Re: I can understand a little bit of bias
Surely there is a statistic here that is revealing: 85% of the 1,160 applicants were Asian. Why so few non-Asian applicants?
460 posts • joined 14 Dec 2009
Surely there is a statistic here that is revealing: 85% of the 1,160 applicants were Asian. Why so few non-Asian applicants?
With respect, your wife's situation does not compare that of kids today. My middle son is in his third year at uni and is in the second year of those taking on the debt required to fund their studies. Unless your wife did all of this studying and travelling in the last three years (a truly remarkable achievement) then your comments don't amount to much.
Today, the undergraduate period is where the costs arise. If your wife went on to study for a PhD then today, just as in previous years, there are grants to help. But universities offer only limited bursaries to mitigate some of the undergraduate study costs even for the most able students who are also from a less advantaged background.
By contrast, my eldest son who has now completed his degree course and is now working has almost no debt.
Surely this would have been apparent as a result of testing. Would it not be normal to perform extensive tests on items coming from the sub-contractor to make sure they performed to specification?
Arranging for a pipe to carry one fluid at a given temperature while immersed in a tank of kerosene at the appropriate temperature for an extended duration doesn't seem like a very difficult test to perform yet clearly was not performed.
Maybe some of the problems of this aircraft are the result of the failure of the various parties to demand (on the part of the US Air Force) and perform (on the part of the supplier) adequate tests. In this regard to me the story is reminiscent of the problem uncovered by Richard Feynman with 'O' ring seal on the Space Shuttle. In that case it turned out those involved knew about the risk but failed to disclose the issue for political reasons.
Look at 3CX. Though the headline product is all servery it can be installed on any Windows machine and gives you all the things you want. As long as there are fewer than 8 simultaneous connections its free to install and use. Requires .NET 4.6.1.
Sure, but the devil is in the detail. Suppose your suggestion were implemented and one of your family members who is living abroad - at uni in France maybe - and needs to be sent some Euros. But now there's a law in place that taxes that transfer. Of course you didn't mean to affect people in that situation - just the douche-bags, right? So you put in an exception for sending to family members.
However, you can't afford to send the money so you ask a friend to do you a favour and send some money - it's urgent!. Now the person is not sending to a family member so the money is taxed. Of course you didn't mean to affect people in that situation - just the douche-bags, right? So you put in an exception for sending to family members by friends.
These and a thousand other reasons would require exceptions. The result would be a law that would be exploited by those douche-bags with money because they have the motivation and resources to find a way. Which is what Apple was able to do.
No one likes what Apple has done, but hopefully there will be no knee-jerk reactions by politicians that make a bad situation worse.
As long as they are better than my wife I'd be up for it. I risk my life with my wife at the wheel every day. I don't if she is good, bad or indifferent driver but that's not the point. Whether any one individual is a good driver or not, we put our lives in the hands of others who may be less than ideal drivers every day.
The potential to do something useful while in a car will be welcome. Some like driving, a good for them. I drive to get some place, not to enjoy the journey. Being able to use that journey time more productively is something to rejoice for me.
This seems like just an anti-Microsoft gripe from the Linux fundamentalists.
#1 PowerShell aliases are not commands on the command line except in the PowerShell command environment, so don't use it.
#2 PowerShell command aliases can be changed.
Don't want wget to do what it currently does? Then change the alias which is a reference to .NET assembly entry point.
There is an opportunity here for an enterprising developer to provide a PowerShell module to change the aliases so they more closely meet the expectations of Linux users.
Or on the other hand, we can be subjected to the usual whining expected from Linux users when confronted by anything from Microsoft.
The way voting works today relies on a central authority to control the process. It is the weak point. The purpose of e-voting is to eliminate the vulnerability of the centre without losing its role in administration can coordination. Maybe Australia Post's vision is not good enough - it's hard to tell from the limited information in the article - but the idea seems promising.
