167 posts • joined Thursday 9th August 2012 10:15 GMT
As others have said on this thread, even though the US has abused its power over the internet, I would much rather see it in the USA's relatively safe hands then have countries like Venezuela, Saudi Arabia and China dictating the terms of internet usage.
As little as I trust the US govt, at least it is democratic, it upholds (in most cases) democratic, free principles, and it is scared shirtless of its own people, as govts should be. I don't see any need to get failed, despotic or anti-democratic govts involved in internet governance.
We already are close to the precipice with the ITU trying to get its grubby paws on the internet:
I presume that the oil companies drew up contracts with the UK gov. around exploration/revenue/investment all that stuff, no doubt a few sweetners etc.
So wont those contracts need to be renegotiated and if so, why would it be on the same terms ie the elusion that tax would instead of going into the UK coffers go directly into Scotlands coffers unchanged?
They will need to be renegotiated, but that will take time. To start with, Scotland would almost certainly keep everything as normal as possible, for the sake of stability and then start negotiating. However, this won't be as easy as SNP thinks to come back with a much better deal.
The idea that Scotland could have a comparable oil fund (ala Norway) is unrealistic. North Sea oil's heyday is over and negotiating with large oil companies as a small government dependent on oil revenues is more difficult than as a larger government.
Not only will the contracts have to be renegotiated but the fact that the rUK has such a large investment in the oil infrastructure, they would need to be part of the negotiations too.
Of course, the above is just conjecture.
Re: United Kingdom
That came into existence under the Act of Union 1707. Independence will result in being "disunited". England can call itself anything it likes. Will also need to apply for membership of EU, NATO, and all the rest because the entity under which it took its place will cease to exist.
The Act of Union is not half as important as you may think. How a nation came together is not of so much importance during breakups. This is a historical fact. The Soviet Union "ceased to exist" once the Baltics declared independence. But Russia just became, legally speaking the USSR by another name as far as the international community was concerned. This is the precedent and the standard.
You may have a logical and legalistic point that the UK will "cease to exist", but in reality it means nothing. The Act of Union is just a footnote in history.
I guess the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland ceased to exist after Irish independence? Nope, just a change of name and carry on as usual.
But the Act of 1801 joined the kingdoms of Great Britain (England and Scotland) with that of Ireland.
There is no rUK whatever wishful thinkers might imagine. No UK at all at that stage. r or otherwise.
Wrong. Absolutely, hopelessly wrong. The name may change, but not much else.
Since the UK as it was recognised when it joined the EU (or Common Market as was) would effectively cease to exist if Scotland left, why would either of the two new countries have any more right than the other to remain in the EU, both or neither as far as I can see.
This is not true at all. There will be no "velvet divorce". The UK will cease to exist canard is an SNP favorite but flies in the face of international norms. rUK will carry on the UK's responsibilities to the treaties the UK signed. Just as Russia did for the Soviet Union. This is international precedent and no foreign government in its right mind will decide that the UK has been liquidated and everything is up for grabs. Maybe the Security Council seat can be raffled off.
Whose benefit is it to see all these trade, defence, research treaties voided because 8% of a country decided to cleave itself from the whole?
And absolutely no EU nation will decide (even if they could make that decision) that the rUK loses its place in the EU, since an awful lot of them have their own separatist movements.
Re: Lot of interesting comments there
It seems to me that a lot of the anti-scot commentards up there have missed the point that if Scots felt like valued and equal partners in the "United" Kingdom, then we wouldn't want independence. After all, it's a big step into the unknown, and only history will tell us whether it was off a cliff or into the promised land.
The last PM was Scottish. The second to last was Scottish educated. The last Chancellor was Scottish. The second in line to the throne was Scottish educated. Scotland has a disproportionate representation at Westminster.
I'm not for or against Scottish independence, but it's very disingenuous to claim Scots don't feel "valued and equal partners".
The point about the remnants of Empire is an interesting one, and depends rather on whether Scottish independence is achieved through a secession or a repeal of the Acts of Union (1707 I think).
