Re: Capital iZation...
It happens. I have more than my fair share of those moments. :)
1660 posts • joined 5 Mar 2007
It happens. I have more than my fair share of those moments. :)
Except html or xhtml markup like iframe has never been camel-cased. It is always written as iframe (or IFRAME if you want to shout about it), and in XHTML 1.0 onward, a requirement for case sensitivity of markup tags means that iFrame and iframe are different tags. Convention prior to that was for tags to be rendered in a single case for the sake of clarity.
So no, I'm sorry, but you're dead wrong. This is in fact a lot to do with Apple, or more accurately to do with people automatically emulating the Apple iThing style in situations where it has no business appearing.
One detail missing: do you have to turn on USB debugging before you can compromise the device by connecting it to a computer?
You mean who had the idea of selling their own products in their own stores?
Random example: Greggs. They make their own pastries. You can't buy them anywhere other than at a Greggs bakery. Sure it's not exactly high tech, but it's the same essential model.
The idea of product-exclusive retailers owned by the company that makes the product is about as old as the idea of, well, the entire retail industry.
You're forgetting how the EU works.
This won't be funded by the Member States through ENLETS or through another EU institution. Instead the EU will issue a series of memorandums and guidelines on the harmonisation of technological measures for law enforcement and encourage reciprocity between member states on the sharing of technology and information, as well as encouraging cross-border cooperation on such matters. Member states will start implementing their own schemes to work toward a common operating procedure and common technological solutions to the problem outlined - without a single, EU-wide budget.
Eventually the EU will start to issue regulatory and technical directives (which are not debated or voted on in national legislatures, but implemented directly into law) on key areas of the scheme in order to further harmonise and standardise the technology and procedures involved. Then it will issue a final set of directives on the broad scope of the scheme, at which point there will be a de-facto EU-wide traffic law enforcement system that is nominally run by local police forces, but is in fact almost entirely divorced from them.
And so it goes.
Meanwhile, ENLETS will get a small budget increase and continue to write memos.
I had my red pen out to correct you when I realised what you meant.
I'll just... be over there.
I do seem to like to use the word broadly a lot...
Left wing and right wing aren't the issue here. The problem is how statist they are. Obama is very definitely left-wing in his politics - even by European standards, or certainly by UK standards, his political goals are left-wing. However, he is also extremely authoritarian - something people like you interpret as "right wing", even though strong right-wingers would never, to pick a random example, countenance a nationalised healthcare system of any sort.
Bush, Bush, Clinton and Barry are all statists. Thatcher was quite heavily statist in certain areas, less-so in others - but still overall statist. So was Reagan, by and large, in deeds if not words. Almost every western leader since the end of world war 2 has been broadly statist - they have broadly favoured stronger government control over things. The difference has only been which "things" they want to control. Broadly speaking, Thatcher, Reagan and Bush - right-wingers - wanted more government control over individual "vices" and moral activity. Obama, Clinton and Blair - left-wingers - wanted more government control over economic and "social" activity.
They all wanted more control over _something_.
You can play the left-wing right-wing game all you want but it won't solve the problem as long as we keep placing people who want _more control_ in charge of us. You may believe that because they want to take more control over the things _you_ think should be controlled, that makes them "good" and the others "bad" - but they never stop at your personal limits. They always want _more_ control, and they will always take it. Always.
That's all because the United States wasn't designed to have a large, centralised federal government. Under the constitution the fed was meant to be as small as possible - ensuring the common border and national defence, and preventing individual states from taking belligerent acts against one another - and the state governments held most of the power. The system worked very well for quite a long time, but once power started to be pulled to the federal government, it began to fail.
Sounds like Symbian...
You're correct that we don't have a document called "The Constitution", but you aren't correct that we don't have a constitution. A constitution is simply that which constitutes a thing - and we have that in spades. We have the founding documents of the modern United Kingdom, the Parliamentary Bill of Rights and a few other bits and pieces of legislation and treaty, and accompanying that we have legal precedent as set by the courts over about a thousand years.
Together the form our constitution - they constitute the legal foundation of Parliament and grant its authority to govern by the will of the people.
