Nonsense. They've done fine for the last 10 years.
The only thing that's changes is they've started pursuing pie in the sky ideas about writing their own operating system than no one gives a toss about and other such stupidity.
It's their branching out into stupid side-projects, and implementation of large scale Firefox changes that the community doesn't even want that are the problem. Mozilla doesn't need more money, it needs better management.
They receive more than enough funds if they'd only stick to what they are meant to be doing and stopped chasing pointless but highly expensive pet projects.
"As a multiple license holder I assure you it's quite normal and reasonable to have different rules for different classes of vehicles. I have 4 different classes of license, all with different rules."
But that's just it isn't it? You had to go get a license. You had to study those rules.
The problem is that the only ones who have to learn rules right now are motor vehicle drivers, and they're taught to know what the rights of way are for pedestrians. Cyclists are classed as other road users and are supposed to follow the rules motor vehicle users learn but they don't actually have to.
So the GP's point is valid with the caveat of "or if cyclists are going to have their own set of rules then make them study for a fucking license for them".
What we can't have is where they continue to have all the benefits of being road users, but shirk all of the responsibilities.
Besides, I don't think what you say contradicts the GP's point anyway - his point was more about cyclists changing the rules to suit them. You may have multiple licenses but you don't just switch between them - whilst you're in an HGV with your HGV license you don't just decide "Hey, I want to go by pedestrian rules now" and just shift your HGV onto the sidewalk and start driving across pedestrian crossings between pavements in it. Cyclists do that and that's what he's complaining about.
Meh, I've never had a problem with recruiters but I'll admit that dealing with them is a talent in itself. They are useful in getting access to jobs that aren't advertised directly or you don't know any contacts for but you do have to know how to play them.
And sometimes that means lying to them- you know better than they do if you can do a job you're looking for so if they say "Do you have any experience with.NET C++JavaSharp 3?" just say "Yes". Don't argue with them that that's not a thing, they'll just assume that they're right and you don't actually know what.NET C++JavaSharp 3 is and aren't fit for the role.
It's a dirty industry, and they wont hesitate to illegally pass your details on to another agency when they move jobs and so forth to line their pocket in breach of the data protection act and so forth so don't even feel guilty about it. Pretend to be their friend and ask them how their family is and build up a rapport if need be. Just learn how they work and know how to play them, and they can actually be very useful.
But make no mistake, recruitment through recruiters is a game - if you know how to play it it can be very rewarding to win, if you don't then it can be tedious and depressing to keep getting rejected by them for no other reason than the fact they have no idea what they are on about and are hence shit at their jobs. But unfortunately they hold the keys to many good jobs, so if you don't want to limit your options then you have no choice but to learn to play the game.
This is a law that just isn't enforced in the UK and it's absolutely stupid. It's not just cyclists it applies to, try driving down the A1, it wont take long before you encounter a lorry "overtaking" another lorry at the exact same speed as it so as to block both lanes at 50mph for sometimes 10 - 15 minutes with neither willing to yield when the limit is 70mph.
The police really need to start enforcing traffic obstruction laws. It should be easier now they have the right to go after middle lane drivers, but they don't treat it seriously enough when the reality is it creates so much rage on the road it pretty blatantly leads to people making stupid decisions to try and get past the idiot whose blocking lanes.
The law is pretty clear in the UK - if you've got a build up of cars behind you because you're slow moving you're legally bound to pull over and let them pass, but whether tractors, lorries, bikes, car towing car, whatever else, none of them ever do.
"If cyclists pulled over to let traffic by, they'd spend all day simply standing at the side of the road."
I don't know about elsewhere but this is the law in the UK - if you're causing a multiple vehicle build up behind you because you're a slow moving vehicle then you're legally bound to.
So let me get this straight, you start off by whining about car users "bullying" you to get past you, and then in the second part of your post you state that pedestrians have right of way on your cycle paths but you feel they should pay attention to you and get out of your way?
This is precisely why cyclists have such a bad reputation - the superiority complex, the belief that both cars and pedestrians alike should cater to them.
Look it's great that you cycle - but consider this: those pedestrians walking four abreast that you want to get out your way? that's exactly how car users feel about you. If you want car users to not get annoyed that you're slowing down their journey then you might want to start by not having the same attitude towards pedestrians. I see all too many cyclists that fail to get this - they fail to consider that maybe a car is bullying them now, because 30 minutes before they or another cyclist were bullying the person driving that car when the driver was on foot as a pedestrian.
If cyclists want to start getting treated with more respect they need to learn the rules of the road and start treating others with respect equally. It doesn't matter what vehicle you're in, always treat those more vulnerable than you with respect - that means cars looking out for bikes, and bikes looking out for pedestrians, not everyone look out for bikes because they always seem to think they're fucking special.
Agreed, I was going to make a cheap dig about the fact he was focussing on PHP, and hence was automatically unfit for professional work, but there's a more serious point to be made, and that's that the simple fact is there is absolutely no shortage of people who can make a PHP website with forms authentication. These people are two a penny, and are battling it out for minimum wage jobs, it's a waste of time and effort to even bother chasing it.
If you want to be a developer you need to go beyond that, you need your website to actually do something interesting, or you need to do something more interesting than a website.
If you've built up your experience on building simple PHP websites then you've got nothing that makes you stand out, you're doing what everyone else your level is doing and so you've got nothing that differentiates you.
The OP is saying things like "10 years web design experience" and "5 - 6 years PHP" in an attempt to boost his credentials and make him look employable, but I think it may be counter-productive. The problem is that with 5 - 6 years programming experience I would be expecting to see something vastly more interesting than just a forms authentication based PHP website.
