I think it would be better if it didn't. Not from a privacy standpoint, but from a "I'm looking for a building not a person" standpoint. People are just in the way.
This is not logical reasoning. Compare the evidence that god exists (none) with the evidence that god does not exist (none) and you will see that the balance is 0. We have no particular reason to believe either way.
It is reasonable to claim to know (within the limits of the meaning of the word, as to know something does not require absolute certainty as absolute certainty is impossible - something of which I am absolutely certain of), because the argument ends at the failure of the positive assertion "god exists". That is where the burden of proof is, as that is the assertion that should be provable, if evidence can be found. Asking for evidence of non-existence is meaningless as only existence can have evidence (the whole, prooving a negative problem). Seeing as what we are dealing with is an extraordinary claim ("god exists" is an extraordinary claim), such a claim requires extraordinary evidence - so in this case lack of evidence is evidence of lack (not proof, but certainly evidence). Therefore, it is safe to know that God doesn't exist, until there is some evidence to the contrary.
I think they have demonstrated that the Grands canyon could have been formed in a matter of 50 years or so
Really? How? Did they do any actual experiments? If it's possible, then it should be possible to conduct an experiment in a lab to provide some evidence (such as seeing how fast you can erode the types of rock the Grand Canyon cuts through). Ask some Experimental Geologists for some advice on how to do it (after all, Experimental Geology is hard work and I'm certain they could use a good laugh).
Same goes for the coal that's mentioned in the article - if you really can make coal in 50 years then start making some coal.
And in the same way, I presume, that it used to be safe to say that you know black swans didn't exist.
Yes, it is very much the same way. To know something does not mean there is absolutely no doubt, only that that doubt is very, very small. Otherwise it would be impossible to know almost anything (outside of things like mathematical theorems, which often exist in a "perfect" universe, such as Euclid's Geometry), as there will still be a small amount of doubt, no matter how good the evidence. That is why it is safe to "know" that God doesn't exist, as the likelyhood is so infinitesimally small (especially for the standard model christian god).
Yes, actually it is, because just as it's nearly impossible to prove a negative, it's also impossible to 100% proove a positive, beacuse even if there is a preponderance of evidence for an assertion, somebody can still come along with something that invalidates that assertion. Therefore, you can never 100% be certain of anything, which means you can not, in the strictest sense "know" anything. Therefore, to know something is to be very, very certain of something while still allowing the smallest bit of doubt. Therefore, it is safe to say that we know God doesn't exist, as the likelyhood of error is so small.
Depends. Do you mean Truth in the way Euclid means a Circle - ie, something that is theoretically perfect, and yet impossible to find in nature, or do you mean truth as in way a child means a circle when they draw one, imperfect though it may be?
Also, just because you have set up a criteria for truth does not automatically mean that you are intolerant of people who do not believe in that truth. You just have to tolerate that they are wrong.
If that the case, the why is all of humanity supposed to be paying for Adam & Eve's sins? Surely the lot created separately outside of Eden would have been innocent as they would have had nothing to do with what A & E got up to in the garden of Eden?
Why can people not "know" God exists? I'm sure there are some Atheists who claim to "know" God doesn't exist.
Yes, and they too are wrong, because there is no evidence.
Atheists don't need evidence to "know" that God doesn't, the burden of proof is on the people saying he/she/it exists. As no credible evidence has been put forth, it's safe to "know" god doesn't exist in the same way it's safe to say that I know that purple unicorns don't exists
Seeing as they didn't eat from the tree of everlasting life, it looks like they weren't going to live forever anyway. So the Good & Evil tree didn't kill them. Therefore, God lied.
Why is it assumed God == Good? His actions often speak otherwise. After all, he knew the difference between good & evil before Adam and Eve did, and one has to assume that God has free will and can therefore choose to be evil.
The alternative is direct legislation to limit their use of cheap filler material such as game shows and reality TV.
