I've said this a few times on this thread already, so I apologise if I'm repeating myself, but there is no evidence so far that he was either radicalised, brainwashed and recruited, or that his attacked had anything to do with Islam. It may have been the case, but there is so far no evidence of it.
It is not uncommon for people to find religion in prison (has no-one watched HBO's Oz!) but it doesn't automatically mean that he was some kind of Islamic fanatic.
I'm not sure what the larger point is that you're trying to make. It seems like you are trying to suggest that Islam is incompatible with western culture and values, but in order to do this you find it necessary to assume (or at least claim) that Adrian/Khalid changed his name explicitly to break his ties with his British heritage.
In order to sustain this claim, you have to believe that people can have an identity that is only one dimensional - that someone can't be both a devout Muslim and a British patriot at the same time (as well as having many other identities).
Why can't a person be a Muslim and honourable Brit (or American) at the same time?
The subsequent claim you make about a similar case with a man changing his name to a Russian variant is not equivalent because Russia is a country whereas Islam is not - changing your name to a Russian name is an explicitly political (or at least a politically tinged cultural) act, whereas changing your name to an Islamic one is not a political act (unless it is explicitly done for political rather than religious reasons, i.e. it can be but it isn't necessarily so).
I don't dispute that some Muslims living in western nations can and do put their Islamic culture above that of their country's. I just don't see why that is automatically the case here.
Finally, the slightly childish claim to be the victim of unfair treatment at the end of your post is both unnecessary and counter productive - it makes your (already weak) argument easy to dismiss as being born of resentment rather than conviction
He was born in Kent (south-east England), and his name was Adrian. Absolutely nothing about his situation (his upbringing, his recent history, what the police investigation has so far uncovered) suggests that your plan is relevant to the attack last Wednesday.
In addition, how do you enforce and assess such a requirement, that people "become citizens of that country in heart and soul". In a native white middle class Englishman, born in Leicester to British parents, and I'm not sure that I feel British in my heart and soul, I'm not sure what it means. Maybe it is more obvious if you're an American, but British people don't really have this swearing allegiance to the flag type of patriotism, it isn't at all natural to us.
I haven't checked the news this afternoon so maybe there have been further developments, but when they were discussing this subject on the BBC radio news this morning, it was clear that the police only new he had been active on WhatsApp in the minutes before the attack - they did not know if he had received a message, or sent one, or done neither.
It has to be said that there is so far no evidence that this was done because of Islam.
It is known that he converted to Islam, and he had travelled to Saudi Arabia, so I am not saying it is impossible that he was motivated by some nonsense made-up understand of Islam, but as of the current investigation there is no evidence that he did it for that reason.
It could just as well be that he is a manic depressive and had just been dumped and wanted to go out on a bang, for all we know.
I'd never really thought about this before, but you are completely right - printing in FF is absolutely terrible. The number of times I have printed something at work to read later, and found myself giving up to read it from the screen instead because the print out was unusable.
The reason is that an anti-particle is a particle with opposite charge (both electric and colour) compare to its partner. So an anti-electron has opposite charge to a normal electron, and an anti-quark has opposite colour-charge and electric charge to a normal quark.
A photon does not have any charge, so an anti-photon would have identical properties to a normal photon - they would be identical, and so it makes no sense to talk about them as being different entities.
The great majority would do what people always do when given shares - they would immediately sell them to the highest bidder. Once the shares were on the secondary market it would not take long for a majority owner to emerge again.
The net overall effect would be no change in the ownership breakdown (i.e. a small group of big investors would still be in control) but each share would just be worth less.
That purpose is served by general elections. The Lib Dems went against many of their campaign promises after the 2010 GE, and look at them now after the 2015 GE, they are dead, only 8 MPs.
Like with most of these things, the problem isn't a moral failing with the politicians - they're just part of a system playing out their role. The problem is the lack of engagement from the electorate. If the politicians really thought that the electorate would punish them for their actions they wouldn't behave the way they do, but as it is they know that whatever betrayal we are talking about this week the electorate will have forgotten about it next month, let alone by the time of the next GE.
