What, the image of four hardened inmates, sporting tats, scars and bad facial hair all bobbing around playing Mario Cart holding little white steering wheels doesn't almost make you want to commit a crime just to join in the banter and merriment?
It's French power (plus new brown coal burning plants, yuck!) that will make up for the impending loss of nuclear plants in Germany.
Why is that (aside from the brown coal plants) a bad thing that a country decides to buy cheap electricity from another? Especially when it's all in Europe where you can throw a stone across three countries?
From a political point of view, it is actually rather sensible. You drop the cost associated with maintaining aging nuclear facilities which offsets the price you buy it for from France who will no doubt be happy to sell it to you, your country doesn't get any worse in terms of emissions and in the terrible event that something goes wrong at the plant, you will sleep happily in the political knowledge that the meltdown didn't happen in your country.
Not quite. Legislation was passed in 2003 requiring it, but the current news is that both political sides have finally hammered out a strategy, plan to do so and actually agreed to the implementation process.
Actually, for politicians, eight years to plan turning off a few power plants seems almost speedy... *cough*
I wouldn't be so sure that it is the case. Given my experience with a few large scale projects, the ineptitude of middle managers and a summary of what was provided as a solution for what price, I would worry about how much it would end up costing a government to make systems "impregnable". While I could well be wrong, but I wouldn't at all be surprised if the final cost of such an undertaking ended up being simply astronomical.
If you worry too much about your neighbour getting too much advantage in manufacturing, stop buying ALL their stuff and stop sending your designs to be made there then sold back to your own country. It's not an easy fix, it's not a short term fix, but if a country doesn't have markets for anything and everything they sell, they won't be raking in all that much money - meaning that you can once again sit unfettered on the top of the SuperPower steps.
Our taxes have made us all indentured servants and Serfs to the government. We don't work for ourselves, we work to pay taxes.
While I roll my eyes at the amazing numbers that our (Australian) government pulls out when it starts quoting how much money is needed to fix this or that, and at the same time wonder how much it could REALLY be done for, I actually like paying taxes. I don't consider paying taxes as making me an indentured serf to the government. I consider it a small price to pay to have roads built, an army there to protect my country, help in case of a medical emergency (I also have private health insurance for those extra big emergencies if needed) and all those other wonderful things that make up life in a civilised world. I don't want to have to even worry about all those insignificant things that town councils look at, city mayors and their offices, state governments or the federal lot. My taxes are a get out of jail free card to not have to do all of that. That buys me the time and liberty to do what I want to do.
I know that I am almost certainly replying to a troll, but I am actually curious how a student loan system can get so bad in terms of money coming in and out. Seeing as it is actually that simple a process to maintain in terms of student loans here, I am wondering what has caused the system to go so far off the rails in the US. What is different about the US student loan system or perhaps what is different in the US that makes the system work so poorly if it is basically the same thing?
Any student loans are put onto your tax return, the ATO (Our form of IRS) knows about it, and if you can't pay for it, it simply garnishes them from your tax return if you have overpayed or been able to claim tax benefits that aren't taken into account (which most of us are able to do) in your normal PAYG tax payment?
We don't have any problems with student loans going out of control here that I am aware of? Seems a really simple idea to follow...
Okay, I think you need to learn a bit about laser light. Laser light is VERY different to light coming from a torch. The whole point is that it does NOT spread out like a torch. I even went to the bother of googling you a link to a pretty easy to read webpage which explains the difference. Laser pointers do diverge, but nowhere near that of a torch. It is exactly due to this low beam divergence that even a low powered laser can still temporarily (or permanently) blind someone over a long distance.
What you really need is a filter for stupid, but I'm afraid there's no such animal.
It's called evolution, but sadly it seems to take generations for visible progress and there are always offshoot branches that seem to be occupied by the stupid group.
Yeah, but I am pretty sure that one of the judges actually declared their "parent" companies as liable as the only business that RH was doing was on their behalf. He stated that the RH business was an extension of the media companies as as such, they were liable for damages and bills that RH incurred. Simply declaring RH bankrupt won't be enough to stop the media companies forking out what is owed. It will make it a little harder, but not impossible.
