And when you are in the closet, you don't join Queer Choirs.
They didn't, that's the whole point. The owner of the Queer Chorus group added the two individuals, and they didn't have to confirm, they were added immediately and a notification to everyone -- bigoted fathers included -- was produced. It's not mentioned in the article, but there is a photograph of a choir -- it looks like there was probably already a photograph of them (again, most likely put there by someone else) so denying the association wouldn't have worked in this case.
Sadly bigoted fathers and others will always be there but sooner or later things would have come out. Or were the girls planning to marry a guy just to keep up appearances? Can't stay in the closet forever.
(One is a man.) Probably they were trying to keep a decent relationship with their parents until they were financially independent and/or didn't have to see them at holiday times.
Also, it can be difficult to do certain real-life things without Facebook. The events functionality is very useful (although reliant on most people you need to use it having a Facebook account). You can make an event, invite people, show a map, accept RSVPs (and see them all in one place), change the time / cancel the event, and there can be a discussion between the attendees (e.g. I'm driving from X, anyone want a lift?).
One could still participate in events with a completely private, maximum privacy profile.
Child pornography causes a very large amount of harm to children. The video in question hurts some people's feelings. Comparing the two is a vast stretch of the imagination.
Not necessarily, by some definitions. For example, a photograph/video made by two consenting teenagers (or just one, sent to another) causes no harm.
It might cause harm if distributed, even with their consent, but what if it's distributed by themselves years later, once they're at least 18?
(My parents have a few photographs of me naked as a baby/young child, e.g. while playing in the garden or bath. I'm pretty sure they don't count as child pornography under British law, but they might do elsewhere. If I distribute them no harm is done.)
My my, what a great big sense of entitlement you have!
The Raspberry Pi Foundation is a registered charity, created to improve computer science education in schools. Much of the work has been done by volunteers.
If you don't want your board, sell it on eBay. They seem to have held their value so far.
My previous MP (I recently moved house) was dismissive, but I knew she would disagree with most of what I wrote to her about.
We have a website in the UK: http://www.theyworkforyou.com/ which is a great resource -- I get emailed every few days when my MP speaks in Parliament with a link to a transcript. There are NZ, Australian and Irish versions (it's open source), is there something similar for Canada?
I don't have children, but the situation here has been in the news as the much-praised improvements the previous government (under celebrity-chef pressure) brought in have been sidestepped by the new semi-privatised schools.
Most schools have to provide healthy meals -- maximum one deep-fried thing per week, fruit and vegetables in everything, stuff like that. I think vending machines exist, but only sell healthy things -- I don't know what that means though, I suspect it just means "fruit bars" or something not that great, rather than chocolate bars and crisps.
My heart goes out to these students and their intolerant environment.
I don't want to pay to read the article, but I wonder why she added her father at all. It seems a very high risk to trust a company with such a crap reputation.
The massive car-based transport networks in American cities are very impressive, but don't ignore the negative effects of them: air pollution, crash deaths and injuries, division of communities, reduced effective mobility for those that can't drive (poor, disabled, children),...
It will be interesting to see what Europe does when those problems are solved (electric cars solve the first, automatic cars mostly the others).
16oz is HUGE. You know that soft drinks used to be sold in 6 (yes, SIX) oz bottles, and that was considered a reasonable serving size?
You can still buy 150mL cans of soft drinks in the UK. The usual size is 330mL, but the smaller cans are widely available. I think they're sold to be used as mixers or smaller portions.
That's 950mL of soda, so that's 103g of sugar. That's 22% of your RDA of energy, and 120% of the RDA of sugar (figures based on a UK Coke can, as I have that to hand). I don't know if drinking it all at once or throughout the day makes much difference (probably worse for your teeth, but I don't know about the rest).
However, banning it seems strange -- the government here has banned similar drinks from being sold by schools, but elsewhere the only government action is TV adverts encouraging a healthy lifestyle. The supermarkets label their own-brand drinks with a red high-sugar icon, but Coca Cola don't. (They label a 1L bottle as "contains four 250mL portions", and show that the 250mL portion has 30% RDA sugar). Extending the red-orange-green labelling to all drinks would seem a reasonable law -- that aids consumers to make their own decision, but doesn't prevent them from making the bad decision.
