This lady represents British military violence to millions of black and brown people around the world. I don't understand why people, especially the British, aren't ashamed of this person.
What a dark and sad way to respond - so crimes perpetrated against people only matter if the victim is blameless?
People who think like you will support new genocides in the future. I hope, for humanity's sake, that you are out-numbered by those of good conscience.
It is not about how they behaved at that point in time of history. It is what do they about it since then about it.
Tens of thousands of artifacts never returned to the countries from which it was taken including Crown jewels like Kohi-noor, or how Meghan was treated, views on reparations, or preserving the legacy of empire[1] and still holding on to being head of state of so many countries and all the privileges they have fought to keep their way of life - A president does not withhold signing a law to negotiate special exemptions for his family (see Royal Consent abuses)
I don't think the UK is the only country that has items from conquered nations. It just has the most.
And given that the UK ended the slave trade, to whom should reparations be paid?
Megan was treated very well indeed, until she decided to turn on the British people and the Royal Family.
The Royal Family aren't forcing countries to keep them as the head of state. In fact she's been removed from a few I believe. Of course, a lot of the countries that are doing this are chasing Chinese money, and just swapping one "coloniser" for another.
I did this throughout India for 9 months. Reliable wifi access is a must and more difficult to secure than you'd think, perhaps. But by moving only every 2 or 3 months, I find there's a good balance between setting up shop, getting familiar with your environment, etc. and just getting shi* done.. YMMV
> You're wrong on several accounts, but the easiest to pick out is: The DSM is psychiatry's bible, not psychology.
Clinical psychologists rely on the authority of the DSM, as do psychiatrists. The DSM is the central authority in both fields. If you are still confused, read this:
Quote: "After a 14-year revision process and a lot of contentiousness, the latest version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) debuts May 22. What changes will affect psychologists?"
> They are two separate fields.
They both depend on the authority of psychology, the study of the mind. Would you argue that particle physics isn't physics on the ground that it isn't cosmology?
The APA recognizes 54 subfields within psychology. Will you now argue that each of them is a separate field? I ask because I've heard that one before -- I've heard it argued that, if any of them is scientific, then all of them are. But science doesn't work that way.
> Here's the psychology English wikipedia page ...
I'm very familiar with that page. In an article I once quoted its definition of psychology -- "the study of the mind, partly through the study of behavior". I compared that to Wikipedia's definition of neuroscience -- "the scientific study of the nervous system." Within hours of the appearance of my article, someone added "scientific" to the definition of psychology. If only science could be that simple.
How does this have anything to do with capitalism?
The same politicians banning people from using the only shelter they have left are the same politicians who prevent the same people from running their own businesses by raising the barrier to entry artificially. Want to sell grilled cheese sandwiches? Not in this politicians backyard (without business license and permit that is).
Part of this is the result of capitalism (for better or worse), sure, but this story is specifically about government trying to take a broom to a certain part of the population, and sweep them out.
The Bay Area's income/wealth inequality is criminally disgraceful, but "unchecked capitalism" is probably a little too vague a description of what's going on.
AFAIK this is primarily for the purposes of avoiding the court system. Things that are classified seem to be dealt with by the rubber-stamp FISA courts instead of the actual judicial system so they can avoid being challenged in the light of day.
Are you feigning ignorance here or did you actually think the original comment's repeated pejorative of 'worthless thugs' was talking about white people?
Not in San Francisco, but there are plenty of white "worthless thugs." See under: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chav. The American equivalent starts around 80 miles east of here and doesn't let up until Westchester County - I exaggerate, slightly. See under: "Winter's Bone."
Except people don't casually malign them as "thugs". "Rednecks", maybe. In the context of the original comment, there was definitely a racial component and liberal use of the word "worthless".
You can dispute whether that's racist, maybe, but being shocked at the suggestion? It quite clearly has a racial element.
The author first points out that science and engineering Ph.D.'s are disproportionately Asian, and that many return to their mother nations after education. That's true. He then points out that national success is built on the back of technology and science. Also true. But by ending with a back-patting, reassuring comparison with Japan and the claim that Americans have that truly essential quality, "entrepreneurial spirit" and innovation, and Asian nations don't, he makes a claim that reeks of hubris and will likely be quickly proved untrue. Science is the gas pedal, innovation is the fuel-- but without the pedal your full tank of gas isn't going to take your car anywhere. Confidence without substance is empty. My 2 cents
This is largely true. Bitcoin is a brilliant idea combining a several innovations that in and of themselves would be laudable. Still, it is most likely true that expecting Mr. Satoshi Nakamato to have a perfectly formed working model of a new financial system at one go is unrealistic, even with his obvious brilliance and dedication.
As a corollary to your point, other world currencies are going to be considerably more inflationary than Bitcoins the longer this experiment last. Then converting bitcoins to a national currency with a more profitable interest rate is an inevitability. bitcoins will be sucked into financial services rather than building out a viable economic platform for the currency.
That strikes at the heart of it, IMHO. The current currency distribution model is good at least in the sense that the newly "printed" currency is allocated for the most part by banks with (ostensibly) some degree of investment saavy. Here, we are asking "network operators" doing the proof-of-work algorithms to essentially act like banks and distribute bitcoins into larger circulation. That seems likely to cause problems.
First, those that get the coins first aren't "distributing" them into larger circulation. If they generate a block and get the reward, they either save the bitcoins or buy goods/services with them. This is not "distributing", but just normal trade.
Second, how else do you bring coins into the market? Be forced to buy them from the system's founder? I doubt that would catch on. Reserve a set number for each person onthe planet and give it to them when they ask for them? I don't think I could count all of the problems with that idea. Hand them out some arbitrary number of some supply in a first come first serve manner? I don't see how that would be an improvement.
The system needs people to generate blocks in order to provide the security of the system, but generating blocks has costs associated with it (hardware, electricity). Why not reward those block generators that are providing the system's security with new coins for each block they generate, at least until the number of transactions per block grow to a point that block generators can charge transaction fees?
Block generators aren't just generating blocks for the fun of it...they want bitcoins so they can spend them, which means those bitcoins will go to others, who can then further spend them, etc. Anyone can do it. GPU mining is profitable for most who wish to make the investment. There's no central authority choosing who gets to generate new blocks. Each person chooses whether they want to generate blocks or not.
If you don't want to generate blocks, but still want bitcoins, then you offer goods/services for bitcoins.
So far no one has thought of any less arbitrary way to introduce bitcoins into the network while continuing to support the security of the network at the same time.
And the term "proof-of-work" is misleading. They're generating blocks in such a way to deliberately make it difficult for someone else to attack the network by generating replacement blocks in an attempt to double-spend their bitcoins. They're not doing these calculations as an attempt to prove they're not some malicious node. Block generators do the work of creating a block, and if someone wants to double-spend their money, they have to generate that block and every single block that's been generated afterwards with at least the same total difficulty of the other blocks. This can only theoretically be accomplished if they have more processing power than the entire bitcoin network, and even then it would take a long time to do unless they had a lot more. Otherwise they just fall further and further behind as the bitcoin network block generators increase in power and the difficulty increases. Contrary to the opinions of some, these calculations are not wasteful, but are a necessary part of the system's security.
India alone had $45 trillion dollars of wealth looted from the country: https://video.vice.com/en_us/video/how-britain-stole-dollar4...
Literally millions of Indians died as a result of deliberate policies of colonization and economic enslavement by the British.
Their history in Africa is too chilling to even recount here.
In 7 decades as a figurehead and leader of her people, she never apologized for these crimes, and continued to quietly benefit from the spoils of war.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/true-story-koh-i-noor...