Up until about seventy years ago it was common for people of a certain sort to discuss British constitutional issues. Knowledge of the constitution of our nation was taught widely and in rather great depth. Not any more. The lack of knowledge of our constitution allows the current governments to sweep away huge swathes of our ancient liberties without even bothering to convince us why, and people aren't able to properly protest because they've accepted the idea that we have no constitutional body of law defining the limits of Parliament's power, and outlining the source of that power.
On top of that: courts can and do overturn legislation all the time. Our legal system rests on the assumption that the courts have the authority to overturn legislation that is unjust, or goes against the rights of the people, or when a precedent exists to contradict the legislation in place. The courts used to limit the power of the legislature rather nicely by this mechanism.
Where do you think the Americans got the idea in the first place?
Engage your critical thinking for a moment.
First: would they release an image with such a fundamental mistake if they were faking it?
second: the LEM had this great big firework strapped to the bottom; it blew away a lot of the regolith and revealed the darker material beneath as it touched down.
Even if you're joking about this: shut up! I am sick to death with people coming up with all this conspiracy bullshit about the moon landings. it's as if you can't bring yourself to accept that we as a species are capable of achieving anything of note.
A bin-lid over a crater isn't a missile shield.
Could be a christmas pudding. Plenty of proof in one of those.
True. Should be "received several electric shocks" as electrocution is what happens when you die from a shock.
Speaking as one who has had qiite a few shocks in my career, they're not all that much fun even when you don't get electrocuted.
Perhaps he's been trying to install it on a dead badger?
Optimus I haven't used, but a quick investigation reveals that it has issues with particular fairly uncommon hardware configurations.
The rest, I have. Printers work fine, sound works fine, battery life is the edge case due to a pile of "undocumented features" and "optimisations" laptop manufacturers build into their power management systems - without providing references or drivers for linux.
So edge case, lie, lie, edge case.
Oh cram it up your arse, AC. Everything you've just stated is edge-case at best, or a complete and utter lie at worst.
Notice I made no comment on the "goodness" of the pledge; just that the perception of its political alignment has changed.
Want to know a funny thing?
The pledge of allegiance, veneration of the flag and "the republic" as unitary entity all date from the end of the 19th century and were originally introduced by christian socialists, who wanted to break the bond between the states and their citizens in order to craft the perception of the USA as a unitary nation. At the time, US citizens identified themselves by their state, the state government was their primary means of representation, and the federal government was still a remote thing with little impact on their lives.
It's amusing that what was once a very left-wing project is now taken as a very right-wing ideal.
This before or after they hatched the nuke?
I think you may need to think for a moment before describing Tony as "dumb", chum. He wrote the article. The headline and strap are most likely written by a subeditor, likely some malnourished intern locked in a basement without any natural light.
Besides, ad hominem is hardly an effective argument technique.
"your argument is stupid"
One of these is a valid criticism. The other is just rude.
The original spelling was Cnut.
You figure it out. :)
Of course it's utter bollocks. I've seen this same anon on any article about linux, either posting obnoxious twattery claiming that linux has some number of orders of magnitude more security holes than windows (which is apparently so secure that the NSA cries its collective self to sleep at night worrying about to crack it) or just claiming flat out that linux is insecure because... well they never actually say why.
And it is always the same anon. You can tell by the writing style and the copy-pasting of bullshit statistics.
No, the law works on the basis that a criminal conviction must be evidenced _beyond reasonable doubt_. You are talking about suspicion: your fellow with a balaclava might be arrested for suspicion of intent to commit burglary, but unless they can prove that beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law then he gets away scot free.
Was he seen in the commission of a crime? Did he confess intent to commit a crime? Without that all they have is circumstantial evidence and suspicion, and frankly that doesn't amount to much.
With this lass, they suspect she had them turned on. Can they prove it? If they can prove beyond doubt she was distracted then that's one thing, but if there is ANY doubt at all, if she can demonstrate that the glasses were turned off or even demonstrate that the officers in question couldn't tell if they were turned on, then she wins. A criminal sentence would be overturned on appeal faster than you can say "unsafe conviction".