It's easy to fall into the trap when you see "3 years experience required" or whatever on a job advert that experience is somehow the most important thing going but it's really not the case - who is going to look like the better candidate? the guy who has 5 - 6 years experience and only has a run of the mill PHP website to show for it or the guy who has 6 months experience and a run of the mill PHP website to show for it? I know which I'd choose - the guy who 6 months in is doing that, not the guy who is only doing that 6 years in.
So my point is, don't overplay the experience card - don't go around saying you have 6 years experience if you've got nothing to show that an employer would expect to see from someone with 6 years experience.
It may sound harsh but I'd avoid like the plague someone who claimed to have 6 years experience but was only churning out 6 months experience type stuff - that tells me they're a very slow learner, a plodder, and of little use to me.
You can easily get a junior web developer role after 1 year of CS class (fuck, I got employed as a developer before I'd even started my degree), but you better have something to show for it - you need to show you're at junior developer level, you need to be able to compete with those in their 3rd year, not just be only semi-competitive with those in your current year.
One final note - you better show that you understand things businesses want, at very least show some knowledge of things like web services, and object oriented design for example, and in the PHP world show some knowledge of MVC with Zend, show some knowledge of writing Drupal plugins and so on and so forth if PHP is really the route you want to go down.
No, the road signs, road markings, street lighting, traffic lights, traffic calming measures and so on and so forth are all there for the benefit of the cyclist as much as they are the car and have nothing to do with damage to the road caused by heavier vehicles, but all still have to be maintained.
Sigh, even if I let you off the fact your argument doesn't make sense you've still got the fundamental problem that the OECD is run by 34 countries, with more attempting to join including Russia. So even then it's not like anything other than the determination of legality matters by anyone else other than them (which is why international recognition matters, duh).
At least you've now obviously realised your argument is unsalvageable though given that you've stopped trying to talk nonsense to claim otherwise. You could just have never ever recovered it - as I say even if I let you past that last unsalvagaeable point you were already at you'd still have been wrong to pretend some random guy in Crimea can somehow define international law and what is and isn't legal all by himself. You just didn't have a hope, because you were so very wrong and couldn't admit it.
Don't be too pissy about it, we're all wrong sometimes, maybe just try and be a bit more mature about accepting it in future though.
That's my concern and what I wonder, but it's not like the ISPs are oblivious to what the entertainment industry wants, the entertainment industry isn't exactly smarter than they are, so the ISPs must have grounds to believe that can't and wont happen.
Even that works on a spectrum though depending how far removed they are from each other. Obviously one breed of sheep can breed with the same breed of sheep easily, success rate is ever so slightly lower between different breeds of sheep, but sometimes you can go as far as breeding a goat with a sheep to get a geep (yes really!) though the chance is far lower.
It's more obvious in the plant world when you can more easily attempt to cross pollinate different many different species and see the results often much quicker, but it becomes very clear that there's still no clear cut dividing line - some plants are harder to cross pollinate with others in the same genus than they are others in a different genus.
I have no idea. I still to this day do not understand why our attempt at a silicon valley was done in London when we had an astoundingly good research base in Cambridge and that is far more easily accessible to the rest of the country to boot because it's much closer to the centre of England than London is.
Hell, Cambridge even has more than it's fair share of hipsters so it even ticked the hipster box.
I can't for the life of me understand why they came up with silicon roundabout in a shitty part of London when Cambridge actually exists. It just seemed a nonsense to invest in that there when we have such an amazingly better choice. If it's about investors then even that is a non-issue, rail links to London are quick and convenient from there too.
We already had a cutting edge research area that was world class, and has spawned many successful startups like ARM and Autonomy. Why not just invest in that than try and make a new one in a shitty, inconvenient part of the country that wasn't exactly known for drawing in technological geniuses like Cambridge is?
As an aside a year or two back I spent some time in Sheffield and met a lot of tech workers there, it's amazing how many startups there are - Sheffield has turned itself around and it's economy is impressively made up of something like 80% small businesses now, many of which are tech startups. Even Sheffield, the old mining and steel works city would've been a better candidate than silicon roundabout they chose. Sheffield is even in a valley so they could've even gone for Silicon Valley UK and not had to involve roundabouts. Even Sheffield is only a 2hr train ride from London.
It seems like Cameron was desperate to make an area to make startups, when in practice it would've been better to just take the areas that are already spawning startups like no tommorrow and invest in them - the fact they already spawn so many tech startups is evidence that they have the formula right so why dick around trying to artificially recreate the formula in an area where you've no fucking idea if it's ever going to work?
I guess it depends how they invoice. It's quite easy for them to cost something up for more than it actually is - assign 100 days of project time to a member of staff on it but only have them working on it in a half-arsed manner so that they're 90% working on their normal actual job.
It's not unusual for someone being billed to an external client's work at 100% of their time only working on it 75% of the time or less in practice.
"Your circular logic here hinges on the "need" part. In fact, just because they decided to hold a vote, does not in any way imply that they NEEDED to do so. It was a PR stunt, really. Lots of countries hold fake elections on a regular basis."
Need or not, even they didn't declare themselves a sovereign nation until afterwards so even they accept they were part of the Ukraine and hence subject to Ukrainian laws until it happened.
Your argument is still broken, your argument still can't be fixed. Trying to redefine words in the dictionary, or pretend that established international law isn't wont change the fundamental fact that your argument is still broken based on the fact that the people you're claiming had the legal power to offer the invite by their own admissions did not.
It really is amazing that you still cannot see this logical fallacy in your argument. It's clear desperation to avoid admitting you are wrong, or desperate stupidity.
