That's a stupid argument. Accept a country-wide firewall run by an unelected body simply to stop a few images becuase it attacks 'some of the problem?'
It doesn't even do that. It's a static URL list that is so easy to defeat it might as well not be there. It does nothing for CP and adds a layer of censorship that can be used for any purpose.
It's a list of URLs. Not a particularly good one either, from what I've heard.
All a site has to do to unblock themselves is change the URL. Or put the website on another port (it only filters port 80) or use https/irc/ftp/email. IWF appear to know nothing of how the internet actually works, which is somewhat lucky, because their attempts at censorship will completely fail.
Calling for legislation though is very worrying. The gov. want to give a group of unelected people the ability to control what the population is allowed to see/hear? That's just plain wrong.
A&A have categorically stated that they will *never* filter (unless it's made compulsory, and even then they'd try to find a way around it eg. by selling their lines as business broadband instead of consumer).
I added one years ago after someone said it's a good idea. It wasn't. It's utterly useleess, and they won't remove your info even if asked.
To call it a 'social networking' site is a bit misleading. You don't network.. you put your address up there and hope that someone might read it. With the added disadvantage that you just gave your email address to thousands of scumbag agencies (the type that email offering completely irrelevant jobs - if I want a job I'll f..ing contact them. Agencies that contact me get on my shitlist), and not a few spammers (I used a unique address for it... I still get *tons* of spam to that unique address).
That said, I wouldn't (and never have) employ someone that didn't have some kind of online presence.. in IT if you don't you're either lying about your qualifications or are so pathalogical about privacy you'd be a nightmare in the workspace anyway. Linkedin wouldn't be counted in this (it's got no more reliabiity than a paper CV ie. none at all).. I'd be looking for replies to technical questions, questions and answers on usenet, etc. - stuff relevant to the job. I might check facebook to see if the person is a well rounded individual eg. has a social life outside work (embarrasing photos don't bother me one bit.. it's none of my business.. however someone who seems to *only* work is a poor candidate).
some places will require door staff to ensure nobody gets too far out of line
*some*???
I take it from this you've not been near a city at night for at least 20 years.
Any establishment without door staff would be out of business in no time flat because it'd get trashed by drunk idiots.
Oh, and people will get too far out of line. It goes with the territory. The door staff are there to make sure they're quickly ejected and stopped from entering any other establishment in the city (hence they're linked by radio).
Police don't grant the license, the licensing authority (part of the local council) do. If pub has a bad reputation then 'install this long list of crime prevention measures or close down' is a reasonable line to take... it nearly always forces the errant pub back into line.
In practice I've never seen any restrictions, and if it was it would probably be due to other laws.
I frequently buy things from amazon.de and amazon.fr when I can't find them on the UK store - never had a problem with it.
And yes it is truly illegal to restrict sales - the EU is a single market. It's no more legal to stop someone in france buying from the UK than it is to stop someone from Birmingham shopping in London.
DVB-T was defined as the european standard years ago... it means any digital box sold in any country in the EU will work in another country - great for manufacturers as it means they can produce one box for an entire continent of 300 million instead of an island of 60 million. You could argue it was done too early, but it does make the hardware extremely cheap to produce.
DVB-T2 which will be used for HD is backwardly compatible in that a T2 box will pick up T signals (but not the other way around of course). Any HD channels which launch will be in a new HD mux (it has been proposed to use some of the downtime overnight for things like BBC HD but I don't think they're going ahead with that). The majority of channels will remain SD for the forseeable future.
DVB just doesn't have the space for lots of HD... you've got a maximum of 6 muxes when switchoff is complete - possibly 7 in some areas - and HD can get 3/4 channels per mux vs. 12-16 for SD. There won't be *any* broadcast HD outsite satellite/cable until then, so that's 2012 at the earliest.
Our region is switching in November. The extent of the publicity has been some adverts on buses.
OTOH with almost everyone having either an STB or digital TV (nobody has sold analogue TVs for a couple of years now) and STBs so cheap they're practically given away with cornflakes if anyone gets taken by surprise they really haven't been paying attention.
The complex nature of the broadcast network in the UK means we can't all switch at once.. there used to be a flash game where you could try to work out the optimal order (you have the switch off analogue and switch digital to full power stages, both of which must be performed in such a way that nobody loses signal and frequencies don't interfere with other transmitters in the UK or northern France).
It's a *little* harder than that... you have to worry about endianness, alignment issues, word sizes, etc. and these do affect higher level languages. Compiling for new architectures - even on code that's been compiled on other architectures before (if it hasn't, chances are it'll need modification) - is more than a simple recompile.