You're so adorable.
You mean rifles, surely? An automatic rifle and a "machine gun" are very different classes of weapon. The infantry carry rifles (M16A1 for the US, LA85 SA80 for the UK). There might be the odd shotgun floating around, and the odd 50cal if they want to make a real mess, but the majority will be carrying rifles and enough ammo to deal with most situations.
What they won't be carrying is a bloody heavy lump of metal designed to make people feel manly.
And all this talk about the military rebuilding their weapons with CNC machines? Please. They would order a half-million custom units, not buy stock and rebuild it. Nor would they order a pistol that didn't use 9mm NATO.
And the British Army don't fly jets. That's the RAF's job, and they have the sense to order them with the right engines to begin with.
I'm starting to think you don't actually know what you're talking about.
The universe is also (in one model) currently thought to be the surface of a four-dimensional sphere, which would mean there's technically no middle and no edge to it in three dimensions. It might also be the surface of a four-dimensional torus. I'm not sure what difference that makes...
A "regional assembly" that would have added nothing except another layer of bureaucracy, justified the removal of yet more power from the local councils, and been funded entirely from whitehall, thus making it entirely beholden to the national government anyway. Disenfranchising the people and stealing more power to the centre of the state does not make a more independent or representative government.
He's using Debian from which, I assume you're aware, Ubuntu is derived and from which it inherits apt. The mere fact that apt is used does not signify that he's using ubuntu - which is not even supported on the pi, nor is any build available from canonical.
Hot air? That's no good. Once all the excitement is done with and the politico has gone home the tyre will collapse faster than politician's promise in the face of cold reality.
I always expect mine to blow up - and I'm never disappointed!
The one with Jeb Kerman sewn into the collar please...
I've sung the praises of the asus transformer range before now. Bloody marvelous idea.
Much as I would want to support a study that pushes back against the whole "games are evil! think of the children!" mantra, there are two words in this article that destroy the validity of the whole affair.
A data dredge, in other words. Pile a bunch of studies into a pot and then slice it up with bullshit statistics and ludicrous probability thresholds until you get the result you want.
If the rest of your network is GigE then you will be fine using this as an endpoint for media viewing. My raspberry pi is only 10/100 and it can stream very heavy full HD movies just fine.
Rent, utilities, tax, promotional events, public relations, office supplies, IT support... the list can be quite impressive and the costs mount up very fast. It takes more than just salaries to run an organisation.
You might have a point, if not for the fact that fanboyism extends to things that are often free of any significant cost.
Vi vs Emacs, for instance.
Or Everton vs Liverpool (or United vs City)
Salad cream vs Mayonnaise...
The list goes on and on. It's not the cost that drives it.
In fact yes, an 80s Fiat is more resilient than a modern lorry, in the same way that I could leave an old mini mayfair sat out on the street for a year without moving it and be able to drive away without issue, yet I couldn't leave my 2003 ford focus out for a year without having to spend a fortune having it repaired. Never mind the diesel in the lorry's tank turning to sticky sludge or the engine seizing up from lack of use, the ECU will be knackered, the electrics will be shot and the tyres will be ruined from sitting so long.
Those trucks you mentioned that the army keeps? They maintain them. They regularly turn over the engines, roll the wheels and clean the bodies, and air out the various bits where stale moisture will trap and corrode things. They change the oil, occasionally pump and replace the fuel, replace the wheels and test the electrics to be sure they're in working condition. They don't just leave them sat out in a field without touching them.
That aside, your fiat was built to very crude tolerances. Modern vehicles aren't. Even a 1980s lorry would have had a finer tolerance in its manufacture and would be much more vulnerable to environmental effects without regular maintenance.
So yes. Your fiat could survive conditions that a lorry would not tolerate, but only because it was made of rust and string to begin with.
matt, most lorries may spend their lives outside, but they also spend their lives being regularly maintained and serviced. a lorry that spends a year outside, unused and unmaintained, will be wrecked.
They'll just ask for the encryption key.
Yes I know it's not encrypted, and you know it's not encrypted, but they don't care.