If the former, the question doesn't arise, Scotland becomes a new country with only a tenuous connection with the pre-1707 Kingdom of Scotland, with none of the shared assets, liabilities, or international memberships.
If it's the latter, you essentially revert to two countries called England (which had already had Wales for ages) and Scotland; everything, every liability, every asset that has been added since Union is up for grabs (e.g. "OK, if you take Northern Ireland, we'll let you keep Faslane until you get Spadeadam back up to scratch..."
Repealing the Acts of Union is largely irrelevent, meaning your latter possibility is not going to happen. The international norm and the international precedent is that the part of a country wishing to remove itself form the whole is NOT the successor state. East Timor, all of the Soviet Union being prime examples. The rump UK could lose its security council seat (though through what mechanism I don't know), and a few other seats, but will almost certainly be considered the successor state.
Obviously there will be negotiations to divide up the debt. Scotland probably will take about 8~9% of it. North Sea oil and gas will be divided and Scotland will probably get about 90% or thereabouts. Although Salmond's oil fund idea will have to pass a gauntlet of oil companies, who won't want to invest heavily unless they get similar terms they get now.
Scotland will face a big problem choosing the currency. They will almost certainly NOT get any seat on the BoE MPC or any such thing. Or if they did the BoE and rUK treasury will stitch it up to be a largely nominal seat. Scotland would be better off going with its own money in my opinion.
I doubt very much that Scotland will be given automatic access as a member of the EU.
I've no idea if Montserrat, Ascension, Bermuda, Pitcairn, etc. had English or British flags planted, before or after 1707, but it's easy to imagine the sovereignty of the sunnier British islands being up for negotiation as well.
Most of these places would find life as independent nations tricky at best. I'm not sure what benefit they would get form switching from one nominal "mother country" to another. And I doubt a new Scotland would want to manage the foreign and defence affairs of, oh lets say the Falklands.
The company wants around 100 million Thai baht ($3m) in damages, but mostly it wants the app removed from iTunes.
$3 million? Is that a typo?
if not, they're doing it wrong. You're supposed to start with an astronomically obscene amount of money in the lawsuit, and maybe a percentage of every app ever sold ever. Then, after the judge whittles it down after appeal, after appeal, you take what you can get away with.
Re: Hang on
The NSA would have been instrumental in finding the whereabouts of Bin Laden, given that the couriers who visited the target house and the man who supposedly lived there, were having their communications tapped. From the reports I read, this surveillence gave the circumstantial evidence to push Obama into going ahead with the mission to kill bin Laden.
Re: On actual education
Finally, the only thing I want to see added to the curriculum. Life skills.
After leaving school I had not been taught the following
1: Basic electronics, (wiring plugs etc)
2: Basic home saftey (where gas taps, meters / water mains etc are)
3: How to pay bills
4: What appears on a paycheck
5: How credit cards work
6: How to rent a propperty
You forgot some:
7: Tying shoelaces
8: Not looking directly at the sun.
9: Drinking bleach
Hive Mind? SIngularity?
Memories of Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri come rushing back. Can't type for long, gotta nerve staple some drones.
Re: "We are no longer in the Cold War."
I'm pretty sure US intelligence officials regularly sit in on UK intelligence meetings, meaning there is not much to spy on since they pretty much know it all any way.
How could Apple end up with THIS as their best effort? It is without doubt the worst UI design I have seen in a long time. Where did they find the designers? In some dark corner of an insane asylum? I almost want to apologize to Steve Ballmer, cus Windows 8 now seems beautiful.
Re: 256 Bit Encryption... hehehe... dream on...
256 bit encryption is meaningless with code breakers, equipment, and back doors 'denied' as existing, that NSA has had for decades
I'm not sure that sounds right. AES and the Rinjdael algorithm have been studied for years. I'm not sure how you could put a backdoor in an encryption standard.
Re: Who are we?
<i.Indeed they have their own DNS domain: .parliament.uk. That may have been true before the Civil War, 1641-45, but since then the boundaries are blurred.</i>
They had internet before the civil War?
