Possibly not as long as you think. The UK, for example, has the second oldest flag in the world and it dates from the beginning of the 19th century (Denmark has the oldest).
Market apologists cling to the belief that businesses would produce products that maim and kill their customers in the face of liability despite centuries of evidence to the contrary.
This is such a horrible sentence. I think you're missing a "not".
Vista wasn't crippled by processor speed, anyway, it was crippled by being installed on low RAM systems. That and having lots of shit services running as default.
I'm still typing from my almost 10 year old Vista system on which I play Elite : Dangerous and a whole host of other new games. The graphics card is newer.
You acquire knowledge through reading; through either written words or equations on the page. Knowledge acquistion for humans is inherently and forever a process of abstract symbol processing- we process speech and scratches on a page and transform it into understanding. That's as natural as breathing. Plain text is the once and a future king of the internet.
Suer[sic] somethings are better demonstrated than explained verbally. No one is arguing with that.
It seems like you are.
Writing is a new invention in terms of the history of humanity. A hundred thousand year old caveman could (in theory) understand a youtube video in a language they knew, but they could not read anything. They could also get something from a youtube video even if they did not understand the language. You can't get anything from text if you don't understand it.
There's far more on Wikipedia alone now than there was on the the web in totality in the early days. If you don't like adverts, and just like information, you can just use wikipedia now.
Yes, I'm saying that Wikipedia (one site) now is better (much better) than the entire web used to be.
If you don't like the sites that you're seeing, close the window (or tab). No one is forcing you to go to sites that you do not like.
Cricket is actually a poor comparison as Hawkeye is used to predict where the ball would have gone
That's just one thing that hawkeye does in cricket. To be out leg before wicket in cricket, the ball cannot have pitched outside leg stump. Also to be out lbw when playing a shot, the ball must not have hit the batter outside off stump, which is also checked for. Both of these examples check where the ball has been, and decisions are often overturned on these things.
Also, if the umpire's decision is not out, and the ball is just clipping the stumps (or very close in another area), the umpire's decision is upheld - hawkeye does not overrule the umpire when the decision is close.
I miss the single player adventure games like from Sierra and Lucas Arts where you can engross yourself in a story game line, and have work to solve puzzles and you celibate when you continue the story plot, without having to use twitch like hand eye coordination, or play online with a bunch of people just trying to mess you up.
You haven't been following the gaming scene much recently, have you? There are a plethora of high and low budget new games almost entirely based around the story, and lots of people are complaining about them. The Walking Dead, Life is Strange, Game of Thrones, Tales for the Borderlands are all obvious examples of single player story based adventure games. There are dozens of others.
That list shows 17 out of 25 of the world's top pedestrian cities as being in of the US, 2 of those outside being in Canada. That leaves 6 for the rest of the world.
I'm not usually one to complain about lists and articles being US-centric, but that is a little absurd.
What does "idiot" mean to you then? The first definition that comes up when you google it is "a stupid person". "Stupid" essentially means lacking intelligence (when applied to a person).
I'm seriously curious. What do _you_ mean when you call someone an idiot?
We have 12 minutes maximum per hour of advertising on ITV, C4 and C5 because they're regulated by ofcom, not because of competition. They're defined as public service broadcasters, whereas all the other channels aren't. There's actually a limit of 8 minutes an hour on average between 6pm and 11pm, I've just looked this up. What the channels actually do is (essentially) not advertise on less popular programmes, so they can use the 12 minutes per hour later. I'd always wondered why there were so few adverts on the cricket highlights on channel 5. Unfortunately "advertising" does not include self-promotion, or promotion of sister channels, so the cricket advert breaks are mostly filled with that.
I'm not sure what the benefits of being a public service broadcaster are exactly compared to all of the other channels that don't have to abide by these rules and have far more adverts. The channels which show loads of American programmes use the same 1/2 hour slots. The Big Bang Theory, as an example, has a running time of as little as 18 minutes, resulting in 24 minutes of adverts or other cruft per hour.