By the way, your plan of a 'no faith' option for the public would be disastrous - it would force politicians to constantly be trying to do everything they could to buy good will from the electorate - constant give aways, tax cuts, extra spending, etc. anything they could do win support at any cost. They wouldn't be able to focus on good governing because they would be overwhelmed with keeping their support above a certain level, while their opponents' only job would be getting it below that level.
Government would come to a halt, and it would be a perpetual election campaign.
Parliament is not the government, no. The government is the executive, formed out of members of that party who have the most seats in parliament (or more technically correct, that group of MPs who can command the confidence of the House of Commons, which is almost always the party who have the majority of seats).
Parliament passes and approves legislation, but does not perform any executive functions.
Correct. There is no concept of Class Action here in UK law. As HP Hal says, this is a ruling against Uber as a whole (although they have immediately appealed, so let's wait and see).
The interesting aspect is what happens to other similar businesses - Deliveroo is a similar large 'gig-economy' company here in Britain, so how will they react?
I'm not American, but I don't think a constitutional amendment can be repealed by Congress alone - doesn't it require a majority of the states to vote for it too?
It is a fair point. But keep in mind that you have imposed the condition that only the shareholder pay taxes, whereas this is not the case.
My first post made the point that if you increase corp tax, then it is various groups of people who, one way or another, have to pay for it.
It seems to me that the reverse if also true - if you reduce (or eliminate) corp tax, then those same groups of people, in some combination, would receive more money. These people would therefore pay more tax on the money they receive.
If we are talking about the case of a multinational then these people would be all over the world - workers who receive a bit more pay, and so pay more income tax; shareholders who receive more dividends; etc.
(I accept that lower prices doesn't lead to more tax revenue, but it is none the less an economic good for the consumer).
In answer to your strict question - if only shareholders paid the tax on the profits a company made, then those taxes would be paid to multiple countries, depending on where those shareholders were resident, at the particular different rates of those countries.
But, like I say above, the idea of shareholders only paying the taxes is neither a necessary nor useful nor a realistic condition. Companies are just group of people through which money flows - shareholders are just one of those groups.
Thank you btw for raising the point about companies multi-nationality vs an individual's locality - I hadn't thought about it that way and it does add a new dimension to my point.
It's all just taxes on people in the end. Corporations aren't real things, they're abstract - they're just groups of people organised together to do a task.
Corporation taxes are paid as a proportion of profits (incomes minus costs) - if they go up then there are less profits, which someone has to pay for: generally it will be paid for by some combination of:
- Workers, through lower wages - Shareholders, through lower dividends (and by association, lower stock prices) - Consumers, through higher prices - Less investment in the business, and hence the productivity of the staff, since the lower profits lead to lower retained earnings
It may be that you are happy with at least one of these groups paying more (I would guess most are happy with shareholders paying more) but my point is that a corporation doesn't pay anything because it doesn't exist, only people exist and only they pay.
In Britain, any phone number beginning with '07' is a cell/mobile number. Almost all landlines begin with '01' except for commercial sales lines which begin with '08'.
Why be so hostile? Why not just make your point, which was a fairly sensible one, without the swearing and insults?
How can you possibly be so offended that someone thinks mobile phones are a good thing? You can certainly disagree (I think I probably do on balance) but why take it so personally?
When you say theft, do you mean it as in the Marxist idea of the appropriation of the surplus value of labour, or do you mean outright corruption and crime?
Slashdot Mirror
I've said this a few times on this thread already, so I apologise if I'm repeating myself, but there is no evidence so far that he was either radicalised, brainwashed and recruited, or that his attacked had anything to do with Islam. It may have been the case, but there is so far no evidence of it.
It is not uncommon for people to find religion in prison (has no-one watched HBO's Oz!) but it doesn't automatically mean that he was some kind of Islamic fanatic.