The blockchain technology allows an event to be recorded in a manner that is difficult for any one actor subvert. But there is no need for there to be just one blockchain. Why not have a blockchain per ward, each updated by more than 2 independently controlled miners? For the blockchain to be compromised, those seeking to compromise it have to be able to mine more than half the coins. This risk can be greatly reduced by, for example, giving political party representatives plus an independent observer control over the mining of coins. As there will be little incentive to collude, there will be little risk the blockchain will be compromised.
The events (vote tallies) added to ward blockchains can be aggregated as events first into constituency, then region, state and national blockchains where coins for each blockchain is, again, mined by machines controlled by political parties and an independent observer who have no incentive to collude.
The outcome is a continually updated aggregate tally that can be audited back to the original vote event.
Now, I'm not saying there are no flaws in this scenario, but the article definitely is flawed. It makes the assertion that a central authority is required without justifying that assertion. If then uses that flawed reasoning to assert that a specific technical approach is invalid.
The bitcoin blockchain does not work for voting
I agree. This was a jury trial about fair use. As Alsup commented during the hearing to hear Oracle's motion, is there anything better than a jury to decide something as subjective?
He gave Oracle some hope agreeing that if it were him he would have disclosed ChomeOS. But its not him. It's the case argued by the Oracle legal team in front of a jury. It will be a brave appellate court panel that will overturn a jury verdict on fair use because it will generate a whole slate of problems.that will rival the problems facing anyone who would choose to open the jar given to Pandora.
These are the same people who sided with Cameron to predict disaster if the UK votes to leave. However the UK seems to disagree and risk again making monkeys out of 'expert' economists. These are the same economists who declared it would be a disaster to leave the ERM, that the UK would flounder in 2008.
In July unemployment was down (after Brexit), retail sales were 1.5% higher in July over June and 5.5% higher year on year. Yesterday Moody's revised their UK rating from negative back to stable - but not much was heard about this, eh? Why is that?
Of course these are only early figures. But economists and journalists were happy enough to report negative confidence reports in the days after June 23rd because it suited the bubble's narrative. Confidence is such a fickle thing and is not the real economy. It's the emotional response of a few individuals. It's becoming increasingly clear these were the opinions of people vested in the status quo.
Breath taking arrogance. A majority of people in Britain voted to leave the EU and they 'fundamentally misunderstand the consequence of their actions'. You mean they fundamentally disagree with you. There is a difference.
This notion that Britain put in 5.5Bn and get 8.5Bn back is not relevant on its own. If British researchers are justifying the extra cash then they will continue to receive it. If it was just incentive money then its not a good use of capital and is unjustified. But does it seem likely that EU institutions are providing British researchers so much extra money for no good reason or is it because those researchers are able to provide an excellence and expertise needed by European research bodies? I like to think its because they are able to offer excellence and that, as with every other walk of life, excellence will continue to be required.
As a software vendor selling the majority of our software to European buyers we've seen a 20% increase in revenue since the vote. 15% of that is because of currency movement. But the other 5%? Certainly not because buyers discriminate against Britain or British companies.
Will there be losers as a result of Brexit? Yes, we hear lots of noise from those who stand to lose from the change in the status quo. But we don't hear from those taking advantage of the changes that are happening.
Why is this reported? If users want free software, someone has to pay. Software doesn't write itself, some person has invest the time to create the software and, as the saying has it, time is money. The argument seems to be that software developers should not seek to earn anything from their efforts because so potential users don't like the inconvenience. Then put your hand in your pocket but stop whining.
As others have pointed out the irony is that Google is publishing the research on which this article is based. Google which earns so much of its money flogging adverts. But that's fair IMO. Google has invested in providing a service we all use at no charge and they recover their investment by selling product.
Finally, there seems to an allusion that software downloaded with free software is equivalent to malware. So the implication is that legitimate downloaded software like Skype is the same as software which has the one aim of hacking PC. Really? I get that you don't like Microsoft but, really, get over it.
