polymatter

and its not exactly trivial to renounce US citizenship either. They'll still come after you if they believe you're just tax dodging.

'passionate' in this context means 'able to get to work on time is a reasonably presentable state'. It means nothing more.

As a native Brit, looks like a mistake to me.

I think its more that the application of professional makeup is indicative of a prosecutor overly concerned with appearance. Its not the touch up here and there to avoid looking like an overworked zombie, its the going to the extreme to look like a hero. The suggestion is that such vanity can get in the way of facts, truth and justice. I don't agree with this perspective, but I sympathise with it.

Its very beautiful, but that's in Wales.

If you want people with power to read your summary, 6 pages is about the maximum you can make it. Note the use of nice simple traffic light colors too.

I am biased against the Ukrainian government, but this entire thing reads as a propaganda piece so much I can't trust a single 'fact'. It uses lots of appeals to emotion with vague, subjective terms. To anyone biased to support the government, its not exactly persuasive is it?

If you want to punish them, torture them. That is what torture is actually good at.

don't think of it as being a generalist. think of it more like multiple specialisms.

A history graduate learns how to analyze disparate sources of variable quality for a specific purpose and argue a conclusion. They should be masters of long form report, able to select relevant information from a huge library and be able to defend a position cogently. I think its some of the most transferable skills there is.

I'm not sure my comp sci degree was particularly useful. The vast majority of what I learnt turns out in retrospect to be "industry focused" aka completely obsolete now.

Thanks for sharing! That site is brilliant.

"it seems they found a solution to some of the problems faced by MOOCs ... "

So its exactly the same as a traditional distance course then?

In what way does this solve any of the problems of MOOCs? (And I question whether MOOCs should even look at drop-out rates as a failure, but thats another rant)

Its not "massive" by any stretches of the imagination. It just happens to be an online course. I welcome the age of online degrees and I hope the trend continues and that they can scale it to become 'massive' in the future without damaging the prestige of the degree. But they have a way to go yet.

The original site is at (http://www.dracos.co.uk/odeon/) where you can read about Accessible Odeon and how it was shut down.

The BBC can not show ads to the UK public. This is part of the BBC charter and is there to ensure the BBC remains impartial. The idea is that since the BBC is funded by the licence fee (the TV tax), it is free of commercial concerns. This means that the BBC doesn't have to focus on chasing viewing numbers with lowest common denominator programming and so it can produce quality programming. Also the BBC is never beholden to any large investor or customer, so can be trusted as a news source.

BBC Worldwide is a subsidiary company of the BBC. It makes money from selling broadcasting rights, ads to other countries. This is fine because the UK public never sees those ads. Unfortunately, not being allowed to show ads to the UK public means they block access to all BBC Worldwide programs from within the UK. Some of those programs are entire new series eg (http://www.bbcamerica.com/orphan-black/) which the UK public has no right to be able to view.

If you attempt to access the totally free BBC Worldwide content within the UK you are presented the following:

"We're sorry but this site is not accessible from the UK as it is part of our international service and is not funded by the license fee. It is run commercially by BBC Worldwide, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the BBC, the profits made from it go back to BBC programme-makers to help fund great new BBC programmes. You can find out more about BBC Worldwide and its digital activities at www.bbcworldwide.com."

Its totally stupid. Everyone knows its stupid. But since almost everyone agrees the BBC is (surprisingly) good on the whole, any change to it is resisted on impulse.

The Saudi Arabian government didn't (as far as I know) sponsor or train the 9/11 hijackers. I also don't see how they were really furthering Saudi interests either.

In this case, I agree they are justified. Though if it really was a serious terrorist investigation, and they suspected plans for other attacks, I would hope that they could crack the password if they wanted to. My concern is the underlying precedent. What does it mean for me and you?

And it seems to mean that any password can now be presumed to be incriminating evidence. What happens if my company gets investigated for some financial fraud and they find a forgotten password protected usb stick in the back of a drawer. Now the prosecutors can threaten me with jail time unless I prove that I do not know the password to that usb stick. How can I begin to mount a defence to that? That presumption of guilty until proven innocent is whats wrong here.

I think its perfectly reasonable for someone to later remember a password. Its happened to me a lot. I realise they probably had some reasonable suspicion into him previously, but on the surface it reads like they are just throwing the book at him rather than legitimately investigating terrorists.

Perhaps GCHQ had cracked it, got any info they could (in this case, nothing terrorist related), and then returned it feigning they couldn't crack it. That's what I'd do.

How can you recommend it as the best development book if you've never read it?

I think what almosnow is trying to say is, "banks only want to lend money to people who can prove they don't need it".

so on the basis that there exists victim testimonials that seem implausible, you are going to deny that the holocaust occurred and ignore any other evidence to the contrary?

I am trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here, but there is overwhelming evidence for the Japanese use of sex slaves in their army. Its not all based on victim testimony.

> the distinction of "good guys" and "bad guys" is meaningless

I agree that if you assume 'good guy' is an absolute, and any deviation from that one true path is 'bad guy', then everyone is a 'bad guy'. Then the terms becomes meaningless. But I consider these relative terms. For all its faults, the US is still closer to the 'good guy' than 'bad guy' side of the spectrum in most areas. North Korea is closer to the 'bad guy' than the 'good guy' side.

FWIW I agree with buckbova and don't think its overboard in the slightest to ask for personal calls to be made out of the office. Nor do I think it unreasonable for this to be part of the company culture. It happens to be part of how we work in the startup I work at (except the desk phone on silent thing) and I'm not aware of any problems this has caused. So I find your pronouncement that its not "reasonable" to be a bit presumptuous.

If you are advertising to decision makers in a restaurant, there are probably much more effective ways of reaching them than mass TV ads.

Why would Apple do this? What possible reason could they have for selling their own product short?

"If you want to make basic income a political possibility, you need data"

I think you overestimate the importance of data to most people. It might swing some intellectuals, but generally people are very good at finding reasons to discount data they don't agree with.

Data would be nice so we can evaluate if a basic income is a good idea or not. But is largely irrelevant to actually making it a political possibility.

I am trying to understand what its "newness" has to do with anything. Most crimes are not new, but we still prosecute. It sounds to me like you are suggesting that criminal justice is (or should be) based on how it would look as a CSI episode. (Sorry, simple blackmail is too bland a plot we can't prosecute, the audience will just sleep through it. Make it more fresh, have a twist at the end, something 'new').

Did you simply adapt to circumstances, or were you previously blessed with such high ignoring skills?

Why do you need to adjust the beam? Once it is right, its right.

Well, I expect the IRS would want to make sure you were properly declaring that and paying the relevant taxes on it. No idea how it happens in practice, but given the interests of the parties involved, I'm pretty sure it does.