Re: Accounting can be very creative
Depends if you actually stole the DVD, doesn't it? This case is more akin to "they made a DVD that looks a lot like ours and they should pay as if they bought ours".
1876 posts • joined 5 Mar 2007
Depends if you actually stole the DVD, doesn't it? This case is more akin to "they made a DVD that looks a lot like ours and they should pay as if they bought ours".
But enough about windows 8, what about android?
Actually he only considered himself a "cultural christian" and professed no belief in God, even going to great lengths to explain that he didn't believe in God in his manifesto. Calling him a christian terrorist doesn't make sense.
"why are private companies being allowed to issue currency?"
Guess you don't use stamps, then. Or collect coupons, or use cheques. They're all currency by any reasonable definition of the term - people still use stamps as a reserve currency and for payment. Coupons are self-explanatory.
Cheques are particularly interesting. They're essentially the same as a promissory note and have the same origin as paper money, in credit notes issued by a bank, being a promise to pay the bearer on demand, except issued by a private individual rather than a private corporation.
And of course you must not use any currency valued greater than £1 at any time, as all the paper money in the UK is issued by private companies. The Bank of England is not a government institution and never has been. The banks that issue notes in Scotland and Northern Ireland are also not government institutions and never have been. The government may create fiat money out of thin air these days but all it's actually doing is legislatively requiring the private company of the Bank of England to issue to issue currency that didn't previously exist.
And all contemporary currency, even the shrapnel tinkling away in your pocket, ultimately began as currency issued by a private company.
So. Why are you spending currency issued by a private company if you're so against it?
Wouldn't that make Jar Jar the Wesley Crusher of Star Wars?
I don't care if he was an annoying pr... character in Star Trek, he's a bloody great guy in real life.
It's shocking what goes on in the bedrooms of this once great nation...
*flicks open his copy of the daily mail and tuts at the house prices*
15 to 30mm is... 1.5 to 3cm, or approximately 1 inch. A flea one inch long? No thanks!
Priapism is a very painful condition.
On the other hand my parents, who are presumably of a similar age (60s or so) took the the whole "pause live TV" like a fish to water and absolutely love everything about these digital doohickeys, though they use computers for the internet. A TV is just no good for that.
Of course the bill does nothing to actually address the issues they claim it will address.
A thing to bear in mind for each side of this:
1) A victim of a crime is not suddenly at fault because they left their door unlocked. It was the criminal that chose to enter.
2) As with just about everything, laws exist to cover the claimed issue already. This new bill is using "cyberterrorism" as an excuse to grant the state sweeping new powers that benefit nobody but the state itself and stretch far beyond the borders of the US.
I can't believe people are still wheeling out this tired "android copied IOS" meme. Ooh, it's a touch-screen OS on a phone, it's exactly the same! If anything it's more like Maemo.
What is it with people who have hair arguing over whether it's long or short?
Bastards, the lot of you.
AND it'll cause house prices to fall.
The goal is a self-propelled aircraft that can get from point A to point B in a very short period without leaving the atmosphere. A sub-orbital rocket can get from A to B pretty fast but once you know where it's from and what it's trajectory is, you can make a fairly accurate guess of where it will go and take countermeasures. An aircraft that can move at a significant chunk of the speed of a ballistic missile yet which is capable of changing direction would negate that completely. Its target would be unpredictable.
Like I said, they're testing the aerodynamics of the vehicle, not the actual vehicle itself. The eventual goal is a hypersonic jet aircraft, manned or unmanned, that can get to anywhere on the planet in just a couple of hours.
A hypersonic plane could also theoretically get most of the way out of the atmosphere without using much fuel. Scramjets could take it to the edge of space, then a rocket could take over from there. It would save the entire first stage of a launch system in theory. That's a huge saving.
Can't do any of that unless you know it's going to actually fly, hence the rocket-launched drones.
The test plane has to be launched from a rocket but, so what? The first supersonic plane the Americans flew was just a rocket with wings.
They're learning the aerodynamics first. There's no point in developing the engines for a hypersonic craft if it's going to fall apart when you turn them on.
Seconded! Their miniservers are an absolute blast and I believe they've just set up their own cloudy storage and such system, though I've yet to look into it in detail. It seems pretty good.
Highly responsive support team who help out at all sorts of times and with all sorts of self-inflicted problems, extremely reliable service, pretty good cost and they don't skimp on things like bandwidth or storage either.
Possibly too much.
And then they're going to eat me!
I thought they renamed that the Berlin Transverse Aerial Navigation Aid.
AC, with those sorts of charges you're going to be lepton.
Is Lewis Page an Oracle? It would explain a lot.
