When I visited my former primary school after a few years to pick up my little sister I found that someone had added a large sign just inside the main gate. It said, and I kid you not, "BEWARE CHILDREN".
Because wanting to use italics, underline, bold, fonts, etc., allows more expressivity? I can see the value of italics, underlining and bolding in adding emphasis - although as several people have already pointed out there are plenty of conventions for emphasising plain text. However, I'm totally bemused by your desire for fonts to express yourself. How does that work? Do you use Comic Sans to indicate jokes, and if so do the recipients actually twig that that's what you're doing? Or are you just one of those people whom I see in some phpBB fora who put all their posts in green to be different, thus making it harder to read them?
It's sealed away properly now, but unless people dispose of old equipment properly it ends up in a dump somewhere, and there's a risk that in a few decades it will end up contaminating groundwater. Obviously it's a hard risk to quantify, so I'll fence-sit as to whether this is a useful precaution or not.
You don't go to a foreign country and expect their rights, do you? Speaking as someone who lives in a country where I'm not a citizen, I don't expect the right to vote, but I do expect the right not to "be subjected to arbitrary arrest [or] detention" and to "a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of [my] rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against [me]". Quotes from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
No. If the prisoners were PoWs then the Geneva conventions would apply by habeas corpus wouldn't. What the US needs to do is to treat them as it would any other civilian suspect, charge and (fairly) try them or release them, and pay compensation for illegal imprisonment.
It's not just the constitution. I'd love there to be a website which listed the whole of English statute law as amended. At present the official site (opsi.gov.uk) only goes back to 1988.
I keep seeing this argument trotted out, and it really needs to stop. Just because my country has done some ass-backward immoral things lately doesn't mean I cannot frown upon stupid acts occurring elsewhere in the world. I think you're misreading the context. It's quite true to say that your government's failure to respect human rights has no impact on your right to object to violations of human rights perpetuated by other governments. However, Guantanamo is a perfectly valid counterexample to the GP claim
But remember, despite people bitching about the US' policies, we still have among the world's most stringent policies regarding the rights of the accused.
Maybe you folks need a strong written Constitution with separation of powers, a reservation to the people of powers not explicitly granted to the state, and a stout Bill of Rights. We've got one you could borrow to study. You've also got some contemporary history we could study to demonstrate that a determined executive can ride rough-shod over them with impunity.
Youtube was temporarily (and accidentally - they only meant to block access within their own country) shut down by the Pakistani government not long ago.
How many people live in the U.K. whose mother tongue is other than English? Almost certainly fewer than in the US, but regardless of the answer what's the point of the question? I don't see that it has any relevance whatsoever.
I realised just after I posted that one wanted the roots and the other the minimum - oops.
You're right that long division can be avoided, although I'd favour it in an exam context as giving clear demonstration of your working. I'm not sure what you mean about simultaneous equations, though. x^2 + bx = (x+b/2)^2 - b^2/4, so x^2 + 8x + 21 = (x+4)^2 - 16 + 21 = (x+4)^2 + 5.
The second part of the 1970 question is a long division followed by, essentially, the 2006 question with different numbers and no instructions telling you how to do it. It's quite clearly harder.
Slashdot Mirror
When I visited my former primary school after a few years to pick up my little sister I found that someone had added a large sign just inside the main gate. It said, and I kid you not, "BEWARE CHILDREN".
Gordon? Is that you?
So you add a timer. It's triggered by a phone call after a certain date.
It's sealed away properly now, but unless people dispose of old equipment properly it ends up in a dump somewhere, and there's a risk that in a few decades it will end up contaminating groundwater. Obviously it's a hard risk to quantify, so I'll fence-sit as to whether this is a useful precaution or not.
s/Who's eating up all our bandwidth?/Who authorised the spending on the 50% we're not using?/
The etiquette is to address her initially as "Your Majesty" and subsequently as "Ma'am".
Worms 4: Mayhem, not Worms. Worms was Team 17.
In fairness Liverpool did finish ahead of Everton.
Who you dissing with "the Hon. Member"?
It's "the noble Lord", make sure you remember!
s/by/but/
No. If the prisoners were PoWs then the Geneva conventions would apply by habeas corpus wouldn't. What the US needs to do is to treat them as it would any other civilian suspect, charge and (fairly) try them or release them, and pay compensation for illegal imprisonment.
"Sudden" means that the change took place quickly, not that it wasn't delayed.
It's not just the constitution. I'd love there to be a website which listed the whole of English statute law as amended. At present the official site (opsi.gov.uk) only goes back to 1988.
Hey, Australia may thrash the UK at cricket, rugby and tennis, but (association) football is also from the UK.
As amended by the Parliament Act of 1949.
An udder joke? I missed the first one.
Youtube was temporarily (and accidentally - they only meant to block access within their own country) shut down by the Pakistani government not long ago.
I realised just after I posted that one wanted the roots and the other the minimum - oops.
You're right that long division can be avoided, although I'd favour it in an exam context as giving clear demonstration of your working. I'm not sure what you mean about simultaneous equations, though. x^2 + bx = (x+b/2)^2 - b^2/4, so x^2 + 8x + 21 = (x+4)^2 - 16 + 21 = (x+4)^2 + 5.
The second part of the 1970 question is a long division followed by, essentially, the 2006 question with different numbers and no instructions telling you how to do it. It's quite clearly harder.
I've seen comparable items in Tesco*, side by side, with one marked in price per kg and the other in price per 100g.
* UK supermarket, for those who don't know it.