Sites can also perform detection. If a site is receiving an abnormal number of requests from an IP address for the same resource within a small amount of time something is not right. An IP address will typically request many resources in a short period of time but usually for the different resources a browser needs to present a page. It's unusual for an IP address to access the same resource more the a few times in a short window of time. A user might refresh a page quickly once or twice but it's not likely they will be be refreshing the page several times even in a few seconds..
Even our noddy site site performs these tests and blocks the offending IP address at the firewall so they are unable to proceed. We see attacks like this all the time, especially to registration pages, and are usually blocking one or two IP addresses per hour. I like to think that more sophisticated sites perform similar real-time checks if only out of self-interest because such attacks consume resources and capacity.
What planet are you on? Is it really necessary to broadcast your bias in comment thread about the F-35? In a year there have been over 300 million installs which an article in El Reg today states is over 21% of the install base. Is that failure? The upgrade offer was not extended to Windows 7 users so I continue to use Windows 7 along with 68% of the rest of the install base. If I'd been offered the free route I would have taken it because Windows 10 is working just fine on 3 other laptops in the house but I take the view that if its not broke I'm not going to pay to fix it.
...how it's possible for someone with admin rights to a machine to be able to disable a feature while sitting in front of the machine but not be able to do it remotely through a GPO? I get that there a specific option may have been removed from a specific version of Windows but what prevents an administrator creating their own GPO to, for example, run a remote login script? What am I missing?
...about doing your day job. Give it a rest - or go use a Linux client and see how your users get along with that.
You can come to my place for a cup of tea as well. I live in a London suburb not some distant location and I regularly have no signal at home.
"Once Hanson realises that stopping immigration won't of itself reduce the likelihood of terror attacks"
I get that you find Hanson's line repugnant. But surely your goal is recruit people to your way of thinking. In my view, making a statement like this. which I believe is difficult to justify, just puts you in the bigoted camp. What evidence do you have the stopping immigration will not stop the likelihood of terror attacks? Can you point to a country that has successfully stopped immigration and then to one of those that also experiences terror attacks?
My guess is not because there precious few that are able to stop immigration. North Korea maybe.
Ideally, immigrants will mix with the native population or, at least, get along. But sometimes that just does not happen.
There are tens of thousands of plugins available of variable quality, plugins used in millions of sites based on WordPress You have chosen to single out two. Did the providers piss you off or something.
If the Dutch group has found only two issues, either that's a significant triumph for WordPress and the majority of plugin authors or a sad indictment of the competence and effort shown by the Dutch group.
This, like all the other complaints will fail. Maybe the EU will extort some cash but not much. If ad free advertising is such a valued tool - a human right perhaps - why are there no effective search engines from other vendors? Why does the EU not sponsor an EU search engine?
The answer is that we value be able to search but putting the resources in to create an effective search tool takes real cash and lots of it. However, we don't want to pay for searching and Google finances it's free search tool through advertising. Does advertising distort searches? Probably. Would you have somewhat distorted searches or ineffective searches? The answer is clear.
That Bing and Yahoo! and Alibaba and others have shown they ar unable to provide an economic and competitive service illustrates how hard it really is. It also illustrates the first mover advantage Google continues to enjoy. Google is being rewarded for innovating, for showing how searching can enhance our lives and the economy.
And it's not just searching. Google has used it's wealth and computer science abilities to revolutionise and commoditise maps and translation both of which are welcomed by me.
"..which said that the University of Glasgow was having a hard time attracting a “top physicist” because.."
Or it was an excuse not to have to live in Glasgow. A "top physicist" might have a range of options and other options may make Glasgow an unappealing place to spend the next few years. It certainly would not appeal to me. But, yes, of course, it must be because of Brexit. What else could it be?
It's hard to tell from the article or video how functional the tool is (maybe the answers to my questions are in articles at the end of the links provided). Most queries I create have to transform some of the values into columns - for example period based data. It's not clear that it's possible to do this using the tool.
It's easy to assert A is better/faster/cheaper/easier than B if the measurement criteria favour what A does well. Spreadsheets allow users to create presentations that are much more than just query engines.