It astounds me that there are people that in the fact of such a logically indisputable failure of their argument still feel the need to trying every which way to spin the argument as if the fallacy will disappear, as if you'll suddenly become right. You wont, because once again your whole argument is still fundamentally broken.
The point is that it takes an awful lot less people to do automatic reclassification through DNA analysis than it does to go out into the field and actually find new species.
So whilst the number of distinctly defined species may be increase, the number of people actually working in the field could be decreasing, and if the determination of distinction is just the result of a taxonomist that favours splitting over lumping and is just arbitrary anyway then it's quite possible that an increasing number of classifications tells us absolutely nothing about the health of the field.
I think the problem is that science is the study and subsequent authoring of knowledge based on observation and experiment. Historically, because we didn't know about DNA, you could in fact reasonably call taxonomy a science, because there was nothing unscientific about the fact that certain species seemed, given all evidence available, to be one species or another, one genus or another.
Then along came DNA analysis and it turns out some of that old science was wrong, the new science results in reclassification. But then we have two problems - we have those still using old methods and shunning new methods, at this point it's no longer a science, and secondly we still have this problem of arbitrary determination of boundaries, and that's not scientific either. It could be scientific if we moved towards non-subjective boundaries, but that's not happened yet.
So it's not that taxonomy was inherently always unscientific, and it's not that it can't be scientific. It's that many of the views as to how taxonomy should nowadays be done and used result in a taxonomy that isn't a scientific practice.
And I know you say it's a tool but I think this is also part of the problem, it is a tool, but in the same way statistics is a tool. Still perfectly scientifically sound if used correctly, but a farce otherwise, which isn't to say farce statistics don't have their uses (like changing people's perceptions) but that we need to decide what type of tool taxonomy should be - do we want it to be a casual tool for non-serious stuff, or do we want it to remain useful for scientific grade classification and discussion?
It's very similar to common statistical method in a way - we don't always say "This is true", sometimes we have to say "This seems true with 95% confidence". So the question is rather than saying "The group of specimens of species A" which may vary somewhat and be only borderline all of a single species arbitrarily defined as 'A' should we instead be saying something like "The group of specimens that are within the range of 0.1% genetic similarity to specimen A" in research papers and so forth? Or in other words, do we need to also have a more mathematically (and hence scientifically) sound branch of taxonomy that works in a similar way to the way we deal with lack of absolute certainty in statistical results?
"That's true. People scoff at the older taxonomic groupings from before we had molecular evidence, but actually I'm often surprised at how similar new phylogenies are to huge chunks of the old taxonomies."
I'm sure that depends on the families and genus in question, because certainly for Cactaceae it's made a complete mockery of previous taxonomic definitions.
"(i.e. cites the taxnomic publication which specifies what they mean when they use the name)."
Amusingly I tried to help a botanist do exactly this, we couldn't because although we found a snippet on Google Books of the original reference for the name, we couldn't see the whole thing because it unfortunately fell under the specific set of restrictions that meant it wont be out of copyright until about 2021, despite the fact it went out of print in about 1926 and the author died in about 1953 or something. I thought this was a fantastic example of how absurdly long copyright laws prevent scientific progress.
The music industry is even paying for it £750,000 to set it up, and then £75,000 a year every year afterwards. I can't help but think the ISPs may even be profiting from this.
I don't know what happened, it's like the industry has realised it can't win, that even if it did push through what it wanted - the ability to extort money from people and block them from the age old right to trial and has basically just conceded on every point that matters.
There did seem to be a suggestion that if it didn't work then they could go back to the drawing board but that's a long way off, and if they couldn't win harsher penalties or the ability to bypass the right to a fair trial or the right to privacy this time then I'm not convinced they ever will. I suspect they've conceded that their business isn't in fact above fundamental human rights after all and that no court would let that stand in the long run.
This seems to be extraordinarily good news for once on this front, effectively one of the two most controversial measures in the Digital Economy Act has arrived 4 years late after numerous delays and now that it has has been well and truly gutted.
Maybe Google's closeness and lobbying of the current government and funding for their pet projects like Silicon Roundabout has finally paid off? Maybe the fact tech companies have far far more money than the music and movie industry is finally bearing fruit? Maybe the move of Ian Livingstone from BT to government trade minister has had an impact? Has tech finally learnt how to outplay the music industry at the great lobbying game in the UK?
"Everyone in said sovereign territory... They are under no illusions about who is in-charge. What anyone outside the territory believes is irrelevant."
What nonsense. You think it's possible to exist in a vacuum in this day and age? You really are naive to the way the world works aren't you?
"Wrong. That's PRECISELY what I said, and what I meant."
Then you're more retarded than I even first gave you credit for. As I said, declare sovereignty on your own home tonight, do something illegal in your country and see if you don't get arrested for it. There wont be anything about them redeclaring sovereignty, because you were never able to declare sovereignty in the first place, they'll just treat you as the crackpot you are.
But let's just ignore all this a second, because none of it changes the fact that the guy who sent the invite was the guy calling the referendum and he was calling a referendum because he recognised Crimea was part of the Ukraine (and hence bound by Ukrainian law) and that he didn't want it to be. So even if your assertion that someone can arbitrarily decide they're leader of a random bit of territory and that's all there is to it was true then there's still the problem with your theory that even that guy recognised he was part of the Ukraine which is why he needed a referendum in the first place. If he was part of the Ukraine he was bound by Ukrainian law and Ukrainian law gave him no right to give that invite.
So even if you were correct (you're not) and power is held on the terms you describe (they're not) then you're still wrong because it doesn't make any sense to require a referendum. However you spin it your whole argument either doesn't make sense, or points to the exact opposite of what you're claiming it points to. By definition that means you're just plain wrong either way. There's just no alternative where you're right unless you somehow think invalid logic makes you right.
