Anyone looking into the no child left behind act shouldn't be using the wikipedia page you linked to as a reference. It is totaly[sic] slanted against it giving opinion as fact and offering information from a one sided view. It even in one instance offers opinion as a stated goal of a privision[sic]. It has actualy[sic] gotten worse in the last couple of months since I looked at it. I suggest they get their information from the source [www.ed.gov] and make any decisions based on it from there.
So you expect the people responsible for the whole thing to be unbiased?
Wikipedia is not unbiased but I can't believe that it is more biased than the people directing the changes.
Each of the three Indians I work with speaks at least 4 languages: English (at least as well as the vast majority of Australians/Americans/Brits I've met), Hindi, at least one other Indian language and one of German or French.
Despite the fact that our most important customer is in Spain, my Spanish has been used in a work situation only once: to order from a Colombian waiter when our team went to an Indian restaurant.
Science is the belief that nothing is true that cannot be proven to be true.
a) science is not a belief, it is a process. Some may have a belief that science provides truth but, ironically, this is unscientific.
b) science makes no claims about things that can't be tested. The line "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is perfectly consistent with a scientific approach.
From a scientific perspective nothing is ever really proved to be true - we merely have more or less evidence for it.
A new discovery could appear tomorrow which throws doubt on any aspect of scientific "truth". In fact, if it is not possible for a theory to be contradicted then it fails one of the keys tests of whether or not it is scientific. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability for details.
Pubs (and casinos) have enormous signs (and TV and radio ads) in Victoria and Queensland. I don't know about anywhere else in Australia.
The problem isn't gambling, or advertising gambling, being "illegal" - it's that the government can't tax online gambling. Governments in Australia take massive amounts of tax from gambling.
''Scientific theory is fine, but lets try show both sides of the argument shall we?''
Scientific theory is what is taught in science class. I went to a catholic school where we were taught science (gravity, evolution, electromagnetism, etc) and creationism... *DIFFERENT* creation stories (they're stories not theories) - we all had to come up with one - I got an A+:-)
It's been a long time since most people around here, who can reliably spell "science", believed in the literal truth of the stories in genesis.
My pet peeve is "It's the exception that proves the rule" which has outlived it's own well understood meaning.
The meaning of "proves" in this context is actually tests. The exception tests the rule - and finds it wanting. That is, it's very nearly the opposite of the contemporary meaning of "proves".
I often wonder what people who say this think they mean.
When I was in Peru I saw the Nasca Lines from a four seater plane and it beat the hell out of seeing them on TV. I've never seen them on IMAX but I think I'd still rather actually be there.
I see the "space" trip in the same way - I'd rather be there and experience the whole thing than sit in a theatre with a box of popcorn.
All ships and aircraft are registered in a particular jurisdiction which impacts on the law when in international waters or airspace. It may even be relevant when the craft is physically in another jurisdiction (where both sets of regulations could apply) - not sure about that though and IANAL.
I don't see any reason why the US can't institute regulations in the very similar situation of space craft registered in the USA.
What difference does it make how hard a word is to spell? There are several quick and simple ways to check the spelling of any word. In my opinion, the harder a word is for someone to spell, the more important it is that they should check it. The fact that it's in a spelling/grammar nazi post makes me wonder if the post was a troll but I'm giving it the benefit of the doubt.
BTW the majority of words added to old English, to form modern English, come from French. Some have just been around longer.
And what is a "layperson" in this context? Do we have a special priest class that is expected to be able to write the language while the rest of us scratch down whatever we want?
Do I pirate music? Yes. Do I know it's technically wrong? Yes.
What does "wrong" mean in this context? Let alone "technically wrong"? Against certain legal agreements? certainly. Against the law? probably. I don't see that this makes it "wrong" in the (moral) sense that a lot of people use the term.
This is not a natural justice question - it's certainly not "stealing" as nothing is actually being lost. Steal a car and the person you stole it from no longer has the car, copy a song from someone and no-one has less of anything.
Copyright is something that "we the people" (most of us on/. live in so called democratic countries) have provided each other for the benefit of all. If it no longer benefits all but only a handful of people then we have every right to take it back.
