That RT article is bogus. This shows that Islam rose 2% from 3% to 5% - in the same period, "no religion" rose 10% from 15% to 25%. Islam is still a tiny religion in the UK. The increase in non-UK born Christians was larger than the _total_ increase of Muslims. The decrease in UK born Christians is almost entirely because of the rise in "no religion".
You, sir and or madame, are the worst kind of imbecile. Because as soon as you accept the notion that speech should be censored, you put someone else in the position of deciding which speech is to be censored.
Just about everyone accepts the notion some speech should be censored, I think. From Wiki : "In practice, the right to freedom of speech is not absolute in any country and the right is commonly subject to limitations, as with libel, slander, obscenity, sedition (including, for example inciting ethnic hatred), copyright violation, revelation of information that is classified or otherwise."
Also, conspiring to commit a crime is a restriction on free speech. Planning and organising a murder (without doing any of the killing) is a restriction on free speech. Most people do believe that this should probably remain illegal.
No country has anywhere close to absolute free speech... claiming they do is wrong.
What makes you an idiot, and all those who qualified you as insightful, is that you fall for the trippe[sic] that race exists.
Ok... race doesn't exist? That's an interesting concept. Why do you think that someone born in England to African origin parents looks ethnic African rather than ethnic English? I'm serious, here... do you actually think they will be born white because they were born in England?
As much as claiming race does not exist is a nice concept (perhaps), it just does not work. Simplistic, old fashioned race categories are wrong - an obvious example being the fact that indigenous Africans are much more closely related to indigenous Europeans than they are to indigenous Australians. However, claiming that the concept of race does not exist because early systems were wrong is obtuse.
Yes. It is 100% agreed that the use of that word by non-blacks in the present day is grossly hateful and in fact a "fighting word".
I do not believe that the use of the word "nigger" by non blacks is always grossly hateful and in fact a fighting word. That very sentence proves itself.
Heck, even "african american" is considered offensive by some.
I don't think it's considered offensive by people... it's just wrong for black Britons, for example, who are neither African nor American. It's an odd term, anyway... White Australians aren't called European Australians, they're just called Australians.
No, because it is not said with hateful intent. It is an affectionate insider greeting in this context. It is much the same as other ethnic groups can use words referent to their own group, which are considered gross insults if used by others.
You are being absolutely racist here. You are saving that a black person says "nigger", it cannot be hateful, but if a white person does, it must be. That is the about the exact definition of racism.
I've known people in friend groups who call each other "nigger", "cracker", and "spick" in a non hateful way. Glad to hear you consider them all racist.
Australia is the opposite of South Korea in this respect - it's a massive place with low population density.
Australia's a bit deceptive in this... there are massive areas where no one lives, which would not need any connections. I guess it's a little like Canada, in a way. If you just take the land area, and divide by the population, you get big numbers. However, those numbers aren't all that useful in figuring out how costly it would be to get broadband to a certain percentage of the population, since no one lives in 90% of the area.
Also, South Korea is only a little bit smaller than England, with a little bit smaller population. England's broadband is not close to South Korea, despite being a first world western nation.
If you claim strenuous physical activity is inherently risky, then the risk statement is pointless, because it is already covered by the strenuous activity statement.
Also, I would argue that not doing strenuous physical activity at all is more risky than doing it.
The plot you mention doesn't contain any sci-fi, at all. Drones have been about for ages, VR is still crap, and no one car get stuck in it (how would that even happen, anyway?).
Predictive fiction has always been problematic... I don't know one writer who's got the last 50 years close to right. Half thought we'd be living on the moon and mars, the other half thought the Soviets would have invaded or bombed us to dust, and none of them predicted the pervasiveness of computers or the Internet.
Currency is worth what someone is willing to exchange goods for.
At least with a fiat currency, I can hold a bill in my hand, walk into a store and change it into a tangible good.
Fiat currencies, just like bitcoin, rely upon trust. Trust that the currency won't devalue, and trust that other people will take it. Bitcoin doesn't have the latter, really, and that's why I won't touch it either.