The UK already has this. The main TV channels all have strict limits and requirements on what they can show (or have to show, such as X amount of hours of arts programming) and the amount of time that can be allocated for advertising. This is completely independent of the BBC, this is part of the broadcasters licence to broadcast from Ofcom. If the BBC ceased to exist tomorrow, the main broadcasters output would not change much as they are limited in what they can output.
Could the commercial channels take further downward pressure on advertising revenue?
Again, the existence, or lack thereof, of the BBC is actually irrelevant for the commercial channels. While the BBC is included in the overall ratings figures, it's effect is taken out when it comes to working out advertising share (when people are watching the BBC it's considered the same as them having the TV switched off). And, again, the amount of advertising time is highly regulated - more advertising time is not in the broadcasters best interests as all it does is make advertising a less scarce resource, which means that take in less money for showing more ads. More importantly, the UK broadcasters are fully aware that increased commercial time isn't in their interests, as they have America as an example.
If the BBC didn't exist as a commercial entity in the UK, what would replace it?
The BBC != The License Fee. I know that BBC Propaganda claims that they're intertwined, but they're not. It could just as easily be supported by direct taxation, just like almost every other public service in the UK. That's why the license fee is morally reprehensible - it takes the same amount of money from household's pockets, without regard for the level of income. There is no other tax in the UK which is as regressive that affects so many people. People should not be being sent to jail for wanting to watch free to air TV. Huge databases, threatening letters to innocent people and snooper vans wouldn't be considered acceptable for anything else, but somehow the BBC gets away with it, all in the name of "better TV".
The US produces some great shows but the reality of too little choice (a heck of a lot of duplication between channels) and overbearing advertising limits it too much.
While I find US TV unwatchable in the US, I wouldn't say that there's that much choice on UK TV either. Old movies, game shows, reality TV (which seems to just be a glorified form of game show), cop and costume dramas and home/garden/fashion makeover programmes seem to be the extent of what's on.
If I live in the UK can I refuse to fund the public library because I buy my own books, even perhaps from another country?
You can't refuse to pay for the public library at the moment because it's paid for by direct taxation. Under a Reading License system, you would have to have a reading license in order to import books - in the same way you would need a TV License to watch imported VHS's on a VCR (I'll avoid DVD's and the whole "I can't receive TV, therefore I don't have to pay" can of worms). And if you think you can get away with out paying, well the Book Detector vans are out, using telescopes to peer through people's windows to make sure that they don't have any books if they don't have a reading license. After all they know that you don't have a Reading License, and they're going to keep telling you that they know that you don't have a Reading Licence and that if you don't get one soon then the Book Inspectors will be around to have a look around your house.
The BBC 'gets' the money but don't forget that their program production is mostly outsourced.
Which is why I said no other organization directly gets funding from the licence fee. Most importantly, they are the only broadcasting organization that gets money from the fee (the other broadcasters don't generally supply content to the BBC as outsourcers).
Note that *many* countries have a license which helps pay for some public service and local TV.
So? You're using the logical fallacy of appeal to common practice. Just because a lot of other countries have some form of licence fee does not make it morally correct or justifiable.
I have nothing against public broadcasting. What I do have something against is the way that it's funded at the moment. The licence fee and it's enforcement is a morally reprehensible way to fund a service that should be benefiting all. If anything, the people best served by the BBC's mandate to "inform, educate and entertain" are the ones for whom the licence fee is more of a burden.
The TV Licence makes as much sense as a Reading Licence would, where people would need a licence to buy books just to support public libraries.
During the World Cup, the BBC were broadcasting the matches over the internet, and there were several reports on BBC News about how employers would need TV Licenses if any of their staff watched the games over the internet.
It's not the TV card, it's the watching of the broadcasts, by whatever means those broadcasts are transmitted (which in this case means having a computer hooked up to the internet via broadband). Which makes you wonder that if when the BBC start broadcasting all it's TV channels on the internet (News 24 has already started) then technically will all broadband enabled premises in the UK need TV Licenses (as they will, technically, be able to receive BBC TV broadcasts).
but it is a tax that only applies to those with the means to receive TV programs.
