Any house near enough to the local exchange should be able to get line speeds in this range.
Of course, actual download speed from specific sites will vary depending on overall load, particularly at the bottleneck between us and the rest of the world.
It was in the local news long ago, but it never got much attention. Note that while it is true that it is "the government" implementing the filter, it wasn't a political move. It's something the civil service did on it's own initiative, under existing law.
I looked at this some time back, and again more recently when it was confirmed that my workplace's internet provider (I work at the University of Waikato) will be using the filter.
Personally, I can't work up any outrage over it. The proposal seems to be technically sound and minimally intrusive, so while I couldn't say I was in favour, I'm not really concerned.
Certainly they could, but our civil service is reasonably free of corruption, so personally I'd consider that a low risk.
Note that the only part of the DIA's job that would be applicable would be anti-money-laundering and countering financing of terrorism, and even that would be in a separate division.
Remember also that the ISPs will be able to see which sites are affected, and would be liable to blow the whistle if the filter is being misused. I suspect covert surveillance would probably be conducted by more covert means.
It's not that complicated. They realise that when you click on a link, you don't have any way of knowing where it goes, and that most people visiting child pornography sites are probably doing so accidentally.
We don't see a lot of malicious prosecution in New Zealand, presumably because the folks in charge of making these decisions are civil servants rather than politicians.
They are only censoring child pornography. They are not releasing the list of web sites being blocked, on the grounds that this would provide paedophiles with a list of web sites to visit. I'm not sure what if any oversight is planned, but the folks in question have a fairly good reputation and are probably trustworthy. At the moment.
I don't believe any of the credible parties have objected to the filter. For reference, it wasn't a political decision, it was implemented by the civil service.
I don't believe the UN, or any government in the world has taken the position that article 19 prohibits the censorship of child pornography.
If you want to argue that it does, I'll respect that viewpoint, but I don't think NZ is exactly going out on a limb here as far as the UN is concerned. (They're far more worried that we might not discriminate against the descendants of Europeans thoroughly enough.)
I imagine it will be managed by the censorship office - the same folks that, for example, provide the ratings for videos. It's also been made pretty clear that the only grounds (for now at least!) are child pornography.
It should also be noted that (in contrast, for example, to the Australian proposal) this filter was not politically driven, but implemented by the civil service.
The bulk of our traffic (all of it, I think, except perhaps some via satellite) has to go to Australia first, then on to the rest of the world. Naturally it's more expensive here.
There is a proposal to put in a much bigger pipe which I gather will bypass Australia. Hopefully once implemented it will bring prices down.
How would using Apache help? The last time I checked, the Windows Server licensing model required one license per client, regardless of what software you use on the server.
I didn't say they were the first to not follow standards; UNIX was developed in 1969.
Are you really asserting that the first implementation of a given feature automatically defines a standard?
For that matter, was UNIX the first OS to have subdirectories? It may have been, but do you actually know this to be the case or are you just guessing?
Until you are working on a piece of code with a friend who wants to be able to view the code with an indent/tab size of 8 and you are just dandy with 2,3, or 4. Now everytime you each commit you will waste some time redoing each others 'spaces' indentation levels or have to remember so send everything through a formatter first...
Or you could just suck it up and make a decision!
But seriously, if there's some compelling reason to use tabs, and the inconvenience of not using them is greater than the inconvenience of doing so, fine. Both depend not only on the editor in use but also all the other context.
Personally, I'm still not sure I approve of having more than one developer working on a particular piece of code at a time to begin with. (And get off my lawn!):-)
For the life of me I'm trying to grasp what the heck the difference between tab size and indent size... what does it mean for them not to be equal?
The indent size is how many characters to the right Visual Studio jumps when the auto-formatting decides to increase the indent level. If this isn't equivalent to the length of a tab, then Visual Studio will add whatever combination of tabs and spaces is necessary. It might also delete existing spaces and turn them into tabs.
For example, if the indent size is 6 and the tab size 4, the first indent level will be one tab and two spaces. If you then add an indent level, the two spaces will be removed, and two tabs added.
By default, pressing the tab key adds an indent level rather than inserting a tab character.
if you are trying to print a tab as in the character '\t' isnt it just going to get printed however the reciever chooses to interpret the tab character?