But anyway, it's obvious you're one of those especially retarded people who will keep arguing even when their argument is long past salvageable, so have fun continuing to be wrong if that's what you enjoy - you can't get away from it, your argument has reached a dead end where the only answer is that you are wrong.
I guess you must just really love Putin or something to be so wilfully ignorant and wrong, but hey, even he doesn't back you - even he agreed Crimea was Ukraine until the referendum which hadn't happened at the time of invite.
It's possible that the recent increase in discovery of new species isn't so much actual discovery though, but re-classification and splitting of existing species based on modern DNA analysis.
It may be that when a number of old, non-DNA analysed specimens are run through DNA analysis it turns out that they're not in fact all the same species but comprise say 4 different species.
Or in other words it may be that we knew about just as many snakes before, the difference is we used to call them the same thing, now largely automated processes have told us to call a bunch of them different things.
I think the question is as much about how many field taxonomists there are now. Are there more out in the field looking for and finding completely unknown candidate species or is it the same amount or less than ever and the "discoveries" are simply reclassifications of what we already have?
I'm good friends with a modern day plant hunter who is also a professional botanist, and who also has a number of discoveries and subsequent names under his belt.
I've never really asked him how the profession is doing in general, but from what I know of him the bottleneck as much as anything seems to be the amount of time it takes to describe a new species. Maybe he specifically is just very detailed in what he does, but for each discovery of a plant he has to provide illustration of it in growth, in flower and so forth, he has to inspect and textually describe every aspect of it, and he has to map out it's habitat to see how far and wide it grows as much as he reasonably can. That is before he starts down the taxonomic path to try and figure out what genus and family and so forth if should be classified under. If it's not in flower, then it may even involve waiting for it to come into flower (which is not necessarily an annual thing - it could take years), it sometimes involves trying to grow it from seed, recording the sort of substrate it grows in measuring things like the chemical consistency and the acidity and so forth of the soil or rock, and even attempting pollination to produce seed and so forth and describing the seed. As you can imagine this is a time consuming process, so certainly for him it isn't the lack of will to go out into the field, but the amount of time and work involved in documenting a discovery afterwards. There's also the bureaucracy - it should be submitted to the likes of CITES, especially if it's at risk because it's perceived to be a small single population, and that means writing up the threat to it to CITES for inclusion in the endagered species list providing a suggested classification and justifying why that classification is deserved. If it's truly endangered then you may be involved in follow up work to provide protection for it, such as finding out who owns the land on what it resides, and lobbying to get that land protected from activity such as mining and deforestation.
So the difficult is probably more finding people with both the experience and competence to do the describing of species whilst those that excel in the field can get on with it. That just wont happen though as everyone wants to be in the field, and no one wants to be in the lab doing drawings and writing walls of text about species - effectively it's the largely necessary post-discovery formalities that put people off the fun and adventure of discovery more than anything else.
"I can't declare my backyard a soverign country, because after some time, armed men would come and incarcerate or kill me."
So you're saying that up until that point it would indeed be a sovereign country? What makes you think that? Who else recognises you as such?
"but stepping foot in it will still get you subject to local laws"
Right, but not your own personally defined local laws - the laws of the actual sovereign country in which you reside, like say, the laws of the Ukraine for Crimea prior to annexation.
As I said before, you really might want to stop digging at this point, unless you're actually enjoying illustrating how stupid you're capable of making yourself look.
Yep, exactly. We can't really say that speciation is analog, it's not, it's defined by a finite albeit with an unimaginably large number of DNA variations, but it's absolutely a broad spectrum rather than a clear discrete set of possibilities which is what taxonomy tries to apply.
Because of that it's also hard to determine a dividing line from the perspective that what might look like a reasonable dividing line for say, very simple plant life, might not be a reasonable dividing line for a complex mammal. So even if we do get an objective cutoff point in terms of say a percent difference, it may lead to some wild divisions of species in some families of species even if it makes sense in others. What then? do we create arbitrary dividing lines for different families? if so how do we stop that descending into the subjectivity we have now anyway? It's further complicated by things like "junk" DNA too which may vary greatly between species and may alter the calculation as to what defines a different species. Not that we do, but if we had two subjects that were pretty much identical in all but say 5% of their junk DNA then would we really want to classify them as different species? The actual expressed genes say they're close enough to be the same species, but their overall DNA says they're very different. Even choosing what part of the genome of a species we use is challenging - all of it? a subset? do we need to alter the amount we take into account for each family or genus?
That's why until we really know what the point in taxonomy is, it's hard to figure out how to achieve that point. We know we can't just say taxonomy is about providing useful classifications and names of species in a scientifically objective manner any more because we know that introducing objectivity removes much of the historic usefulness of taxonomy.
Yet you've still not answered why you can't declare your own back yard as a sovereign state.
You know, rather than continuing to make a tit of yourself it's probably far easier if you just type "Sorry, I didn't realise the guy who gave the invite himself wasn't an elected representative of Crimea and had no legitimacy".
But you know what? I'll do you a favour, god only knows you clearly need an education on the topic. I'll give you a hint: declaring sovereignty has no impact if absolutely no one else recognises it. Of course, the situation in question is even more humorous when you consider we're talking about a referendum vote, which, by definition, means the territory was Ukrainian and hence bound by Ukrainian laws until the referendum results were in, which, by definition, meant only the Ukrainian government could make the invite because it had to be Ukrainian territory at the point of calling a referendum or there'd be no need for a referendum in the first place.
If you can't see the logical fallacy in your argument, then it probably explains why you're not smart enough to get this or understand simply why you were wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
Nonsense. They've done fine for the last 10 years.
