Yeah point taken. If the question is "what do we do about climate change?" then I just err towards the Lovelockian view, which is mostly about preserving existing ecology. I think it would be a serious mistake to allow greedy landowners and politicians to continue trashing forests and jungles and try to make it up with artificial trees.
A forest also supports a huge web of life. Insects, fungi, mammals, birds, amphibians, all sorts. If that web is disrupted significantly, who knows what the side effects will be? Certainly they will include changes to atmospheric composition. Also desertification and loss of biodiversity.
But that isn't the point. You can use the wood for making stuff and so it hangs around as paper or a table for years. It all eventually goes back of course but if we were to use more paper and less plastic, you'd be storing a lot of it temporarily and the amount stored in "the system" would be higher.
Yeah trees grow real slow. But over the years a tree will still soak up tons of CO2, plus they cost nothing, there's no maintenance and you get a useful resource out of them at the end.
Also you can pollard them to speed things up.
I don't NEED to know the man. I don't know Hitler, personally, but I still know he was not a nice man.
Going by the number of deaths he is responsible for - probably about a million. That puts him about on a par with Augusto Pinochet. Below Genghis Khan (30 million), but not far off a Hitler (10 million) or Stalin (10 million).
Come off it. Those kindly citizens of the grand old United States, upholders of peace and freedom everywhere, defenders of the weak and oppressed and conqueror of mighty tyrants... well they were frickin panting for war. A few people tried to point out it was all nonsense but they were shouted down by the mob.
I mean, from what you're saying, it sounds as if nobody knew! The people were offered it, some documents were forged, the media was unleashed and the people gave a great big "YES".
I simply don't believe I will ever hate Obama as much as I now hate Bush. In fact, I can't believe I'll ever hate ANYONE as much as I hate Bush. I mean, even if Obama ran over my cat on purpose...
The really nasty thing here is not having a card with an identifying number on it, or even a card with lots of scary-sounding biometric data.
The really nasty thing is that the card implies a central government database which will contain everything they've got on you - criminal record, DNA fragment, address, car registration plate.
They have some or most of this stuff already but the crucial difference is that it's all sliced up into different databases and it's not practical to pull everything on someone.
The ramifications of this are as profound as the impact of large databases have already been in other areas. Imagine you didn't pay a parking fine and bang, the government garnishes your payroll, cancels your garbage collection and prevents you leaving the country for a month.
As for the politics of it, I'm convinced Labour are pushing this through for some sort of nasty, secretive reason. Why else would they keep coming up with one reason after another, none of which make any sense? Someone suggested they like funnelling cash to sh1tty consultancy agencies like Crapita and Accenture, (which sounds plausible since it's along similar lines to how the Iraq war happened).
Also, don't think we will be able to bring this down with passive resistance. People will get them and pay the fee for them when they realise they can't take an exam or get a passport without first getting an ID card. There won't be a massive public reaction to thsi like there was to the poll-tax. The best we can hope for here is that Labour simply give it up as too unpopular, before it is brough in.
The problem with it is that presumably the #ID constitutes a key that a bunch of other data key on. That means that if I, perhaps a criminal, know your #ID and if I can get access (which may well be possible), I can look up every relevant bit of data the government holds on you.
It's not the card that freaks people out, it's the massive, unified and probably insecure database that it implies!
Yeah. The opinion that it's a waste is a function of the uniquely American belief that you only need 2 parties in a democracy. Most other countries (certainly the UK, where I live) have a third party and a handful of other parties below them. They do get laughed at a bit for having no hope of winning but they did overtake the Conservatives (at least in opinion polls) when they were going through a really rough patch. They're also very important in local government (councils and so on is a party system).
Come on, that's nuts! Circumstances change and a leader has to be able to adapt. What if he promises not to raise taxes, then WW3 breaks out and you need to pay to defend your own shores? Sorry, you voted for low taxes so go hide out in the basement. An extreme example of course but you take my point.