Your figures are way off. When it was endemic (not that long ago) the death rate was about 1 in 10,000, or 0.01% (it's increased since, primarily because it's more likely to infect younger - non-imunnized - children, which creates a statistical bias). Of course the chance of the vaccine causing autism is probably much lower (I'd wager so close to 0% that it might as well be).
Given those odds the emotional response is to take the risk, because autism is 'worse' than measles, and 0.01% isn't a lot (or to put it another way, a 99.99% chance of recovery doesn't seem that risky on the face of it).
Scientific language doesn't help, because scientists are reticent to make absolute statements, using words like 'probably' all the time. To the uneducated this just sounds like they're not sure.. so you end up with - Avoid vaccine..99.99% chance of getting away with it, or Vaccine which will 'probably' not cause autism. Is it any wonder people choose the way they do?
most right-thinking people would be outraged if a child was left to die because (say) their mother didn't believe in a blood transfusion
I believe this happens regularly with Jehovahs Witnesses.
Legally the parent is responsible for the child. Of course this means they're also legally responsible & IMO should be prosecuted for endangering their childs life.. but society seems to disagree.
Just done some research. MMR was introduced in this country 1988, so it's just over 20 years old in total. When Wakefield was paid to make his assertions it was only 12 years old, not 50.
Oh, and to subscribe to this idea you also had to make sure you ignored the fact that MMR had been used for the past 50 years in the US and most of Europe without any perceived problems.
Got a cite for that? There was no MMR when I was growing up in the 70's.. Rubella was given to girls at 14 as a separate dose, measles and mumps were just part of the background noise of childhood ailments.
Slashdot Mirror
That was clearly not true in this case.
That's a stupid argument. Accept a country-wide firewall run by an unelected body simply to stop a few images becuase it attacks 'some of the problem?'
It doesn't even do that. It's a static URL list that is so easy to defeat it might as well not be there. It does nothing for CP and adds a layer of censorship that can be used for any purpose.
It's a list of URLs. Not a particularly good one either, from what I've heard.
All a site has to do to unblock themselves is change the URL. Or put the website on another port (it only filters port 80) or use https/irc/ftp/email. IWF appear to know nothing of how the internet actually works, which is somewhat lucky, because their attempts at censorship will completely fail.
Calling for legislation though is very worrying. The gov. want to give a group of unelected people the ability to control what the population is allowed to see/hear? That's just plain wrong.
A&A have categorically stated that they will *never* filter (unless it's made compulsory, and even then they'd try to find a way around it eg. by selling their lines as business broadband instead of consumer).
http://aaisp.net.uk/news-censorship.html
Solaris 9 (10 is *far* from universal, hell, even 8 is pretty common). HPUX. Tru64. That's three off the top of my head.
People have ported GNU to them but you just can't rely things like bash being there - you have to be able to work with the out of the box environment.
Well the first 2 of those seem reasonable statements for a man in his position to make... not sure what you'd *expect* him to say...
The passengers are dead anyway... might as well avoid further loss of life.
Cardinal Fang. Fetch...THE COMFY CHAIR!
I added one years ago after someone said it's a good idea. It wasn't. It's utterly useleess, and they won't remove your info even if asked.
To call it a 'social networking' site is a bit misleading. You don't network.. you put your address up there and hope that someone might read it. With the added disadvantage that you just gave your email address to thousands of scumbag agencies (the type that email offering completely irrelevant jobs - if I want a job I'll f..ing contact them. Agencies that contact me get on my shitlist), and not a few spammers (I used a unique address for it... I still get *tons* of spam to that unique address).
That said, I wouldn't (and never have) employ someone that didn't have some kind of online presence.. in IT if you don't you're either lying about your qualifications or are so pathalogical about privacy you'd be a nightmare in the workspace anyway. Linkedin wouldn't be counted in this (it's got no more reliabiity than a paper CV ie. none at all).. I'd be looking for replies to technical questions, questions and answers on usenet, etc. - stuff relevant to the job. I might check facebook to see if the person is a well rounded individual eg. has a social life outside work (embarrasing photos don't bother me one bit.. it's none of my business.. however someone who seems to *only* work is a poor candidate).
some places will require door staff to ensure nobody gets too far out of line
*some*???
I take it from this you've not been near a city at night for at least 20 years.
Any establishment without door staff would be out of business in no time flat because it'd get trashed by drunk idiots.
Oh, and people will get too far out of line. It goes with the territory. The door staff are there to make sure they're quickly ejected and stopped from entering any other establishment in the city (hence they're linked by radio).
Police don't grant the license, the licensing authority (part of the local council) do. If pub has a bad reputation then 'install this long list of crime prevention measures or close down' is a reasonable line to take... it nearly always forces the errant pub back into line.