I used to live near one, Straight road in Colchester. Straight roads in England are usually Roman.
We also had a Roman tumulus literally just behind our back garden. It was excavated early in the 20th century, IIRC, and some stuff they got out of it is on display in Colchester castle. No one knew the tumulus was there, though, there are quite a few of them around Colchester. The house was just a standard suburban house, and as kids we used to play on the tumulus a bit, but it was quite overgrown with brambles etc.
Atheism implies belief in: empiricism, naturalism, evolution and humanism.
It might do to you, that may be why you consider it a religion. It doesn't to me. Just because people who don't believe in a god are more likely to believe some other things than religious people, does not make it a religion. If short people were more likely than others to believe some things, does that make being short a religion?
No one can know that there's no god absolutely. That being said, no one can know anything absolutely (with the possible exception of cogito ergo sum, but that is problematic too). The brain in a jar argument isn't very useful.
All that being said, I believe there is no god. However, this is an entirely pointless question, in my opinion, and doesn't affect my life in any way whatsoever. What affects my life is my lack of belief in some of the more popular gods, and that's what makes me an atheist.
Back on topic, I'm from the UK, and we have a law outlawing incitement to religious hatred. Now I do hate some religions (Scientology, fundamental Christianity, some Islamic sects), and I would encourage others to hate them too.
See what I did there? I just broke the law. Chances of me getting charged with a crime = 0%. Yeah, well I didn't really:
29JProtection of freedom of expression
Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system.
It specifically allows abuse of religions. The incitement to religious hatred law is actually actually pretty specific : "A person who uses threatening words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, is guilty of an offence if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred."
Key word : "Threatening". It seems pretty sensible, but the trouble with this, and a whole host of laws that Labour introduced under Tony Blair, is that it was already illegal. They also criminalised setting off nuclear devices in towns and cities. Because that wasn't illegal before, right?
They are, broadly, a bunch of well-behaved socialist conformists who are afraid of the real world, and think that a panopticon surveillance state will make them "safe". It is disgusting.
You don't know what you're talking about. There are some people in the UK who fit that description, but they are a minority.
Take a guess at the number of firearms now legally owned in the UK..... It'll be a hell of a lot higher than you think. Also, there are some guns that are legal in the UK that are illegal in the US (though getting a license for them might be tricky). I could get a shotgun within a few weeks if I wanted one, despite having a criminal record.
Personally, I'm pragmatic, generally. When we banned hand guns in the UK in the late 90's, hand gun crime (ie. crimes using hand guns, not ownership of a hand gun, which might well have been expected to go up) went up for years afterwards, despite having had being going down previously. The ban actually seemed to increase hand gun crime.
David Davis (for one) Is very influential in the conservative party, just to show one person who is very concerned about privacy issues.
I've pointed this out to people before, and it's amusing to explain.
How far out would the moon have to be to become another planet, and us to be just part of a binary system?
I know it's relatively close now, the barycentre being only about a thousand miles beneath the surface of Earth, and I know the moon is receding from us too (though slowly). When will it get far enough out to become a planet?
What's even worse is that British imperial units are different from American Imperial units. Miles per gallon, for example, is different, because the British gallon is bigger than the American gallon, resulting in higher mpg figures. And yes, everyone still uses miles per gallon in Britain, rather than anything else. Petrol and Diesel is sold in litres (and can't legally be sold in gallons), though. Yes, it's insane.
We're not allowed to buy milk in pints, either, so everything now is just 568ml, and lots of cans and jars are 454g.
Modern thinking is that crocodiles descended directly from a warm blooded ancestor, and reverted to being cold blooded, because there's no reason for the warm blooded characteristics they have now without having had a warm blooded ancestor, and there's not been enough time to evolve new things rather than revert.
A person that automatically believes the NSA is lying is really not much different than a person that automatically believes the NSA is telling the truth.
The NSA has lied about many things regarding the Snowden case, and Snowden hasn't (as far as I know). Critical thinking should help you figure out which is more likely to be a reliable source now.
