|
LemonDrizzle posted:Well, I would say that at least in the technical subjects an undergraduate master's is the standard route into a PhD, and they're heavily pushed as the default option for any STEM student wanting to make a career in the field they've studied. It'd certainly be better if there were more opportunities available to re-enter higher education and get support for a master's, but there is a well-established route for getting into academia that avoids all the problems you mentioned. I work in a technical subject (linguistics) which is grouped with the humanities for most administrative purposes. There are no undergraduate master's degrees. I also don't really see why we should only care about fair access to STEM, as you seem to be implying? OvineYeast fucked around with this message at 20:54 on Nov 6, 2015 |
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 20:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 20:25 |
|
|
Taear posted:The sheer amount of people who get onto websites by typing "google" into their search bar - not their address bar - and then googling "Facebook.com" is staggering. You'd have a point if a content filter wasn't a literal yes/no option on most ISP's now when you connect a device to it. OwlFancier posted:What on earth was he expecting to happen Who knows? Who cares? Lets just be glad it was recorded.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 20:47
|
|
|
OvineYeast posted:I work in a technical subject (linguistics) which is grouped with the humanities for most administrative purposes. There are no undergraduate master's degrees. I also don't really see why we should only care about fair access to STEM? L0k m8 we dont need no lipsticks 2 tel us how 2 rite cos we alredy no yeh so fuk ur $$£ lol,
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 20:49
|
|
|
The guy's obviously an idiot, but how does that justify using a taser? He didn't even raise his voice, let alone pose any kind of threat to anyone around him.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 20:49
|
|
|
Scikar posted:The guy's obviously an idiot, but how does that justify using a taser? He didn't even raise his voice, let alone pose any kind of threat to anyone around him. He was trying to go through with a video camera even when told not to repeatedly. I'm disappointed he didn't get a second hit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 20:50
|
|
|
Scikar posted:The guy's obviously an idiot, but how does that justify using a taser? He didn't even raise his voice, let alone pose any kind of threat to anyone around him. I generally find that trying to push past guards in a courthouse while telling them the law doesn't apply to you is kind of a good way to get nicked. And also a taser is probably safer in some ways than trying to wrestle people, it induces muscular shock so you can't do yourself a mischief trying to resist. The main problem with them is people keep using them just to torture people and sometimes they can gently caress people up if they have a heart condition, but so can trying to physically restrain people so you're kind of hosed either way. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 20:57 on Nov 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 20:50
|
|
|
Scikar posted:The guy's obviously an idiot, but how does that justify using a taser? He didn't even raise his voice, let alone pose any kind of threat to anyone around him. Kept trying to push through to a secure area. Wouldn't back away from the armed guard when instructed to do so. Being an arsehole. I don't like excessive use of tasers as a form of compliance, but when it happens to people like him, well.....
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 20:50
|
|
|
Also you could be forgiven for thinking he was seriously insane given from what he was saying.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 20:51
|
|
|
Someone said to a soverign citizen once that if the laws of the land don't apply to him, the law that says its illegal to murder him wouldn't apply either. That shut them up.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 20:54
|
|
|
Ah but you see under admiralty law it is still illegal to murder my person, but under admiralty law my legal entity has the right to enter the sluuuuuurgh *twitch*
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 21:08
|
|
|
In unrelated news a study has shown that religious kids are meaner than secular kids. I guess it makes sense that they're told all the time about God judging you and how everything fits into the great scheme of god - they're bound to internalise that somewhat.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 21:16
|
|
|
Looks like it wasn't politics http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/06/mounting-suspicions-sinai-plane-crash-russian-response
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 21:16
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:What on earth was he expecting to happen I have no idea. I have never understood SCs and the like. If things work as they proclaim, invoking a few magic words clearly won't change anything, because the entire legal system (backed by considerable force of arms) is in on it. If the Sovereign Citizen worldview was 100% accurate and a true and honest reading of the law, it would still be far loving wiser to shut your mouth when you're actually in court.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 21:23
|
|
|
serious gaylord posted:Someone said to a soverign citizen once that if the laws of the land don't apply to him, the law that says its illegal to murder him wouldn't apply either. That shut them up. Not realising that a large, powerful authority can simply force compliance on you regardless of your rules lawyering is a necessary part of being a sovereign citizen in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 21:24
|
|
|
