Re: sunnies after dark ?
"AR coating is good to have anyway for a whole lot of reasons."
The only AR coated pair I had a soft focus effect. On close examination the coating was finely granulated. I've gone back to uncoated.
16426 posts • joined 16 Jun 2014
"Only if something is spotted does a person start looking, and sooner or later they have to get a warrant."
Sooner or later? What's wrong with sooner? And from whom do they get the warrant; a senior officer or a politician? We should have due process of law. The fact that it's a principle that's over 8 centuries old (remember the hypocritical celebration of that last year) doesn't mean it should be out of date.
"believe me, They are not interested in Us. I went to a privileged university with some of Them."
If You went to a privileged university with some of Them it makes us (with a lower case u) less inclined to believe You.
"Eh? Who killed Fusilier Lee Rigby? Who blew up three underground trains and a bus?"
The same as a number of other atrocities. Have you noticed that when they're identified they always turn out to have been known to the security services but somehow slipped through surveillance? What should we learn from that? Maybe they're doing surveillance wrong. If so doing more of the same isn't going to work.
"I have worked in IT for years,"
In what capacity? Marketing?
"installing Linux on any platform/brand has always been a crap shoot."
What you should realise is that those of us criticising Windows but normally using Linux or other non-Windows OSs nevertheless have experience of Windows, usually over very many years. At the very least that consists of sorting out Windows problems for friends and family. So not only do we know how straightforward Linux installation has become these days, we also know all too well the on-going problems with Windows.
'Microsoft never "falls back".'
And yet in the past they've maintained bugs like allowing usage of memory that's been freed simply to allow applications that did that continue. That seems to have been an egregious error that should have been thrown back in the lap of the application developers. This seems to be largely a performance issue; if the user wants to run a combination of stuff that requires a lot of CPU power it's up to he user to provide that power and maintain backward compatibility for the rest.
'They won't go. Linux is in the hands of the "developers" and they don't care about end users.'
Did you even read what the Microsoft developers were quoted as saying in the article?
To some extent I agree with the general point - developers can easily become detached from what users want except where they're working in in-house teams, and maybe not even then. It's not a prerogative of open source developers. As regards Linux, Linus seems to have a pretty solid mantra: don't break userland* which the Microsoft camera team could have heeded in this case.
I like to distinguish between projects and products, product in the sense that Brookes, used in in chapter one of TMMM, not necessarily something that's going to be sold. Projects all too often go off on personal gratification but open source also delivers some solid products such as LibreOffice.
*IME userland did get broken between 2.4 & 2.6.
"If the tories played fast and loose with this they will suffer at the ballot box next time around."
Well, it's now up to the Tory pro-Brexiteers to come up with some workable plans. If they fail to do so then they'll have to tell their own supporters that they gave it their best shot & it wouldn't work. Such a statement, coming from the Leavers themselves, would take an awful lot of heat out of the situation. May would be able to say that Leave had had their chance. In those circumstances it would be a brave political party who could campaign on a Leave ticket.
Irrespective of that I won't be voting for them as long as May is in charge - she brings too much baggage from her time as Home Sec.
"you make a trade agreement with one country, Japan"
We currently have dealings with Japan in the car business. They build cars here because we're in the EM. How long do you think that's going to continue? Future investment will be in countries still inside the EU in the future unless, of course, we still have access to the single market. But remaining in the single market, it's been made quite clear, will include continuing freedom of movement. Any other conditions will be decided by the EU without our input because we won't be there.
So we don't get rid of all those Johnny Foreigners from the EU. We don't regain control, we lose more of it. What else was the leave vote for? Oh yes, sticking two fingers up at the bureaucrats; well they'll be sticking two fingers up at us with impunity.
"Not sure if she really wanted to leave or was just hedging her bets."
Given that she didn't seem keen on anything from Europe that impinged on her Home Office brief I'd say that her barely visible Remain stance was hedging bets against the expected Remain win.
However, kudos to her for putting prominent Leavers in charge of trying to make it happen. If it goes pear-shaped they'll only have themselves to point the finger at. I do think she ought to have handed a few more of them similar jobs.
'This led to the establishment of the British Empire, on which "the sun never set", the largest empire the world has ever known in terms of area and population.'