How does this tool allow a user to create a 'lag' function since SQL-92 does not include this concept but is essential in any financial reporting. OLAP query engines were created to address these requirements.
How does this tool compare with PowerBI? Access is nearly 3 decades old and Microsoft has many other query tools that do a better job of allowing a user to query a data source.
Your points may all be valid, correct even, But the solution is not to tacitly accept the shooting of innocent people of any stripe.
A better approach is to ask why the police are put in a situation that is believed by the police to be life threatening. Surely a better approach is for police to travel in pairs and make sure that citizens who are pulled over know there is a second officer lurking. A better approach will be to change the stop procedure, for example to have the occupants get out of the car while the officers are less in harms way.
Of course this costs money so would not be popular and maybe this is the real reason innocent people are being shot and killed: the richest nation on earth is unwilling to spend enough to protect its citizens at home.
"She certainly didn't do anything to prevent his suicide"
How can you assert that? In the article we're given only the texts highlighting the justification for the case. The other communications are completely missing. The article itself points out that she encouraged the boy to seek psychiatric help. And we know nothing of the verbal communication between the two of which there appears to be a lot.
It's staggering that you feel able to make such a bold statement on such one-sided and limited evidence. Even more staggering is that you get 7 upvotes. In the event I ever have to face a trial, I hope beyond all measure that you are not a juror.
Andrew, I get that you are against 'copyfighters' but what in your experience has lead you to the point that you can see no problem in the clauses you identify in the article. As someone else pointed out, the IPO may claim in a separate document that targeting teens is not the intention but it will be the effect, The copyright holder support groups will make sure of that. It doesn't matter that it costs a lot of money to mount a prosecution, whatever the amount it will be tiny compared to the cost of producing all the content.
Why post anonymously? I think the idea of disclosure is good in principle but you point out some of the many valid problems with the suggestion. I'd love to know how many posts are really paid for by Apple/Google/Microsoft/etc.
Fair point about the human element in the counting and verification steps of the process. But I recommend you avoid the price comparisons. The e-voting costs will be high because no one does it yet so the marginal cost is high. If/when e-voting become common place then the price per vote will tumble and is likely to be much cheaper. By including the price comparison argument you risk losing credibility on your solid argument in the noise created disputing your prices.
When I read the first line I went straight to comments but you'd already made the point. It's a doubly incompetent comment because AWS is a division of Amazon Inc. so cannot evade tax because it's not a separate legal entity with a duty to provide a corporation tax return.
It is disappointing to me that people feel compelled to make such statements and that The Register's editor's let the comment through. But if such statements are to be made, it would be good that the comments are at least feasible.
What's that saying? It's better to be silent and appear foolish than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
My guess is the author is a remainer who just can't help but look for every clue that leaving is a disaster. The name of the entity is the European Investment Bank. There's a difference and the relevant part is that the real name does not contain the word Union. From their 'Projects' page:
"European Union Member States receive about 90% of our financing, but we also work with more than 150 other partner countries in support of EU external assistance policy."
There 'Structure' page has more relevant information:
"The EIB funds its operations by borrowing on the capital markets rather than drawing on the EU budget. The Bank enjoys decision-making independence within the EU’s institutional system.
"The EIB’s management and control structures reflect this independence and allow it to take lending decisions solely on the basis of a project’s merits, and tailor borrowing in line with the best opportunities available on the financial markets."
So they borrow money from capital markets. Therefore they must make a return. If lenders have confidence in the shareholders, they will lend at rates that are competitive. So the board of directors has to decide whether having the European country of Great Britain as a member allows them to secure funds at a better rate or not.
My guess is that Britain is still an asset to the bank and as a result there will be no motivation or appetite for a change in shareholders. Plus, do any of the other countries really want to put up funds that could be spent on domestic priorities in order to buy Britain's share? Would Britain?
If the petition cannot stand on it own based on support by people who are demonstrably in the country (using a UK ISP) then the petition doesn't really have the support claimed, does it? If taking out 77,000 possibly dubious votes is a problem then no one should take it seriously. But since that is not the case, stop whining.