Could anyone explain this to me: If skype traffic is encrypted (256-bit AES: https://support.skype.com/en/faq/FA31/does-skype-use-encryption ), what is the NSA going to get from it?
That. Is. Awesome.
Makes me proud to be human. Hacking nature like that.
Of course, as others have said, the reason why such research got so heavily funded doesn't make me quite so proud.
Just hope this tech becomes affordable for people who need it.
Re: Too bad...
Or try Lubuntu. WOrks fine on my old netbook.
What world do you live in? Start what kind of buisness? There's been no real nvestment in training and education for decades. F.E. colleges no longer teach anything that isn't government approved -- funding is dependeant on the teaching being government approved; H.E. is just about in the same boat. Innovative and creative thinking isn't something you create from a spreadsheet mentality.
Start a business? How? Credit and investment has been cut off due to the need to recapitalise the banks; all that so-called quantative easing wasn't to make investment easier, it was to stop the banks from defaulting on their own debts.
What world do I live in? A world where people have the capacity to train themselves or find unconventional ways to get trained. I also live in a world where it is possible and actually quite doable - I have done it - to start a business with zero money from the bank and negligable capital.
1. Fought to liberate the Falklands.
It was a war brought about by her government's stupidity. Goodness knows what the future is going to bring now that her political descendants have neutered this country's armed forces. Oh, btw, I am an ex-squaddy, so I think I might be better qualified than most commentards on this issue.
I agree more should be spent on the Armed Forces. But not really relevent to Thatcher.
2. Crushed the unions, who were really asking for a whooping throughout the 70s.
Really? So the owners and management of companies of that era are entirely without any balme or fault?
Nope, never said that. But the unions were running the country more or less. Something had to be done. I'm guessing you think the 70s was a great decade for Britain?
I still find it hard to understand why people hate Thatcher so much.
She did crush the unions, and for that I thank her. I don't see why I should subsidize miners working a pointless job. Still, 30 years later, they're still on the news moaning about how Thatcher ruined their lives. FFS, it was 30 years ago. Get a new job, start a business, move towns, do something productive, but stop whinging about the only PM who had the balls to stand up to you.
I don't think she was a great PM but she did two great things:
1. Fought to liberate the Falklands.
2. Crushed the unions, who were really asking for a whooping throughout the 70s.
Why is Peter Jones a "bad boy"? From the few DD shows I've watched he isn't ruder than the other business people. He's just a little bit blunt with people with silly ideas. It's not as if he's bit the head off a bat or anything.
Re: BEST - warmist?
Even if nothing in climate prompts it, there is every chance an international agreement to limit CO2 emissions will be made in coming years.
You really think that? Not in a million years. You think China and India, which are slowly dragging their people out of poverty are going to voluntarily push them back, with co2 limits? Come on even the EU is starting to fudge its CO2 limiting programs with credits for energy intensive industries (i.e. the backbone of the economy). The most they will come up with at any conference is a mealy mouthed agreement to agree something at the next conference. And since we are in Obama's second term, and the political pendulum will almost certainly swing back to the republicans at the next election, the agreement would need to happen in the next 4 years.
An international agreement to put an international price on carbon emissions, or to start locking up undeveloped fields. So far talks have been blocked by bickering and difficulties of negotiating such an agreement, as well as being hindered by special interests who wish to water down or block any potential solution.
The bickering is that nobody wants to cut their co2 emissions, and apart from the EU, will not commit economic suicide unless everyone else does too. And the "special interests" are actually you and me, people who want steady supplies of electricity, central heating, jobs and food.
Come on, the Rio conference was a joke, a big fall from the grand, do-or-die drama of Copenhagen. IIRC most major leaders didn't bother showing up, just sent some negotiators into the mix.
Having to sharply ditch fossil fuels, rather than gradually. The solutions governments will reach for - and which populations will accept - in this situation will be based on hysteria rather than reason. Much like the hysteria that followed 9/11 led to two wars and a clamp down on various freedoms. The other problem is the inertia of the climate. Expect nations to embark together on absolutely mad solutions at this point to make up for lost ground such as unstable geo-engineering schemes.