Knowing the difference between acid and alkali is not comparable to knowing how to fiddle with a stylesheet.
"The square of the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares of the other two sides .. yup, use that regularly."
I do. It's very handy when you're building a house, just as a random example that has nothing at all to do with what I do (which is building, don'tcha know). Or even if you're a software developer who wants to, I don't know, program something to display a triangle on a screen.
Of course, I learned such things back when the GCSE mathematics papers required long written answers.
Which is to say nothing about the point of the article anyway. Which point, I should add, makes a great deal of sense to me. Some things should be compulsory, but teaching computer skilzzzzzz isn't one of them as it tends to be either a skive-off class or actively puts people off getting involved in software development. GCSE IT is a complete faff.
Look at it this way: who has the copyright on English?
Nobody. And nobody will get it either, or any other spoken or written language, because it's a stupid idea to copyright language. Yet change the language to java and suddenly you seem to think it makes sense. Why? Both are frameworks for the expression of ideas. We could, if we wanted, hold conversations in Java or any other programming language, and we'd be able to express ideas and understand one another just as any other spoken language (with a little more difficulty and syntactical sugar, I suppose, but still).
APIs and interfaces are like idiomatic, culturally shared shorthand for particular concepts that might be expressed in other, longer ways. They're the equivalent of a raised eyebrow at the sight of Orlowski arguing against copyrighting something or the exhalation of air that says so much about your mood, what you want, what you don't want, and just how stupid some people can be to believe idiocies that make no sense.
Do you understand the problem with copyrighting language now?
More of a tradition.
I have been begging the world for multiplayer Elite for years to no avail. I would almost literally kill for it to happen. Or possibly dump garbage on the edge of the solar system...
PWRs are also more than 30 years old and have been superceded by several generations of much safre passively cooled reactors that require action to maintain the reaction rather than actiion to prevent it.
fukushima is an old reactor that should have been shut down years ago but wasn't because of people like you screaming about the idea of new replacement reactors being built.
Internet fame! Huzzah! Time to announce a new web 3.0 collaboration site for famous commenters and get bought out by Brin or someone for a brajillion dollars!
What? My fame is gone already? Dang...
Since we're on the subject of watches and phones, you know what I've always wanted? A phone built into a pocket watch. IT would be marvellous. I have no idea why, it just would be.
Anyway I shall be looking out for these. I wonder though, do they keep time when you haven't got your phone with you? If it can be used as "just a watch" as well, it'll be great.
Or for those who are of the more lefty persuasion, imagine this power in the hands of a future Rumsfeld or Cheney.
I don't quite get all the downvotes. He's right, you know.
Besides, my father in law (who ois Swedish) drives like a nut all the time yet never uses his mobile phone while he's driving. I think he's more dangerous than the moose...
Maemo is quite good, yes, but I do wish it had a more reliable browser and e-mail client. Every browser I've tried has been either bloated, broken or, in the case of the default, both.
That said, my gripe is somewhat tempered by the fact that I can compile code on the phone and install dosbox. :D
What are you talking about? Concorde made a profit of around 30 million a year for most of its operating life for BA.
3 years in Scotland if you want to call it Scotch Whisky. There are a number of non-scottish single malts that have every right to all themselves whisky, rather than whiskey, because they're matured for the right amount of time in the right sort of barrels, just not in Scotland. I just bought one fromÖland. just the other day. Bit pricy but i think it's worth it just for the uniqueness. Quite tasty too, though a little young...
Mackmyra is also quite good, and there's Penderyn from Wales, and that new English whisky that's currently raising its profile selling a "story" of various stages of its whisky's development. It shows great potential.
As yu may have guessed I have a thing about unusual whisky. :)
Current distillation methods rely on gravity, yes, but I'm sure a little human ingenuity and perhaps a centrifuge will sort something out. Orrr... something like an Archimedes screw jammed in the neck of an old pot still..
Now this is an idea I like.
You seem to be arguing from an invalid position regarding copyright. The law already stands: materials are copyright the moment they are created. There's no need for the increasingly repressive and unworkable new copyright laws currently lobbied for as they are solving a problem that doesn't exist, attempting to extend the meaning of copyright to places it was never meant to go, or attempting to snatch works from their owners so they can be handed over to the state or huge copyright mills.
Enforce the laws that exist rather than creating new ones. Of course that leaves copyright as a mostly civil matter in the UK, which is apparently an undesirable outcome for some people.
Conflating the copyright issue with personal privacy is a non-starter as well. Our "traffic data" is not a copyright problem and making it one opens up all sorts of problems, not least being who actually gets the copyright on that traffic data - the person it is recording, or the entity that made the recordings of that person?