Jippa posted:Looks like it wasn't politics A correct assessment can still be made prematurely for political reasons. Really the surprising thing is that a Russian airline made a true statement about the condition and maintanence of its aircraft being fine.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 21:25
|
|
|
Doctor_Fruitbat posted:Not realising that a large, powerful authority can simply force compliance on you regardless of your rules lawyering is a necessary part of being a sovereign citizen in the first place. It's like they never played DnD or something. Arguing with the DM only works if they like you.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 21:27
|
|
|
Scikar posted:The guy's obviously an idiot, but how does that justify using a taser? He didn't even raise his voice, let alone pose any kind of threat to anyone around him. America.avi
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 21:33
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:He was trying to go through with a video camera even when told not to repeatedly. I'm disappointed he didn't get a second hit. this sounds somewhat fascistic mr flaps
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 21:34
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:this sounds somewhat fascistic mr flaps Then pass me my jackboots because i'd like to see that silly fucker get tazed again and again and again.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 21:39
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:Then pass me my jackboots because i'd like to see that silly fucker get tazed again and again and again. this might suit your needs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2zVuHMT__c
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 21:41
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I generally find that trying to push past guards in a courthouse while telling them the law doesn't apply to you is kind of a good way to get nicked. It also seems a pretty good demonstration of how a taser should be used. They zap him, he drops, and then they stop zapping him. He's talking fine and clambering to his feet within seconds. Also P. Barnes is a hilarious human being "God's not concerned with cameras, I am"
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 21:47
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 21:50
|
|
|
This Beeb article has a fair amount of detail about these specific instances of filibustering in parliament, as well as some details of the rules involved. Long story short: There are only no time limits on Friday and a vote can be forced with the support of 100 MPs. Although that might have worked for the cancer bill, the opponents apparently spoke at great length about an earlier bill, such that there wasn't time left to have a proper debate on the main bill - it is implied that the speaker didn't call for a vote because it hadn't been subjected to proper scrutiny.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 21:57
|
|
|
Someone find me a picture of some Asian child slave building the Something Awful servers tia also who bought this 
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 22:02
|
|
|
Sovereign Citizens waffle on at length, but have never done so to block a cancer bill or giving carers free hospital parking. They've killed cops for allegedly infringing their rights, but not disabled people for not being able to work. They're still a long way behind Tories on the way to the wall, and can even have a gold fringe on their wall if they want.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 22:11
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:this sounds somewhat fascistic mr flaps Completely off topic, but I read that as The Fantastic Mr Flaps. A weird book, I imagine. Prince John posted:Long story short: There are only no time limits on Friday The gently caress is with this country.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 22:22
|
|
|
Prince John posted:This Beeb article has a fair amount of detail about these specific instances of filibustering in parliament, as well as some details of the rules involved. They did the same thing last week. Strategically placed waffling throughout the day to push everything back and back.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 22:26
|
|
|
Just watched yesterday's QT on iPlayer and thought Victoria Coren was super good at taking Chuka on over his bullshit. I met her a couple of times playing poker and she's def a really nice genuine person. Also exhibits good judgement in husbands. Give her a peerage imo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 22:35
|
|
|
serious gaylord posted:They did the same thing last week. Strategically placed waffling throughout the day to push everything back and back. It's just hideous that this is allowed. Can't the speaker stop them? Isn't that the speaker's job?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 22:37
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:It's just hideous that this is allowed. Can't the speaker stop them? Isn't that the speaker's job? Depends, kind of hard to pick at every tory MP without appearing partisan.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 22:39
|
|
|
serious gaylord posted:They did the same thing last week. Strategically placed waffling throughout the day to push everything back and back. Do they really have such busy schedules that this means the bill is now effectively shelved indefinitely though? Because that seems to be the implication. If I was the speaker I'd be giving them all detention so they can properly debate the bill and vote on their own time. I'm pretty sure loads of MPs don't turn up or are asleep a lot of the time. Can't they just say 'if you don't get all the intended business done in normal hours you can stay late' I mean if I spent half an hour waffling in work instead of writing a report I don't just get to never bother doing it, I do my loving job and get it written by the deadline I'm given.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 22:44
|
|
|
