Mandating the exclusion of bribery, intimidation and murder is anti-competitive and is harmful to taxpayers. Such a regulation prevents criminal gangs such as the Mafia from competing for government contracts because bribery, intimidation and murder are a key component of their work practices. Restrictions such as this never enhance competition but instead eliminate it by artificially reducing the number of bidders for any contract. While I understand the desire to embrace clean and lawful government, and why it would be a consideration for any government agency seeking bids for a project, it should not in itself disqualify bidders.
Let's look at cheques as non-electronic money transfers that are easily available to most people. Is it wise to phase out these? It assumes that there will be no breakdown in electronic methods of money transfer. What might happen with serious power failures, solar storms, war, or economic collapses? Will we have to revert to cash for everything, and is there enough of it?
Why should anyone else know it is notable? You created an article and provided no references. You were asked to provide references as per standard policy; this applies to everyone, including you, me and to admins. Spending as long as necessary looking up references is appropriate for an encyclopaedia; how otherwise could you show that you did not just make it up in your head? You provided some references and the notice placed on it was downgraded. It is an English language wiki, and your references not being in English is certainly a problem, as is the fact that the band appears not to be notable in any English speaking country.
What happened to "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit"?
It's still there. Sometimes it has to be 'anyone who can be trusted to make a sensible edit'. It's like anyone's free to walk down the street here - providing they don't pick a fight with those they meet.
One of the technical subject pages which I watch is the target of a moderately common girl's name (i.e. look for this name on wikipedia and it goes to this page). As a result, it gets vandalised regularly; usually just addition of things like 'I love xxx', 'xxx is a slag', et.c., sometimes complete replacement by this stuff. Biographical and politician's pages get such vandalism more regularly. This is the sort of thing that, when it gets serious, makes protection necessary.
Lots of bad science reporting there, just what you would expect from a motor journalist talking about botany.
New species???
All plants absorb gases, including any nitrogen compounds in the air. Any nitrous oxides would be absorbed within the leaf, since they are nutrients and plants have an ability to absorb nutrients through the leaves (foliar feeding).
All plants give off water vapour. I suspect most trees would be better at cooling the factory surrounds than gardenia plants, since by their size and nature they are faster growers and thus can transpire more water, and (for most species) they have more leaf area per unit of ground area.
To clarify, David Nutt is an academic, who works for Imperial College. His role as government advisor on drugs was unpaid, and he is being sacked from this unpaid position. The government may be paying for expensive researchers on this subject somewhere else, but it was not paying him directly.
The US has the best medical care in the world - it's only on average that you receive lower quality care.
Oh yes, of course. Impeccable logic, I like the way your mind works. Don't forget also that for Robert Mugabe, Zimbabwe is the most peaceful, well run country on earth - it's only on average that the place is a bit of a disaster. And India has some of the richest people in the world; it's only on average that it is a poor country.
I'm assuming that the story can be taken at face value, that it applies to all bugs that cause the end user problems.
But then, this would not and should not stop at software. What about any other type of procedure that people devise to solve a problem? Medical diagnostic procedures for instance. If my cancer was not found because Professor X wrote the diagnostic procedure, and failed to allow for the symptoms being masked by the cold / indigestion / hangover that was affecting me at the time of diagnosis, should I be able to sue him?
Or perhaps a better example, if my lawyer lost a case for me because he did not allow for all possibilities in dealing with it, but could show that he followed standard guidelines; maybe I would have a case against whoever drew up the guidelines, and especially if it was the ALI that was responsible...
From respect.gov.uk - "families who require supervision and support on a 24 hour basis stay in a core residential unit"
OK, that is a source, but that is not CCTV. However I read it, there is no mention or implication of being watched by CCTV,. The statement is that they are always supervised when in the unit. This is already supposed to happen with problem children. The alternative for the problem families is that the children are taken into care. In which case the adults are left to fend for themselves, and the children continue to get the 24 hour supervision but in care rather than with their actual parents.
There's a scheme for CCTV watching people in their own houses, already in existence? I've missed it, obviously I've not been reading enough of the Daily Express.
If someone buys stolen property in good faith, never believing that it was stolen then the police inform them, they have absolutely no right to keep it and in all likelihood will not get their money back.
Agreed they have no right to keep the goods, but they did enter into the sale contract in good faith assuming the goods were legitimate. If the seller had no right to sell them, the buyer has every right to compensation from the seller.
Consider also little military Ais on opposite sides that may make military decisions that drive both sides into all out war, and very quickly at that. With humans, there is the chance or even likelihood that some officer will decide that even if the other side has been provocative, the consequences of retaliation may be worth avoiding. After all, in most wars, most people, even the military, would prefer that they and their families live on the losing side rather than be dead on the winning side. What are the chances of such sensible judgements being made by an AI?
An American may lose his house to pay for an operation, but at least he gets the operation, while the Brits die from MRSA, waiting months for urgent surgery in a dirty ward, paying more (on average) for the privilege.