Andrew, I rarely agree with your point of view but as someone looking around to find a positive reason to vote one way or another before 10pm today, I thank you for your exposition. My wife (a leave campaigner) was at our local Surrey station this morning handing out leaflets alongside a clutch of middle-class women who called her and the mixed race man she was with racist. These are presumably acolytes of the Clerisy you reference. I assume they, or their kids or their partners have the most to lose from any change.
#1 You can't patent software or algorithms in Europe
#2 The prior art is open source
My summary of your argument is that because politics is a nasty, horrible, ugly business we should vote for the status quo. Not good enough. I'm typing this wondering which way to vote before 10pm today and have read your comments hoping they may have offered a persuasive perspective but, alas, from my point of view, it just another status quo argument.
As dumb as the security services may be, I think even the wooden tops could use the pattern of embedded links to determine when a site was hacked. If the records of a lot people suddenly started showing content from nefarious sites after people had visited an otherwise innocuous site, it wouldn't take a genius to work out what had happened. They even be able to work out when the hack occurred and even, in your scenario, when the site was un-hacked.
Come on, think of some more plausible scenarios that can't shot down with just a nano second of thinking.
The the thinking part is important. If you put up nonsense objections like the scenario you've advanced, ones which can knocked back so easily, they will be used to demonstrate the objections to the proposed legislation is baseless.
This is not a new problem - difficult, yes, but not new. Social workers faces a similar dilemma daily. A young mum or dad is thought to be abusing their child but there is no direct evidence. If social services intervene and separate a family with good intentions but unjustly that is damaging to the family and especially the child that is the target of the protection. If they do not and a child is left to be brutalized the consequences may not be known until that child is hospitalized or killed. Sadly there have been a number of case in the UK - one that concluded just last week - of parents/guardians beating and killing their children.
Web sites are actors in our communities and we all deserve to be made aware of concerns about the behaviours of their members if the site provides a service if those concerns might lead to bodily harm. Of course there's a SWATTING problem. The answer is a process. Is it too difficult for a site to be able to present their concerns to a judge and obtain legal consent to alert other members to their concerns? May be not this exact process but it's not beyond the wit of man to devise a process that is able to increase our safety in this area.
Yes we do have a gender neutral nominative pronoun: 'one' which, of course, is derived from the French gender neutral pronoun 'on' which we used in verb conjugation in every French lesson at school. As in "one went to the shops'. It is correct and can be used whenever a gender specific nominative pronoun he or she might be used.
But this pronoun has committed an even more heinous crime in Britain history than being sexist: it was used by the educated and upper classes! Because of the ingrained class wars in Britain, if anyone uses the pronoun 'one' today they sound like a pompous ass and definitely not right-on working class (shudder). Think Jacob Rees-Mogg.
However, we don't have gender neutral objective pronoun. 'Lock him/her (or her/him) up!' 'Lock it up!' doesn't work. 'Lock 'em up!' implies more than one person.
The report points out that the waiting times increased because of increases *in the last week before the Self-Assessment deadlines*. Put it another way, HMRC is being criticised for not accommodating an arbitrarily large number of calls in those two weeks, at my expense, by people and their advisers who could have filed any time in the previous six months.
My experience as a business owner is that all my calls on PAYE, VAT and CT have been dealt with almost immediately. But then I'd never called in the week of the October SA deadline (paper returns) or the January deadline for on-line returns.
The problem Apple faces is one of its own making. Investors in most other companies may make a return by the increase in stock price but more usually through dividend distributions. It was a big thing when, back in the day, Microsoft started offering a dividend. For most companies offering a dividend keeps the stock price steady even when the company performance is not great.
Because Apple does not offer a dividend, the only way investors are able to realize a return is through increasing stock valuations which can only happen when more investors buy in. It's doesn't matter what the profits of a company are if investors will never see any of that value. Getting investors to continue purchasing stock so the stock price continues to appreciate is the only way for existing investor to make any return and this needs a constant supply of really, really good news. Good news is not enough to sustain this pyramid scheme.
