One questions whether you understand the concept of "education".
Computers and mobile phones belong in lectures about as much as they do at the opera or the ballet - that is, not at all. But that assumes that the lecture is actually about genuine education - i.e. providing leadership in learning (the "duc" bit in education).
Newton was, for the time, a religious freethinker who as evasive about his views because otherwise he would have been thrown out of Cambridge. Theologians conclude that he was probably a unitarian, and my own thinking when I was studying Newton's beliefs is that Newton defined his idea of God to support his idea of how the Universe worked - Newton's God is basically a "framework God" which supports the idea of a rigid, unbending universal architecture that guarantees his laws of motion. It is at the opposite extreme from the Christian God, who is, in effect, an emotional interferer.
I too attended Fen Poly, and I too make typos. But the technical writers pick up on them for me.
I'm actually trying to make a serious point here. A proper university teaches you to think, and how to find a way to do something about your thoughts. This gives you a huge career advantage over the people who go through the motions (and,especially,never learn to prioritise). If you are a senior academic or manager, rather than a sub-editor, and you spend significant time worrying over whether the full stop goes in or outside the bracket, you've possibly been overpromoted.
Further to the above, I would like to make it completely clear that the parent post was intended to be humorous hyperbole. I now appreciate that this is not the case and that it is offensive. I would like to make it clear that I do not believe in any way that the MP for Devizes is unintelligent or that the people of Devizes are backward, and I apologise for any distress that may have been caused to anybody referenced in the above post.
I would like to add that this post is clearly nonsensical, and the said MP is a key and important member of the Conservative Party whose views on child protection are relevant and valuable. Devizes, far from being backward, is a progressive outpost of advanced civilisation in Wiltshire. People who post rubbish like the parent post should be more careful and think before posting.
Reading the article, the idiot MP for Devizes (itself a byword for UK backwardness) thinks that this will stop children in bad homes from seeing nasty things. The dimwit doesn't seem to realise that those are exactly the places where the parents will have opted in.
he has soberly pointed out a case of China engaged in cyber-warfare using means which have got out of control. (There seems to be a fair number of medical doctors who suspect that "swine flu" is actually a Chinese military virus that escaped from a lab.)
This will go against the entire business mantra, but if he is right the West really needs to pull back manufacturing of electronic devices and make more serious efforts to combat Chinese electronic warfare, because in this case they were either incompetent or simply didn't give a shit about collateral damage. Either option is exceedingly worrying,
You've run out of spare mod points, so I will just say I agree 100%.
(How about a Java application where a block of simple, everyday fixed classes were written in Groovy? See; nothing changes. New toys used to make the same old mistakes.)
Obviously not an engineer. Despite converting more of its economy percentage wise to a war economy than anyone else, the UK was basically bankrupted by WW2. Churchill was always being frustrated in his initiatives by not having the money or the resources. And the Allied advance into Germany was stalled, at a crucial point, by lack of logistical support, prolonging the war (summary and bibliography in book by Max Hastings).
A US corporation sues a US lawyer for not charging enough!
Under English law, a lawyer merely provides advice which the client is free to make use of or to ignore, and there are plenty of legal self-help books. There is an excellent one for company secretaries which, back in the 90s, saved me thousands in legal bills. Is this not so in the US?
Fry owes a lot to his father, who ran a company that made electronic controls from a factory in the grounds of their house in Norfolk. Fry's father was still writing code, the last I heard.
I've seen similar comments get marked troll before. Yet for many websites, the direction of trust is from them to you. If you want to log in to my website, which provides information, I store no personal information other than a user name and password. I have to trust you before giving you the information you want.
What we actually have here is a psychological issue - the cert vendors want you to believe that anyone who doesn't buy their certs is a potential criminal. The rule should simply be "no financial transactions or personal data on a site without an entrusted cert".
Other than common sense, there is nothing to stop me posting my credit card details on Slashdot. If I log into a public forum using HTTPS, I still have no protection against my own stupidity if I do that. Now, without simply modding this troll, can anybody give a coherent explanation as to why browsers shouldn't assess self-signed certs according to their origin - within the intranet, valid server name - rather than treating selfcert.ru the same as selfcert.10.0.0.1?
