If they're a single nation, then why are there separate legal systems and now even separate parliaments? How do you explain the different languages and religions? A single nation wouldn't be so diverse.
Legal status is for states, not for nations. Nations are not confined by state boundaries (look at the Kurds or all the trouble that happened when Yugoslavia broke up). A single nation can span several states and a single state can contain several nations. Often the two combine, so you get the concept of nation-state (which why the term nationality is often used in place of citizenship). France is a nation-state, the majority of the population belong to the French nation. The United Kingdom isn't - it's a supernation-state, made up of several, separate, nations, combined into a single recognized state.
How does preventing somebody from working on a Sunday protect them from abuse? Does it protect them for the other 6 days in the week? And what "abuse" is potentially happening in the first place?
What if working on Sunday suits a person - surely denying them the right to work is an abuse?
"So desperate that they'll do almost anything for money" is nonsense, working on a checkout is a far cry from prostitution, drug dealing and robbery. Look at the people working in a supermarket, most are young kids looking to make some extra cash, not desperate slave labourers trying to survive on minimum wage.
A people who share common customs, origins, history, and frequently language; a nationality. A relatively large group of people organized under a single, usually independent government; a country.
So, usually an independent government, but not always. The United Kingdom is a union of small nations. Those small nations live in small countries. Which together form a larger nation and a larger country.
Personally, I prefer the "supernationality" of being British over the constituent bits, but that doesn't mean I have to deny England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland any national identity. As for the passports, it's also got European Union on them, but I wouldn't consider myself European (or do I have no choice, now that it's written on my passport?).
Depends on what definition of "country" you use. For the definition the territory occupied by a nation, then England, Scotland and Wales would qualify as separate countries.
It's on News 24 every 30 minutes - the YouTube posting is being seen almost as a badge of honour. If CoS had any sense, well, they probably wouldn't believe in what they believe in, but in any case they wouldn't take on the BBC. But they took the BBC on and now the BBC are going to their best to get as many people to watch tonight's documentary.
he primary reason behind current sunday-trading laws is actually "protecting the family" and not religiously motivated
Nonsense. "Keep Sunday Stressful" has nothing to do with protecting the family and all about protecting a minority religious belief.
If the goal of "protecting family time" was real, the shops would be closed during the day (so that people could spend family time during the day) and then let people shop in the evening. Making it so that people have to rush around shops in such limited daytime hours does nothing to help family cohesion, all it does is add stress to peoples lives. It's also grossly unfair to the large percentage of the population who are not in traditional family units and gain no benefit at being unable to shop.
The only people who support the archaic shopping laws are christians.
Obviously, the above is copyright, so anybody who criticizes the church or uses any of the above commandments in an unapproved manner will be on the business end of a DMCA takedown notice.
After all, unless your tv is HD ready you won't see much improvement anyway.
The day after the PS3 came out in the UK, I went down to Comet (for some batteries, not a new console) and they had a PS3 hooked up to a large HD Plasma and I wasn't that impressed by the graphics. Maybe it was the game (some WWII shooter), but the graphics didn't seem to be so astoundingly better than my old XBox (not a 360, just a plain old XBox) to justify the large sums being asked.
I've been playing a friend's Wii and I want to get one. Obviously, it has nothing to do with the graphics (on an SD TV), it's the games and the web browser.
Again, you can't play games for the PC that have not been released for it.
But are any of the games worth the rather large upfront cost of the consoles?
At least the Wii is comparatively cheap and the games are fairly broad based in their appeal. The PS3 and the 360 are more narrowly targeted on the hard core gamer. I think Nintendo's strategy is going to be more successful.
does the employer have the right to ask me about my experience with the applicant
But that is entirely work based and related to the job - looking at what somebody gets up to in the 16 hours of the day that aren't working is different.
Seems to me that an employer has every right to decide what kind/type of person will be working for them.
In which case, you'll end up allowing unfair discrimination. Let's say someone doesn't like black people, homosexuals and christians (and especially black homosexual christians) - do they have a right to not hire someone who is black and/or homosexual and/or christian simply because of they are black and/or homosexual and/or christian? After all, they aren't the kind of people they want working for them.
Other than for matters that directly affect the applicant's ability to do a job, what does the "kind" of person they are matter?
Looking at the article, this seems to be more about a version of Ubuntu for Web tablets instead of mobile phones. It looks like Intel are using Ubuntu for their Nokia N800 style device.
I know that my company checks all of the "social networking" sites when someone applies for a job and more times than not, their online profiles cast them in a negative light.