No one's claiming that _everything_ that the NSA says is a lie, that's a straw man. However, since they have repeatedly been shown to have lied in the past, you'd be stupid to treat them as anything but completely unreliable.
Now that the US has taken action, other countries are starting to investigate their local officials. Even if all American charges are dropped (and it looks like there are at least a few with sufficient American ties to be prosecuted regardless) there will be plenty of other countries with their own jurisdictions that are going to jump on the bandwagon.
The prime reason why the FIFA corruption scandal has come to the forefront is nothing to do with the US. It's essentially about UEFA (the European football association) actually making enough of a stink about it (enough for some to actually start talking about leaving FIFA), and (more importantly) the Swiss legislature talking about forcing organisations to disclose payments (bribes). The US has essentially zero to do with it, as the US has essentially zero power in world football.
Here's what you can do: butcher your own meat. People do it every day, though you sound much too lazy and entitled and whiny to do anything that might involved getting your hands dirty. Which probably also rules out you growing your own vegetables - you might have to clean your fingernails afterwards, so you won't soil your keyboard when typing your next woe-is-me rant.
Yeah.... that works well in the middle of a big city. Do you know how much is actually eaten daily in a big city? If everyone were to individually try to grow their own vegetables, and rear their own meat in a city of 10 million, it'd be instant chaos, and probably at least double the carbon output of the city.
Mass production works better, generally, that's why we do it.
1) Move somewhere you like.
And if everyone "moves somewhere they like"? You can't solve bad places by just saying "move".
2) Start your own company. Hire people
Which people? The people I was going to hire already started their own company. There aren't any employees any more in your utopia.
ps. I do butcher some of my own meat, and grow some of my own vegetables, but I'm lucky to live where I do.
Slashdot Mirror
Flags have been around for ages, too.
Possibly not as long as you think. The UK, for example, has the second oldest flag in the world and it dates from the beginning of the 19th century (Denmark has the oldest).
Market apologists cling to the belief that businesses would produce products that maim and kill their customers in the face of liability despite centuries of evidence to the contrary.
This is such a horrible sentence. I think you're missing a "not".
Heh, that's what you don't understand. It's one time pads all the way down!!
Vista wasn't crippled by processor speed, anyway, it was crippled by being installed on low RAM systems. That and having lots of shit services running as default.
I'm still typing from my almost 10 year old Vista system on which I play Elite : Dangerous and a whole host of other new games. The graphics card is newer.
You acquire knowledge through reading; through either written words or equations on the page. Knowledge acquistion for humans is inherently and forever a process of abstract symbol processing- we process speech and scratches on a page and transform it into understanding. That's as natural as breathing. Plain text is the once and a future king of the internet.
Suer[sic] somethings are better demonstrated than explained verbally. No one is arguing with that.
It seems like you are.
Writing is a new invention in terms of the history of humanity. A hundred thousand year old caveman could (in theory) understand a youtube video in a language they knew, but they could not read anything. They could also get something from a youtube video even if they did not understand the language. You can't get anything from text if you don't understand it.
There's far more on Wikipedia alone now than there was on the the web in totality in the early days. If you don't like adverts, and just like information, you can just use wikipedia now.
Yes, I'm saying that Wikipedia (one site) now is better (much better) than the entire web used to be.
If you don't like the sites that you're seeing, close the window (or tab). No one is forcing you to go to sites that you do not like.
Cricket is actually a poor comparison as Hawkeye is used to predict where the ball would have gone
That's just one thing that hawkeye does in cricket. To be out leg before wicket in cricket, the ball cannot have pitched outside leg stump. Also to be out lbw when playing a shot, the ball must not have hit the batter outside off stump, which is also checked for. Both of these examples check where the ball has been, and decisions are often overturned on these things.
Also, if the umpire's decision is not out, and the ball is just clipping the stumps (or very close in another area), the umpire's decision is upheld - hawkeye does not overrule the umpire when the decision is close.
do not want new and improved somewhat tolerable intel graphics
This this and more this. Intel graphics are pretty much diabolical everywhere, In every situation.