The only thing that's changes is they've started pursuing pie in the sky ideas about writing their own operating system than no one gives a toss about and other such stupidity.
It's their branching out into stupid side-projects, and implementation of large scale Firefox changes that the community doesn't even want that are the problem. Mozilla doesn't need more money, it needs better management.
They receive more than enough funds if they'd only stick to what they are meant to be doing and stopped chasing pointless but highly expensive pet projects.
"As a multiple license holder I assure you it's quite normal and reasonable to have different rules for different classes of vehicles. I have 4 different classes of license, all with different rules."
But that's just it isn't it? You had to go get a license. You had to study those rules.
The problem is that the only ones who have to learn rules right now are motor vehicle drivers, and they're taught to know what the rights of way are for pedestrians. Cyclists are classed as other road users and are supposed to follow the rules motor vehicle users learn but they don't actually have to.
So the GP's point is valid with the caveat of "or if cyclists are going to have their own set of rules then make them study for a fucking license for them".
What we can't have is where they continue to have all the benefits of being road users, but shirk all of the responsibilities.
Besides, I don't think what you say contradicts the GP's point anyway - his point was more about cyclists changing the rules to suit them. You may have multiple licenses but you don't just switch between them - whilst you're in an HGV with your HGV license you don't just decide "Hey, I want to go by pedestrian rules now" and just shift your HGV onto the sidewalk and start driving across pedestrian crossings between pavements in it. Cyclists do that and that's what he's complaining about.
Meh, I've never had a problem with recruiters but I'll admit that dealing with them is a talent in itself. They are useful in getting access to jobs that aren't advertised directly or you don't know any contacts for but you do have to know how to play them.
And sometimes that means lying to them- you know better than they do if you can do a job you're looking for so if they say "Do you have any experience with .NET C++JavaSharp 3?" just say "Yes". Don't argue with them that that's not a thing, they'll just assume that they're right and you don't actually know what .NET C++JavaSharp 3 is and aren't fit for the role.
It's a dirty industry, and they wont hesitate to illegally pass your details on to another agency when they move jobs and so forth to line their pocket in breach of the data protection act and so forth so don't even feel guilty about it. Pretend to be their friend and ask them how their family is and build up a rapport if need be. Just learn how they work and know how to play them, and they can actually be very useful.
But make no mistake, recruitment through recruiters is a game - if you know how to play it it can be very rewarding to win, if you don't then it can be tedious and depressing to keep getting rejected by them for no other reason than the fact they have no idea what they are on about and are hence shit at their jobs. But unfortunately they hold the keys to many good jobs, so if you don't want to limit your options then you have no choice but to learn to play the game.
This is a law that just isn't enforced in the UK and it's absolutely stupid. It's not just cyclists it applies to, try driving down the A1, it wont take long before you encounter a lorry "overtaking" another lorry at the exact same speed as it so as to block both lanes at 50mph for sometimes 10 - 15 minutes with neither willing to yield when the limit is 70mph.
The police really need to start enforcing traffic obstruction laws. It should be easier now they have the right to go after middle lane drivers, but they don't treat it seriously enough when the reality is it creates so much rage on the road it pretty blatantly leads to people making stupid decisions to try and get past the idiot whose blocking lanes.
The law is pretty clear in the UK - if you've got a build up of cars behind you because you're slow moving you're legally bound to pull over and let them pass, but whether tractors, lorries, bikes, car towing car, whatever else, none of them ever do.
"If cyclists pulled over to let traffic by, they'd spend all day simply standing at the side of the road."
I don't know about elsewhere but this is the law in the UK - if you're causing a multiple vehicle build up behind you because you're a slow moving vehicle then you're legally bound to.
Not that anyone ever does.
So let me get this straight, you start off by whining about car users "bullying" you to get past you, and then in the second part of your post you state that pedestrians have right of way on your cycle paths but you feel they should pay attention to you and get out of your way?
This is precisely why cyclists have such a bad reputation - the superiority complex, the belief that both cars and pedestrians alike should cater to them.
Look it's great that you cycle - but consider this: those pedestrians walking four abreast that you want to get out your way? that's exactly how car users feel about you. If you want car users to not get annoyed that you're slowing down their journey then you might want to start by not having the same attitude towards pedestrians. I see all too many cyclists that fail to get this - they fail to consider that maybe a car is bullying them now, because 30 minutes before they or another cyclist were bullying the person driving that car when the driver was on foot as a pedestrian.
If cyclists want to start getting treated with more respect they need to learn the rules of the road and start treating others with respect equally. It doesn't matter what vehicle you're in, always treat those more vulnerable than you with respect - that means cars looking out for bikes, and bikes looking out for pedestrians, not everyone look out for bikes because they always seem to think they're fucking special.
Agreed, I was going to make a cheap dig about the fact he was focussing on PHP, and hence was automatically unfit for professional work, but there's a more serious point to be made, and that's that the simple fact is there is absolutely no shortage of people who can make a PHP website with forms authentication. These people are two a penny, and are battling it out for minimum wage jobs, it's a waste of time and effort to even bother chasing it.
If you want to be a developer you need to go beyond that, you need your website to actually do something interesting, or you need to do something more interesting than a website.
If you've built up your experience on building simple PHP websites then you've got nothing that makes you stand out, you're doing what everyone else your level is doing and so you've got nothing that differentiates you.
The OP is saying things like "10 years web design experience" and "5 - 6 years PHP" in an attempt to boost his credentials and make him look employable, but I think it may be counter-productive. The problem is that with 5 - 6 years programming experience I would be expecting to see something vastly more interesting than just a forms authentication based PHP website.