What ? Your supermarket does not sell lemons ? Yeah, you live in a retarded society.
You've never actually set foot in the US, have you?
That was presumably an exaggeration, but there's an element of truth. I was unable to buy oranges from the shops (including a small supermarket) within walking distance of the backpacker's hostel in New Orleans -- pretty much everything in the supermarket was boxed, packed, bottled or canned.
People buy cigarettes (and alcohol) outside the UK -- Eastern Europe is the cheapest, Luxembourg too. It's legal to do so, for personal use, but it's not legal to sell them. You still pay the Polish (etc) tax, it's not duty free like it would be if they were bought outside the EU. ("Duty free" shops at EU airports have dual pricing -- one price for in-EU flights, one for people leaving the EU.)
Of course, crossing the border has a non-trival cost -- a *very* heavy smoker could pay for a trip with the tax saved, but most people just throw a few multipacks (or bottles) in at the airport on their way home from a holiday.
20 cigarettes seem to cost about £6 here. 50g of rolling tobacco is about £15 here, about £5 in Poland. (I don't smoke, but travelled there with a friend who does.)
See, as a European (and even moreso as a French), I can't stop being puzzled by US food habits, and marketing strategies like you describe, which are despicable, and worth denouncing, I agree with you on that.
What's the situation in French schools? Schools in Britain aren't allowed to sell fizzy drinks or unhealthy snacks.
I don't think we have anything after food advertisements (but I don't have a TV). The best thing to have happened is a semi-voluntary action by the main supermarkets to clearly label unhealthy food. Soon after this was introduced, many things with a "red" icon were reformulated. Obviously unhealthy stuff wasn't affected so much, but lots of hidden salt, fat and sugar has been removed (e.g. bread, yoghurt, cereal).
I think there are proposals to force all packaged food to have these labels, but I suspect the current government won't do it. The supermarkets presumably did it to make their own-brand products appeal to health-conscious people as well as those on a tight budget.
bicycles don't damage the road, they are far too light for that.
That argument of course becomes less valid once L.A. (from TFA) has built those 1600 mi of bike lanes, supposedly with maintenance costs for special traffic lights, road markings, and damage from weather and tree roots.
Only if you also tax pedestrians for sidewalks.
Bike lanes add very little to the cost of a road -- about 1-2%. There's a huge amount of extra effort needed to make a roadway suitable to support cars and trucks that simply isn't necessary for pedestrians or bicycles.
A really good car might have an efficiency of 5.5L/100km (city). A 10km drive uses 0.55L, so that's about 70p / $1. Not a huge amount, but not negligible.
(I'm not sure how accurate that is, I suspect it's a minimum -- I don't know if the efficiency rating for city driving includes time spent idling, etc.)
My commute in London (but not central London) by bicycle is about 25 minutes, including locking the bike at work and a 2 minute walk to my building It's very reliable -- the biggest delay is if it's raining and I decide to cycle, which adds 5 minutes to find and change into and out of my waterproof trousers.
By car it takes about the same time, in the best case, and a whole lot longer about once every week or two when there's congestion. I've only ever taken public transport when I've been leaving work to go directly to the airport, I think it's about 30-40 minutes.
My preferred cycle route is pretty direct, and along very quiet roads -- I usually only halt about once or twice on the whole way, where the route crosses the preferred car route at some traffic lights. Cars have to halt at most junctions, and several sets of traffic lights, and for traffic in front. Quite often I'd see a distinctive vehicle near my home and see it again later, just ahead or just behind me.
I don't shower or change my clothes at work. A few of my colleagues do, generally they either travel a *lot* further (couple of people) or treat the cycling as a training exercise (the guy in a rowing team).
It all depends where you live. No one in London could drive for 15 minutes at 75 miles/hour to get to work!
The 106,000 deaths is only a tiny percentage (0.06%) of the 170,000,000 Americans on prescription medications (rough mental estimate of 48%), and it's inflated.