Not at all. Most pubs install discreet cctv of their own volition *especially* to places like out of the way cubicles.
It gets silently recorded, and most of the time eventually discarded.. but if something happens it's invaluable evidence.
It's been years since I've seen a city centre pub without its own CCTV in the entrance ways to watch people coming in. This is a non-story, really.
It wasn't 'previously unknown' it was fixed over 3 years ago.
A router that hasn't been updated in 3 years has problems - including a couple of security holes that have been discovered in the interim.
Actually that'd be fine with me... my kitchen is a mess.
Apple already got into trouble for this - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6520677.stm
They were forced to equalise their prices across europe - http://www.euractiv.com/en/infosociety/eu-pressure-ends-itunes-price-unbalance/article-169446
In practice I've never seen any restrictions, and if it was it would probably be due to other laws.
I frequently buy things from amazon.de and amazon.fr when I can't find them on the UK store - never had a problem with it.
And yes it is truly illegal to restrict sales - the EU is a single market. It's no more legal to stop someone in france buying from the UK than it is to stop someone from Birmingham shopping in London.
DVB-T was defined as the european standard years ago... it means any digital box sold in any country in the EU will work in another country - great for manufacturers as it means they can produce one box for an entire continent of 300 million instead of an island of 60 million. You could argue it was done too early, but it does make the hardware extremely cheap to produce.
DVB-T2 which will be used for HD is backwardly compatible in that a T2 box will pick up T signals (but not the other way around of course). Any HD channels which launch will be in a new HD mux (it has been proposed to use some of the downtime overnight for things like BBC HD but I don't think they're going ahead with that). The majority of channels will remain SD for the forseeable future.
DVB just doesn't have the space for lots of HD... you've got a maximum of 6 muxes when switchoff is complete - possibly 7 in some areas - and HD can get 3/4 channels per mux vs. 12-16 for SD. There won't be *any* broadcast HD outsite satellite/cable until then, so that's 2012 at the earliest.
Our region is switching in November. The extent of the publicity has been some adverts on buses.
OTOH with almost everyone having either an STB or digital TV (nobody has sold analogue TVs for a couple of years now) and STBs so cheap they're practically given away with cornflakes if anyone gets taken by surprise they really haven't been paying attention.
The complex nature of the broadcast network in the UK means we can't all switch at once.. there used to be a flash game where you could try to work out the optimal order (you have the switch off analogue and switch digital to full power stages, both of which must be performed in such a way that nobody loses signal and frequencies don't interfere with other transmitters in the UK or northern France).
It's a *little* harder than that... you have to worry about endianness, alignment issues, word sizes, etc. and these do affect higher level languages. Compiling for new architectures - even on code that's been compiled on other architectures before (if it hasn't, chances are it'll need modification) - is more than a simple recompile.
Nobody mandates a vaccine for adults.. it's done in schools so over a period of years the immunity in the general population increases.
He ran off to America. It's up to you guys to deal with him now.
I suggest releasing Smallpox into his neighbourhood and seeing how fast he changes his mind about vaccines.
Your figures are way off. When it was endemic (not that long ago) the death rate was about 1 in 10,000, or 0.01% (it's increased since, primarily because it's more likely to infect younger - non-imunnized - children, which creates a statistical bias). Of course the chance of the vaccine causing autism is probably much lower (I'd wager so close to 0% that it might as well be).
Given those odds the emotional response is to take the risk, because autism is 'worse' than measles, and 0.01% isn't a lot (or to put it another way, a 99.99% chance of recovery doesn't seem that risky on the face of it).
Scientific language doesn't help, because scientists are reticent to make absolute statements, using words like 'probably' all the time. To the uneducated this just sounds like they're not sure.. so you end up with - Avoid vaccine..99.99% chance of getting away with it, or Vaccine which will 'probably' not cause autism. Is it any wonder people choose the way they do?
most right-thinking people would be outraged if a child was left to die because (say) their mother didn't believe in a blood transfusion
I believe this happens regularly with Jehovahs Witnesses.
Legally the parent is responsible for the child. Of course this means they're also legally responsible & IMO should be prosecuted for endangering their childs life.. but society seems to disagree.
Just done some research. MMR was introduced in this country 1988, so it's just over 20 years old in total. When Wakefield was paid to make his assertions it was only 12 years old, not 50.
Oh, and to subscribe to this idea you also had to make sure you ignored the fact that MMR had been used for the past 50 years in the US and most of Europe without any perceived problems.
Got a cite for that? There was no MMR when I was growing up in the 70's.. Rubella was given to girls at 14 as a separate dose, measles and mumps were just part of the background noise of childhood ailments.