Robot Mil posted:Do they really have such busy schedules that this means the bill is now effectively shelved indefinitely though? Because that seems to be the implication. If I was the speaker I'd be giving them all detention so they can properly debate the bill and vote on their own time. I'm pretty sure loads of MPs don't turn up or are asleep a lot of the time. Can't they just say 'if you don't get all the intended business done in normal hours you can stay late' While you may be forgiven for believing that MPs are literally children based on their behavior, who's going to tell them what they can and can't do as a collective body? They literally make the law. The only person who could theoretically tell them what to do is the queen, which would be funny, but possibly constitutionally troublesome.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 22:47
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Depends, kind of hard to pick at every tory MP without appearing partisan. He should be stopping anyone who tries to filibuster.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 22:49
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:While you may be forgiven for believing that MPs are literally children based on their behavior, who's going to tell them what they can and can't do as a collective body? Maybe that's the way forward. Given most of the British public have some weird monarchy fetish, secretly replace the queen with a left-wing infiltrator, get her to block a Tory bill, then watch the Tories lose the next election when they dare to oppose her. Bit troubling for the future under Queen Stalin II though I guess.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 22:50
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:While you may be forgiven for believing that MPs are literally children based on their behavior, who's going to tell them what they can and can't do as a collective body? I'm imagining Liz coming through the door at quarter to 5 like a Headteacher into a room full of rowdy students and a sobbing substitute and how they all suddenly stop loving around and sit down quietly just to be told they're here until they finish their work, to which they reply with a really quiet 'Yes miss'.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 22:50
|
|
|
The Speaker speaks for the Queen surely, that's what Speaker means. *He* can tell them what to do.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 22:54
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:It's just hideous that this is allowed. Can't the speaker stop them? Isn't that the speaker's job? The article I linked described a possé of MPs who viewed it as their job to torpedo these bills, as they view them as being emotionally driven rather than high quality legislation. So, for example, the MP who filibustered the "free parking for carers" bill last week, did it because: (i) it would introduce a new layer of NHS bureaucracy administering it, to see whether people without a parking ticket were actually qualifying carers (ii) it would potentially require some way for the NHS to access the benefits database (it was provided to people claiming Carers' Allowance) - a new IT system? (iii) there are plenty of other deserving cases for free hospital parking, so he thought it was arbitrary that only this one group got it (iv) It didn't actually benefit all carers (v) it was estimated to cost the NHS several million pounds to administer and (vi) Hospitals can already choose to exempt carers should they wish under existing legislation. None of that goes into the articles complaining about the filibuster (and it left a bad taste in my mouth too), but I think the NHS has better things to spend a few million quid on than allowing not all carers to park freely. A far better strategy would be to emulate Scotland and Wales and allow free hospital parking funded by general taxation, thereby eliminating the bureaucracy. Edit: Some quotes from the man himself: quote:Conservative MP Mr Davies said he was surprise at the criticism of his stance by Carers' Resource. quote:After he [Eric Forth] died I vowed I would do the same kind of work,” he said in December. “He taught me that lots of these [bills] have all got a worthy sentiment behind them but you can’t pass legislation on the whim of a worthy sentiment because it affects people’s lives and livelihoods. I agree with him. It is a very unsatisfactory way to pass legislation.” Prince John fucked around with this message at 23:01 on Nov 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 22:57
|
|
|
Dabir posted:The Speaker speaks for the Queen surely, that's what Speaker means. *He* can tell them what to do. The position of speaker is supposed to keep order in the house but he's also sort of required to abide by the conventions or else they can unelect him, I think. Whereas unelecting the queen would be an interesting prospect because she is literally the founding stone of the British Government, all authority stems from the monarch. Without the monarch, Parliament rules only by virtue of inertia. Which is entirely different to ruling because the queen says you can, I'm certain. thespaceinvader posted:It's not his fault if only the tories are being dicks about it. It's not his fault but he's already been the target of a plan to oust him on grounds of him not being nice to the tory party, so he may not want to try giving them an even better excuse to replace him with someone even more favorable to them. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 23:02 on Nov 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 23:00
|
|
|
Prince John posted:A far better strategy would be to emulate Scotland and Wales and allow free hospital parking funded by general taxation, thereby eliminating the bureaucracy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 23:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 20:25 |
|
|
Coohoolin posted:responsible fun I think this is a stately horrible phrase. Plus, your not Oor Wullie.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 23:16
|
|