I'm not sure what the larger point is that you're trying to make. It seems like you are trying to suggest that Islam is incompatible with western culture and values, but in order to do this you find it necessary to assume (or at least claim) that Adrian/Khalid changed his name explicitly to break his ties with his British heritage.
In order to sustain this claim, you have to believe that people can have an identity that is only one dimensional - that someone can't be both a devout Muslim and a British patriot at the same time (as well as having many other identities).
Why can't a person be a Muslim and honourable Brit (or American) at the same time?
The subsequent claim you make about a similar case with a man changing his name to a Russian variant is not equivalent because Russia is a country whereas Islam is not - changing your name to a Russian name is an explicitly political (or at least a politically tinged cultural) act, whereas changing your name to an Islamic one is not a political act (unless it is explicitly done for political rather than religious reasons, i.e. it can be but it isn't necessarily so).
I don't dispute that some Muslims living in western nations can and do put their Islamic culture above that of their country's. I just don't see why that is automatically the case here.
Finally, the slightly childish claim to be the victim of unfair treatment at the end of your post is both unnecessary and counter productive - it makes your (already weak) argument easy to dismiss as being born of resentment rather than conviction
He was born in Kent (south-east England), and his name was Adrian. Absolutely nothing about his situation (his upbringing, his recent history, what the police investigation has so far uncovered) suggests that your plan is relevant to the attack last Wednesday.
In addition, how do you enforce and assess such a requirement, that people "become citizens of that country in heart and soul". In a native white middle class Englishman, born in Leicester to British parents, and I'm not sure that I feel British in my heart and soul, I'm not sure what it means. Maybe it is more obvious if you're an American, but British people don't really have this swearing allegiance to the flag type of patriotism, it isn't at all natural to us.
I haven't checked the news this afternoon so maybe there have been further developments, but when they were discussing this subject on the BBC radio news this morning, it was clear that the police only new he had been active on WhatsApp in the minutes before the attack - they did not know if he had received a message, or sent one, or done neither.
It suggests to me that they don't have his phone.
It has to be said that there is so far no evidence that this was done because of Islam.
It is known that he converted to Islam, and he had travelled to Saudi Arabia, so I am not saying it is impossible that he was motivated by some nonsense made-up understand of Islam, but as of the current investigation there is no evidence that he did it for that reason.
It could just as well be that he is a manic depressive and had just been dumped and wanted to go out on a bang, for all we know.
Well, this bloke was born in Kent, and lived most of his time in Birmingham.
While I could live with vaporising Birmingham, Kent is quite a nice place....
I am curious - how is market share being defined?
Number of users; number of installations; number of hits on a collection of websites; survey or market research results?
I'd never really thought about this before, but you are completely right - printing in FF is absolutely terrible. The number of times I have printed something at work to read later, and found myself giving up to read it from the screen instead because the print out was unusable.
The reason is that an anti-particle is a particle with opposite charge (both electric and colour) compare to its partner. So an anti-electron has opposite charge to a normal electron, and an anti-quark has opposite colour-charge and electric charge to a normal quark.
A photon does not have any charge, so an anti-photon would have identical properties to a normal photon - they would be identical, and so it makes no sense to talk about them as being different entities.
" Try hitting the start button in Windows 10 and type "Windows Update"
I've just done so. The first result is "Check for System Updates", the second "Windows Update Settings". Seems perfectly reasonable to me.
Neither did Fukushima.
The great majority would do what people always do when given shares - they would immediately sell them to the highest bidder. Once the shares were on the secondary market it would not take long for a majority owner to emerge again.
The net overall effect would be no change in the ownership breakdown (i.e. a small group of big investors would still be in control) but each share would just be worth less.
That purpose is served by general elections. The Lib Dems went against many of their campaign promises after the 2010 GE, and look at them now after the 2015 GE, they are dead, only 8 MPs.
Like with most of these things, the problem isn't a moral failing with the politicians - they're just part of a system playing out their role. The problem is the lack of engagement from the electorate. If the politicians really thought that the electorate would punish them for their actions they wouldn't behave the way they do, but as it is they know that whatever betrayal we are talking about this week the electorate will have forgotten about it next month, let alone by the time of the next GE.