If you are British, then you know perfectly well that you can pay privately for the operation yourself and lose your own house if you don't want to wait for the NHS. It is something that around 30% of the population of Britain cannot afford (this is the proportion that do not own their own house). But they still have the NHS, and everyone, including the well-off, are vastly better off for it. The NHS works just as well as you would expect it to do when it has to cater for an endless demand. I have a chronic back condition and it would be helpful to have NHS physiotherapy every week; but they consider, quite reasonably, that given the seriousness of my condition and the benefits, that it is not that high a priority. Nothing stops me from buying therapy myself if I think it necessary (which sometimes I have done in the past).
You could always ask someone who said their hard drive was broken what parameters they used to establish this. Also, whether they had tried networking the hard drive to the intranet to establish just which software programs were causing it to crash.
One of their key 'facts' that the BSA uses to demonstrate that pirating is endemic in poor countries (in the executive summary of the report) -
"While emerging economies account for 45 percent
of the global PC hardware market, they account for
less than 20 percent of the PC software market."
So, if a poorer person wants a computer only to be able to browse the internet and handle email, that means he's a pirate. Because richer people routinely also pay for MS Office for letters, and MS Money for banking, etc., that automatically means that the poorer person is also using the same software, only not paying for it.
That's easy, all of them will be deleted. Because they would be information about the police that may be of use to terrorists, and it's illegal to collect such information.
Now they're being employed by the government to help further clutter up the web! I look forward to a stream of 'link to my official, government-approved website' emails.
Why should I care if you sue me in a UK court? You could get a court order entitling you to a million pound. How would you collect? Ask me to send you a cheque from the US?
Because it does not have to be you that is sued.
If your ISP or whoever publishes your comments has a presence in the UK, then it can be sued for your comments. Hence your ISP / whoever might see fit to censor you, to safeguard its own position in the UK market.
Well, till 20 years or so ago, the ideological enemy over in totalitarian Eastern Europe kept this lot over in the west honest. It was necessary to be different.
Now, the only ideological enemy is the Taliban, and you have to admit the UK and US governments show no interest at all in making women wear the veil.
Slashdot Mirror
Mandating the exclusion of bribery, intimidation and murder is anti-competitive and is harmful to taxpayers. Such a regulation prevents criminal gangs such as the Mafia from competing for government contracts because bribery, intimidation and murder are a key component of their work practices. Restrictions such as this never enhance competition but instead eliminate it by artificially reducing the number of bidders for any contract. While I understand the desire to embrace clean and lawful government, and why it would be a consideration for any government agency seeking bids for a project, it should not in itself disqualify bidders.
Let's look at cheques as non-electronic money transfers that are easily available to most people. Is it wise to phase out these? It assumes that there will be no breakdown in electronic methods of money transfer. What might happen with serious power failures, solar storms, war, or economic collapses? Will we have to revert to cash for everything, and is there enough of it?
I think you might be saying you can't read a map?
Just one atom in millions. Magic!
Why should anyone else know it is notable? You created an article and provided no references. You were asked to provide references as per standard policy; this applies to everyone, including you, me and to admins. Spending as long as necessary looking up references is appropriate for an encyclopaedia; how otherwise could you show that you did not just make it up in your head? You provided some references and the notice placed on it was downgraded. It is an English language wiki, and your references not being in English is certainly a problem, as is the fact that the band appears not to be notable in any English speaking country.
What happened to "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit"?
It's still there. Sometimes it has to be 'anyone who can be trusted to make a sensible edit'. It's like anyone's free to walk down the street here - providing they don't pick a fight with those they meet. One of the technical subject pages which I watch is the target of a moderately common girl's name (i.e. look for this name on wikipedia and it goes to this page). As a result, it gets vandalised regularly; usually just addition of things like 'I love xxx', 'xxx is a slag', et.c., sometimes complete replacement by this stuff. Biographical and politician's pages get such vandalism more regularly. This is the sort of thing that, when it gets serious, makes protection necessary.
Lots of bad science reporting there, just what you would expect from a motor journalist talking about botany. New species??? All plants absorb gases, including any nitrogen compounds in the air. Any nitrous oxides would be absorbed within the leaf, since they are nutrients and plants have an ability to absorb nutrients through the leaves (foliar feeding). All plants give off water vapour. I suspect most trees would be better at cooling the factory surrounds than gardenia plants, since by their size and nature they are faster growers and thus can transpire more water, and (for most species) they have more leaf area per unit of ground area.
To clarify, David Nutt is an academic, who works for Imperial College. His role as government advisor on drugs was unpaid, and he is being sacked from this unpaid position. The government may be paying for expensive researchers on this subject somewhere else, but it was not paying him directly.
who fucking cares? its just so much damage to route around
Repeated damage to the body is a cause of cancer.
Actually, now I've said it, it is clear enough - Mandelson is a cancerous infection.