It's easy to fall into the trap when you see "3 years experience required" or whatever on a job advert that experience is somehow the most important thing going but it's really not the case - who is going to look like the better candidate? the guy who has 5 - 6 years experience and only has a run of the mill PHP website to show for it or the guy who has 6 months experience and a run of the mill PHP website to show for it? I know which I'd choose - the guy who 6 months in is doing that, not the guy who is only doing that 6 years in.
So my point is, don't overplay the experience card - don't go around saying you have 6 years experience if you've got nothing to show that an employer would expect to see from someone with 6 years experience.
It may sound harsh but I'd avoid like the plague someone who claimed to have 6 years experience but was only churning out 6 months experience type stuff - that tells me they're a very slow learner, a plodder, and of little use to me.
You can easily get a junior web developer role after 1 year of CS class (fuck, I got employed as a developer before I'd even started my degree), but you better have something to show for it - you need to show you're at junior developer level, you need to be able to compete with those in their 3rd year, not just be only semi-competitive with those in your current year.
One final note - you better show that you understand things businesses want, at very least show some knowledge of things like web services, and object oriented design for example, and in the PHP world show some knowledge of MVC with Zend, show some knowledge of writing Drupal plugins and so on and so forth if PHP is really the route you want to go down.
No, the road signs, road markings, street lighting, traffic lights, traffic calming measures and so on and so forth are all there for the benefit of the cyclist as much as they are the car and have nothing to do with damage to the road caused by heavier vehicles, but all still have to be maintained.
Sigh, even if I let you off the fact your argument doesn't make sense you've still got the fundamental problem that the OECD is run by 34 countries, with more attempting to join including Russia. So even then it's not like anything other than the determination of legality matters by anyone else other than them (which is why international recognition matters, duh).
At least you've now obviously realised your argument is unsalvageable though given that you've stopped trying to talk nonsense to claim otherwise. You could just have never ever recovered it - as I say even if I let you past that last unsalvagaeable point you were already at you'd still have been wrong to pretend some random guy in Crimea can somehow define international law and what is and isn't legal all by himself. You just didn't have a hope, because you were so very wrong and couldn't admit it.
Don't be too pissy about it, we're all wrong sometimes, maybe just try and be a bit more mature about accepting it in future though.
That's my concern and what I wonder, but it's not like the ISPs are oblivious to what the entertainment industry wants, the entertainment industry isn't exactly smarter than they are, so the ISPs must have grounds to believe that can't and wont happen.
Even that works on a spectrum though depending how far removed they are from each other. Obviously one breed of sheep can breed with the same breed of sheep easily, success rate is ever so slightly lower between different breeds of sheep, but sometimes you can go as far as breeding a goat with a sheep to get a geep (yes really!) though the chance is far lower.
It's more obvious in the plant world when you can more easily attempt to cross pollinate different many different species and see the results often much quicker, but it becomes very clear that there's still no clear cut dividing line - some plants are harder to cross pollinate with others in the same genus than they are others in a different genus.
I have no idea. I still to this day do not understand why our attempt at a silicon valley was done in London when we had an astoundingly good research base in Cambridge and that is far more easily accessible to the rest of the country to boot because it's much closer to the centre of England than London is.
Hell, Cambridge even has more than it's fair share of hipsters so it even ticked the hipster box.
I can't for the life of me understand why they came up with silicon roundabout in a shitty part of London when Cambridge actually exists. It just seemed a nonsense to invest in that there when we have such an amazingly better choice. If it's about investors then even that is a non-issue, rail links to London are quick and convenient from there too.
We already had a cutting edge research area that was world class, and has spawned many successful startups like ARM and Autonomy. Why not just invest in that than try and make a new one in a shitty, inconvenient part of the country that wasn't exactly known for drawing in technological geniuses like Cambridge is?
As an aside a year or two back I spent some time in Sheffield and met a lot of tech workers there, it's amazing how many startups there are - Sheffield has turned itself around and it's economy is impressively made up of something like 80% small businesses now, many of which are tech startups. Even Sheffield, the old mining and steel works city would've been a better candidate than silicon roundabout they chose. Sheffield is even in a valley so they could've even gone for Silicon Valley UK and not had to involve roundabouts. Even Sheffield is only a 2hr train ride from London.
It seems like Cameron was desperate to make an area to make startups, when in practice it would've been better to just take the areas that are already spawning startups like no tommorrow and invest in them - the fact they already spawn so many tech startups is evidence that they have the formula right so why dick around trying to artificially recreate the formula in an area where you've no fucking idea if it's ever going to work?
I guess it depends how they invoice. It's quite easy for them to cost something up for more than it actually is - assign 100 days of project time to a member of staff on it but only have them working on it in a half-arsed manner so that they're 90% working on their normal actual job.
It's not unusual for someone being billed to an external client's work at 100% of their time only working on it 75% of the time or less in practice.
"Your circular logic here hinges on the "need" part. In fact, just because they decided to hold a vote, does not in any way imply that they NEEDED to do so. It was a PR stunt, really. Lots of countries hold fake elections on a regular basis."
Need or not, even they didn't declare themselves a sovereign nation until afterwards so even they accept they were part of the Ukraine and hence subject to Ukrainian laws until it happened.
Your argument is still broken, your argument still can't be fixed. Trying to redefine words in the dictionary, or pretend that established international law isn't wont change the fundamental fact that your argument is still broken based on the fact that the people you're claiming had the legal power to offer the invite by their own admissions did not.
It really is amazing that you still cannot see this logical fallacy in your argument. It's clear desperation to avoid admitting you are wrong, or desperate stupidity.
It astounds me that there are people that in the fact of such a logically indisputable failure of their argument still feel the need to trying every which way to spin the argument as if the fallacy will disappear, as if you'll suddenly become right. You wont, because once again your whole argument is still fundamentally broken.