Given their seemingly Byzantine off-shore tax structures and the prospect that a significant chunk of Apple's cash pile would be handed to Uncle Sam if it were repatriated it appears that investors are unlikely to be able to rely on a dividend payment any time soon.
"alleges it uses Android to kill competition"
The market is mobile. The competition is Apple not variants of Android.
The real European problem is that European investors do not invest. Why is there no viable competitor to Google, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, VMWare, and many others? Why is it that EU regulators think the best way they can control Google is through restrictive legislation?
I'm sure the anti-Google commentards on here will be appalled at that idea that maybe, just maybe, the reason investors invest in US companies - that gone to abuse the locals - is because they have intellectual property protection. In Europe there is no protection for software and so no protection for investment. As a result there is no innovation worth the name and what little there is bought by US companies.
I know, I know, allowing software patents is a disgusting idea to many who haunt these forums, but the reality is there are no competitive EU services. A few try to make their mark in some dingy subset of Google's business but don't have the investment available to create the user base necessary to create a viable competitive business.
Translation is a great example. The EU is stuffed full of languages. But instead of seeing an opportunity, EU companies tried to charge high rates for (admittedly good) manual translations. But there was no coordinated research into automating the process leaving the gate open to Google, a US company. Now if you want translation that's good enough you go to Google and get it for free.
Sure, you are not going to win awards for the quality of the translation of your web site into Latvian but it doesn't cost anything and may you will gain some clients then pay for 'proper' translation if you know it's worth the cost.
So because a country small than greater London and surrounded by 1st world countries is able to offer it's citizens a 1GB/s service it some how follows that the UK is a problem? Really? How is this relevant? I guess when you've an axe to grind anything looks reasonable even it's plainly daft.
How do you know? Did you somehow have a learned conversation with one? Dig up and decipher some writing to that effect? For all anyone knows they may very well have believed themselves to be a superior civilization. After all, they came from overseas in boats with all the technology that implies just like the ones a couple of hundred years ago.
It seems to me that making convenient assertions about the motivations and behaviour of long dead people says more about you that any contribution it might make to any debate on the topic.
Microsoft must really be hoping this goes Oracle's way. Imagine the lawsuits they could bring against all other software companies for using their APIs, especially the ones that are not part of a published open standards agreement. And especially if this is retrospective.
How is it different to collaborating with anyone else over the internet. Sure, if you are collaborating with colleagues in the next cubicle other the GHz local network, its not going to be the same. But if you are collaborating with someone in another physical location or in another company the experience is not going to be much different.
If security of the connection is the concern then you would need to access the remote machine via a VPN connection from your location.
I've been using a desktop on an Amazon EC2 instance for over 2 years and I have nothing but good things to say about it. I've not used Workspaces because it's expensive. It's much cheaper to buy a reserved instance and use it to run Windows. The benefit is that you can us Windows 2012 instead of Windows 2008. Once you've enabled 'Windows Experience' you have a client look-a-like.
"WorkSpaces still does not offer any assistance with patch management." Huh? Didn't get this point. The Windows updater works for Windows instances on AWS like it does for any other machine. Most software developed for Windows has an update process. There is no difference between Windows applications running on an AWS hosted machine and any other.
The benefits not mentioned in the report include:backup, always on and always repaired hardware. Plus I can add/remove memory CPU power on demand.
The ability to take a snapshot every night means the whole machine is backed up. It costs $0.05/GB/month but I have peace of mind that I have a complete backup. Every morning I have an email letting me know if the backup was successful.
I can use any local device as a thin client and so access it from anywhere (anywhere I trust). The AWS firewall allows you to define the devices from which any EC2 instance can be accessed so the machine is available only via specified IP address or via a VPN connection.
The hardware is not my responsibility. I can use any local device as a thin client but apart from this, I don't have to worry about the motherboard, CPU, BIOS patches, disk drive failing and so on. AWS takes care of all this. This is a post on a geek site any many here like tinkering with hardware. I'm not one so being able to outsource this is great. In the 2 years I've been using a remote desktop, it never once been unavailable because of a problem with AWS. My internet service provider is another story but that's when using a phone as a WiFi hotspot come into it own.