Which is the vast majority of the population. Even people who live on benefits can afford to save up for a used TV. Which is why a flat fee, no matter the size of household income or number of people in that household is outrageously regressive.
However they do enforce the collection of a fee that the BBC mostly benefits from.
Only the BBC and it's police force, the TVLA benefit from the fee. No other organization directly receives TV License money.
For most satellite TV you pay for a subscription AND you get the ads
Yes, but the government doesn't force you to subscribe to Sky if you just want to watch the free to air commercial satellite channels.
The BBC doesn't have to do this
But that doesn't justify the license fee. All that justifies is some form of state sponsored public television, not the mechanism by which it's paid for.
If it is more profitable to be ruthless, the ruthless will survive and those who choose to be "ethical" will die out. It's no different from biological evolution, only faster. Nobody controls it.
With all the talk about ethics these days (usually in regards to the environment or the worlds poor), I've been wondering if people who choose less ethical lifestyles (for example, people who buy non-local, non-fair-trade produce) are going to fair better in the long term. If the business world is an example, it would seem so.
you have deprived the producer of the product the price they charge.
The producer of the product has just as much product as before the piracy occurs. They can still sell that to other people, unlike actual theft, where the producer is deprived of a product that they can sell to others.
To look at the damage done to the producer, it's best to divide piracy into different types - primarily private piracy, where copies are made but no money changes hands, and the more traditional public piracy, where money does change hands.
With private piracy, you can't easily say that the person receiving the pirated copy would ever have bought the copy, at any price. You can't even say that just because they recieved a free copy that they won't ultimately go out and buy a legit CD. This is the sort of piracy that rates, in my mind at least, very little in the way of punishment.
Public piracy, the industrial form with factories and market stalls is a different matter. It's easier to show real damage, and, more importantly, the pirates have recieved material gain. This type of piracy deserves harsher punishment - but again not prison.
It's probably harder than you think for any business with more than 20 computers.
Which is why there's a niche software industry in Software Asset Management. We use Centennial but I really think it's a loosing battle.
I think if you really want to know what software people are using on what computers and when, you're better off having big iron and give the users dumb terminals. Instead, users keep getting powerful desktops that are rarely used to their full and yet are a nightmare to manage.
So what is an appropriate penalty for using someone else's work without paying for it?
2 x List Price. Not jail. You haven't deprived anyone of anything (as your use does not stop someone else's use). Copyright violation is wrong, it doesn't mean that jail is just punishment.
But how do you proove that you have a licence to run Free Software?
I know it sounds absurd, but a few years back we had an auditor who had real trouble with free software, as she felt that without a paper trail (ie, receipts) you couldn't proove that you really had a licence (though she wouldn't accept the counter claim that a receipt or a paper licence doesn't proove anything either). In order to pass audit, we had to print out the licences used, for every piece of software and for each install. So we had several dozen copies of the GPL, several dozen copies of the Apace licence, several dozen copies of <insert FOSS Licence>, etc. Fortunately, that was just for free software running on Windows - the auditing people decided to just ignore the existence of Linux.
That's an abuse of power because she was so desperate to win it for her children that she paid the ultimate price.
That's not an abuse of power, that's simple human stupidity.
We all know plenty of people who work Sundays, and very few of them I know would say it "suits them".
No we don't - very few people often work on Sundays, or Saturdays which is why it's called the weekend. Which is why having the retail shops open is important as it's about the only time a working family has to go and do all the shopping. Not just food shopping, but all the other shopping that crops up due to normal weekend activities (such as DIY emergencies).
You talk about kids earning extra cash, but that just doesn't ring true in my experience. Maybe in a small town with one or two shops
I wouldn't call London a small town.
yet if the opportunity is there many people will, and many will feel they have no choice but to work 7 days a week.