Also wouldn't have helped get rid of The Chimp. He got elected promising to be a douchebag and that's more or less what he did for 8 years.
There are all sorts of restrictions that the industry puts on electronic media distribution, 99% of it is motivated by their desire to protect their existing business model. If the business model changes too much, the web of companies making profit will fall apart. They're ideologically unable to accept the truth; that is, advances in IT mean that eventually artists will sell directly to consumers. The only thing that will remain in between is the critics, DJs, journalists, etc who screen the huge amount of stuff for us. Distribution companies, duplication plants, agents, A&R, agents and lawyers will all be out of a business and shareholders will lose money - that's what they're trying to stop. That will probably happen to music first, but will probably generalise to TV and then movies in time. Inertia is caused by the amount of investment to make the stuff.
You don't see cases like you do in the US where people get fined tens of thousands of dollars. You will probably say "yet" but I just don't thin that sort of thing would fly over here. I think there would be a huge amount of protest, which would make it politically inconvenient.
Yeah of course it's not that hard IF you understand the design principles. A really good programmer should be able to adapt easily to a new syntax (except horrible crap like COBOL). But the point of the question is, which technologies are used to bolt on to Java in real projects?
Not really. Simple business logic writes itself, true, but as features get added and design scope starts to grow, it gets complicated. At that point you'd better hope you know some of the maths or doing anything will take forever.
Slashdot Mirror
Simple fact one: The US can't just keep on spending money it hasn't really got. 8 years of it is too much already.
Simple fact two: Tax will have to be raised and spending cut to avoid total economic meltdown.
Well Bush spent trillions on invading other countries. So if Obama simply avoids that, yes he'll probably have enough money for all that and more.
That would be great, any plans in your garage?
Yeah point taken. If the question is "what do we do about climate change?" then I just err towards the Lovelockian view, which is mostly about preserving existing ecology. I think it would be a serious mistake to allow greedy landowners and politicians to continue trashing forests and jungles and try to make it up with artificial trees.
A forest also supports a huge web of life. Insects, fungi, mammals, birds, amphibians, all sorts. If that web is disrupted significantly, who knows what the side effects will be? Certainly they will include changes to atmospheric composition. Also desertification and loss of biodiversity.
Some of it sticks around but not sure how much.
But that isn't the point. You can use the wood for making stuff and so it hangs around as paper or a table for years. It all eventually goes back of course but if we were to use more paper and less plastic, you'd be storing a lot of it temporarily and the amount stored in "the system" would be higher.
Yeah trees grow real slow. But over the years a tree will still soak up tons of CO2, plus they cost nothing, there's no maintenance and you get a useful resource out of them at the end. Also you can pollard them to speed things up.
I don't NEED to know the man. I don't know Hitler, personally, but I still know he was not a nice man.
Going by the number of deaths he is responsible for - probably about a million. That puts him about on a par with Augusto Pinochet. Below Genghis Khan (30 million), but not far off a Hitler (10 million) or Stalin (10 million).
Come off it. Those kindly citizens of the grand old United States, upholders of peace and freedom everywhere, defenders of the weak and oppressed and conqueror of mighty tyrants... well they were frickin panting for war. A few people tried to point out it was all nonsense but they were shouted down by the mob.
I mean, from what you're saying, it sounds as if nobody knew! The people were offered it, some documents were forged, the media was unleashed and the people gave a great big "YES".
You can't just blame blame it all on Bush now.
I simply don't believe I will ever hate Obama as much as I now hate Bush. In fact, I can't believe I'll ever hate ANYONE as much as I hate Bush. I mean, even if Obama ran over my cat on purpose...
The really nasty thing here is not having a card with an identifying number on it, or even a card with lots of scary-sounding biometric data.
The really nasty thing is that the card implies a central government database which will contain everything they've got on you - criminal record, DNA fragment, address, car registration plate.