Sounds fun, can't wait to read the novelization of this story.
Re: BEST - warmist?
2) [Solution to climate change requires] large scale deindustrialization of society.
What solution do you know of that doesn't require deindustrialization?
#1 is true of a lot of genuine longterm threats that should be acted upon (eg global pandemic or asteroid strike) and so I am unclear what you want #1 to tell me. It can't mean the theat isn't genuine or shouldn't be acted upon, else I would have to accept nothing should be done about asteroids, etc either.
I'm telling you, that genuine or not the threat isn't being acted upon and won't be acted upon for the reasons I mentioned. My original point way back up the thread was that warmists have lost. This is what I am explaining to you. You can do with that information what you wish.
You raised #2 to single out climate change from the other longterm threats as being the reason not to act on it while acting on the others. #2 is a separate argument in it's own right. Argument #1 doesn't depend on it, so I am still left wondering what you think #1 should be telling me.
I am not singling out AGW over other threats. I'm telling you that nothing is going to happen. You use the word "act", as though there is some collective will of the people to do something about this problem. I am explaining to you that this will isn't there. As I said, nobody cares. That is my point.
I don't think is necessary for a great number of people to care about a subject in order for society to act on it. Nor do I think people will act in certain ways if they genuinely believe something should be done about longterm threat. That would require extraordinary focus given the distractions of day to day life.
A post-carbon world is inevitable so it better be possible.
I don't know who you think is going to act. CameronClegg's "Greenest government Eva!" is pretty ambivalent about the whole windmill thing, building loads of em and then letting Caudrilla drill for shale. Germany is getting worried about it's own renewable subsidies. All over the world the green bubble has popped. The political classes are losing their appetite to act (a lot of it is to do with no money in the coffers). So when you say "society should still act", I don't know who you are talking about. Generally people don't care, politicians are at most ambivalent. Who is supposed to do anything?
What do you really think will happen from here on? Of course there will be conferences the IPAA will vomit up a new report. But not much in the way of serious decarbonization will happen.
Oh and a post carbon world (well in the next couple of centuries anyway) is not inevitable. Good news today, the Japanese figured out a way to drill the sea bed for methane hydrates. :)
Happy reading: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/9924836/Japan-cracks-seabed-ice-gas-in-dramatic-leap-for-global-energy.html
Re: The reality of global warming
To me it's risk assessment. What we gain by not crossing is the certainty of not getting hit by a truck and getting mangled. What we gain by crossing instead of taking a longer route round is making a few sacrifices.
What "few sacrifices" are these? The warmist industry want us to turn the clock back on industrial society.
Regardless of the veracity of the argument, to me it's not worth the risk of being hit by that truck, even if it's only 1% likely to occur. I'm sure that even the most belligerent of sceptics would assess that the chance of them being wrong could easily be 1% or more. Would you really get in a car with your entire family and drive it, knowing that there is a 1% chance of a fatal accident?
No not "regardless of the veracity of the argument". The veracity of the argument matters absolutely if you are doing a risk assessment, otherwise everything has a significant risk.
Regardless, your analogy is weakened slightly by the fact that you are explaining it while sitting in your own car driving alongside a convoy of trucks. Unless, of course, you have a tiny carbon footprint and use next to no fossil fuel powered appliances or machines, directly or indirectly? I'm guessing you use central heating or air conditioning, washing machines (not those old washboards), computers etc?
Lastly, your analogy leaves open the question of what not getting into the car entails? Does it entail bigger problems for me and my family (i.e. mass unemployment, power shortages, degradation of utilities etc?) Of course it does. Cutting back industrial civilization will mean unemployment, hunger, lower paid and menial jobs. Even the most belligerent warmist can see the problem.
A large portion of UK start ups all seem to be to do with music. As someone who doesn't care about music at all, I wish them all the best, but I really don't get it.
Recently looked back here http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/03/16/the_top_25_uk_web_startups/ at some old startups from 6 years back. (About half the links are broken - it's like an elephant's graveyard of startups) and a lot of them, including Last.fm, are all to do with music.