Then why are only retail workers protected? The laws only deal with shops - every other business can carry on as normal (I know, I've worked all weekend on several occasions - and I'm glad I had the opportunity as the overtime was a nice bonus.). Not only that, but Sunday trading laws would not be enough to stop a retail worker working 7 days in a row, all the current law means is that the hours spent serving customers on Sunday might be a bit shorter than usual - they could still be working a full day on a Sunday if they start doing stocktaking.
In Europe fortunately, we have quite strong laws about what hours people can work, how many consecutive days you can work, and how many days off you get in any 14 day period,
Which is why we don't need a specific day set aside.
I don't know what the laws are like in the US, but I'd be very surprised if they were anywhere near as strong.
What does the US have to do with this? This is about a religiously mandated inability to shop on Sundays, in England and Wales. It's also about the Christian Taliban propping up the antiquated shopping laws by masquerading their real motives by saying that the laws protect family and workers, when they do no such thing.
And "There are hundreds of ethnic groups indigenous to Papua New Guinea,"
PNG isn't a nation, it's a state. And if the people of PNG do have national feelings for PNG, it would be the same way citizens of the USA have national feelings for the USA (ie, having national feelings, even though there is no identifiable nation under the common definition of the term 'nation'). A state can be diverse, a nation can't.
In the last hour or so, they wheeled a representative from CoS on to News 24, as it was daytime it was all nice and polite (though they were still lightly ridiculed) - I couldn't stop wondering what Paxman would do to them. I've also seen them reporting on YouTube and how now anybody can report on their side of a news item. I think the BBC are loving every minute of this.
That's why the culture at the Beeb is special in a world full of cookie-cutter journalism and commercial advertising
I don't see how cookie cutter journalism without ads is that special compared to cookie-cutter journalism with ads. The BBC's journalism isn't that good. About the only thing they do is badger whoever they're interviewing, and they're an institutional left-wing bias.
Slashdot Mirror
this skepticism gives us a bright mind directed toward more promising lines of research. I don't think that's a bad thing.
grey goo and bio weapons aren't a bad thing?
why does it ever need to have people in it ?
I think it would be better if it didn't. Not from a privacy standpoint, but from a "I'm looking for a building not a person" standpoint. People are just in the way.
European laws are stupid in general. It's only a few specific instances when they're not.
This is not logical reasoning. Compare the evidence that god exists (none) with the evidence that god does not exist (none) and you will see that the balance is 0. We have no particular reason to believe either way.
It is reasonable to claim to know (within the limits of the meaning of the word, as to know something does not require absolute certainty as absolute certainty is impossible - something of which I am absolutely certain of), because the argument ends at the failure of the positive assertion "god exists". That is where the burden of proof is, as that is the assertion that should be provable, if evidence can be found. Asking for evidence of non-existence is meaningless as only existence can have evidence (the whole, prooving a negative problem). Seeing as what we are dealing with is an extraordinary claim ("god exists" is an extraordinary claim), such a claim requires extraordinary evidence - so in this case lack of evidence is evidence of lack (not proof, but certainly evidence). Therefore, it is safe to know that God doesn't exist, until there is some evidence to the contrary.
I think they have demonstrated that the Grands canyon could have been formed in a matter of 50 years or so
Really? How? Did they do any actual experiments? If it's possible, then it should be possible to conduct an experiment in a lab to provide some evidence (such as seeing how fast you can erode the types of rock the Grand Canyon cuts through). Ask some Experimental Geologists for some advice on how to do it (after all, Experimental Geology is hard work and I'm certain they could use a good laugh).
Same goes for the coal that's mentioned in the article - if you really can make coal in 50 years then start making some coal.
And in the same way, I presume, that it used to be safe to say that you know black swans didn't exist.
Yes, it is very much the same way. To know something does not mean there is absolutely no doubt, only that that doubt is very, very small. Otherwise it would be impossible to know almost anything (outside of things like mathematical theorems, which often exist in a "perfect" universe, such as Euclid's Geometry), as there will still be a small amount of doubt, no matter how good the evidence. That is why it is safe to "know" that God doesn't exist, as the likelyhood is so infinitesimally small (especially for the standard model christian god).