WOW!
That's incredible! Essentially, half of Americans are sick?
(I've tried and failed to find a similar statistic for another country.)
People always voice their concern when they're against something but rarely express their opinion if they're for it. This makes it unfair comparison. Just saying..
I don't think that's true. The article says that on assisted death, there were many replies on both sides.
I wrote to my MP, via a link the Open Rights Group (which I'm a member of) sent. I was pleased with the reply -- my MP agreed with me, gave some additional points that I'd not made, and asked me to forward any reply I received to him.
(At least, I think I did. There have been a few similar bills, and I've not necessarily kept up with which one is which.)
So when you bug Boeing jets and put backdoors into Microsoft Windows, it's all well and good and DEFENDING GLORIOUS FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY because it's your side doing it?
Wrong. Brazil is one of the largest economies in the world, and a regional power in South America, with influence over all our neighboring countries. But we don't have enemies. Why? Because we mostly keep to ourselves. Our relationship with other countries is one of selling and purchasing, not one of throwing military might around.
That can get difficult -- what do you do when one of your trading partner countries refuses to trade with you, because you refuse to be unfriendly to a country they don't like?
(The potential is there for Brazil regarding the Falkland Isles.)
Slashdot Mirror
And when you are in the closet, you don't join Queer Choirs.
They didn't, that's the whole point. The owner of the Queer Chorus group added the two individuals, and they didn't have to confirm, they were added immediately and a notification to everyone -- bigoted fathers included -- was produced. It's not mentioned in the article, but there is a photograph of a choir -- it looks like there was probably already a photograph of them (again, most likely put there by someone else) so denying the association wouldn't have worked in this case.
Sadly bigoted fathers and others will always be there but sooner or later things would have come out. Or were the girls planning to marry a guy just to keep up appearances? Can't stay in the closet forever.
(One is a man.) Probably they were trying to keep a decent relationship with their parents until they were financially independent and/or didn't have to see them at holiday times.
Also, it can be difficult to do certain real-life things without Facebook. The events functionality is very useful (although reliant on most people you need to use it having a Facebook account). You can make an event, invite people, show a map, accept RSVPs (and see them all in one place), change the time / cancel the event, and there can be a discussion between the attendees (e.g. I'm driving from X, anyone want a lift?).
One could still participate in events with a completely private, maximum privacy profile.
Opening it in a private tab still shows the paywall.
I worked out how to get round it though: Google search the URL, and the Google HTTP referrer means WSJ shows the full article.
Child pornography causes a very large amount of harm to children. The video in question hurts some people's feelings. Comparing the two is a vast stretch of the imagination.
Not necessarily, by some definitions. For example, a photograph/video made by two consenting teenagers (or just one, sent to another) causes no harm.
It might cause harm if distributed, even with their consent, but what if it's distributed by themselves years later, once they're at least 18?
(My parents have a few photographs of me naked as a baby/young child, e.g. while playing in the garden or bath. I'm pretty sure they don't count as child pornography under British law, but they might do elsewhere. If I distribute them no harm is done.)
My my, what a great big sense of entitlement you have!
The Raspberry Pi Foundation is a registered charity, created to improve computer science education in schools. Much of the work has been done by volunteers.
If you don't want your board, sell it on eBay. They seem to have held their value so far.
That's unfortunate -- you could try the advice here: http://www.writetothem.com/about-qa#noreply (or as much of it as applies in Canada).
My previous MP (I recently moved house) was dismissive, but I knew she would disagree with most of what I wrote to her about.
We have a website in the UK: http://www.theyworkforyou.com/ which is a great resource -- I get emailed every few days when my MP speaks in Parliament with a link to a transcript. There are NZ, Australian and Irish versions (it's open source), is there something similar for Canada?
Pay to read? What strange things are you encountering? I didn't see any paywall.
I don't have children, but the situation here has been in the news as the much-praised improvements the previous government (under celebrity-chef pressure) brought in have been sidestepped by the new semi-privatised schools.