Re: BEST - warmist?
Are you arguing that the importance of issues is determined only by a poll of what everyday people think?
Importance is a relative word.
No, this is not correct. Everyday people don't care about a lot of things - they are too busy to - but they expect their elected representatives to be on the ball and see dangers coming and avert them. Once something bad does happen the everyday people get very angry that nothing was done. Think the economic crisis. Or the horsemeat scandal, or even Jimmy Saville.
None of the examples you cites require the large scale deindustrialization of society, and the complete change in our lifestyles. If Warmists want to keep CO2 levels below whatever number they choose (is it still 400ppm?), everybody has to make a big effort. And that doesn't mean cycling to work and eating less meat (horse or cow), it probably means not having a job because there won't be any demand, because there won't be any industry. So when people don't care, they're hardly going to budge are they? The climate change conference circuit goes round in circles, because we have an unstoppable force (warmist crusading) up against an immovable object (most people and their politician's lack of desire to change their lifestyles). No matter how many conferences they have this won't change. WHich is why warmists have lost.
So you are essentially arguing that because disaster hasn't happened yet, therefore it won't. Or something. It isn't clear what you are trying to extrapolate from public opinion.
My point is that people don't care. And won't care, and you could say they don't care because their way of life depends on them not caring. And if people don't care, all these BEST reports and articles don't mean much. Nothing is changing. CO2 emissions are still going up after years of endless, futile conferences.
Another point I'd like to make is that people who profess to care don't, in my experience, actually care. (I mean groups like 350.org oh how was the arctic holiday guys?, etc, and Monbiot, and NASA's Hansen etc)Although I think they like to think of themselves as cassandras, whose warnings go unheeded but will be proved right in the end, to me they don't seem to be cutting back on their CO2 that much? You may think I'm being facetious but I'm not. If they truly believed this then they would go live in the woods or find some other way to get their carbon footprints to next-to-zero, set an example to the rest of us. In a post-carbon world when productivity and demand for consumer goods falls flat we need to know how we are supposed to survive. This isn't the 17th century - there's a lot more of us
. And yet Gore seems more interested on building his investment portfolio. Surely imminent doom will make his investments worthless. For that reason I can't believe a word that man says. That is why warmists are always trailed by the faint whiff of bull**** everywhere they go.
Re: Are you serious?
Have you actually USED a site "optimised" for mobile? They are universally awful, with restricted content and functionality. I always either switch back to the non-mobile site or to an app if there is one, and its a site I'll be spending a lot of tiem on.
Absolutely agree. Actually I can give an example: BusinessInsider.com 's mobile website is absolutely infuriating.
A list of headlines pop up, and if you scroll to the bottom there is a button to load more. If you keep loading more and more stories until you find one that might be interesting, and then click on the headline, read the story, go back to the home page, only the top stories are there and you have to reload and reload until you get back to where you were. Terrible design.
The Guardian's isn't that much better. I usually just click on the desktop site button.
Re: BEST - warmist?
You seem to be under some illusion that Climatologists are the only group putting forward AGW when in fact I am not aware of a single professional body of scientists or engineers who dispute AGW.
An example from the Institute of Civil Engineers: "The science is clear: Climate Change is a reality. Engineers must now be in engaged in responding to the challenges and threats which Climate Change poses to our built environment."
Irrelevant. How does this change anything I said. Everyday people, including everyday civil engineers don't give a crap. That's the bottom line. And what the professional body thinks and what its members think are two different things. If the Chartered Institute of Underwear Embroiderers want to take a stance on AGW I say go for it. Just don't expect the universe to care.
Do you honestly, hand on heart, think the general populace still care much about this topic?Here's a recent poll: http://www.globescan.com/commentary-and-analysis/press-releases/press-releases-2013/261-environmental-concerns-at-record-lows-global-poll.html It seems globally, interest in the movement is waning.