What do they expect? What people get up to in their off hours tends to be somewhat unprofessional. A company wouldn't inspect a potential employees homes, so why are they inspecting their social networking profiles?
Very rarely does a person's private life significantly impact what they do at work in a negative way. Even things that are often promoted as "positive" (such as family or religious beliefs) could have a negative impact on an employee's performance. You can never be sure if what might not cause a problem with one person won't cause a problem with someone else. Sometimes something that would cause a problem with one employee will actually increase another employees performance.
I think it's best for companies to keep their noses out of employee and potential employee private lives unless it is absolutely essential (which it's not, in most cases).
Surely, it only promotes overage drinking, as the teacher in question is of legal age. Which means she's promoting an activity as legal as, say, firing off a few rounds down at the local gun club.
This is no less then an admission that their own search and online advertising strategy has failed completelly.
I'd love to know why MS still tries. Either in fields where becoming dominant is a mighty large challenge (like with MSN), but also in areas where they are never going to be able to extract profit (like Internet Explorer). I can understand giving things a shot, but there must come a point where it's best to cut your losses. Other than some irrational fear that if they don't control everything then the core will wither away, I can't see any reason for them to continue down several of the paths that they are taking.
Spending lots of taxpayers' money on local goods and services does not decrease the amount of money a country has.
But it is decreasing the amount of money I, as a taxpayer, have with no near or even long term benefit to me. If there was some form of "tourist tax", where the proceeds went straight back to those of us who are paying the extra taxes then maybe it could be viewed as some form of investment - but seeing as tourists don't even have to pay VAT I doubt there's going to be some special tax for them.
Britain has no manufacturing industry to speak of, so all those "local goods" are actually imports and most of the services are performed by cheaper, foreign workers and therefore the money's going to foreign countries - either directly in the case of foreign call centres or indirectly in the form of migrant workers.
I just read the article, and all I could get from it is that identity management and authentication systems (so, I'm assuming both electronic and physical - probably mostly physical from the mentioning of "biometric" versions of the oyster card) have to come from a "major sponsor" of the Olympics and that that major sponsor is Visa. There's no discussion of how much it costs, or whose paying, just that the government don't have any choice in who they select|what technologies are used.
But the souvenirs are made in China and some of the hotels use Indian call centres to take reservations. And where does the money made by the people-traffickers smuggling in sex-slaves go?
I'm not convinced that the amount of money brought in by tourism is greater than the amount of money being spent. I doubt it's anywhere near what they're spending. It's not like London was that short of tourists before the Olympics. If London is the 6th wealthiest city on the planet, does it really need that much of an injection anyway?
There have been more and more calls to get the 2012 Olympics as privately funded as possible(here for example). It's starting to make life hard for charities and organizations that actually help people. Those charities and organizations that provide what is essentially entertainment (ie, sport) are doing rather well though.
I really don't think the government thought they had the slightest chance of getting the Olympics, so they never bothered to work out how much it would really cost and now everybody's paying for this government's self indulgence. And that they knew that they wouldn't be in power when 2012 comes means that they probably didn't care how much it would all cost anyway.
There should have been more debate about the whole thing before a bid was even launched. Instead, there was no debate, the state media kept going on about how wonderful it would all be and how anyone who against the bid was either mad, silly or unpatriotic, and actual, real world costs were never worked out. I was against the bid, I know plenty of other people who were against it and anybody I knew who said they were for it also said that we wouldn't get it so "what was there to worry about?".
So now that we have an expensive government blunder, the government are going to try and get as much commercial interests in the games as possible so that they won't have to pay for it. Perhaps they'll try it with their other famous, expensive blunder as well - this war was brought to you by McDonalds, Coca-Cola, Visa and Nike.
Slashdot Mirror
If they're a single nation, then why are there separate legal systems and now even separate parliaments? How do you explain the different languages and religions? A single nation wouldn't be so diverse.
Legal status is for states, not for nations. Nations are not confined by state boundaries (look at the Kurds or all the trouble that happened when Yugoslavia broke up). A single nation can span several states and a single state can contain several nations. Often the two combine, so you get the concept of nation-state (which why the term nationality is often used in place of citizenship). France is a nation-state, the majority of the population belong to the French nation. The United Kingdom isn't - it's a supernation-state, made up of several, separate, nations, combined into a single recognized state.
How does preventing somebody from working on a Sunday protect them from abuse? Does it protect them for the other 6 days in the week? And what "abuse" is potentially happening in the first place?
What if working on Sunday suits a person - surely denying them the right to work is an abuse?