As someone who went through the motion of pretending to try to learn literary Arabic in school, I actually don't think that's a bad idea. Get some vocabulary and grammar going, and only then dump trying to decipher the text on students. After all, that's also the order in which native Arabic speakers do it.
Do native speakers of any language do it any other way?
When I first learned of Clarke's axiom, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.", I was thinking about some far-off future, but I have come to realize that a lot of technology is, for many, advanced enough *today* that it might as well be magic.
I hope you're not thinking about electricity here... it's been understood to some degree by decently educated people for hundreds of years.
Just because I do not understand the exact fluid dynamics of liquids (no one does), does not mean I cannot figure out how to tip out a cup in the sink to not make it splash. You don't have to understand everything, you just need to understand enough.
No. Science fiction is just what it says it is... fiction based upon science.
There are blurred lines (especially, for example with FTL travel). However, if you lump fantasy and sci-fi together, you're sticking Harry Potter with Hari Seldon. That does both a disservice.
I mean, besides supplying training, logistical and intelligence support, safe refuge, and munitions to jihadists that kill US troops in Iraq & Afghanistan, and launch terror attacks and suicide bombings there and elsewhere against civilians including women and children, as well as military.
Citation needed for _all_ these things, seriously.
Oh, and grab Western tourists and hold them hostage.
Oh, and that little US embassy kerfluffle back in Jimmy Carter's administration that he handled so deftly.
But really, that's all ancient history.
It is fucking ancient history, comparatively. These events are as close to world war 2 as they are to the present day, and precisely as relevant to both.
Now... for anyone who actually remembers them... does that make you feel old?
And if your extremities are that cold, then you can be damn sure that frostbite is setting in. We're not talking about topical skin temperature here... we're talking about the temperature of what's underneath, and underneath your skin even at the extremities won't ordinarily deviate from core temperature more than about a couple of degrees. Any more than that and you have a problem.
Frostbite is your tissue freezing. You can't get frostbite until the temperature of your fingers/toes/whatever drops below 0. You are not at risk of parts of your body freezing if they are a couple of degrees below normal.
One of my friend's brothers got measles when he was a kid. About 10 years later, when he was 12 or so he suffered secondary complications, and was left completely incapable and retarded - he had to be fed through a tube, couldn't communicate, move, or anything. After about 5 years of 24 hour care, he died.
Needless to say, if I ever have kids, I'm getting them vaccinated promptly.
Consumers were never the problem copyright was intended to deal with - rival (especially larger, more competitive) publishers were. It's been warped into a law which punishes consumers, and is not helping small publishers as much.
Australian law, for example, does not require artistic merit (i.e. not a slavish copy) for a new copyright to exist in the photograph. An artistic work is defined as, "a painting, sculpture, drawing, engraving or photograph, whether the work is of artistic quality or not."
That's shitty... UK law requires a little artistic merit. All other European law does too AFAIK. Most of the world holds that simple reproductions do not hold copyright in themselves.
Are telephone directories copyrighted in Australia?
He's one of the reasons... I believe De Klerk was also massively important. I see his role as similar to Gorbachev's, at the end of the USSR. They both could have held on to power, they both could have kept the status quo to some extent.
Both Reagan and Thatcher called Mandela "terrorist" well after the world could see the truth.
Mandela was a terrorist, an admitted terrorist. Look at the MK, which he founded.
They were trying to hold on to the last vestiges of white colonial Africa. May their names be erased from the Book of Life.
No... what? Seriously, what? South Africa was one of the most independent British African colonies throughout its existence, and became fully independent well before most British colonies. Britain outlawed slavery and discriminatory voting well before most places.... but that's not relevant. By the 1980's, South Africa was _not_a colony, and had not been so properly for 150 years or so. Colonialism was not a factor... we'd given up on colonialism in the UK in the early 20th century.
Slashdot Mirror
GP did not reply to you. You assumed they did... you were wrong.
That RT article is bogus. This shows that Islam rose 2% from 3% to 5% - in the same period, "no religion" rose 10% from 15% to 25%. Islam is still a tiny religion in the UK. The increase in non-UK born Christians was larger than the _total_ increase of Muslims. The decrease in UK born Christians is almost entirely because of the rise in "no religion".