Quite, and therein lies the rub. It means that every program that interacts with the code may need to be told how to interpret the tabs. If you're using command-line tools, there could be hundreds of different programs involved.
surely i'm missing something about the difference between the two. Even when I'm using no-tabs and spaces only I don't understand why they would be different
If there aren't any tab characters in the document, the tab length setting is unused, so it doesn't matter whether they are the same or not.
Ingenious cutting, but it doesn't really hide the obvious: bringing up a development environment to look at code is often inconvenient, but you would not expect to edit code outside of your development environment on a regular basis.
On the rare occasion where this is necessary, pushing delete a few extra times hardly seems onerous.
It's relevant to TFA. If you don't use tabs, the tab spacing doesn't matter, so the change in question is harmless.
It's also very interesting to note that almost all of the arguments in favour of using tabs only work if the indentation level and the tab size are the same. Score one for Microsoft.:-)
My experience with Visual Studio in tabs mode was that spaces still wound up in the indentation. Perhaps I was hitting spacebar sometimes to indent... there are some disadvantages to being a touch typist... or perhaps the spaces were originally between tokens that got removed... I don't know. It just didn't work for me.
Why would I view a code file from Notepad? Sometimes I'm just in a hurry and don't want to wait for VS to initialize. Sometimes I'm using a computer on which VS is not installed. Sometimes it's just habit; my fingers can type "notepad" without requiring input from my brain.
Huh. If I'm commenting out code, I want it to be indented differently to the code that's still active, so I can easily tell the difference. Oh, well, po-TAY-to po-TAH-to, I suppose.
I find it easier to avoid putting any tabs into a document than to avoid putting any spaces in, particularly if the tab key is mapped to another function.:-)
Naturally enough, it depends on your development environment.
(Did you mean that Eclipse would replace spaces with tabs? Isn't that what you wanted?)
Slashdot Mirror
Any house near enough to the local exchange should be able to get line speeds in this range.
Of course, actual download speed from specific sites will vary depending on overall load, particularly at the bottleneck between us and the rest of the world.
It was in the local news long ago, but it never got much attention. Note that while it is true that it is "the government" implementing the filter, it wasn't a political move. It's something the civil service did on it's own initiative, under existing law.
I looked at this some time back, and again more recently when it was confirmed that my workplace's internet provider (I work at the University of Waikato) will be using the filter.
Personally, I can't work up any outrage over it. The proposal seems to be technically sound and minimally intrusive, so while I couldn't say I was in favour, I'm not really concerned.
Certainly they could, but our civil service is reasonably free of corruption, so personally I'd consider that a low risk.
Note that the only part of the DIA's job that would be applicable would be anti-money-laundering and countering financing of terrorism, and even that would be in a separate division.
Remember also that the ISPs will be able to see which sites are affected, and would be liable to blow the whistle if the filter is being misused. I suspect covert surveillance would probably be conducted by more covert means.
It's not that complicated. They realise that when you click on a link, you don't have any way of knowing where it goes, and that most people visiting child pornography sites are probably doing so accidentally.
We don't see a lot of malicious prosecution in New Zealand, presumably because the folks in charge of making these decisions are civil servants rather than politicians.
They are only censoring child pornography. They are not releasing the list of web sites being blocked, on the grounds that this would provide paedophiles with a list of web sites to visit. I'm not sure what if any oversight is planned, but the folks in question have a fairly good reputation and are probably trustworthy. At the moment.
I don't believe any of the credible parties have objected to the filter. For reference, it wasn't a political decision, it was implemented by the civil service.
I don't believe the UN, or any government in the world has taken the position that article 19 prohibits the censorship of child pornography.
If you want to argue that it does, I'll respect that viewpoint, but I don't think NZ is exactly going out on a limb here as far as the UN is concerned. (They're far more worried that we might not discriminate against the descendants of Europeans thoroughly enough.)
I imagine it will be managed by the censorship office - the same folks that, for example, provide the ratings for videos. It's also been made pretty clear that the only grounds (for now at least!) are child pornography.
It wasn't particularly secret.
It should also be noted that (in contrast, for example, to the Australian proposal) this filter was not politically driven, but implemented by the civil service.
The bulk of our traffic (all of it, I think, except perhaps some via satellite) has to go to Australia first, then on to the rest of the world. Naturally it's more expensive here.
There is a proposal to put in a much bigger pipe which I gather will bypass Australia. Hopefully once implemented it will bring prices down.