No, actually, it is not.
Yes, actually it is, because just as it's nearly impossible to prove a negative, it's also impossible to 100% proove a positive, beacuse even if there is a preponderance of evidence for an assertion, somebody can still come along with something that invalidates that assertion. Therefore, you can never 100% be certain of anything, which means you can not, in the strictest sense "know" anything. Therefore, to know something is to be very, very certain of something while still allowing the smallest bit of doubt. Therefore, it is safe to say that we know God doesn't exist, as the likelyhood of error is so small.
Is there such a thing as Truth
Depends. Do you mean Truth in the way Euclid means a Circle - ie, something that is theoretically perfect, and yet impossible to find in nature, or do you mean truth as in way a child means a circle when they draw one, imperfect though it may be?
Also, just because you have set up a criteria for truth does not automatically mean that you are intolerant of people who do not believe in that truth. You just have to tolerate that they are wrong.
If that the case, the why is all of humanity supposed to be paying for Adam & Eve's sins? Surely the lot created separately outside of Eden would have been innocent as they would have had nothing to do with what A & E got up to in the garden of Eden?
Why can people not "know" God exists? I'm sure there are some Atheists who claim to "know" God doesn't exist.
Yes, and they too are wrong, because there is no evidence.
Atheists don't need evidence to "know" that God doesn't, the burden of proof is on the people saying he/she/it exists. As no credible evidence has been put forth, it's safe to "know" god doesn't exist in the same way it's safe to say that I know that purple unicorns don't exists
Seeing as they didn't eat from the tree of everlasting life, it looks like they weren't going to live forever anyway. So the Good & Evil tree didn't kill them. Therefore, God lied.
Why is it assumed God == Good? His actions often speak otherwise. After all, he knew the difference between good & evil before Adam and Eve did, and one has to assume that God has free will and can therefore choose to be evil.
The alternative is direct legislation to limit their use of cheap filler material such as game shows and reality TV.
The UK already has this. The main TV channels all have strict limits and requirements on what they can show (or have to show, such as X amount of hours of arts programming) and the amount of time that can be allocated for advertising. This is completely independent of the BBC, this is part of the broadcasters licence to broadcast from Ofcom. If the BBC ceased to exist tomorrow, the main broadcasters output would not change much as they are limited in what they can output.
Could the commercial channels take further downward pressure on advertising revenue?
Again, the existence, or lack thereof, of the BBC is actually irrelevant for the commercial channels. While the BBC is included in the overall ratings figures, it's effect is taken out when it comes to working out advertising share (when people are watching the BBC it's considered the same as them having the TV switched off). And, again, the amount of advertising time is highly regulated - more advertising time is not in the broadcasters best interests as all it does is make advertising a less scarce resource, which means that take in less money for showing more ads. More importantly, the UK broadcasters are fully aware that increased commercial time isn't in their interests, as they have America as an example.
If the BBC didn't exist as a commercial entity in the UK, what would replace it?
The BBC != The License Fee. I know that BBC Propaganda claims that they're intertwined, but they're not. It could just as easily be supported by direct taxation, just like almost every other public service in the UK. That's why the license fee is morally reprehensible - it takes the same amount of money from household's pockets, without regard for the level of income. There is no other tax in the UK which is as regressive that affects so many people. People should not be being sent to jail for wanting to watch free to air TV. Huge databases, threatening letters to innocent people and snooper vans wouldn't be considered acceptable for anything else, but somehow the BBC gets away with it, all in the name of "better TV".
The US produces some great shows but the reality of too little choice (a heck of a lot of duplication between channels) and overbearing advertising limits it too much.
While I find US TV unwatchable in the US, I wouldn't say that there's that much choice on UK TV either. Old movies, game shows, reality TV (which seems to just be a glorified form of game show), cop and costume dramas and home/garden/fashion makeover programmes seem to be the extent of what's on.