And on which it had pretty well finished setting before we joined the Common Market. Clocks don't run backwards. This isn't going to magically project us back about half a century or more before we joined.
"But they make no effort to factor in the cost reductions from not having to comply with EU legislation for products not destined for the EU."
Products destined for countries not in the EU will have to comply with existing requirements of those countries so there would be no change there. The exception is for products to be sold here. Do you think that to save money we should reduce the existing EU-wide standards on, say, electrical safety of goods sold here?
"There may be some tariffs and fees to pay, and some regulations to follow, but that's all."
Yes. they're the difference between being in and not being in. They'll be set by the EU. Right now we're in the EU so we contribute to making the decisions about those that the rest of the world have to follow to trade here. When we leave we will have to such influence. The conditions on which we will trade with the EU will be made by the EU in their best interests, not in ours. We will have no control. And wasn't regaining control one of the issues?
"If people had been told then that the trading union of the Common Market would become a political European Union over-ruling British Law and policies then the overwhelming vote would have been to leave that Common Market."
Up to this point I'm with you. I'd go further. The Maastricht and Lisbon treaties should have been ratified (or not) on the basis of basis of referenda in each of the countries, binding referenda with sensible majority levels set appropriate to the fact that they'd have been overturning the status quo. No change without substantial agreement in each country and none of this "keep voting till you get the answer we want" nonsense. On that basis we might still have had the status quo and if not it would have been something different to what we have now.
However we got what we got and we now have to think whether jumping blindly out of it is the most sensible thing to do from an economic perspective. I don't think it is. I think it's going to turn out to have been a very bad decision for most people including those who voted leave and kids like my grandchildren who didn't even get to vote.
"a political organisation with a vastly different idea of personal freedom"
The EU's idea of personal freedom does indeed seem to be vastly different from that propounded by recent Home Secretaries of both major parties. Vastly better in my view.
"The job of ALL MPs is to represent their constituents."
Given that constituents are apt to want different things representing their constituents' wants would be rather difficult.
In fact we vote to find the individuals to whom we delegate the task of making decisions. It's up to the MPs to work out for themselves what to decide would best serve their constituents' interests and the country's interests, even to decide what to do if those interests don't coincide.
Although we may cynically think that the MPs decisions will ultimately be those which promote their own interests this isn't necessarily so. After the 2010 election the LibDems took the view that the best interests of the country required that there should be a stable government and went into coalition. Given that a lot of their voters were voting for them to be a party of protest, not of government this cost them dearly last year but as a parliamentary party they did what they considered to be the right thing for the country.
"what the people told her"
The people told her very little. It was an advisory referendum. In order to have an effect on the status quo a referendum should have a very much bigger majority than was achieved. One sufficient, for example, to be sure it won't change when voters are confronted with reality a couple of years down the line.
Sub-contracting to a sub-contractor for the main contractor (Your first guess is probably right) public sector job. We were to take XML encoded documents from main contractor for processing. Very early in the proceedings I had to take a trip to visit the onshore representative of the main contractor's favoured development house to explain how to handle apostrophes and the like in XML. Not surprising that from time to time we had outbreaks of badly formed documents sent to us.
"At the time your options in that market space were either Novell Netware or SCO, or to go with one of the big to medium size hardware/software package vendors such as IBM, DEC, HP, etc."
There were quite a number of small Unix systems about - including Xenix. Most were on 68k family proxessors but also Zilog Z8000s. My impression at the time was that IT managements regarded them as strange and mysterious. Of course those of us who'd taken a little time to familiarise ourselves found them to be very logical. My initial encounter with Windows - at a time, say about 1990, when 386s were not only new but rare was to run an X server to access HP-UX and Xenix. TCP/IP networking was also regarded as new and strange by the local management.
"Well if gigaclear can deliver fibre to the home in rural locations, what's BT's excuse? Granted BT have a large area to cover"
Got it in one"
"but they were very late in recognising the internet needed something better than 56K.
Shame given that we could have had fibre in the 80s if the government hadn't blocked it "
Got it in one again!
"This was a commercial undertaking so it was sensible to think about the number of households passed and the likely uptake."
The term you're looking for is "cherrypicking". And BT, having only been allowed in the game late, is now being abused because it hasn't instantly filled the gaps between the cherries.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019