I miss the single player adventure games like from Sierra and Lucas Arts where you can engross yourself in a story game line, and have work to solve puzzles and you celibate when you continue the story plot, without having to use twitch like hand eye coordination, or play online with a bunch of people just trying to mess you up.
You haven't been following the gaming scene much recently, have you? There are a plethora of high and low budget new games almost entirely based around the story, and lots of people are complaining about them. The Walking Dead, Life is Strange, Game of Thrones, Tales for the Borderlands are all obvious examples of single player story based adventure games. There are dozens of others.
That list shows 17 out of 25 of the world's top pedestrian cities as being in of the US, 2 of those outside being in Canada. That leaves 6 for the rest of the world.
I'm not usually one to complain about lists and articles being US-centric, but that is a little absurd.
What does "idiot" mean to you then? The first definition that comes up when you google it is "a stupid person". "Stupid" essentially means lacking intelligence (when applied to a person).
I'm seriously curious. What do _you_ mean when you call someone an idiot?
We have 12 minutes maximum per hour of advertising on ITV, C4 and C5 because they're regulated by ofcom, not because of competition. They're defined as public service broadcasters, whereas all the other channels aren't. There's actually a limit of 8 minutes an hour on average between 6pm and 11pm, I've just looked this up. What the channels actually do is (essentially) not advertise on less popular programmes, so they can use the 12 minutes per hour later. I'd always wondered why there were so few adverts on the cricket highlights on channel 5. Unfortunately "advertising" does not include self-promotion, or promotion of sister channels, so the cricket advert breaks are mostly filled with that.
I'm not sure what the benefits of being a public service broadcaster are exactly compared to all of the other channels that don't have to abide by these rules and have far more adverts. The channels which show loads of American programmes use the same 1/2 hour slots. The Big Bang Theory, as an example, has a running time of as little as 18 minutes, resulting in 24 minutes of adverts or other cruft per hour.
I used to live near one, Straight road in Colchester. Straight roads in England are usually Roman.
We also had a Roman tumulus literally just behind our back garden. It was excavated early in the 20th century, IIRC, and some stuff they got out of it is on display in Colchester castle. No one knew the tumulus was there, though, there are quite a few of them around Colchester. The house was just a standard suburban house, and as kids we used to play on the tumulus a bit, but it was quite overgrown with brambles etc.
Thu UK is still the 5th (or 6th, France is close) largest economy in the world, behind the US, China, Japan and Germany. It's about 1/6 of the US.
Atheism implies belief in: empiricism, naturalism, evolution and humanism.
It might do to you, that may be why you consider it a religion. It doesn't to me. Just because people who don't believe in a god are more likely to believe some other things than religious people, does not make it a religion. If short people were more likely than others to believe some things, does that make being short a religion?
No one can know that there's no god absolutely. That being said, no one can know anything absolutely (with the possible exception of cogito ergo sum, but that is problematic too). The brain in a jar argument isn't very useful.
All that being said, I believe there is no god. However, this is an entirely pointless question, in my opinion, and doesn't affect my life in any way whatsoever. What affects my life is my lack of belief in some of the more popular gods, and that's what makes me an atheist.
Back on topic, I'm from the UK, and we have a law outlawing incitement to religious hatred. Now I do hate some religions (Scientology, fundamental Christianity, some Islamic sects), and I would encourage others to hate them too.
See what I did there? I just broke the law. Chances of me getting charged with a crime = 0%. Yeah, well I didn't really :
29JProtection of freedom of expression Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system.
It specifically allows abuse of religions. The incitement to religious hatred law is actually actually pretty specific : "A person who uses threatening words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, is guilty of an offence if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred."
Key word : "Threatening". It seems pretty sensible, but the trouble with this, and a whole host of laws that Labour introduced under Tony Blair, is that it was already illegal. They also criminalised setting off nuclear devices in towns and cities. Because that wasn't illegal before, right?
I am from China, a socialist country
China's not very socialist now. It's more capitalist than most western democracies.