"So desperate that they'll do almost anything for money" is nonsense, working on a checkout is a far cry from prostitution, drug dealing and robbery. Look at the people working in a supermarket, most are young kids looking to make some extra cash, not desperate slave labourers trying to survive on minimum wage.
Maybe you should go and tell the members of the Scottish Nationalist Party and Plaid Cymru that one.
Again, looking at the definition of "nation" we find
A people who share common customs, origins, history, and frequently language; a nationality. A relatively large group of people organized under a single, usually independent government; a country.
So, usually an independent government, but not always. The United Kingdom is a union of small nations. Those small nations live in small countries. Which together form a larger nation and a larger country.
Personally, I prefer the "supernationality" of being British over the constituent bits, but that doesn't mean I have to deny England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland any national identity. As for the passports, it's also got European Union on them, but I wouldn't consider myself European (or do I have no choice, now that it's written on my passport?).
Depends on what definition of "country" you use. For the definition the territory occupied by a nation, then England, Scotland and Wales would qualify as separate countries.
It's on News 24 every 30 minutes - the YouTube posting is being seen almost as a badge of honour. If CoS had any sense, well, they probably wouldn't believe in what they believe in, but in any case they wouldn't take on the BBC. But they took the BBC on and now the BBC are going to their best to get as many people to watch tonight's documentary.
sort of tricks that Derren Brown gets up to - he has done a 2 DVD pack with card tricks
What's it called? I checked amazon and the only Derren Brown DVDs were some of his TV series.
The idea is to protect the family. That means the ability for multiple people to meet together
How does not letting people shop "protect" the family? Can't people meet up together in Tesco? The family that shops together stays together.
he primary reason behind current sunday-trading laws is actually "protecting the family" and not religiously motivated
Nonsense. "Keep Sunday Stressful" has nothing to do with protecting the family and all about protecting a minority religious belief.
If the goal of "protecting family time" was real, the shops would be closed during the day (so that people could spend family time during the day) and then let people shop in the evening. Making it so that people have to rush around shops in such limited daytime hours does nothing to help family cohesion, all it does is add stress to peoples lives. It's also grossly unfair to the large percentage of the population who are not in traditional family units and gain no benefit at being unable to shop.
The only people who support the archaic shopping laws are christians.
a man really wants to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion
In which case, I'm going to start the First Church Of Slashdot.
The 3 Commandments of Slashdotism are:
1) Thou shalt not read the article
2) Thou shalt not read the article
3) 09-f9-11-02-9d-74-e3-5b-d8-41-56-c5-63-56-88-c0
Obviously, the above is copyright, so anybody who criticizes the church or uses any of the above commandments in an unapproved manner will be on the business end of a DMCA takedown notice.
After all, unless your tv is HD ready you won't see much improvement anyway.
The day after the PS3 came out in the UK, I went down to Comet (for some batteries, not a new console) and they had a PS3 hooked up to a large HD Plasma and I wasn't that impressed by the graphics. Maybe it was the game (some WWII shooter), but the graphics didn't seem to be so astoundingly better than my old XBox (not a 360, just a plain old XBox) to justify the large sums being asked.
I've been playing a friend's Wii and I want to get one. Obviously, it has nothing to do with the graphics (on an SD TV), it's the games and the web browser.
Again, you can't play games for the PC that have not been released for it.
But are any of the games worth the rather large upfront cost of the consoles?
At least the Wii is comparatively cheap and the games are fairly broad based in their appeal. The PS3 and the 360 are more narrowly targeted on the hard core gamer. I think Nintendo's strategy is going to be more successful.
Discrimination is apart of every hire for every company whether you like it or not.
But not unfair discrimination.
does the employer have the right to ask me about my experience with the applicant
But that is entirely work based and related to the job - looking at what somebody gets up to in the 16 hours of the day that aren't working is different.
Seems to me that an employer has every right to decide what kind/type of person will be working for them.
In which case, you'll end up allowing unfair discrimination. Let's say someone doesn't like black people, homosexuals and christians (and especially black homosexual christians) - do they have a right to not hire someone who is black and/or homosexual and/or christian simply because of they are black and/or homosexual and/or christian? After all, they aren't the kind of people they want working for them.
Other than for matters that directly affect the applicant's ability to do a job, what does the "kind" of person they are matter?
Now trying to make a inly multi-purpose low power generic device is a different story but is the exception in the world of embedded lnux.