The point is that it takes an awful lot less people to do automatic reclassification through DNA analysis than it does to go out into the field and actually find new species.
So whilst the number of distinctly defined species may be increase, the number of people actually working in the field could be decreasing, and if the determination of distinction is just the result of a taxonomist that favours splitting over lumping and is just arbitrary anyway then it's quite possible that an increasing number of classifications tells us absolutely nothing about the health of the field.
I think the problem is that science is the study and subsequent authoring of knowledge based on observation and experiment. Historically, because we didn't know about DNA, you could in fact reasonably call taxonomy a science, because there was nothing unscientific about the fact that certain species seemed, given all evidence available, to be one species or another, one genus or another.
Then along came DNA analysis and it turns out some of that old science was wrong, the new science results in reclassification. But then we have two problems - we have those still using old methods and shunning new methods, at this point it's no longer a science, and secondly we still have this problem of arbitrary determination of boundaries, and that's not scientific either. It could be scientific if we moved towards non-subjective boundaries, but that's not happened yet.
So it's not that taxonomy was inherently always unscientific, and it's not that it can't be scientific. It's that many of the views as to how taxonomy should nowadays be done and used result in a taxonomy that isn't a scientific practice.
And I know you say it's a tool but I think this is also part of the problem, it is a tool, but in the same way statistics is a tool. Still perfectly scientifically sound if used correctly, but a farce otherwise, which isn't to say farce statistics don't have their uses (like changing people's perceptions) but that we need to decide what type of tool taxonomy should be - do we want it to be a casual tool for non-serious stuff, or do we want it to remain useful for scientific grade classification and discussion?
It's very similar to common statistical method in a way - we don't always say "This is true", sometimes we have to say "This seems true with 95% confidence". So the question is rather than saying "The group of specimens of species A" which may vary somewhat and be only borderline all of a single species arbitrarily defined as 'A' should we instead be saying something like "The group of specimens that are within the range of 0.1% genetic similarity to specimen A" in research papers and so forth? Or in other words, do we need to also have a more mathematically (and hence scientifically) sound branch of taxonomy that works in a similar way to the way we deal with lack of absolute certainty in statistical results?
"That's true. People scoff at the older taxonomic groupings from before we had molecular evidence, but actually I'm often surprised at how similar new phylogenies are to huge chunks of the old taxonomies."
I'm sure that depends on the families and genus in question, because certainly for Cactaceae it's made a complete mockery of previous taxonomic definitions.
"(i.e. cites the taxnomic publication which specifies what they mean when they use the name)."
Amusingly I tried to help a botanist do exactly this, we couldn't because although we found a snippet on Google Books of the original reference for the name, we couldn't see the whole thing because it unfortunately fell under the specific set of restrictions that meant it wont be out of copyright until about 2021, despite the fact it went out of print in about 1926 and the author died in about 1953 or something. I thought this was a fantastic example of how absurdly long copyright laws prevent scientific progress.
The music industry is even paying for it £750,000 to set it up, and then £75,000 a year every year afterwards. I can't help but think the ISPs may even be profiting from this.
I don't know what happened, it's like the industry has realised it can't win, that even if it did push through what it wanted - the ability to extort money from people and block them from the age old right to trial and has basically just conceded on every point that matters.
There did seem to be a suggestion that if it didn't work then they could go back to the drawing board but that's a long way off, and if they couldn't win harsher penalties or the ability to bypass the right to a fair trial or the right to privacy this time then I'm not convinced they ever will. I suspect they've conceded that their business isn't in fact above fundamental human rights after all and that no court would let that stand in the long run.
This seems to be extraordinarily good news for once on this front, effectively one of the two most controversial measures in the Digital Economy Act has arrived 4 years late after numerous delays and now that it has has been well and truly gutted.
Maybe Google's closeness and lobbying of the current government and funding for their pet projects like Silicon Roundabout has finally paid off? Maybe the fact tech companies have far far more money than the music and movie industry is finally bearing fruit? Maybe the move of Ian Livingstone from BT to government trade minister has had an impact? Has tech finally learnt how to outplay the music industry at the great lobbying game in the UK?
"Everyone in said sovereign territory... They are under no illusions about who is in-charge. What anyone outside the territory believes is irrelevant."
What nonsense. You think it's possible to exist in a vacuum in this day and age? You really are naive to the way the world works aren't you?
"Wrong. That's PRECISELY what I said, and what I meant."
Then you're more retarded than I even first gave you credit for. As I said, declare sovereignty on your own home tonight, do something illegal in your country and see if you don't get arrested for it. There wont be anything about them redeclaring sovereignty, because you were never able to declare sovereignty in the first place, they'll just treat you as the crackpot you are.
But let's just ignore all this a second, because none of it changes the fact that the guy who sent the invite was the guy calling the referendum and he was calling a referendum because he recognised Crimea was part of the Ukraine (and hence bound by Ukrainian law) and that he didn't want it to be. So even if your assertion that someone can arbitrarily decide they're leader of a random bit of territory and that's all there is to it was true then there's still the problem with your theory that even that guy recognised he was part of the Ukraine which is why he needed a referendum in the first place. If he was part of the Ukraine he was bound by Ukrainian law and Ukrainian law gave him no right to give that invite.
So even if you were correct (you're not) and power is held on the terms you describe (they're not) then you're still wrong because it doesn't make any sense to require a referendum. However you spin it your whole argument either doesn't make sense, or points to the exact opposite of what you're claiming it points to. By definition that means you're just plain wrong either way. There's just no alternative where you're right unless you somehow think invalid logic makes you right.