If the (vast) majority of people are in favour of it (and they seem to be) then perhaps what we are dealing with is a disconnect between real citizens and "their" government.
"government of the people, by the people, for the people" right?
They most certainly can if they themselves are found liable for damages and/or a fine. If company directors/officers break the law then they are responsible not just the company.
Yes they often get away with things by hiding money but their houses aren't protected. If the house is not actually owned by them or by a company they own/control then it would be much harder to get to.
So houses aren't explicitly protected but putting it in someone else's name (e.g. spouse, other family member) can make it much harder for someone to take it away.
"In all jurisdictions, suicide is no longer a crime and, except in the Northern Territory, the crime of attempted suicide has also been abolished. It is, however, still an offence for a person to assist another person to commit suicide or to attempt to commit suicide"
All these patent applications read like the appallingly vague product specifications I'm supposed to work with. Just put the thing on company Word templates and I could probably get it approved before anyone even noticed.
Maybe I should submit patents on all the stupid things I get asked to implement...
Slashdot Mirror
free market unencumbered by money or ownership
Ah, this is obviously some strange usage of the word "market" that I wasn't previously aware of.
Anyone looking into the no child left behind act shouldn't be using the wikipedia page you linked to as a reference. It is totaly[sic] slanted against it giving opinion as fact and offering information from a one sided view. It even in one instance offers opinion as a stated goal of a privision[sic]. It has actualy[sic] gotten worse in the last couple of months since I looked at it. I suggest they get their information from the source [www.ed.gov] and make any decisions based on it from there.
So you expect the people responsible for the whole thing to be unbiased?
Wikipedia is not unbiased but I can't believe that it is more biased than the people directing the changes.
I think you are under-estimating.
Each of the three Indians I work with speaks at least 4 languages: English (at least as well as the vast majority of Australians/Americans/Brits I've met), Hindi, at least one other Indian language and one of German or French.
Despite the fact that our most important customer is in Spain, my Spanish has been used in a work situation only once: to order from a Colombian waiter when our team went to an Indian restaurant.
Well the US did do it to them first...
Science is the belief that nothing is true that cannot be proven to be true.
a) science is not a belief, it is a process. Some may have a belief that science provides truth but, ironically, this is unscientific.
b) science makes no claims about things that can't be tested. The line "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is perfectly consistent with a scientific approach.
From a scientific perspective nothing is ever really proved to be true - we merely have more or less evidence for it.
A new discovery could appear tomorrow which throws doubt on any aspect of scientific "truth". In fact, if it is not possible for a theory to be contradicted then it fails one of the keys tests of whether or not it is scientific. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability for details.
what does "relatively absolute" mean?
Pubs (and casinos) have enormous signs (and TV and radio ads) in Victoria and Queensland. I don't know about anywhere else in Australia.
The problem isn't gambling, or advertising gambling, being "illegal" - it's that the government can't tax online gambling. Governments in Australia take massive amounts of tax from gambling.
Ownership has nothing to do with taxes. Citizens collectively own public properties because they are citizens not because they pay taxes.
the phrase "meant to be" has no place in any rational discussion of evolution.
and it's survival of the fit not survivial of the fittest (which I don't think Darwin ever said anyway).
''Scientific theory is fine, but lets try show both sides of the argument shall we?''
:-)
Scientific theory is what is taught in science class. I went to a catholic school where we were taught science (gravity, evolution, electromagnetism, etc) and creationism... *DIFFERENT* creation stories (they're stories not theories) - we all had to come up with one - I got an A+
It's been a long time since most people around here, who can reliably spell "science", believed in the literal truth of the stories in genesis.
''A nice appearance on the other hand often means a person can earn more money for less work.
:-)
Those "cushy" jobs are generally not worrying about pointer math and proper object destruction.''
So Java coders are better looking than C coders??
My pet peeve is "It's the exception that proves the rule" which has outlived it's own well understood meaning.
The meaning of "proves" in this context is actually tests. The exception tests the rule - and finds it wanting. That is, it's very nearly the opposite of the contemporary meaning of "proves".