That means there's more chance the proposed filter might come to fruition in Australia. Now the Government can point and say "see, NZ did it!".
Well, you could point out all the differences. For example, our one will probably actually work, as it only affects a very small amount of traffic.
How would using Apache help? The last time I checked, the Windows Server licensing model required one license per client, regardless of what software you use on the server.
I didn't say they were the first to not follow standards; UNIX was developed in 1969.
Are you really asserting that the first implementation of a given feature automatically defines a standard?
For that matter, was UNIX the first OS to have subdirectories? It may have been, but do you actually know this to be the case or are you just guessing?
Until you are working on a piece of code with a friend who wants to be able to view the code with an indent/tab size of 8 and you are just dandy with 2,3, or 4. Now everytime you each commit you will waste some time redoing each others 'spaces' indentation levels or have to remember so send everything through a formatter first...
Or you could just suck it up and make a decision!
But seriously, if there's some compelling reason to use tabs, and the inconvenience of not using them is greater than the inconvenience of doing so, fine. Both depend not only on the editor in use but also all the other context.
Personally, I'm still not sure I approve of having more than one developer working on a particular piece of code at a time to begin with. (And get off my lawn!) :-)
For the life of me I'm trying to grasp what the heck the difference between tab size and indent size... what does it mean for them not to be equal?
The indent size is how many characters to the right Visual Studio jumps when the auto-formatting decides to increase the indent level. If this isn't equivalent to the length of a tab, then Visual Studio will add whatever combination of tabs and spaces is necessary. It might also delete existing spaces and turn them into tabs.
For example, if the indent size is 6 and the tab size 4, the first indent level will be one tab and two spaces. If you then add an indent level, the two spaces will be removed, and two tabs added.
By default, pressing the tab key adds an indent level rather than inserting a tab character.
if you are trying to print a tab as in the character '\t' isnt it just going to get printed however the reciever chooses to interpret the tab character?
Quite, and therein lies the rub. It means that every program that interacts with the code may need to be told how to interpret the tabs. If you're using command-line tools, there could be hundreds of different programs involved.
surely i'm missing something about the difference between the two. Even when I'm using no-tabs and spaces only I don't understand why they would be different
If there aren't any tab characters in the document, the tab length setting is unused, so it doesn't matter whether they are the same or not.
Ingenious cutting, but it doesn't really hide the obvious: bringing up a development environment to look at code is often inconvenient, but you would not expect to edit code outside of your development environment on a regular basis.
On the rare occasion where this is necessary, pushing delete a few extra times hardly seems onerous.
I would be upset if my state passed such a law.
Why? It seems a reasonable prerequisite for the special privileges accorded to a corporation.
Thanks.
OK, but do you think the putative legislation would violate the constitution if passed by the states? Or only if it were a federal law?
It's relevant to TFA. If you don't use tabs, the tab spacing doesn't matter, so the change in question is harmless.
It's also very interesting to note that almost all of the arguments in favour of using tabs only work if the indentation level and the tab size are the same. Score one for Microsoft. :-)
stop it, and everyone will be happy.
How? I don't put the darn things there on purpose, they just show up. And if I can't see them, I can't remove them.
Bugger. I had a feeling someone was going to know how to make Visual Studio show tabs. :-)
On the whole, I think my own preference is still to stick with spaces; they work for me. But, OK, if I had to use tabs, I guess I could.
My experience with Visual Studio in tabs mode was that spaces still wound up in the indentation. Perhaps I was hitting spacebar sometimes to indent ... there are some disadvantages to being a touch typist ... or perhaps the spaces were originally between tokens that got removed ... I don't know. It just didn't work for me.
Why would I view a code file from Notepad? Sometimes I'm just in a hurry and don't want to wait for VS to initialize. Sometimes I'm using a computer on which VS is not installed. Sometimes it's just habit; my fingers can type "notepad" without requiring input from my brain.
Huh. If I'm commenting out code, I want it to be indented differently to the code that's still active, so I can easily tell the difference. Oh, well, po-TAY-to po-TAH-to, I suppose.
I find it easier to avoid putting any tabs into a document than to avoid putting any spaces in, particularly if the tab key is mapped to another function. :-)
Naturally enough, it depends on your development environment.
(Did you mean that Eclipse would replace spaces with tabs? Isn't that what you wanted?)