You, sir and or madame, are the worst kind of imbecile. Because as soon as you accept the notion that speech should be censored, you put someone else in the position of deciding which speech is to be censored.
Just about everyone accepts the notion some speech should be censored, I think. From Wiki : "In practice, the right to freedom of speech is not absolute in any country and the right is commonly subject to limitations, as with libel, slander, obscenity, sedition (including, for example inciting ethnic hatred), copyright violation, revelation of information that is classified or otherwise."
Also, conspiring to commit a crime is a restriction on free speech. Planning and organising a murder (without doing any of the killing) is a restriction on free speech. Most people do believe that this should probably remain illegal.
No country has anywhere close to absolute free speech... claiming they do is wrong.
What makes you an idiot, and all those who qualified you as insightful, is that you fall for the trippe[sic] that race exists.
Ok... race doesn't exist? That's an interesting concept. Why do you think that someone born in England to African origin parents looks ethnic African rather than ethnic English? I'm serious, here... do you actually think they will be born white because they were born in England?
As much as claiming race does not exist is a nice concept (perhaps), it just does not work. Simplistic, old fashioned race categories are wrong - an obvious example being the fact that indigenous Africans are much more closely related to indigenous Europeans than they are to indigenous Australians. However, claiming that the concept of race does not exist because early systems were wrong is obtuse.
Yes. It is 100% agreed that the use of that word by non-blacks in the present day is grossly hateful and in fact a "fighting word".
I do not believe that the use of the word "nigger" by non blacks is always grossly hateful and in fact a fighting word. That very sentence proves itself.
Heck, even "african american" is considered offensive by some.
I don't think it's considered offensive by people... it's just wrong for black Britons, for example, who are neither African nor American. It's an odd term, anyway... White Australians aren't called European Australians, they're just called Australians.
No, because it is not said with hateful intent. It is an affectionate insider greeting in this context. It is much the same as other ethnic groups can use words referent to their own group, which are considered gross insults if used by others.
You are being absolutely racist here. You are saving that a black person says "nigger", it cannot be hateful, but if a white person does, it must be. That is the about the exact definition of racism.
I've known people in friend groups who call each other "nigger", "cracker", and "spick" in a non hateful way. Glad to hear you consider them all racist.
Or we could, you know, just switch all our telecoms to fibre, so there will never be a theft of it again.
You got nasty emails for just correcting grammatical errors? Why would anyone bother? Why would anyone revert to the wrong version?
Definitely "citation needed".
Australia is the opposite of South Korea in this respect - it's a massive place with low population density.
Australia's a bit deceptive in this... there are massive areas where no one lives, which would not need any connections. I guess it's a little like Canada, in a way. If you just take the land area, and divide by the population, you get big numbers. However, those numbers aren't all that useful in figuring out how costly it would be to get broadband to a certain percentage of the population, since no one lives in 90% of the area.
Also, South Korea is only a little bit smaller than England, with a little bit smaller population. England's broadband is not close to South Korea, despite being a first world western nation.
If you claim strenuous physical activity is inherently risky, then the risk statement is pointless, because it is already covered by the strenuous activity statement.
Also, I would argue that not doing strenuous physical activity at all is more risky than doing it.
That's the same argument that claims graphite is the same as diamond, and is just as wrong.
What about shooting? That's at the Olympics, but does not require strenuous physical activity.
Also, it's difficult to argue sports like tennis are high risk activities.
The plot you mention doesn't contain any sci-fi, at all. Drones have been about for ages, VR is still crap, and no one car get stuck in it (how would that even happen, anyway?).
Predictive fiction has always been problematic... I don't know one writer who's got the last 50 years close to right. Half thought we'd be living on the moon and mars, the other half thought the Soviets would have invaded or bombed us to dust, and none of them predicted the pervasiveness of computers or the Internet.
Currency is worth what someone is willing to exchange goods for.
At least with a fiat currency, I can hold a bill in my hand, walk into a store and change it into a tangible good.