But anyway, it's obvious you're one of those especially retarded people who will keep arguing even when their argument is long past salvageable, so have fun continuing to be wrong if that's what you enjoy - you can't get away from it, your argument has reached a dead end where the only answer is that you are wrong.
I guess you must just really love Putin or something to be so wilfully ignorant and wrong, but hey, even he doesn't back you - even he agreed Crimea was Ukraine until the referendum which hadn't happened at the time of invite.
It's possible that the recent increase in discovery of new species isn't so much actual discovery though, but re-classification and splitting of existing species based on modern DNA analysis.
It may be that when a number of old, non-DNA analysed specimens are run through DNA analysis it turns out that they're not in fact all the same species but comprise say 4 different species.
Or in other words it may be that we knew about just as many snakes before, the difference is we used to call them the same thing, now largely automated processes have told us to call a bunch of them different things.
I think the question is as much about how many field taxonomists there are now. Are there more out in the field looking for and finding completely unknown candidate species or is it the same amount or less than ever and the "discoveries" are simply reclassifications of what we already have?
I think that's probably the difficulty.
I'm good friends with a modern day plant hunter who is also a professional botanist, and who also has a number of discoveries and subsequent names under his belt.
I've never really asked him how the profession is doing in general, but from what I know of him the bottleneck as much as anything seems to be the amount of time it takes to describe a new species. Maybe he specifically is just very detailed in what he does, but for each discovery of a plant he has to provide illustration of it in growth, in flower and so forth, he has to inspect and textually describe every aspect of it, and he has to map out it's habitat to see how far and wide it grows as much as he reasonably can. That is before he starts down the taxonomic path to try and figure out what genus and family and so forth if should be classified under. If it's not in flower, then it may even involve waiting for it to come into flower (which is not necessarily an annual thing - it could take years), it sometimes involves trying to grow it from seed, recording the sort of substrate it grows in measuring things like the chemical consistency and the acidity and so forth of the soil or rock, and even attempting pollination to produce seed and so forth and describing the seed. As you can imagine this is a time consuming process, so certainly for him it isn't the lack of will to go out into the field, but the amount of time and work involved in documenting a discovery afterwards. There's also the bureaucracy - it should be submitted to the likes of CITES, especially if it's at risk because it's perceived to be a small single population, and that means writing up the threat to it to CITES for inclusion in the endagered species list providing a suggested classification and justifying why that classification is deserved. If it's truly endangered then you may be involved in follow up work to provide protection for it, such as finding out who owns the land on what it resides, and lobbying to get that land protected from activity such as mining and deforestation.
So the difficult is probably more finding people with both the experience and competence to do the describing of species whilst those that excel in the field can get on with it. That just wont happen though as everyone wants to be in the field, and no one wants to be in the lab doing drawings and writing walls of text about species - effectively it's the largely necessary post-discovery formalities that put people off the fun and adventure of discovery more than anything else.
"I can't declare my backyard a soverign country, because after some time, armed men would come and incarcerate or kill me."
So you're saying that up until that point it would indeed be a sovereign country? What makes you think that? Who else recognises you as such?
"but stepping foot in it will still get you subject to local laws"
Right, but not your own personally defined local laws - the laws of the actual sovereign country in which you reside, like say, the laws of the Ukraine for Crimea prior to annexation.
As I said before, you really might want to stop digging at this point, unless you're actually enjoying illustrating how stupid you're capable of making yourself look.
Yep, exactly. We can't really say that speciation is analog, it's not, it's defined by a finite albeit with an unimaginably large number of DNA variations, but it's absolutely a broad spectrum rather than a clear discrete set of possibilities which is what taxonomy tries to apply.
Because of that it's also hard to determine a dividing line from the perspective that what might look like a reasonable dividing line for say, very simple plant life, might not be a reasonable dividing line for a complex mammal. So even if we do get an objective cutoff point in terms of say a percent difference, it may lead to some wild divisions of species in some families of species even if it makes sense in others. What then? do we create arbitrary dividing lines for different families? if so how do we stop that descending into the subjectivity we have now anyway? It's further complicated by things like "junk" DNA too which may vary greatly between species and may alter the calculation as to what defines a different species. Not that we do, but if we had two subjects that were pretty much identical in all but say 5% of their junk DNA then would we really want to classify them as different species? The actual expressed genes say they're close enough to be the same species, but their overall DNA says they're very different. Even choosing what part of the genome of a species we use is challenging - all of it? a subset? do we need to alter the amount we take into account for each family or genus?
That's why until we really know what the point in taxonomy is, it's hard to figure out how to achieve that point. We know we can't just say taxonomy is about providing useful classifications and names of species in a scientifically objective manner any more because we know that introducing objectivity removes much of the historic usefulness of taxonomy.
Yet you've still not answered why you can't declare your own back yard as a sovereign state.
You know, rather than continuing to make a tit of yourself it's probably far easier if you just type "Sorry, I didn't realise the guy who gave the invite himself wasn't an elected representative of Crimea and had no legitimacy".
But you know what? I'll do you a favour, god only knows you clearly need an education on the topic. I'll give you a hint: declaring sovereignty has no impact if absolutely no one else recognises it. Of course, the situation in question is even more humorous when you consider we're talking about a referendum vote, which, by definition, means the territory was Ukrainian and hence bound by Ukrainian laws until the referendum results were in, which, by definition, meant only the Ukrainian government could make the invite because it had to be Ukrainian territory at the point of calling a referendum or there'd be no need for a referendum in the first place.
If you can't see the logical fallacy in your argument, then it probably explains why you're not smart enough to get this or understand simply why you were wrong.
I don't even know what Seinfeld is about other than it's some American TV show, so the reference is lost on me.