Ah, but the constitution of the united states didn't establish a democracy. Democratic elements were involved in the election of representatives, but the fact remains that the United States were established as a republic, with decidedly undemocratic elements balanced against the democratic, in order to prevent mob rule.
The united states are not a democracy, and they never have been.
Given their space program is funded to levels suspiciously similar to the amount of aid we send India each year, you may be more right than you think.
You're both wrong. Burning was reserved for "heretics". Accused witches, if they were executed (which was much rarer than people seem willing to accept) were hung or occasionally drowned. Homosexuals were generally hung.
Stop laughing at the back.
Things were bad enough back then without having to make up all these falsehoods and silly stories. The etymology of faggot (and gay for that matter) is not even remotely similar to the one you're spreading, so please stop.
It's also mentioned in Luke. Each of the four gospels had different points to make and so epmhpasised different aspects of the story.
The NT consists largely of letters between people, which can hardly be called allegorical (though they do make allegorical points at times). Textual analysis of the surviving copies (of which there are thousands for each) indicate that they were all written within a period of around 90 years. There's very little disagreement over this even amongst the most critical of bible critics. Where the disagreement lies is on the validity of their content and the accuracy of translation.
But that's irrelevant to what I was discussing.
Apart from the Magi, who can't be verified, everything I described is true. The triple conjunction, the political turmoil (and the potential links between the two), the existence of the man called Jesus, who called himself "bar Abbas" - the son of God - and his death, the rebellion against the occupying Romans, and the conquest of Israel in the mid 60s. All these things happened.
This was to illustrate the point that the jesus story and the events leading to the end of Israel as a nation both began with that conjunction. It occurred at the right time, it had the right "meaning" for the people of that time, and the events that took place after it are all verifiable.
You could call it a self-fulfilling prophecy if you want. That isn't the point either. I was simply trying to establish that the whole supernova idea is a crock, and that the language used in the text fits the appearance of a conjunction - and the events that took place in that area at that time - much more readily than any other phenomenon.
In hebrew thought 3 is one of several "perfect numbers", along with 7 and nine. I have forgotten why.
Incidentally, the most likely candidate for the "star of Bethlehem" wasn't a star at all, but a conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn in the constellation of Pisces. A conjunction of the two was interpreted as the passing of leadership from an old king (Saturn) to a new (Jupiter), and a conjunction taking place in Pisces associated the events with Israel. Israel of the day was important to the Persians as a close ally, granting access to the Mediterranean coast and serving as a locus of trade routes between Africa, Europe and Asia, so their astrologers (the magi) would have been keen to see what events might take place there.
In fact, in 7BC there was a triple conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn in Pisces (that magic number again), which gives us a pretty firm date for when the events would have taken place. Herod the Great died in 4BC, which sets a boundary for the other end of the period in question.
Israel of the day was also in a "great tumult" about whether the nation should strengthen its ties with their historical ally of Persia, or whether they should throw their lot in with the Romans. Herod was of course a Roman client and would have favoured them, but many in Israel favoured the Persians. It goes without saying that Herod's court would have been aware of the conjunction in 7BC, and it could just as easily have been interpreted as a validation of Herod's links to Rome or a harbinger of the restoration of Israel's links with Persia. When the magi came along and declared that a new king had been born in Israel, well, you can imagine what that would have done to the political situation.
And then in the late 20s AD, when Israel has been informally occupied by Rome in order to "support" the government against the insurgent Persian faction, this man Jesus appears and starts talking about purifying the temple and fulfilling the laws of Moses and all sorts of things that echo the Maccabbean revolt against the Greeks of a few generations earlier. With Jesus having a fairly supportable claim to being the true "king of Israel", the political seeds planted by those magi start to bear fruit: Israel begins to resist the Roman occupation, only to be destroyed 30 years later when Rome decides it's had enough of rebellious client states and absorbs Israel into the empire properly.
You want to cite some sources for that, or are you just pulling numbers out of your butt?
Who needs a reason? It's always been the case that government in this country likes to ban things without understanding what they are, purely on the basis that they're new and different.
I hear those things are awfully loud!