They are, broadly, a bunch of well-behaved socialist conformists who are afraid of the real world, and think that a panopticon surveillance state will make them "safe". It is disgusting.
You don't know what you're talking about. There are some people in the UK who fit that description, but they are a minority.
Take a guess at the number of firearms now legally owned in the UK..... It'll be a hell of a lot higher than you think. Also, there are some guns that are legal in the UK that are illegal in the US (though getting a license for them might be tricky). I could get a shotgun within a few weeks if I wanted one, despite having a criminal record.
Personally, I'm pragmatic, generally. When we banned hand guns in the UK in the late 90's, hand gun crime (ie. crimes using hand guns, not ownership of a hand gun, which might well have been expected to go up) went up for years afterwards, despite having had being going down previously. The ban actually seemed to increase hand gun crime.
David Davis (for one) Is very influential in the conservative party, just to show one person who is very concerned about privacy issues.
I've pointed this out to people before, and it's amusing to explain.
How far out would the moon have to be to become another planet, and us to be just part of a binary system?
I know it's relatively close now, the barycentre being only about a thousand miles beneath the surface of Earth, and I know the moon is receding from us too (though slowly). When will it get far enough out to become a planet?
What's even worse is that British imperial units are different from American Imperial units. Miles per gallon, for example, is different, because the British gallon is bigger than the American gallon, resulting in higher mpg figures. And yes, everyone still uses miles per gallon in Britain, rather than anything else. Petrol and Diesel is sold in litres (and can't legally be sold in gallons), though. Yes, it's insane.
We're not allowed to buy milk in pints, either, so everything now is just 568ml, and lots of cans and jars are 454g.
I'd guess the Not-a-cat Cat might be the perfect placebo.
Does this count as a cat video?
It makes me happy, anyway.
Note : I do own a cat, and wouldn't mind this happening to her. She'd learn.
Modern thinking is that crocodiles descended directly from a warm blooded ancestor, and reverted to being cold blooded, because there's no reason for the warm blooded characteristics they have now without having had a warm blooded ancestor, and there's not been enough time to evolve new things rather than revert.
A person that automatically believes the NSA is lying is really not much different than a person that automatically believes the NSA is telling the truth.
The NSA has lied about many things regarding the Snowden case, and Snowden hasn't (as far as I know). Critical thinking should help you figure out which is more likely to be a reliable source now.
No one's claiming that _everything_ that the NSA says is a lie, that's a straw man. However, since they have repeatedly been shown to have lied in the past, you'd be stupid to treat them as anything but completely unreliable.
Now that the US has taken action, other countries are starting to investigate their local officials. Even if all American charges are dropped (and it looks like there are at least a few with sufficient American ties to be prosecuted regardless) there will be plenty of other countries with their own jurisdictions that are going to jump on the bandwagon.
The prime reason why the FIFA corruption scandal has come to the forefront is nothing to do with the US. It's essentially about UEFA (the European football association) actually making enough of a stink about it (enough for some to actually start talking about leaving FIFA), and (more importantly) the Swiss legislature talking about forcing organisations to disclose payments (bribes). The US has essentially zero to do with it, as the US has essentially zero power in world football.
Here's what you can do: butcher your own meat. People do it every day, though you sound much too lazy and entitled and whiny to do anything that might involved getting your hands dirty. Which probably also rules out you growing your own vegetables - you might have to clean your fingernails afterwards, so you won't soil your keyboard when typing your next woe-is-me rant.
Yeah.... that works well in the middle of a big city. Do you know how much is actually eaten daily in a big city? If everyone were to individually try to grow their own vegetables, and rear their own meat in a city of 10 million, it'd be instant chaos, and probably at least double the carbon output of the city.
Mass production works better, generally, that's why we do it.
1) Move somewhere you like.
And if everyone "moves somewhere they like"? You can't solve bad places by just saying "move".
2) Start your own company. Hire people
Which people? The people I was going to hire already started their own company. There aren't any employees any more in your utopia.
ps. I do butcher some of my own meat, and grow some of my own vegetables, but I'm lucky to live where I do.