I often wonder what people who say this think they mean.
When I was in Peru I saw the Nasca Lines from a four seater plane and it beat the hell out of seeing them on TV. I've never seen them on IMAX but I think I'd still rather actually be there.
I see the "space" trip in the same way - I'd rather be there and experience the whole thing than sit in a theatre with a box of popcorn.
Each to their own I guess.
All ships and aircraft are registered in a particular jurisdiction which impacts on the law when in international waters or airspace. It may even be relevant when the craft is physically in another jurisdiction (where both sets of regulations could apply) - not sure about that though and IANAL.
I don't see any reason why the US can't institute regulations in the very similar situation of space craft registered in the USA.
Seeing the curvature of the Earth would be pretty cool - I'd pay a few dollars to see that.
What difference does it make how hard a word is to spell? There are several quick and simple ways to check the spelling of any word. In my opinion, the harder a word is for someone to spell, the more important it is that they should check it. The fact that it's in a spelling/grammar nazi post makes me wonder if the post was a troll but I'm giving it the benefit of the doubt.
BTW the majority of words added to old English, to form modern English, come from French. Some have just been around longer.
And what is a "layperson" in this context? Do we have a special priest class that is expected to be able to write the language while the rest of us scratch down whatever we want?
The new anti-smoking legislation in Queensland, Australia explicitly forbids smoking in doorways. http://www.health.qld.gov.au/atods/tobaccolaws/out door/entrances.asp
Now if only they would stop people smoking while walking down the road...
OK - so you are correcting something that is fine to begin with?
I didn't realise that both forms are acceptable but you have shown me the error of my ways and I am grateful for this (no really).
But I still don't understand why "none are" sounds better to you. "None is" sounds fine to me. Perhaps this is a geographical or cultural difference?
Do I pirate music? Yes. Do I know it's technically wrong? Yes.
/. live in so called democratic countries) have provided each other for the benefit of all. If it no longer benefits all but only a handful of people then we have every right to take it back.
What does "wrong" mean in this context? Let alone "technically wrong"? Against certain legal agreements? certainly. Against the law? probably. I don't see that this makes it "wrong" in the (moral) sense that a lot of people use the term.
This is not a natural justice question - it's certainly not "stealing" as nothing is actually being lost. Steal a car and the person you stole it from no longer has the car, copy a song from someone and no-one has less of anything.
Copyright is something that "we the people" (most of us on
If the (vast) majority of people are in favour of it (and they seem to be) then perhaps what we are dealing with is a disconnect between real citizens and "their" government.
"government of the people, by the people, for the people" right?
also referred to as txt and pxt here in Oz.
They most certainly can if they themselves are found liable for damages and/or a fine. If company directors/officers break the law then they are responsible not just the company.
Yes they often get away with things by hiding money but their houses aren't protected. If the house is not actually owned by them or by a company they own/control then it would be much harder to get to.
So houses aren't explicitly protected but putting it in someone else's name (e.g. spouse, other family member) can make it much harder for someone to take it away.
YMMV, IANAL
... and it is only illegal to attempt suicide in one jurisdiction (of reltively small population - around 200 000)
from http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/ti52.pdf
"In all jurisdictions, suicide is no longer a crime and, except in the Northern Territory, the crime of attempted suicide has also been abolished. It is, however, still an offence for a person to assist another person to commit suicide or to attempt to commit suicide"
Yes. I am far too big to test. Oh you meant the code ...
...
Quote from an (otherwise) intelligent guy at work today:
"Yeah I got a bit heavy with the delete key whenever I saw the word 'test' but I got annoyed that it wouldn't compile"
sigh
Unrelated note: why do people pretend to swear ("Darned")? Either swear (Damned at least) or don't - but why pretend? I don't get it.
Not sure about political parties but in Australia you can't be discriminated against because of trade union membership.
All these patent applications read like the appallingly vague product specifications I'm supposed to work with. Just put the thing on company Word templates and I could probably get it approved before anyone even noticed.
Maybe I should submit patents on all the stupid things I get asked to implement...