If I live in the UK can I refuse to fund the public library because I buy my own books, even perhaps from another country?
You can't refuse to pay for the public library at the moment because it's paid for by direct taxation. Under a Reading License system, you would have to have a reading license in order to import books - in the same way you would need a TV License to watch imported VHS's on a VCR (I'll avoid DVD's and the whole "I can't receive TV, therefore I don't have to pay" can of worms). And if you think you can get away with out paying, well the Book Detector vans are out, using telescopes to peer through people's windows to make sure that they don't have any books if they don't have a reading license. After all they know that you don't have a Reading License, and they're going to keep telling you that they know that you don't have a Reading Licence and that if you don't get one soon then the Book Inspectors will be around to have a look around your house.
The BBC 'gets' the money but don't forget that their program production is mostly outsourced.
Which is why I said no other organization directly gets funding from the licence fee. Most importantly, they are the only broadcasting organization that gets money from the fee (the other broadcasters don't generally supply content to the BBC as outsourcers).
Note that *many* countries have a license which helps pay for some public service and local TV.
So? You're using the logical fallacy of appeal to common practice. Just because a lot of other countries have some form of licence fee does not make it morally correct or justifiable.
I have nothing against public broadcasting. What I do have something against is the way that it's funded at the moment. The licence fee and it's enforcement is a morally reprehensible way to fund a service that should be benefiting all. If anything, the people best served by the BBC's mandate to "inform, educate and entertain" are the ones for whom the licence fee is more of a burden.
The TV Licence makes as much sense as a Reading Licence would, where people would need a licence to buy books just to support public libraries.
During the World Cup, the BBC were broadcasting the matches over the internet, and there were several reports on BBC News about how employers would need TV Licenses if any of their staff watched the games over the internet.
It's not the TV card, it's the watching of the broadcasts, by whatever means those broadcasts are transmitted (which in this case means having a computer hooked up to the internet via broadband). Which makes you wonder that if when the BBC start broadcasting all it's TV channels on the internet (News 24 has already started) then technically will all broadband enabled premises in the UK need TV Licenses (as they will, technically, be able to receive BBC TV broadcasts).
but it is a tax that only applies to those with the means to receive TV programs.
Which is the vast majority of the population. Even people who live on benefits can afford to save up for a used TV. Which is why a flat fee, no matter the size of household income or number of people in that household is outrageously regressive.
However they do enforce the collection of a fee that the BBC mostly benefits from.
Only the BBC and it's police force, the TVLA benefit from the fee. No other organization directly receives TV License money.
For most satellite TV you pay for a subscription AND you get the ads
Yes, but the government doesn't force you to subscribe to Sky if you just want to watch the free to air commercial satellite channels.
The BBC doesn't have to do this
But that doesn't justify the license fee. All that justifies is some form of state sponsored public television, not the mechanism by which it's paid for.
Something else - they're using the tried and testing Hollywood formula of the bad guy having an English accent.
If it is more profitable to be ruthless, the ruthless will survive and those who choose to be "ethical" will die out. It's no different from biological evolution, only faster. Nobody controls it.
With all the talk about ethics these days (usually in regards to the environment or the worlds poor), I've been wondering if people who choose less ethical lifestyles (for example, people who buy non-local, non-fair-trade produce) are going to fair better in the long term. If the business world is an example, it would seem so.
you have deprived the producer of the product the price they charge.
The producer of the product has just as much product as before the piracy occurs. They can still sell that to other people, unlike actual theft, where the producer is deprived of a product that they can sell to others.
To look at the damage done to the producer, it's best to divide piracy into different types - primarily private piracy, where copies are made but no money changes hands, and the more traditional public piracy, where money does change hands.
With private piracy, you can't easily say that the person receiving the pirated copy would ever have bought the copy, at any price. You can't even say that just because they recieved a free copy that they won't ultimately go out and buy a legit CD. This is the sort of piracy that rates, in my mind at least, very little in the way of punishment.
