbox.
Outlook Express has a backup format? I've certainly learnt something today.
You're quite right. Kidnapping people outside US borders is the job of the CIA, not the FBI, and these organisations tend to be very territorial.
And, when you have a national ID card in circulation, then it is nothing for businesses and institutions to require them in order for you to get along with life.
Yes-ish. In Ecuador I was once asked for my passport number to put on a receipt for $4 of stamps from the post office, so I certainly see your point.
However, in practice what can happen is that people use their national ID number so often that they know it by heart, and then when people ask them for it they simply recite it and are taken at face value. Obviously things like opening bank accounts require proper ID, but department stores etc. don't have proper checks in place.
Educati latine loquunt.
Thank you.
My intention isn't to troll. I'm trying to define the limits within evolutionary theory of how far it is scientific and how far it is, for all practical purposes, unfalsifiable.
Okay, I'll refine the question: what observations possible within three consecutive human lifetimes could disprove it? It's a bit strong than Popper's criterion, but IMAO it's more useful as a distinction between science and faith.
(And string theory is quite clearly on the mathematical side of the admittedly fuzzy line between applied maths and theoretical physics).
IF a theory can be disproved by an observation, then it is a theory.
Maybe you can answer a question I've asked in related /. discussions in the past without ever receiving an answer. What observation could disprove large-scale evolution? Maybe it's my physicist bias, but I regard evolution (and about half of biology in general) as unscientific.
They always try to run at a profit
Try to run at a profit or try to grow? If you're running at a loss then you obviously have problems. If you're consistently breaking even then you have no finances to try to expand - and the fundamental reason that churches exist is to expand. I may well be modded down for saying so, because a lot of people don't like the idea (and I can understand that), but it's true.
Nissan were working with Nazi Germany to build their own V1/2 rockets.
That would be Nissan the Japanese company, based in a country which was allied with Nazi Germany?
And yet here we are.
I only read /. for the comments.
You had me until "cleverly disguised". Since about 90% of stories on /. nowadays are advertising, it's less a question of cleverly disguising it and more a question of hiding a tree in a forest.
So what's new?
The UK has lost, what, 400.000 personal records on it's citizens?
Try 25.000.000 in one go. Plus smaller numbers on a roughly daily basis, but no-one really knows how much overlap there is between those datasets.
introduced by our country's socialists, I hasten to add, before people start trying to blame the right
Are you saying that the Lib Dems are the puppet-master which is really responsible for Labour's legislative output?
I have cnn.com mapped to 127.0.0.1 in my hosts directory because at one point any time I went to a CNN page it would start some Flash applet which would crash and take down Firefox. It's possible that with more recent versions of Flash, Flashblock and CNN's website this is no longer a problem, but I can't be bothered to find out.
If you really must stick with older hardware, do you really need to be running the latest software?
Depends. Are security fixes backported to the older software?