Even Google trends shows the path (OK, so not the most accurate indicator) is downward http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=%22global%20warming%22%2C%20%22climate%20change%22%2C%20&cmpt=q
Here's one recent Guardian article which is about as close as that paper has ever got to realizing what's happening: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/mar/01/100-months-apocalypse-warnings
And I think there was another article on the register recently showing people don't care.
When I said the "deniers" have won, this is what I meant. Apathy reigns supreme. Now other environmentalist groups are starting to attack the AGW crowd, due to the latter's obsession with making everything run on wind power.
The scientific debate has passed into the realms of the abstract and archaic. It's the worst kind of Ivory Tower academia.
Everyday people just don't care. And that's the bottom line.
Re: BEST - warmist?
Beg to differ. The difference between catastrophe and non-catastrophe kind of hugely matters.
But that's part of the issue here. What is this catastrophe? It's some far off, ill-defined forever morphing mixture of floods (which we've had since the dawn of time), hurricanes (ditto), sea level rise (still ditto). This far off never-happening catastrophe is part of why the AGW proponents are looked on suspiciously. While every "extreme" weather event apparently has the finger prints of Global Warming all over it, the lack of any defining catastrophic event means that the AGW proponents want us to hand our collective destiny over to them until they gaze into their crystal balls.. er.. models, and pronounce the danger averted.
For the past 20 years we've been deluged with horror stories about what will happen in the far off future. Just like a horror movie franchise it get's boring after a while, and starts to be a parody of itself.
You talk about this catastrophe with an ominous tone, but there is nothing ominous about it.
Although if you are saying that the deniers have no influence on world events, I beg to differ too. While impotent now, deniers did initially aid and abet the crippling of early international emission treaties, at a time when the West had enough influence to have pushed them through. Which has now left the West in an impotent position unable to influence the new big Eastern emitting countries.
I don't think "deniers" are impotent. I mean honestly, even if Obama had been idiotic enough to sign any agreement at Copenhagen which allowed China to get away without significant, or observable emission cuts, it would have never, ever have gotten through congress. It still won't. The issue is, I think both "denier" and "warmist" camps have lost followers, mainly due to apathy. Real people don't care (of course they'll say they are concerned if you ask them in a poll, just like you ask someone if they are concerned about BSE. They'll say "Oh yeah, I forgot about that. Yeah, I'm a little worried.". Of he goes to the supermarket to buy some steaks...).
Maybe it's just me, but in everyday life I don't know anyone who talks about this anymore. 2009 you could get articles on the front of the Telegraph website with scare stories. Now only the Guardian and the Independent (to its 2 or 3 readers) seem to bother. And even then it's mainly Monbiot's whinging. This is exactly how the "deniers" won. Let's face it. There was never and is never going to be a day when the climatology establishment does an about face and decides AGW isn't true. It just won't happen. What will happen is funding will dry up (let's see EU and US budgets in the next few years...), AGW proponent climatologists retire and/or lose their fire. There is always going to be some AGW proponents because the supposed problem is a never ending crisis.
Deniers have taken quite the gamble. I am afraid whether deniers win that gamble or not will not be dependent on whether the UK installs a few gas power stations, but what happens to the climate.
Not only the UK. Most major industrial countries. IMHO the biggest mistake by the environmentalists (I mean that in the general sense not AGW proponents - I actually support energy conservation, recycling and becoming energy independent) was to dismiss nuclear. If only they accepted it as a necessity in the event of a fossil fuel cutback, CO2 emissions could be much reduced by now. Oh well.
Re: BEST - warmist?
It's not the worst case of bias in the article, but BEST was started by a denier - they even got funding from the Kochs and a good write up from Anthony Watts! The BEST project analyzed as much data as it possibly could and concluded that there was no global conspiracy and the scientists got it right. Even the "zealots" are correct. They are not "warmists" they are scientists.