The root problem in Ireland is political corruption. It's among the very worst in Europe, but the interesting thing is that Transparency International has discovered that the Irish themselves don't recognise it.
Ireland is basically a one party State, AKA banana republic. Most of its TDs (representatives) are apparently teachers on extended leave, who therefore owe their position to the State - in fact, it's very much like Communism, where "politicians" and "civil servants" were the same thing. The Government is in cosy cahoots with the builders, with the result that Ireland, like Florida, is full of unoccupied houses that nobody wants.
Ireland wanted both a low tax State to encourage foreign investment (good) and a cosy one Party mafia State (bad). They now cannot afford either. The reason is not economics, but the failure of their politicians to even begin to understand it.
Everything we've always said here about avoiding monocultures and the need for competition remains true. The phone market is actually much bigger in volume than the PC market, so a number of cultures could flourish and still have good economies of scale. So long as standards are enforced on security and the actual radio and phone parts, it shouldn't matter.
Why are you using abusive language to a complete stranger, just because he doesn't know as much geology and chemistry as you do? Perhaps you should think about attending a course on anger management.
Actually, the US Government has been trying to use Georgia the State to annoy the Russians. Given what happened the last time the Russians let a Georgian run anything, you'd understand why they might push back.
I moderate quite a lot, perhaps because I try to be fair and presumably get good meta-moderation. I've reviewed your posting history, out of curiosity, and the moderation looks quite normal to me.
I'd just like to point out that the last post of yours that got down-moderated was a "The State knows best" - type post, which is probably more associated with the Far Left than the Right. My own feeling is that Slashdot moderators tend towards individual responsibility and freedom from excessive regulation, rather than any right/left dichotomy. And really, what do you expect of people most of whom have built their careers on the Internet? That's exactly the attitude you would expect.
The Diesel cycle is more efficient than the spark ignition cycle. If you knew basic thermodynamics you could work this out for yourself. The reason? The efficiency of a combustion engine depends on the ratio of the ignition temperature to the exhaust temperature. Gasoline engines have relatively low compression, and as the power reduces the amount of air per cycle reduces, reducing the compression still further. This means that the effective compression varies from a maximum of perhaps 14 atmospheres to a minimum of no more than 1 at idle. Because Diesel engines do not mix air with fuel, and so always use a full air charge, their compression ratio is usually a minimum of 18. In my car, it varies from 18 to 1 at idle to nearly 50 to 1 at full boost. Now look at the adiabatic equation and see how that relates to the peak temperature which determines efficiency.
Summarising, a modern turbodiesel is inherently about 25% more efficient than an equally modern gasoline engine. With old and crude designs like, say, carb hemi V8s, the Diesel has more like a 2:1 advantage. The remaining 5% comes from the fuel.
Rubbish. The intention of the statement, taken at face value, is obvious. I can assure you that if you took your argument to an English court, you would be made to look like an idiot in no time flat. I suggest that you don't offer to make an amicus curiae brief; the defence won't appreciate it.
Regardless of the particular rights and wrongs, both these cases have arisen because in England and Wales (not the UK - legal systems are different, and I do not know about Scots law) we theoretically have equality under the law.
It cuts both ways. If a Muslim cleric calls for stoning unbelievers and we arrest him, we have to be equally heavy handed with non-Muslims making similar statements.
I feel sorry for "airport guy" who has suffered far more than the case warrants - but he has failed to think it through. I'm sure that if the airport was closed because of a fake bomb threat, he would be complaining. He hasn't realised that the world doesn't consist of just "him" who he sees as the good guy, and everybody else. To everybody else, he is one of "them". This is what equality under the law means; being white, male and university educated does not make you privileged any more.
I started out, by the way, thinking his conviction was quite wrong. But I've been persuaded otherwise, and this is why.
Do I need to point out that the so-called British style is syntactically correct, whereas the traditional style is not? NoSig has obviously never thought about syntax, or it would be obvious that nesting requires the stop to go outside the quoted material.