Public piracy, the industrial form with factories and market stalls is a different matter. It's easier to show real damage, and, more importantly, the pirates have recieved material gain. This type of piracy deserves harsher punishment - but again not prison.
It's probably harder than you think for any business with more than 20 computers.
Which is why there's a niche software industry in Software Asset Management. We use Centennial but I really think it's a loosing battle.
I think if you really want to know what software people are using on what computers and when, you're better off having big iron and give the users dumb terminals. Instead, users keep getting powerful desktops that are rarely used to their full and yet are a nightmare to manage.
So what is an appropriate penalty for using someone else's work without paying for it?
2 x List Price. Not jail. You haven't deprived anyone of anything (as your use does not stop someone else's use). Copyright violation is wrong, it doesn't mean that jail is just punishment.
But how do you proove that you have a licence to run Free Software?
I know it sounds absurd, but a few years back we had an auditor who had real trouble with free software, as she felt that without a paper trail (ie, receipts) you couldn't proove that you really had a licence (though she wouldn't accept the counter claim that a receipt or a paper licence doesn't proove anything either). In order to pass audit, we had to print out the licences used, for every piece of software and for each install. So we had several dozen copies of the GPL, several dozen copies of the Apace licence, several dozen copies of <insert FOSS Licence>, etc. Fortunately, that was just for free software running on Windows - the auditing people decided to just ignore the existence of Linux.
That's an abuse of power because she was so desperate to win it for her children that she paid the ultimate price.
That's not an abuse of power, that's simple human stupidity.
We all know plenty of people who work Sundays, and very few of them I know would say it "suits them".
No we don't - very few people often work on Sundays, or Saturdays which is why it's called the weekend. Which is why having the retail shops open is important as it's about the only time a working family has to go and do all the shopping. Not just food shopping, but all the other shopping that crops up due to normal weekend activities (such as DIY emergencies).
You talk about kids earning extra cash, but that just doesn't ring true in my experience. Maybe in a small town with one or two shops
I wouldn't call London a small town.
yet if the opportunity is there many people will, and many will feel they have no choice but to work 7 days a week.
Then why are only retail workers protected? The laws only deal with shops - every other business can carry on as normal (I know, I've worked all weekend on several occasions - and I'm glad I had the opportunity as the overtime was a nice bonus.). Not only that, but Sunday trading laws would not be enough to stop a retail worker working 7 days in a row, all the current law means is that the hours spent serving customers on Sunday might be a bit shorter than usual - they could still be working a full day on a Sunday if they start doing stocktaking.
In Europe fortunately, we have quite strong laws about what hours people can work, how many consecutive days you can work, and how many days off you get in any 14 day period,
Which is why we don't need a specific day set aside.
I don't know what the laws are like in the US, but I'd be very surprised if they were anywhere near as strong.
What does the US have to do with this? This is about a religiously mandated inability to shop on Sundays, in England and Wales. It's also about the Christian Taliban propping up the antiquated shopping laws by masquerading their real motives by saying that the laws protect family and workers, when they do no such thing.
And "There are hundreds of ethnic groups indigenous to Papua New Guinea,"
PNG isn't a nation, it's a state. And if the people of PNG do have national feelings for PNG, it would be the same way citizens of the USA have national feelings for the USA (ie, having national feelings, even though there is no identifiable nation under the common definition of the term 'nation'). A state can be diverse, a nation can't.
In the last hour or so, they wheeled a representative from CoS on to News 24, as it was daytime it was all nice and polite (though they were still lightly ridiculed) - I couldn't stop wondering what Paxman would do to them. I've also seen them reporting on YouTube and how now anybody can report on their side of a news item. I think the BBC are loving every minute of this.
That's why the culture at the Beeb is special in a world full of cookie-cutter journalism and commercial advertising
I don't see how cookie cutter journalism without ads is that special compared to cookie-cutter journalism with ads. The BBC's journalism isn't that good. About the only thing they do is badger whoever they're interviewing, and they're an institutional left-wing bias.