The BEST project hasn't changed anyone's mind. I think they finally got peer reviewed recently, but regardless, nobody in the real world cares (i.e. not in climatology). As much as people like to call anyone who doubts the "science" behind AGW as "deniers", it really doesn't matter - because we won. You just don't realize it yet. I'd give it a couple more years of wind and solar subsidies before govts start panicking, or reneging on deals (ala Germany, which pays hand over fist in its solar scam). Even the Cameron-Clegg "greenest govt ever", will be slapping up gas generators as quick as a flash once the UK's massive power problems become apparent.
Whether the "deniers" are wrong or not, it doesn't matter. Occasionally the obvious fact seems to slip through the AGW crowd, for example during the Copenhagen, Cancun, Rio climate conferences, where nothing whatsoever gets agreed, but the very next day we see in the Guardian the same old columnists telling us the next conference is the Big One - the last chance to save humanity. FFS Copenhagen was supposed to be the last chance. How many last chances do we get?
Please read this article and take a step back to see what a parody the AGW movement has become:
There are STILL people out there who won't accept reality?
We know Lewis Page is an ill informed zealot - about everything really, but even in the comment there is still idiocy.
Don't be so melodramatic. Of course the AGW scares are exaggerated. Almost nobody outside the echo chamber of the Guardian, realclimate and a fast diminishing circle of civil servants with public money to burn, believe this gibberish anymore.
We're screwed people, because of people like you. We have already guaranteed runaway with the warming that's baked in and the permafrost, methane releases. Hundreds of millions of people will die because you didn't want to take action two decades ago.
And you carbon footprint is...? Presumably you have excused yourself from industrial civilization and hunt for rabbits wearing a loin cloth? No. Didn't think so.
It's a sickness, to throw away human civilisation because you wanted your hummer.
Nobody is throwing away anything. We are just going through one of humanity's many fatalists, prophetic scares. It isn't the first. It won't be the last. I know a lot of people like to think of themselves as Noah, preparing for the deluge, but seriously, come down from your half-built ark and join the industrial debauchery. Churn out some CO2, turn on your PC... oh wait you already did.
Turning Award winner Edsger Dijkstra, who invented the Dijkstra search-graph algorithm for selecting the shortest point between two nodes..
Regarding the article, I don't know anyone who knows COBOL (or at least will admit to knowing it). I know a lot of well paid engineers, and almost all of them are C/C++, Java programmers.
If we are going to start picking pet languages to teach at university, I would like to propose Ada. Makes you write less buggy code.
Sea level hasn't changed. At all. Not according to my observation.
Yes, but don't forget poor old Maldives, where the government has to hold cabinet meetings underwater, and people have to snorkel to work.
Well it seems to me they were making a loss before Google bought them: http://mediacenter.motorola.com/Press-Releases/Motorola-Mobility-Announces-Fourth-Quarter-and-Full-Year-Financial-Results-39c2.aspx
If Google has a vision for the company it is inveitable restructuring would be necessary. What are they supposed to do?
I can tell you for a fact that Google is laying off Motorola people because they mismanaged the (hardware) business 'cause don't understand hardware.
I really don't think you know for a fact that this is the case. And I doubt it is the case. If they need to restructure and pull out of non-profitable regions (Korea, India etc) then obviously people will need to be let go.
New UKIP slogan: "Save our Smut!"
Firing non-performing workers and/or making redundancies isn't evil by any means. It's far more evil to let the company grind on into bankruptcy - then everyone can lose their jobs.
It's a three per cent stake. They won't get a seat on the board for that, surely.
Sharp will still make screen for whoever will give them business, I imagine.
Re: Most people stay with their bank in the UK due to inertia.
I wasn't trying to get information to go cat burgling, I just wondered where he puts his money, since he empties his bank account every month. Either he goes on an extraordinary bender down the pub or he saves it somewhere that isn't a bank, i.e. bonds, stock market, both of which could have better returns than the paltry interest on a bank account, but with the downside of reduced liquidity.
Re: Fast travel = less ageing perhaps?
... almost light-speed...
Jumping into hyperspace is faster than light.
Movies. You're doing it wrong.
Why are they dragging old actors out? Nobody needs to see an old Han Solo, just like nobody needed to see a clumsy old Indian Jones. What are they smoking over at Disney?