Most schools have to provide healthy meals -- maximum one deep-fried thing per week, fruit and vegetables in everything, stuff like that. I think vending machines exist, but only sell healthy things -- I don't know what that means though, I suspect it just means "fruit bars" or something not that great, rather than chocolate bars and crisps.
My heart goes out to these students and their intolerant environment.
I don't want to pay to read the article, but I wonder why she added her father at all. It seems a very high risk to trust a company with such a crap reputation.
The massive car-based transport networks in American cities are very impressive, but don't ignore the negative effects of them: air pollution, crash deaths and injuries, division of communities, reduced effective mobility for those that can't drive (poor, disabled, children), ...
It will be interesting to see what Europe does when those problems are solved (electric cars solve the first, automatic cars mostly the others).
16oz is HUGE. You know that soft drinks used to be sold in 6 (yes, SIX) oz bottles, and that was considered a reasonable serving size?
You can still buy 150mL cans of soft drinks in the UK. The usual size is 330mL, but the smaller cans are widely available. I think they're sold to be used as mixers or smaller portions.
(150mL is 5 us fl oz)
That's 950mL of soda, so that's 103g of sugar. That's 22% of your RDA of energy, and 120% of the RDA of sugar (figures based on a UK Coke can, as I have that to hand). I don't know if drinking it all at once or throughout the day makes much difference (probably worse for your teeth, but I don't know about the rest).
However, banning it seems strange -- the government here has banned similar drinks from being sold by schools, but elsewhere the only government action is TV adverts encouraging a healthy lifestyle. The supermarkets label their own-brand drinks with a red high-sugar icon, but Coca Cola don't. (They label a 1L bottle as "contains four 250mL portions", and show that the 250mL portion has 30% RDA sugar). Extending the red-orange-green labelling to all drinks would seem a reasonable law -- that aids consumers to make their own decision, but doesn't prevent them from making the bad decision.
https://www.google.co.uk/search?client=opera&rls=en-GB&q=traffic+light+labelling&tbm=isch
What ? Your supermarket does not sell lemons ? Yeah, you live in a retarded society.
You've never actually set foot in the US, have you?
That was presumably an exaggeration, but there's an element of truth. I was unable to buy oranges from the shops (including a small supermarket) within walking distance of the backpacker's hostel in New Orleans -- pretty much everything in the supermarket was boxed, packed, bottled or canned.
People buy cigarettes (and alcohol) outside the UK -- Eastern Europe is the cheapest, Luxembourg too. It's legal to do so, for personal use, but it's not legal to sell them. You still pay the Polish (etc) tax, it's not duty free like it would be if they were bought outside the EU. ("Duty free" shops at EU airports have dual pricing -- one price for in-EU flights, one for people leaving the EU.)
Of course, crossing the border has a non-trival cost -- a *very* heavy smoker could pay for a trip with the tax saved, but most people just throw a few multipacks (or bottles) in at the airport on their way home from a holiday.
20 cigarettes seem to cost about £6 here. 50g of rolling tobacco is about £15 here, about £5 in Poland. (I don't smoke, but travelled there with a friend who does.)
See, as a European (and even moreso as a French), I can't stop being puzzled by US food habits, and marketing strategies like you describe, which are despicable, and worth denouncing, I agree with you on that.
What's the situation in French schools? Schools in Britain aren't allowed to sell fizzy drinks or unhealthy snacks.
I don't think we have anything after food advertisements (but I don't have a TV). The best thing to have happened is a semi-voluntary action by the main supermarkets to clearly label unhealthy food. Soon after this was introduced, many things with a "red" icon were reformulated. Obviously unhealthy stuff wasn't affected so much, but lots of hidden salt, fat and sugar has been removed (e.g. bread, yoghurt, cereal).
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-18767425 (Since then, Tesco has implemented the labelling.)
http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/Goodfood/Pages/food-labelling.aspx#Tr
I think there are proposals to force all packaged food to have these labels, but I suspect the current government won't do it. The supermarkets presumably did it to make their own-brand products appeal to health-conscious people as well as those on a tight budget.
