jaywalker

No it wouldn't be. The serial cat killer needs to be found and fast. How, Otta, are you measuring the distress to owners over this? I would prefer someone broke into my home to take my mobile, took drugs, shoplifted (all crimes I have witnessed or in the first case experienced directly) etc etc WAY more than they killed my cat. The cat, probably, would think itself the target of natural predation and give a resigned shrug. It is my feelings that count (and my taxes).

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rather than enter into a philosophical discussion > of what constitutes proof, a peer-reviewed > scientific paper will do me, I'm a simple man. but they will (and must) conflict.

edhistory Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Precis: > > Everything jaywalker posts is rubbish. please amplify

Lordship 516 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > jaywalker Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Erat vetus in Angliam post brexit: nostra > carior > > ulla spes does panis. Donec et mente confusa > est > > spes. > > nunc se ..... duas tantum res anxius optat, > panem et circenses. Fuit anno pagani MMXVI

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Have you a link to said scientific proof please, How could there be such a link? In the post-truth world anything goes. I can say 'there is proof that' with no references to authority because authority (in the sense here of specialised fallible knowledge) itself has been deemed untrustworthy. Peddlers of such 'certainty' cannot live with this. The fallibility of knowledge (of all knowledge) is denied by the word 'proof' - thus justifying the post-truth certainty. The word proof is itself the give-away in the error of pop's post. Proof is a potential property derivable from deductive systems (such as mathematics) that cannot be sustained as a totality for ANY system either in completeness or consistency (G?del). It has nothing to do with the fallible empirically oriented messy organisational languages of science - these are always open to being overthrown BECAUSE they are science (open to new readings of the empirical) rather than post-truth verbiage in which 'facts' are 'known' (see for example Mary Hesse, but really any philosopher of science currently recognised in the academy as a philosopher).

What Artful said. For scholarly, sober and terrifying analysis see the very recent book by Gary Marx: Windows into the Soul

Erat vetus in Angliam post brexit: nostra carior ulla spes does panis. Donec et mente confusa est spes.

secrete

marsupial

quia amor caritatis Dulwich orientem feliciter nihil vidi igni (google not Horace)

my guess is that jaywalking is becoming more dangerous because pedestrians are so used to being molly-coddled. This is probably irreversible: no doubt soon it will be illegal as in some US states. A pity, but once you start ... Same as with cycling: as a grad. student I used to cycle round Hyde Park corner every morning to go to uni - no traffic lights, just continuous 3 lane traffic flow. And it felt reasonably safe (really) as motorists and cyclists had a kind of mutual respect. Then the controls started, building a sense of entitlement on both sides ... In ED there are two things that scare me at the moment. On the way back from Nunhead last Sunday I had a white BMW 4x4 tail-gaiting and hooting me all the way to overtaking me just before goose green (much good it did him, not). The 20mph limit of course. Very dangerous limit in my view. And the evidence from some areas (in so far as one has any evidence one can trust) is that accidents do indeed increase in such zones. Of course the outcome may be less severe. And driving to Nunhead last month I went round the corner before the fishmonger and there were two 12 year olds doing wheelies on the wrong side of the road in the afternoon dark - presumably assuming cars would stop for them given only doing the limit ...

I drove to the great Southwark (well actually outsourced) recycling Cathedral off the Old Kent Road today for my fortnightly visit and feeling of being at one with nature. I do this because the property I inhabit with others would need several blue bins otherwise and they are such an eyesore. But my faith was once again put to the test. What I thought was going to be a leaflet full of Christmas cheer turned out to be yet another exercise in Southwark cost cutting. In the future if you want to bring a van you have to book in advance. And only four trips per year. Just as I was thinking of getting rid of my car and hiring the on-street zip vehicle for an hour - but it is a van... Last year it was the introduction of compulsory ID before you could enter, now this. Now I fully understand the gradgrindish rationale. Wicked people from outside the borough were freeloading on our Centre! The new rules suggest that even more wicked people from within the borough are using their home address to do some COMMERCIAL clearing without paying. But I do find it all so very depressing. The Cathedral is nowhere near operating at full capacity, and it achieves a 100% recycling rate. I can only assume that recycling is not cost effective, so the council is paying a great subsidy to the firm responsible for it to happen at all. But if so, then why are we recycling? There could only be an argument that the negative externalities from not recycling would be greater than the subsidy. But this creates its own distortion: those benefiting from the reduction in pollution (global warming etc) are NOT the same people as those paying the subsidy. In fact, these restrictions make street dumping of rubbish more likely. This seems to me an obvious case for nationalisation. These plants should be available free for all, the subsidy paid (and justified) by central government.

I am interested (however naively) in lobbying for a Victoria line extension. How does one start the process (I used to live in Kennington, and Battersea quite recently managed to get a Northern line tributary under my house; so it is not impossible?

From the BBC website today "Of course, inflation is still at historically low levels - and no one is predicting a 1970s-style spike" I predict that this is wrong (as in, no one is predicting we will Brexit, no one seriously thinks Trump will win and other nonsense read this year) The build-up to inflation is uncannily similar to the circumstances of the early 1970s - oil prices, lagged effect of monetary easing, fall in the pound, unsustainable government debt, a government that will attempt to spend their way to re-election ...

dynamite (well prize givers have to get their money from somewhere)

That none of these will happen: people (and my neighbour) suddenly realise that Bach had more to say than One Direction (or whoever, it is sometimes difficult to tell) those who buy the Daily Mail join the enlightenment the police accept that they are responsible for deaths in custody the prison service recognise that prisons manufacture criminality and call a strike to stop it central government accepts that the care of elderly people is their responsibility teachers have an epiphany: that they are part of the problem the 'war on drugs' is seen to be the stupidity it is politicians admit that surveillance is not good just because 'if you are doing nothing wrong then you have nothing to fear'

illusion

officer (Etonian of course)

I am increasingly finding this with all sorts of registrations. Perhaps they think it is a good check that you mean your booking. But dob is a key to many portals - including the most sensitive sites (e.g. banking) as part of their security. So it is certainly not being given out to restaurants. But you should tell them that you object. Or, since they won't be checking, you could test your hypothesis with a rather early date. I suggest the early 1920s.

sorry

Alexa

Broadway

grandmother

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I say don't stand on > Lambeth Brige North side roundabout as there is > nothing happening. Go and do something useful and > sort out the traffic on the South Side. And they > look at me all confused. er, you do know this is one of the most security sensitive places in the whole of the UK? Or did you never watch Spooks?

dry