AWS has always allowed users to change the CPU power and RAM capacity. So if there is a time that it becomes necessary to boost CPU performance or add more RAM you can do that for as many hours as is necessary then down grade again.
Same with disk capacity. If you need to expand an existing disk or add a new one, its just a few clicks away. There's no running down to the local computer store to buy a new disk then copy the contents.
To be fair, a remote desktop is not great for everything,. For example, its no practical to use the desktop to watch a video but then I can watch the video on my phone or laptop.
..if we are told that we'd be responsible for all loses we would change our behaviour: we'd stop using banks and credit cards.
I'm sure Hogan-Howe is a nice chap but he lives in a world where we are perceived to be the problem and his words reflect that. Having people be better computers is not a solution to anything. History shows we are incapable of being more secure. Even those who are conscientious will fail some time.
Clearly the banks don't want us to walk away. Perhaps the other side of the story was not covered by Hogan-Howe or not so newsworthy. The other side is that banks also have options. One is to make it impossible for our accounts to be hacked or used fraudulently. However this is, at the moment, prohibitively expensive. It's much cheaper to have the actuaries work out the cost of fraud and set the cost against profits like any other business expense such as marketing or accounting. So that's the status quo. It exists not because we are all evil (stupid maybe) but because its the least expensive option that is also reliable and managable.
At the time of writing this game has not been played. It will be interesting to see if Lee Sedol wins the fifth as well as the fourth game. Alpha Go has a specific built-in advantage: it has been able to 'learn' from the style of play used by Lee Sedol throughout his playing career. Sedol has not seen the style of play used by AlphaGo so maybe it was a style of play he'd not encountered before, a composite of his own and other successful styles. Maybe Sedol won the fourth game because he was getting the measure of the machine. If so, and if Sedol wins the fifth game, it will be important this contest continues to ensure the lessons learned from the series are correct and its not, in fact, an artefact of a built-in advantage. If Sedol wins the fifth (and any subsequent games) it will be important because *that* would exemplify learning.
Imagine all the people who lost their jobs when farm mechanisation happened or people who lost their jobs shovelling horse manure of the pavement when the advent of cars. Change happens. There are gainers and losers when any change happens. Some retailers will adapt to sell products we value or in a way we value and some will not.
A bigger problem is the percentage of the profit from on-line sales that will to be going off-shore. But then EU has its investor community to blame. Investors here tend to see 'tech' as too risky so do not support start-ups and as a result we have no home-grown on-line retailers so choice but to use those from overseas. Yes, of course, some bricks and mortar outfits have grudgingly and slowly moved on-line. But not in any way that one could call innovative.
"The article presents both sides of the argument."
I beg to differ. It certainly presents perspectives from both sides but that alone does not constitute balance. An organization like the EPO is not going to pitch up one day and decide to take employment action against staff for no good reason.
If the EPO has been under-performing, and seems from other El Reg comments that it has, one possible reason is because the staff are under-performing or unwilling to accept new practices that allow them to perform better. No doubt the leaders of any such resistance would be those involved in the union. So if the EPO needs to be reformed and staff working practices need to be reformed and there is resistance some action needs to be taken. And presumably after considerable consultation.
But none of this type of history is apparent from the article. Instead it is presented as the President is the guilty party. Did the EPO President just decide to persecute some union supporting members of staff? If so, he deserves the censure but it seem unlikely that's the way it has played out not least because the executive will be staffed with capable HR types.
In the meantime, it seems very likely the union has co-opted its friends on the left of politics in the EU so take positions on the board so they can take the line they have.
The article make no constructive alternative suggestions so appears to me, a complete outsider, that the author could also be part of the campaign against the EPO president.
Cockpits are now locked so if both crew members in their are incapacitated, how will a passenger or flight attendant gain entry?