If it wasn't for carbon-14, I wouldn't date at all
Evolution doesn’t really tell you that when you use a script to generate your signature you need to terminate the lines with a ‘<br/>’, otherwise it pretends that there hasn’t been one.
All to do with html mail composition. The only way I accidentally found this out was because of it’s gconf entry containing this gem:
<?xml version="1.0"?> <signature name="default" uid="XXX@XXX" auto="false" format="text/html"> <filename script="true">sig.work</filename> </signature>
Sir Ken Macdonald — the UK’s DPP (director of public prosecutions – basically makes the call as to whether a case goes to trial or not) has spoken out against the “war on terror”:
He said: “London is not a battlefield. Those innocents who were murdered on July 7 2005 were not victims of war. And the men who killed them were not, as in their vanity they claimed on their ludicrous videos, ‘soldiers’. They were deluded, narcissistic inadequates. They were criminals. They were fantasists. We need to be very clear about this. On the streets of London, there is no such thing as a ‘war on terror’, just as there can be no such thing as a ‘war on drugs’.
“The fight against terrorism on the streets of Britain is not a war. It is the prevention of crime, the enforcement of our laws and the winning of justice for those damaged by their infringement.”
Sir Ken, head of the Crown Prosecution Service, told members of the Criminal Bar Association it should be an article of faith that crimes of terrorism are dealt with by criminal justice and that a “culture of legislative restraint in the area of terrorist crime is central to the existence of an efficient and human rights compatible process”.
He said: “We wouldn’t get far in promoting a civilising culture of respect for rights amongst and between citizens if we set about undermining fair trials in the simple pursuit of greater numbers of inevitably less safe convictions. On the contrary, it is obvious that the process of winning convictions ought to be in keeping with a consensual rule of law and not detached from it. Otherwise we sacrifice fundamental values critical to the maintenance of the rule of law – upon which everything else depends.”
It’s great to see a civil servant complaining about the state of play of the government.
Makes a huge difference on my last entry 🙂
Peace out!
I’ve been reading ‘The God Delusion‘, by Signor Dawkins. Prior to reading this book, I’ve only read articles and summaries of his work. This is much more of a full digestion of his work.
To be honest, and this is based on some terrible reading in my youth, I’m a monist, with slightly dualistic tendencies based on being able to use some mechanical system to replace/reproduce someone’s mind. Let’s be honest about this; I think it’s only a matter of time before we create a mechanical system that can replicate actual people. The why question is, of course, is this the same person?
If you recreate the exact mind of another person how can anyone determine after the fact that one is different from the other; in fact as a recreated being how do you know that one is more than the other. Consider if you replaced someone’s brain one neuron after another is there any difference?
Honestly, this isn’t a god question, it’s not about god, it’s more of the nature of existence. Whee, I can back myself up, what does this mean for my mind in the future?
Pants, I’ve just put into words something that has been sitting on my mind for a long time.
Sorry kids, I don’t believe in a god.
Granted it’s a bank holiday weekend here in sunny old Ireland, so the Gardaí are out in force trying to catch speeders and make sure people aren’t driving while drunk. I’ve been stopped before, and it was at most a check of the tax and insurance on the car but this time it was breathing into the breath-alcohol meter. First time I’ve ever done it, and as they bag everyone on the road, I wasn’t concerned that they thought I was driving erratically or anything like that. I would have been stunned if it had given any result other than zero, but even so I was a tad nervous. There is a feeling that you are under a spotlight (it was a big chunky torch).
Noew I’m back at the house and enjoying a relaxing drink before heading for bed as after all, I need something to get the smallest twinges of adrenalin out of my system.
I think fintan says it best when he says ‘Hmmm, which part of stock market floatation did you not grasp Jack?. Welcome to the world of private business.
Aer Lingus… a division of Ryanair has a nice ring to it.
Stupid Pete, read the law, not your thoughts before commenting.
Well,
Sad, tired and still stuffed for a direction.
Lovely weather we’re having for the golf.
It’s a concept from the old times. If you can’t afford your bills you are thrown in prison until they can be paid by hard labor. You essentially are made work off your debt to people/society in this way. This is a system that works in the past as people didn’t have the ability to get out of their depth in debt. As soon as you reached the edge you were thrown into prison, never to return.
The problem with such a system is that is is too draconian. You don’t allow a person to get out of debt by their own means – they are plunged into a working role that only pays minimum wage from which they are unlikely to emerge from.
The problem is the declaration of bankruptcy. You create a business that does not do well and you end up in more debt than you could ever service. A declaration of bankruptcy allows you to completely evade this obligation without much in the form of penalties. Granted you are not allowed to have a company for a period of time, but that’s the sum total of the penalty once you file a chapter 11.
Consider a mandatory prison sentence for anyone who has a debt after the final judgement on a chapter 11. I would feel that if they could convince a jury that they were capable of paying off this form of debt they should be permitted to do so – however I would not permit a lawyer into the system. They should be able to convince us on their own that they can pay the bills. Give them a period of time to be producing a reasonable return – based on the loss to the other parties.
Creditors should be allowed to clim their debts as is reasonable (as decided by a judge (maybe not the judge in the original case). But the long and short of it is that people who were owed money will not be left at odds once the business is restarted. I have personally seen murderous intent towards new companies prinipally due to the fact that the original creator is still involved and he didn’t suffer any loss due to an adverse judgement against him.
Yes, legal, but when did that ever stop the folks running the casino from suddenly finding you missing, and that you turn up later with the crap beaten out of you. Let’s be perfectly honest about this… legal is one thing, not getting caught is the real trick.
Honestly, even with deregulation, I don’t think that the use of electric or electronic mechanisms to directly alter the probability of winning at a bet is illegal.
Indirectly, I don’t know.