It's also perhaps worth noting that punctuation style is nothing at all to do with correct English. Punctuation is there to help understand the text, not to be part of it, and anyone who has ever trained as a copy editor knows that there are endless arguments over its proper use. If putting a full stop inside a quote means someone would naturally consider it part of the quoted material, it is clearly wrong.
To what extent is so called high speed trading actually turning into electronic non-shooting warfare? Some of the techniques described are essentially variations on DDOS and spam. The recent Scandinavian case throws into question the point at which the techniques shade into illegality - is it just that if you or I do it, it is illegal, whereas if a bank does it, it's business as usual?
And to what extent is this latest proposal, while apparently to do with the distance between exchanges, also actually about putting resources into jurisdictions which have perhaps more elastic definitions of what constitutes legal trading?
On previous form, this will probably get moderated troll or flamebait. But it's actually two questions that I have never had adequately answered, except for the usual "you wouldn't understand" from the traders. If I, a graduate systems developer with further education in economics, can't understand them, what's the betting that our elected representatives can?
Slashdot Mirror
Computers and mobile phones belong in lectures about as much as they do at the opera or the ballet - that is, not at all. But that assumes that the lecture is actually about genuine education - i.e. providing leadership in learning (the "duc" bit in education).
Can nobody spell "brakes" nowadays? Or is this some obscure dig at Toyota's overpublicised little problem?
Newton was, for the time, a religious freethinker who as evasive about his views because otherwise he would have been thrown out of Cambridge. Theologians conclude that he was probably a unitarian, and my own thinking when I was studying Newton's beliefs is that Newton defined his idea of God to support his idea of how the Universe worked - Newton's God is basically a "framework God" which supports the idea of a rigid, unbending universal architecture that guarantees his laws of motion. It is at the opposite extreme from the Christian God, who is, in effect, an emotional interferer.
I'm actually trying to make a serious point here. A proper university teaches you to think, and how to find a way to do something about your thoughts. This gives you a huge career advantage over the people who go through the motions (and,especially,never learn to prioritise). If you are a senior academic or manager, rather than a sub-editor, and you spend significant time worrying over whether the full stop goes in or outside the bracket, you've possibly been overpromoted.
Further to the above, I would like to make it completely clear that the parent post was intended to be humorous hyperbole. I now appreciate that this is not the case and that it is offensive. I would like to make it clear that I do not believe in any way that the MP for Devizes is unintelligent or that the people of Devizes are backward, and I apologise for any distress that may have been caused to anybody referenced in the above post.
I would like to add that this post is clearly nonsensical, and the said MP is a key and important member of the Conservative Party whose views on child protection are relevant and valuable. Devizes, far from being backward, is a progressive outpost of advanced civilisation in Wiltshire. People who post rubbish like the parent post should be more careful and think before posting.
Reading the article, the idiot MP for Devizes (itself a byword for UK backwardness) thinks that this will stop children in bad homes from seeing nasty things. The dimwit doesn't seem to realise that those are exactly the places where the parents will have opted in.
This will go against the entire business mantra, but if he is right the West really needs to pull back manufacturing of electronic devices and make more serious efforts to combat Chinese electronic warfare, because in this case they were either incompetent or simply didn't give a shit about collateral damage. Either option is exceedingly worrying,
But if you don't want scalable, secure communications using a well established protocol, I guess you wouldn't be interested.
(How about a Java application where a block of simple, everyday fixed classes were written in Groovy? See; nothing changes. New toys used to make the same old mistakes.)
Obviously not an engineer. Despite converting more of its economy percentage wise to a war economy than anyone else, the UK was basically bankrupted by WW2. Churchill was always being frustrated in his initiatives by not having the money or the resources. And the Allied advance into Germany was stalled, at a crucial point, by lack of logistical support, prolonging the war (summary and bibliography in book by Max Hastings).
Under English law, a lawyer merely provides advice which the client is free to make use of or to ignore, and there are plenty of legal self-help books. There is an excellent one for company secretaries which, back in the 90s, saved me thousands in legal bills. Is this not so in the US?