Fiat currencies, just like bitcoin, rely upon trust. Trust that the currency won't devalue, and trust that other people will take it. Bitcoin doesn't have the latter, really, and that's why I won't touch it either.
As someone who went through the motion of pretending to try to learn literary Arabic in school, I actually don't think that's a bad idea. Get some vocabulary and grammar going, and only then dump trying to decipher the text on students. After all, that's also the order in which native Arabic speakers do it.
Do native speakers of any language do it any other way?
When I first learned of Clarke's axiom, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.", I was thinking about some far-off future, but I have come to realize that a lot of technology is, for many, advanced enough *today* that it might as well be magic.
I hope you're not thinking about electricity here... it's been understood to some degree by decently educated people for hundreds of years.
Just because I do not understand the exact fluid dynamics of liquids (no one does), does not mean I cannot figure out how to tip out a cup in the sink to not make it splash. You don't have to understand everything, you just need to understand enough.
No. Science fiction is just what it says it is... fiction based upon science.
There are blurred lines (especially, for example with FTL travel). However, if you lump fantasy and sci-fi together, you're sticking Harry Potter with Hari Seldon. That does both a disservice.
I mean, besides supplying training, logistical and intelligence support, safe refuge, and munitions to jihadists that kill US troops in Iraq & Afghanistan, and launch terror attacks and suicide bombings there and elsewhere against civilians including women and children, as well as military.
Citation needed for _all_ these things, seriously.
Oh, and grab Western tourists and hold them hostage.
Oh, and that little US embassy kerfluffle back in Jimmy Carter's administration that he handled so deftly.
But really, that's all ancient history.
It is fucking ancient history, comparatively. These events are as close to world war 2 as they are to the present day, and precisely as relevant to both.
Now... for anyone who actually remembers them... does that make you feel old?
And if your extremities are that cold, then you can be damn sure that frostbite is setting in. We're not talking about topical skin temperature here... we're talking about the temperature of what's underneath, and underneath your skin even at the extremities won't ordinarily deviate from core temperature more than about a couple of degrees. Any more than that and you have a problem.
Frostbite is your tissue freezing. You can't get frostbite until the temperature of your fingers/toes/whatever drops below 0. You are not at risk of parts of your body freezing if they are a couple of degrees below normal.
OT, I know, but the reason new cars don't have retractable lights is pedestrian safety.
One of my friend's brothers got measles when he was a kid. About 10 years later, when he was 12 or so he suffered secondary complications, and was left completely incapable and retarded - he had to be fed through a tube, couldn't communicate, move, or anything. After about 5 years of 24 hour care, he died.
Needless to say, if I ever have kids, I'm getting them vaccinated promptly.
The images are _not_ copyrighted. They are representations, they are _not_ original works.
Consumers were never the problem copyright was intended to deal with - rival (especially larger, more competitive) publishers were. It's been warped into a law which punishes consumers, and is not helping small publishers as much.
Australian law, for example, does not require artistic merit (i.e. not a slavish copy) for a new copyright to exist in the photograph. An artistic work is defined as, "a painting, sculpture, drawing, engraving or photograph, whether the work is of artistic quality or not."
That's shitty... UK law requires a little artistic merit. All other European law does too AFAIK. Most of the world holds that simple reproductions do not hold copyright in themselves.
Are telephone directories copyrighted in Australia?
He's one of the reasons... I believe De Klerk was also massively important. I see his role as similar to Gorbachev's, at the end of the USSR. They both could have held on to power, they both could have kept the status quo to some extent.
Both Reagan and Thatcher called Mandela "terrorist" well after the world could see the truth.
Mandela was a terrorist, an admitted terrorist. Look at the MK, which he founded.
They were trying to hold on to the last vestiges of white colonial Africa. May their names be erased from the Book of Life.
No... what? Seriously, what? South Africa was one of the most independent British African colonies throughout its existence, and became fully independent well before most British colonies. Britain outlawed slavery and discriminatory voting well before most places.... but that's not relevant. By the 1980's, South Africa was _not_a colony, and had not been so properly for 150 years or so. Colonialism was not a factor... we'd given up on colonialism in the UK in the early 20th century.