But that's what they (Intel) are trying to make, an Intel version of the Nokia N800 (which also runs a Debian derived distro)
Looking at the article, this seems to be more about a version of Ubuntu for Web tablets instead of mobile phones. It looks like Intel are using Ubuntu for their Nokia N800 style device.
I know that my company checks all of the "social networking" sites when someone applies for a job and more times than not, their online profiles cast them in a negative light.
What do they expect? What people get up to in their off hours tends to be somewhat unprofessional. A company wouldn't inspect a potential employees homes, so why are they inspecting their social networking profiles?
Very rarely does a person's private life significantly impact what they do at work in a negative way. Even things that are often promoted as "positive" (such as family or religious beliefs) could have a negative impact on an employee's performance. You can never be sure if what might not cause a problem with one person won't cause a problem with someone else. Sometimes something that would cause a problem with one employee will actually increase another employees performance.
I think it's best for companies to keep their noses out of employee and potential employee private lives unless it is absolutely essential (which it's not, in most cases).
I, for one, never heard about a riot on MIT's campus following a football game
Surely, that has more to do with the types of students who are attracted those universities, rather than any particular code of behaviour?
However, if that cup contained anything other than alcohol, like, say, cider, then she's definitely on solid ground
Depends on the cider (where I live, all cider contains alcohol)
If the teacher thought underage drinking was cool at 25,
I thought the drinking age in the US was 21, so how can a 25 year old be underage?
Hence the promoting-underage-drinking.
Surely, it only promotes overage drinking, as the teacher in question is of legal age. Which means she's promoting an activity as legal as, say, firing off a few rounds down at the local gun club.
How are they going to feel, knowing that she's a party girl?
Yeah, because only the truly debauched party at Halloween.
This is no less then an admission that their own search and online advertising strategy has failed completelly.
I'd love to know why MS still tries. Either in fields where becoming dominant is a mighty large challenge (like with MSN), but also in areas where they are never going to be able to extract profit (like Internet Explorer). I can understand giving things a shot, but there must come a point where it's best to cut your losses. Other than some irrational fear that if they don't control everything then the core will wither away, I can't see any reason for them to continue down several of the paths that they are taking.
Spending lots of taxpayers' money on local goods and services does not decrease the amount of money a country has.
But it is decreasing the amount of money I, as a taxpayer, have with no near or even long term benefit to me. If there was some form of "tourist tax", where the proceeds went straight back to those of us who are paying the extra taxes then maybe it could be viewed as some form of investment - but seeing as tourists don't even have to pay VAT I doubt there's going to be some special tax for them.
Britain has no manufacturing industry to speak of, so all those "local goods" are actually imports and most of the services are performed by cheaper, foreign workers and therefore the money's going to foreign countries - either directly in the case of foreign call centres or indirectly in the form of migrant workers.
I just read the article, and all I could get from it is that identity management and authentication systems (so, I'm assuming both electronic and physical - probably mostly physical from the mentioning of "biometric" versions of the oyster card) have to come from a "major sponsor" of the Olympics and that that major sponsor is Visa. There's no discussion of how much it costs, or whose paying, just that the government don't have any choice in who they select|what technologies are used.
But the souvenirs are made in China and some of the hotels use Indian call centres to take reservations. And where does the money made by the people-traffickers smuggling in sex-slaves go?
I'm not convinced that the amount of money brought in by tourism is greater than the amount of money being spent. I doubt it's anywhere near what they're spending. It's not like London was that short of tourists before the Olympics. If London is the 6th wealthiest city on the planet, does it really need that much of an injection anyway?
There have been more and more calls to get the 2012 Olympics as privately funded as possible(here for example). It's starting to make life hard for charities and organizations that actually help people. Those charities and organizations that provide what is essentially entertainment (ie, sport) are doing rather well though.
I really don't think the government thought they had the slightest chance of getting the Olympics, so they never bothered to work out how much it would really cost and now everybody's paying for this government's self indulgence. And that they knew that they wouldn't be in power when 2012 comes means that they probably didn't care how much it would all cost anyway.
There should have been more debate about the whole thing before a bid was even launched. Instead, there was no debate, the state media kept going on about how wonderful it would all be and how anyone who against the bid was either mad, silly or unpatriotic, and actual, real world costs were never worked out. I was against the bid, I know plenty of other people who were against it and anybody I knew who said they were for it also said that we wouldn't get it so "what was there to worry about?".
So now that we have an expensive government blunder, the government are going to try and get as much commercial interests in the games as possible so that they won't have to pay for it. Perhaps they'll try it with their other famous, expensive blunder as well - this war was brought to you by McDonalds, Coca-Cola, Visa and Nike.