He's Brian Cox, OBE.
Mind you, there's not much else to do in Norfolk.
Computer literacy runs in the family.
What we actually have here is a psychological issue - the cert vendors want you to believe that anyone who doesn't buy their certs is a potential criminal. The rule should simply be "no financial transactions or personal data on a site without an entrusted cert".
Other than common sense, there is nothing to stop me posting my credit card details on Slashdot. If I log into a public forum using HTTPS, I still have no protection against my own stupidity if I do that. Now, without simply modding this troll, can anybody give a coherent explanation as to why browsers shouldn't assess self-signed certs according to their origin - within the intranet, valid server name - rather than treating selfcert.ru the same as selfcert.10.0.0.1?
Ireland is basically a one party State, AKA banana republic. Most of its TDs (representatives) are apparently teachers on extended leave, who therefore owe their position to the State - in fact, it's very much like Communism, where "politicians" and "civil servants" were the same thing. The Government is in cosy cahoots with the builders, with the result that Ireland, like Florida, is full of unoccupied houses that nobody wants.
Ireland wanted both a low tax State to encourage foreign investment (good) and a cosy one Party mafia State (bad). They now cannot afford either. The reason is not economics, but the failure of their politicians to even begin to understand it.
Everything we've always said here about avoiding monocultures and the need for competition remains true. The phone market is actually much bigger in volume than the PC market, so a number of cultures could flourish and still have good economies of scale. So long as standards are enforced on security and the actual radio and phone parts, it shouldn't matter.
Why are you using abusive language to a complete stranger, just because he doesn't know as much geology and chemistry as you do? Perhaps you should think about attending a course on anger management.
Actually, the US Government has been trying to use Georgia the State to annoy the Russians. Given what happened the last time the Russians let a Georgian run anything, you'd understand why they might push back.
I'd just like to point out that the last post of yours that got down-moderated was a "The State knows best" - type post, which is probably more associated with the Far Left than the Right. My own feeling is that Slashdot moderators tend towards individual responsibility and freedom from excessive regulation, rather than any right/left dichotomy. And really, what do you expect of people most of whom have built their careers on the Internet? That's exactly the attitude you would expect.
Summarising, a modern turbodiesel is inherently about 25% more efficient than an equally modern gasoline engine. With old and crude designs like, say, carb hemi V8s, the Diesel has more like a 2:1 advantage. The remaining 5% comes from the fuel.
Sheesh, kids today. Get off my lawn.
Rubbish. The intention of the statement, taken at face value, is obvious. I can assure you that if you took your argument to an English court, you would be made to look like an idiot in no time flat. I suggest that you don't offer to make an amicus curiae brief; the defence won't appreciate it.
It cuts both ways. If a Muslim cleric calls for stoning unbelievers and we arrest him, we have to be equally heavy handed with non-Muslims making similar statements.
I feel sorry for "airport guy" who has suffered far more than the case warrants - but he has failed to think it through. I'm sure that if the airport was closed because of a fake bomb threat, he would be complaining. He hasn't realised that the world doesn't consist of just "him" who he sees as the good guy, and everybody else. To everybody else, he is one of "them". This is what equality under the law means; being white, male and university educated does not make you privileged any more.
I started out, by the way, thinking his conviction was quite wrong. But I've been persuaded otherwise, and this is why.
It's also perhaps worth noting that punctuation style is nothing at all to do with correct English. Punctuation is there to help understand the text, not to be part of it, and anyone who has ever trained as a copy editor knows that there are endless arguments over its proper use. If putting a full stop inside a quote means someone would naturally consider it part of the quoted material, it is clearly wrong.
And to what extent is this latest proposal, while apparently to do with the distance between exchanges, also actually about putting resources into jurisdictions which have perhaps more elastic definitions of what constitutes legal trading?
On previous form, this will probably get moderated troll or flamebait. But it's actually two questions that I have never had adequately answered, except for the usual "you wouldn't understand" from the traders. If I, a graduate systems developer with further education in economics, can't understand them, what's the betting that our elected representatives can?