AFAIK, The Nordics aren't exactly a fan of the "too big to (be allowed to) fail" theory; look at Sweden and it's car makers (Saab Closed, Volvo sold to China) or Iceland and it's banks (they let them default and rebuilt on their ashes, as it were).
So I am not surprised Finland is jumping to support Nokia, like say, the US would to support the Detroit three (both groups hold an equal "essential job-provider" influence in their respective countries)
Also, ugh, back scan all over! Can't read the bloody thing due to the back page image being scanned in. (courtesy of a flatbed, back-lit scanner?)
I think it should have been scanned with one of those front book scanner (like the ones they make here[1]) I dare presume that would have eliminated the problem?
I think it makes it easier for future employment chances when you say you quit a place then were fired; you can spin quitting into any fluff, like I needed some time with the family or whatever; but making a firing look good is much harder.
While Prawns are not Kosher according to Jewish Dietary laws (something about shell fish not having horns?...I dunno, anybody wanna clarify?), *ALL* seafood, (from prawns to sharks to sea cucumbers and what-have-you) is deemed Halal according to Islamic Dietary laws; heck the laws are *staked* in favour of sea food vs land meat; no ritual regarding sacrifice, no restrictions either. I can go to any fish serving place and eat their produce, no questions asked.
Update at 5:10PM EST: No dice. “At this time, Mozilla does not have additional information to share beyond the blog post content,” a Mozilla spokesperson told The Next Web in a statement. “We’ll be sure to update you once we have additional details to share regarding the timing, version(s) impacted and visual look of the message.”
It's not that invisible actually. But I liked the concept (actually I was thinking this would be amazing addition to regular helmets for speed bikers and formula one racers)
Interestingly enough, this is relevant to my studies. Although my studies focus more on the accounting/legal aspect of it, we can safely generalise to a certain extent, since the those regulators are obviously affected by the culture. So allow me a little lecture. (Don't worry, there will be a tl;dr at the end)
Basically, we learn about rules and regulations, and approaches to it. And if we distill it, we can come down to two basic approaches: Rules-based and Principles-based. And frankly, the difference between them is as big as the Atlantic.
A rules based approach can be summed up as "Follow-or-Else! NO Exceptions!". They fear being too lax and inclusive, and letting some wrongdoing go unchecked, therefore rules based approach require regulation that is strict and inflexible. Every possible permutation and approved deviation must be encoded, to avoid loop-hole abuse. Everyone can and *should* remain within the framework; any difference is obviously is a sly attempt to get a pass, and hence must be stopped.
A principles-based approach, on the other hand, can be summed up as "Comply! or Explain the noncompliance..." A principle fears being too strict and exclusive, and fear some rightdoing being unfairly checked, and thus a principles-based approach prefer regulation that's more flexible and amenable. It should have a solid core, but the gaps between those core model is a flexible fence, not a solid wall. You should remain within the framework, but should you find yourself pressing the boundaries, you will be asked to explain why, and should there be a genuine reason, the fence would be flexible enough to allow you that deviation, and yet allow to be considered a part of the framework and not a deviant.
If we were to apply broad strokes, we can say that the US prefers a rules-based approach, whilst the UK (and Europe, as an extension) prefers a principles based approach. (Obviously, it is not a 1:1 correlation, but you can see the influence)
Which is why the US citizen are always saying "There ought to be a LAW!" for everything. You don't want a generally understood principle, you dismiss that as naive, since a stampede of rule-breaker will run through it the moment you blink.
No, what you want is a law, that is clear cut and fair. It's set down in stone, and let's everyone know what the boundaries are. And the more encompassing the laws are(note the difference between this statement and a mere "more laws"), the better.
And this is why for example (to pick a topic that is dear to the average slashdotter's heart), you have your amendments, and why they can say "it's digital, so it's different", because, well, their ain't no law that says it works on digital thingamajig too!
A principles-based approach would have tackled this differently and understood that the same rule held even in digital form.
(Please understand that I am NOT saying one is better than the other, merely explaining how the approaches differentiate whilst tackling a problem)
TL;DR You want laws because you know that everyone follows the letter rather than the spirit, and thus you want your preference written down in letter, inviolable and incontestable.
Reminds me of something that Jeremy Clarkson (of Top Gear fame) once said: If you want to look at the future, you should look at the luxury goods today. He gave examples of how "luxury" features such as power steering, ABS, injection fuel etc that were once the domain of expensive cars are now a part of every ordinary car.
Same is the case with Tesla and the electric systems; they will start with luxury, and soon (5-10 years?) become part of the ordinary cars.
Slashdot Mirror
AFAIK, The Nordics aren't exactly a fan of the "too big to (be allowed to) fail" theory; look at Sweden and it's car makers (Saab Closed, Volvo sold to China) or Iceland and it's banks (they let them default and rebuilt on their ashes, as it were).
So I am not surprised Finland is jumping to support Nokia, like say, the US would to support the Detroit three (both groups hold an equal "essential job-provider" influence in their respective countries)
Whether it's a good or bad thing is up to you.
http://xkcd.com/908/
Here is another site, they are more of a Stationery reviewer, rather than be restricted to writing implements only: http://www.penciltalk.org/
I was reading that old link, wow, bless their little hearts, discussing about Windows 98 and Office 2000...
And Slashdot was *still* bitching about whether this was *news* or not... :D
YES, THIS IS DOG...
(Nah, just being pedantic :D)
To keep people honest, I routinely have friends call past employers posing as a new employer and I let the past employers know that I do this
That's genius!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_s
Also, God damn Long S
The link in parent post from Google Dutch.
http://books.google.com.pk/books?id=SgFMAAAAcAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Micrographia&source=bl&ots=RHRy548O-h&sig=7rlnMA8KsyCj7h7-TfHBuxDoAd4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=wk6GUM23C6iu0QW4_YCQBA&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
Also, ugh, back scan all over! Can't read the bloody thing due to the back page image being scanned in. (courtesy of a flatbed, back-lit scanner?)