By the way, your plan of a 'no faith' option for the public would be disastrous - it would force politicians to constantly be trying to do everything they could to buy good will from the electorate - constant give aways, tax cuts, extra spending, etc. anything they could do win support at any cost. They wouldn't be able to focus on good governing because they would be overwhelmed with keeping their support above a certain level, while their opponents' only job would be getting it below that level.
Government would come to a halt, and it would be a perpetual election campaign.
Parliament is not the government, no. The government is the executive, formed out of members of that party who have the most seats in parliament (or more technically correct, that group of MPs who can command the confidence of the House of Commons, which is almost always the party who have the majority of seats).
Parliament passes and approves legislation, but does not perform any executive functions.
Correct. There is no concept of Class Action here in UK law. As HP Hal says, this is a ruling against Uber as a whole (although they have immediately appealed, so let's wait and see).
The interesting aspect is what happens to other similar businesses - Deliveroo is a similar large 'gig-economy' company here in Britain, so how will they react?
I agree. Series 10 was great. It felt much like series 5.
I especially like the episode 'Lemons'.
I'm not American, but I don't think a constitutional amendment can be repealed by Congress alone - doesn't it require a majority of the states to vote for it too?
Hello Ken,
It is a fair point. But keep in mind that you have imposed the condition that only the shareholder pay taxes, whereas this is not the case.
My first post made the point that if you increase corp tax, then it is various groups of people who, one way or another, have to pay for it.
It seems to me that the reverse if also true - if you reduce (or eliminate) corp tax, then those same groups of people, in some combination, would receive more money. These people would therefore pay more tax on the money they receive.
If we are talking about the case of a multinational then these people would be all over the world - workers who receive a bit more pay, and so pay more income tax; shareholders who receive more dividends; etc.
(I accept that lower prices doesn't lead to more tax revenue, but it is none the less an economic good for the consumer).
In answer to your strict question - if only shareholders paid the tax on the profits a company made, then those taxes would be paid to multiple countries, depending on where those shareholders were resident, at the particular different rates of those countries.
But, like I say above, the idea of shareholders only paying the taxes is neither a necessary nor useful nor a realistic condition. Companies are just group of people through which money flows - shareholders are just one of those groups.
Thank you btw for raising the point about companies multi-nationality vs an individual's locality - I hadn't thought about it that way and it does add a new dimension to my point.
It's all just taxes on people in the end. Corporations aren't real things, they're abstract - they're just groups of people organised together to do a task.
Corporation taxes are paid as a proportion of profits (incomes minus costs) - if they go up then there are less profits, which someone has to pay for: generally it will be paid for by some combination of:
- Workers, through lower wages
- Shareholders, through lower dividends (and by association, lower stock prices)
- Consumers, through higher prices
- Less investment in the business, and hence the productivity of the staff, since the lower profits lead to lower retained earnings
It may be that you are happy with at least one of these groups paying more (I would guess most are happy with shareholders paying more) but my point is that a corporation doesn't pay anything because it doesn't exist, only people exist and only they pay.
The second meaning is not contained within the word "refute" but rather "rebuke", at least in British English.
It's also missing an article 'the' or a possessive 's' from the sentence snippet "and has updated Have I Been Pwned website"
By that definition, pretty much every piece of matter in existence on the planet is a transmitter, unless it is 100% transparent to all EM radiation.
Unless you want to suggest that the walls should be built out of neutrinos, then a more specific definition is needed to be useful.
In Britain, any phone number beginning with '07' is a cell/mobile number. Almost all landlines begin with '01' except for commercial sales lines which begin with '08'.
Why be so hostile? Why not just make your point, which was a fairly sensible one, without the swearing and insults?
How can you possibly be so offended that someone thinks mobile phones are a good thing? You can certainly disagree (I think I probably do on balance) but why take it so personally?
When you say theft, do you mean it as in the Marxist idea of the appropriation of the surplus value of labour, or do you mean outright corruption and crime?