That argument of course becomes less valid once L.A. (from TFA) has built those 1600 mi of bike lanes, supposedly with maintenance costs for special traffic lights, road markings, and damage from weather and tree roots.
Only if you also tax pedestrians for sidewalks.
Bike lanes add very little to the cost of a road -- about 1-2%. There's a huge amount of extra effort needed to make a roadway suitable to support cars and trucks that simply isn't necessary for pedestrians or bicycles.
A really good car might have an efficiency of 5.5L/100km (city). A 10km drive uses 0.55L, so that's about 70p / $1. Not a huge amount, but not negligible.
(I'm not sure how accurate that is, I suspect it's a minimum -- I don't know if the efficiency rating for city driving includes time spent idling, etc.)
My commute in London (but not central London) by bicycle is about 25 minutes, including locking the bike at work and a 2 minute walk to my building It's very reliable -- the biggest delay is if it's raining and I decide to cycle, which adds 5 minutes to find and change into and out of my waterproof trousers.
By car it takes about the same time, in the best case, and a whole lot longer about once every week or two when there's congestion. I've only ever taken public transport when I've been leaving work to go directly to the airport, I think it's about 30-40 minutes.
My preferred cycle route is pretty direct, and along very quiet roads -- I usually only halt about once or twice on the whole way, where the route crosses the preferred car route at some traffic lights. Cars have to halt at most junctions, and several sets of traffic lights, and for traffic in front. Quite often I'd see a distinctive vehicle near my home and see it again later, just ahead or just behind me.
I don't shower or change my clothes at work. A few of my colleagues do, generally they either travel a *lot* further (couple of people) or treat the cycling as a training exercise (the guy in a rowing team).
It all depends where you live. No one in London could drive for 15 minutes at 75 miles/hour to get to work!
The 106,000 deaths is only a tiny percentage (0.06%) of the 170,000,000 Americans on prescription medications (rough mental estimate of 48%), and it's inflated.
WOW!
That's incredible! Essentially, half of Americans are sick?
(I've tried and failed to find a similar statistic for another country.)
What a sylly name. How is that even pronounced?
It's Welsh. An Anglicised form would probably be "Glin", rhyming with "tin".
People always voice their concern when they're against something but rarely express their opinion if they're for it. This makes it unfair comparison. Just saying..
I don't think that's true. The article says that on assisted death, there were many replies on both sides.
I wrote to my MP, via a link the Open Rights Group (which I'm a member of) sent. I was pleased with the reply -- my MP agreed with me, gave some additional points that I'd not made, and asked me to forward any reply I received to him.
(At least, I think I did. There have been a few similar bills, and I've not necessarily kept up with which one is which.)
So when you bug Boeing jets and put backdoors into Microsoft Windows, it's all well and good and DEFENDING GLORIOUS FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY because it's your side doing it?
At least call it American hypocrisy ...
Care to explain how does the UN come into this? This is between the USA and the EU.
My apologies, I read the article but had already assumed it was another item from the ITU meeting.
There were two articles earlier today mentioning the ITU:
http://politics.slashdot.org/story/12/10/10/1855223/is-mobile-broadband-a-luxury-or-a-human-right
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/12/10/10/1330218/following-huawei-report-us-rejects-un-telecom-proposals
Time for the anti UN comments, as usual around here. But how can you defend the USA on this case?
(My .uk domain's public whois looks like this:
Registrant:
[My real name]
Registrant type:
UK Individual
Registrant's address:
The registrant is a non-trading individual who has opted to have their
address omitted from the WHOIS service.
And that's the way I like it!)
Wrong. Brazil is one of the largest economies in the world, and a regional power in South America, with influence over all our neighboring countries. But we don't have enemies. Why? Because we mostly keep to ourselves. Our relationship with other countries is one of selling and purchasing, not one of throwing military might around.
That can get difficult -- what do you do when one of your trading partner countries refuses to trade with you, because you refuse to be unfriendly to a country they don't like?
(The potential is there for Brazil regarding the Falkland Isles.)