Do they really need a 7th film to stretch out the already overdone narrative of the Skywalker family? FFS, the Star Wars universe is ripe with opportunity to write an unrelated story - yes, with Jedis, Mandalorians or what have you, but no frickin' Skywalkers.
Set it in the KOTOR time period, please. Then I might watch it. Ah, who am I kidding - I'm going to go to the cinema to watch it whatever it's about. ANd I'll probably end up buying the DVD too, out of a sense of duty at being a fan of the once great (now stupidly overdone) Star Wars saga.
Re: Daily defence spending...
(2012 total £39bn)
or 19 hours of one day.
There you go, there's where you can get the money from.
Or from NHS spending. Or education. I'm not sure what your point is. But I suspect it is some ill conceived slight at the armed forces.
Stuff like this creates jobs - that's why, not only for the construction of the site but each of the many tens of thousands of components it needs to operate and be maintained.
I agree. Europe, if it can be considered a single entity, needs more investment in science and research. This sort of funding goes some way towards that. Projects like the ESA missions, LHC at CERN do generate business (and I'm not talking about creating the www), and keep skilled Europeans employed.
Considering a whole generation of southern Europeans are losing out on skilled employment, this sort of project could help to improve that.
I'd rather see the money spent on this than on Tech City brats.
Re: "Developers, developers, developers"
Yeah, they could have picked from a whole host of locations that could do with the money, and could possibly do more with the money.
For one, Birmingham, would be a great choice. It is located centrally. It has a burgeoning finance sector, a manufacturing sector, 3 universities (of varying quality), a relatively new science park etc.
Edinburgh would also make a good choice, as would Oxbridge, due to university presence and highly skilled workforce and first dibs on graduates. I'm sure there are some remnants of Silicon Glen that could be built up.
I would also argue York or Leeds would be good places to try to build a tech hub.
That's if a government funded tech hub is even needed.
As I no longer live in the UK, for the time being, I don't really care that much, but it is a little annoying seeing London getting "everything".
Re: "Developers, developers, developers"
Meanwhile the Cambridge area is spawning the actual high-tech innovation, and the M3 corridor continues to produce most of the software and services that actually get deployed and used.
Not to mention the engineering clusters in the Midlands which make Derby the biggest exporter per capita in the entire UK. Could really use some grant money up in the Midlands to start tech companies to complement the engineering companies.
Re: The Big List
One success is Mind Candy - creators of Moshi Monsters, which I think is a Pokemon type cute monster game. I think it's profitable.
And then there's Last.fm, which I think is based in the SR.
Re: @P_0 (was: During the meanwhile ... )
I'm trying to pass the word along to the johns, who may not appreciate the depth that the pimp can (and obviously does) set the hookers delving into the lives of the unaware johns. If you have issues with me pointing it out, carry on as you see fit. No skin off my teeth.
From my experience more or less everyone is aware that Google tracks you and knows what you (or at least your ip address) is searching for. Who are these unsuspecting Johns? 6 or 7 years ago people could get away with the naivety of not knowing what Google is and what it does, but in 2013 naivety is giving way to incompetence.
Re: During the meanwhile ...
You do read your gmail account from all three (four), right?
Hi welcome to 2013. You seem to come from a time period when this was news.
Obviously, if you are going to use free products (gmail, yahoo mail, hotmail/outlook) "the man" will be tracking you and knows exactly what kind of pr0n you like. That's the way the world works. You do know using gmail isn't compulsory to use the internet, right?
Back to the headline: Yeah Google need to pull their finger out. Their Google Play security stinks. Then again, users should ask themselves, "why would a sexy wallpaper need access to my phone book?"
- Facebook offshores HUGE WAD OF CASH to Caymans - via Ireland
- Microsoft teams up with Feds, Europol in ZeroAccess botnet zombie hunt
- Justin Bieber BEGGED for a $200k RIM JOB – and got REJECTED
- Review Bigger on the inside: WD’s Tardis-like Black² Dual Drive laptop disk
- Inside Steve Ballmer’s fondleslab rear-guard action