They have some or most of this stuff already but the crucial difference is that it's all sliced up into different databases and it's not practical to pull everything on someone.
The ramifications of this are as profound as the impact of large databases have already been in other areas. Imagine you didn't pay a parking fine and bang, the government garnishes your payroll, cancels your garbage collection and prevents you leaving the country for a month.
As for the politics of it, I'm convinced Labour are pushing this through for some sort of nasty, secretive reason. Why else would they keep coming up with one reason after another, none of which make any sense? Someone suggested they like funnelling cash to sh1tty consultancy agencies like Crapita and Accenture, (which sounds plausible since it's along similar lines to how the Iraq war happened).
Also, don't think we will be able to bring this down with passive resistance. People will get them and pay the fee for them when they realise they can't take an exam or get a passport without first getting an ID card. There won't be a massive public reaction to thsi like there was to the poll-tax. The best we can hope for here is that Labour simply give it up as too unpopular, before it is brough in.
The problem with it is that presumably the #ID constitutes a key that a bunch of other data key on. That means that if I, perhaps a criminal, know your #ID and if I can get access (which may well be possible), I can look up every relevant bit of data the government holds on you.
It's not the card that freaks people out, it's the massive, unified and probably insecure database that it implies!
Perhaps he has. Give it another ten years and the damage he has done will be much more apparent.
Yes but of course it would have to be very specific (or "fiddly") if you're to enforce it as suggested.
But yes it might cut down on ridiculous campaign pledges. I just don't think it's enforceable.
Yeah. The opinion that it's a waste is a function of the uniquely American belief that you only need 2 parties in a democracy. Most other countries (certainly the UK, where I live) have a third party and a handful of other parties below them. They do get laughed at a bit for having no hope of winning but they did overtake the Conservatives (at least in opinion polls) when they were going through a really rough patch. They're also very important in local government (councils and so on is a party system).
Come on, that's nuts! Circumstances change and a leader has to be able to adapt. What if he promises not to raise taxes, then WW3 breaks out and you need to pay to defend your own shores? Sorry, you voted for low taxes so go hide out in the basement. An extreme example of course but you take my point.
Also wouldn't have helped get rid of The Chimp. He got elected promising to be a douchebag and that's more or less what he did for 8 years.
And brother, let me tell you, this ain't the suburbs.
Oh, I DO hope you're black after posting that.
I do agree with the rest tho, he's not your typical presidential candidate.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7604311.stm
Ctrl+H - see you in court!
OK no offence. Just saying perhaps we're more sensitive to the class issues this involves.
http://torrentfreak.com/youre-caught-downloading-dream-pinball-settle-now-or-go-broke/
There are all sorts of restrictions that the industry puts on electronic media distribution, 99% of it is motivated by their desire to protect their existing business model. If the business model changes too much, the web of companies making profit will fall apart. They're ideologically unable to accept the truth; that is, advances in IT mean that eventually artists will sell directly to consumers. The only thing that will remain in between is the critics, DJs, journalists, etc who screen the huge amount of stuff for us. Distribution companies, duplication plants, agents, A&R, agents and lawyers will all be out of a business and shareholders will lose money - that's what they're trying to stop. That will probably happen to music first, but will probably generalise to TV and then movies in time. Inertia is caused by the amount of investment to make the stuff.
You don't see cases like you do in the US where people get fined tens of thousands of dollars. You will probably say "yet" but I just don't thin that sort of thing would fly over here. I think there would be a huge amount of protest, which would make it politically inconvenient.
Yeah of course it's not that hard IF you understand the design principles. A really good programmer should be able to adapt easily to a new syntax (except horrible crap like COBOL). But the point of the question is, which technologies are used to bolt on to Java in real projects?
Not really. Simple business logic writes itself, true, but as features get added and design scope starts to grow, it gets complicated. At that point you'd better hope you know some of the maths or doing anything will take forever.