The US has the best medical care in the world - it's only on average that you receive lower quality care.
Oh yes, of course. Impeccable logic, I like the way your mind works. Don't forget also that for Robert Mugabe, Zimbabwe is the most peaceful, well run country on earth - it's only on average that the place is a bit of a disaster. And India has some of the richest people in the world; it's only on average that it is a poor country.
I'm assuming that the story can be taken at face value, that it applies to all bugs that cause the end user problems.
But then, this would not and should not stop at software. What about any other type of procedure that people devise to solve a problem? Medical diagnostic procedures for instance. If my cancer was not found because Professor X wrote the diagnostic procedure, and failed to allow for the symptoms being masked by the cold / indigestion / hangover that was affecting me at the time of diagnosis, should I be able to sue him?
Or perhaps a better example, if my lawyer lost a case for me because he did not allow for all possibilities in dealing with it, but could show that he followed standard guidelines; maybe I would have a case against whoever drew up the guidelines, and especially if it was the ALI that was responsible...
From respect.gov.uk - "families who require supervision and support on a 24 hour basis stay in a core residential unit"
OK, that is a source, but that is not CCTV. However I read it, there is no mention or implication of being watched by CCTV,. The statement is that they are always supervised when in the unit. This is already supposed to happen with problem children. The alternative for the problem families is that the children are taken into care. In which case the adults are left to fend for themselves, and the children continue to get the 24 hour supervision but in care rather than with their actual parents.
There's a scheme for CCTV watching people in their own houses, already in existence? I've missed it, obviously I've not been reading enough of the Daily Express.
If someone buys stolen property in good faith, never believing that it was stolen then the police inform them, they have absolutely no right to keep it and in all likelihood will not get their money back.
Agreed they have no right to keep the goods, but they did enter into the sale contract in good faith assuming the goods were legitimate. If the seller had no right to sell them, the buyer has every right to compensation from the seller.
Consider also little military Ais on opposite sides that may make military decisions that drive both sides into all out war, and very quickly at that. With humans, there is the chance or even likelihood that some officer will decide that even if the other side has been provocative, the consequences of retaliation may be worth avoiding. After all, in most wars, most people, even the military, would prefer that they and their families live on the losing side rather than be dead on the winning side. What are the chances of such sensible judgements being made by an AI?
Because this is serious stuff.
An American may lose his house to pay for an operation, but at least he gets the operation, while the Brits die from MRSA, waiting months for urgent surgery in a dirty ward, paying more (on average) for the privilege.
If you are British, then you know perfectly well that you can pay privately for the operation yourself and lose your own house if you don't want to wait for the NHS. It is something that around 30% of the population of Britain cannot afford (this is the proportion that do not own their own house). But they still have the NHS, and everyone, including the well-off, are vastly better off for it. The NHS works just as well as you would expect it to do when it has to cater for an endless demand. I have a chronic back condition and it would be helpful to have NHS physiotherapy every week; but they consider, quite reasonably, that given the seriousness of my condition and the benefits, that it is not that high a priority. Nothing stops me from buying therapy myself if I think it necessary (which sometimes I have done in the past).
You could always ask someone who said their hard drive was broken what parameters they used to establish this. Also, whether they had tried networking the hard drive to the intranet to establish just which software programs were causing it to crash.
One of their key 'facts' that the BSA uses to demonstrate that pirating is endemic in poor countries (in the executive summary of the report) -
"While emerging economies account for 45 percent of the global PC hardware market, they account for less than 20 percent of the PC software market."
So, if a poorer person wants a computer only to be able to browse the internet and handle email, that means he's a pirate. Because richer people routinely also pay for MS Office for letters, and MS Money for banking, etc., that automatically means that the poorer person is also using the same software, only not paying for it.
That's easy, all of them will be deleted. Because they would be information about the police that may be of use to terrorists, and it's illegal to collect such information.
Now they're being employed by the government to help further clutter up the web! I look forward to a stream of 'link to my official, government-approved website' emails.
Why should I care if you sue me in a UK court? You could get a court order entitling you to a million pound. How would you collect? Ask me to send you a cheque from the US?
Because it does not have to be you that is sued.
If your ISP or whoever publishes your comments has a presence in the UK, then it can be sued for your comments. Hence your ISP / whoever might see fit to censor you, to safeguard its own position in the UK market.
The recession occurred because there was no business case for financiers and banks using common sense.
You can (since last year I believe) be prosecuted for collecting information about police officers, soldiers, et.c. if the information could be used for terrorism, and it's up to you to show that it was not intended for that purpose. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/philipjohnston/4632459/Why-cant-we-take-pictures-of-policemen.html
Well, till 20 years or so ago, the ideological enemy over in totalitarian Eastern Europe kept this lot over in the west honest. It was necessary to be different.
Now, the only ideological enemy is the Taliban, and you have to admit the UK and US governments show no interest at all in making women wear the veil.