In addition it's been established by precedent in the UK for centuries that we have the right to freely move about without interference from the government or its agents, under any name, without unjust challenge. It's been a bit battered recently but it's there - and it applies to everything we do, not just wandering the hills and dales. This ancient freedom establishes a right to privacy far more robust and flexible than the EU-inspired human rights bullcrap, which is so full of caveats and exceptions that it might as well not exist.
Not that any amount of legislation matters a jot when the government is intent on ignoring it anyway. Stop making new laws and enforce that which already exists.
And hang on, are you actually trying to convince me that the repos disappeared after just one year of use? You're either claiming that Squeeze is gone, which is a lie, or you're saying you installed an OS that was due to be EOL after just a year (these things are flagged for a long time before they happen). Either way you cocked up mate, not debian. You wouldn't recommend people install Windows XP a year before it' due to be knocked off, would you? Yet you've apparently done the equivalent here.
My advice was bad somehow?
The installer uses the current stable release name because they want to guarantee that it installs a particular package set in order to provide the most stable installation experience. In addition, someone might actually want to install an older version of debian than the current stable release, presumably because they're trying to achieve some particular thing.
However, if you want to keep your installation up to date with the latest stable release, you change the release to "stable" rather than the current release name. It really is so simple, and flexible. Far more flexible than windows update, wouldn't you say?
So why is this proof Linux won't make it? The original post complained that a Debian install's repos suddenly disappeared and spent a great deal of time complaining about something that takes les than a minute to sort out, then used this as "proof" that Linux is a bigtime failure, so I offered a solution that is both quick and simple (even my dad could probably do it, and he HATES computers). And now this ease of adjustment is also proof that Linux is going to fail?
Change the repo from whatever it was (sarge?) to "stable" and it'll always be there and always up to date.
There you go, your entire complaint solved in a heartbeat.
But not Uranus?
Nono, what you do is expose them to a bad idea. Osbourne would be the one that ran towards it.
Ahh but ze fallen madonna with ze big boobiez is not porn, she is art!
If anyone wants a companion to these books and the Narnia chronicles they'd do worse than to pick up a copy of "Planet Narnia" by Michael Ward. It discusses the underlying imagery of much of Lewis's work and reveals a very interesting unifying theme. Worth a look IMO.
All the things I listed do falsify AGW. The tropospheric hotspot is mentioned as a predicted effect of AGW in the IPCC reports but it has not appeared at all. In fact, the upper troposphre where the hotspot is supposed to be has barely changed its temperature. If a theory makes a prediction and the opposite occurs, the theory is wrong.
The fact that CO2 and temperature don't correlate over the long term is in itself a huge falsification of AGW as it demonstrates there's no direct relationship between CO2 and temperature - if there's no relationship, there is no effect and no problem.
It only takes one of these things to demonstrate that AGW is wrong. We have two right there. There are plenty of others out there.
And on the subject of ensemble means: Weather forecasts average several runs of a single model, not several runs of several models. Given that a single model will tend to produce similar results with each run it is more likely to be "right" when you average it, but only for a given value of "right". After more than 3 days they are not very right at all and all the averaging in the world won't change that. You can get you position on a map "right" if you make a bunch of random dots and take the average to be where you are, but it's only "right" within a huge margin of error and if you start moving (changing over time as temperature does) the margin of error becomes so wide that it's functionally useless.
The ensemble mean of GCMs takes the averaged outcomes of several different models and averages them again. Given that each of these models does indeed miss out one or more major warming or cooling events in the 20th century, taking average of the averages of each models runs is also going to have such a wide margin of error as to be functionally useless. Each model gets it "right" in a very wide margin of error. The average get it "right" in an even wider margin of error. given we're talking about 10ths of a degree changes in temperature, and given these models diverge more than that from each other, taking the average seems to be a rather pointless exercise.
Actually us global warming "deniers" are more likely to point out that there are a number of falsifications of AGW out there already, such as the lack of stratospheric cooling, the lack of tropospheric hotspot, the fact that CO2 and temperature don't correlate over significant timescales, the fact that the models can't hindcast (they are tuned to roughly correlate with the late 20th century and are incapable of producing anything that resembles historic temperatures), the fact that most all the models miss at least one of the major warming and cooling events of the 20th century (To hide this they use an ensemble mean, which is pointless; averaging a bunch of wrong answers doesn't magically produce a right answer) don't account for clouds, don't account for changes in TSI, don't properly model dust and are generally useless as a result, and the fact that this "prediction" is essentially just a straight line over a thirty year period.
And this is before we get into the serious doubts over the temperature data and repeated, documented adjustments that lower the temperatures in the past to make the present look warmer.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017