I think it should have been scanned with one of those front book scanner (like the ones they make here[1]) I dare presume that would have eliminated the problem?
[1]: http://www.diybookscanner.org/
I think it makes it easier for future employment chances when you say you quit a place then were fired; you can spin quitting into any fluff, like I needed some time with the family or whatever; but making a firing look good is much harder.
If you fail step one, bury the coin and prescribe a circle around it...
On second thought if you are going to bury the thing back in, better not dig it out in the first place :D
Hah! You are citing Dresden File instead of the Bible as the source, awesome :D
And yes, I got the basic Idea behind this bible story from Dresden Files too. Seems I don't recall my Butcher as correctly as I had assumed...
Ah sorry, I have never read the bible (being a muslim and all); in fact I got this "parable" from Dresden Files.
Judas, that you?
While Prawns are not Kosher according to Jewish Dietary laws (something about shell fish not having horns?...I dunno, anybody wanna clarify?), *ALL* seafood, (from prawns to sharks to sea cucumbers and what-have-you) is deemed Halal according to Islamic Dietary laws; heck the laws are *staked* in favour of sea food vs land meat; no ritual regarding sacrifice, no restrictions either. I can go to any fish serving place and eat their produce, no questions asked.
http://www.xkcd.com/1119/
Update at 5:10PM EST: No dice. “At this time, Mozilla does not have additional information to share beyond the blog post content,” a Mozilla spokesperson told The Next Web in a statement. “We’ll be sure to update you once we have additional details to share regarding the timing, version(s) impacted and visual look of the message.”
Hmm, but what if it's hot and sunny? That thing will be warmer than a muffler, and not provide shade either!
Sometimes the simple solution are best.
Though to be fair, the product was made by swedes, I expect even their summers are pleasant.
This topic reminded me of what two swede women cooked up as a third option of sorts:
http://www.hovding.com/en/how/
In action:
http://www.hovding.com/en/film/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kZGTOLBvek
It's not that invisible actually. But I liked the concept (actually I was thinking this would be amazing addition to regular helmets for speed bikers and formula one racers)
Huh?
I have heard a lot of phrases, but never encountered that one. What does it even mean? Google is not helpful (it leads to your post) :(
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sy_MWog3ltw
Interestingly enough, this is relevant to my studies. Although my studies focus more on the accounting/legal aspect of it, we can safely generalise to a certain extent, since the those regulators are obviously affected by the culture. So allow me a little lecture. (Don't worry, there will be a tl;dr at the end)
Basically, we learn about rules and regulations, and approaches to it. And if we distill it, we can come down to two basic approaches: Rules-based and Principles-based. And frankly, the difference between them is as big as the Atlantic.
A rules based approach can be summed up as "Follow-or-Else! NO Exceptions!". They fear being too lax and inclusive, and letting some wrongdoing go unchecked, therefore rules based approach require regulation that is strict and inflexible. Every possible permutation and approved deviation must be encoded, to avoid loop-hole abuse. Everyone can and *should* remain within the framework; any difference is obviously is a sly attempt to get a pass, and hence must be stopped.
A principles-based approach, on the other hand, can be summed up as "Comply! or Explain the noncompliance..." A principle fears being too strict and exclusive, and fear some rightdoing being unfairly checked, and thus a principles-based approach prefer regulation that's more flexible and amenable. It should have a solid core, but the gaps between those core model is a flexible fence, not a solid wall. You should remain within the framework, but should you find yourself pressing the boundaries, you will be asked to explain why, and should there be a genuine reason, the fence would be flexible enough to allow you that deviation, and yet allow to be considered a part of the framework and not a deviant.
If we were to apply broad strokes, we can say that the US prefers a rules-based approach, whilst the UK (and Europe, as an extension) prefers a principles based approach. (Obviously, it is not a 1:1 correlation, but you can see the influence)
Which is why the US citizen are always saying "There ought to be a LAW!" for everything. You don't want a generally understood principle, you dismiss that as naive, since a stampede of rule-breaker will run through it the moment you blink.
No, what you want is a law, that is clear cut and fair. It's set down in stone, and let's everyone know what the boundaries are. And the more encompassing the laws are(note the difference between this statement and a mere "more laws"), the better.
And this is why for example (to pick a topic that is dear to the average slashdotter's heart), you have your amendments, and why they can say "it's digital, so it's different", because, well, their ain't no law that says it works on digital thingamajig too!
A principles-based approach would have tackled this differently and understood that the same rule held even in digital form.
(Please understand that I am NOT saying one is better than the other, merely explaining how the approaches differentiate whilst tackling a problem)
TL;DR You want laws because you know that everyone follows the letter rather than the spirit, and thus you want your preference written down in letter, inviolable and incontestable.
[E&OE]
[Yeah, I know; facts, facts, facts, ... boring. ;-]
Too bad, because now I want to subscribe to your newsletter. :D
And graphs and everything. Love it.
Go Here:
http://www.reddit.com/r/GraphPorn/
Have an orgy :P
(there must be some cosmic rule, just like there is an xkcd comic for everything, there is a subreddit for everything...)
Reminds me of something that Jeremy Clarkson (of Top Gear fame) once said: If you want to look at the future, you should look at the luxury goods today. He gave examples of how "luxury" features such as power steering, ABS, injection fuel etc that were once the domain of expensive cars are now a part of every ordinary car.
Same is the case with Tesla and the electric systems; they will start with luxury, and soon (5-10 years?) become part of the ordinary cars.