If this gets you in a pickle, you should really spend a moment reading some of the funnier astronomy acronyms for names although be warned. If you feel strongly about this title, you should be seated for the link.
As another user commented above, although IE is bundled with Win7, removing it leavesthe files required by Windows to keep running to be left there. I don't want this to get into a technical nit-picking about whether IE is really uninstalled and ripped out or whether I merely removed the majority of it through an uninstall. I have no Internet Explorer in any start menu, no webpage loads into it, I am content enough. I would have been happier if it hadn't come installed on my machine to start with - even if that meant that some sections of code meant for IE were installed anyhow.
My point here, and I think the general consensus is that I am (un)happy to do this in Win 7, but won't be able to do this in Win 8. At all. If I want to use Firefox, I will still have a copy of IE sitting there for all eternity.
Yup, first thing I did on my laptop after downloading Firefox. (Well, first thing if you count "the four hours I spent un-installing garbage that came with it and tweaking things" as the first thing I did).
I have had no problems by doing so, though I don't like all that rubbish "flashy" stuff. A nice picture on the background and the plainest UI theme I can get is about as shiny a UI as I want. No point in doing any of the fancy rubbish when pressing ALT-TAB or the like. I will keep my CPU cycles and battery for things I need - like extra battery time, not asinine pretty-ness that might look nice for the first time you use it, then just becomes tedious and makes simple tasks take longer.
China is returning to glory days, where China will have everything everyone else has and the question will be, "What can you possibly offer to the Chinese?" Tough question to answer.
Code re-use isn't bad at all. It is however if the code you are re-using is in another program - in this case, IE10. It's code re-se gone topsy turvy.
If they merely wanted to re-use the code, then write it into Win8 so that Win8 can natively support the extra features and have IE10 leverage it off there. The way that it has been done here just seems to be a case of "Ohhh. IE10 does some shiny stuff, lets just hack up a way to use that rather than improve Win8 to do it on its own.".
I can see this as one of two things - either Microsoft is trying to bump it's browser market share or they are cutting corners in their code to have Windows depending on bits of IE10 to give the core OS functionality.
If this is an attempt at market share, I think it is rather doomed to fail. Gone are the days where people just accepted whatever browser comes with their OS. Even the very non-technical business people that I work with mostly install their browser of choice.
If this is cost cutting and an attempt to re-use code from one thing in another, then I think it will likely just be ignored by many users who don't care as much - but alienate the nerds even more. The types that frequent/. for example, are more and more likely to find reasons for pushing them into no longer using windows (for the ones who still use it that is) and thus putting even more leaks into the ship.
My mother for example uses the computer VERY little and doesn't do much with it. When it is time to upgrade (which is fast approaching) I am seriously considering ninja-installing a distro onto her machine and simply saying "This is the new computer, things are a little different" rather than going through the same thing while installing the latest and greatest from Microsoft. For her, there isn't any difference in finding all the buttons going from XP to Win 7 or Win 8. I may as well get her onto another OS totally.
The GP is saying that their shareprice has sunk heavily due to the appointment of the new CEO who is female. I am saying that their shareprice hasn't dumped since the appointment. I did say that Apple and IBM were the two companies in the bunch that had a bit of a bad spell over the last month.
Not really. A drop of $1 over a shareprice of $180 isn't a steep drop. In fact, most the market did somewhat fall that day. Looking at the monthly trend however, IBM and Apple are the only ones that have had a significant dip over the last month (google finance on IBM).
Well, many years ago, everyone charged per Mb over the plan limit, but I think the ACCC got involved after a number of "outrageous" bills made it into the news and told ISPs to clean up their act - or perhaps it was bad publicity over the crazy bills people were refusing to pay, but for the most part ISPs now just throttle down. A heavy user will still get the bigger plans, but users won't suddenly get slugged with a $50k bill (there were a few in this price range for a single month).
Sure, it's not really in the interest of ISPs, but it isn't an unreasonable request of them - and they all seem to do it now.
Actually I have on many occasions used throttled internet here in Aus, probably more in the past rather than recently, but I never really had an issue with it. I was always with decent providers though (such as Internode) and not the likes of Dodo or TPG. Perhaps that makes the difference?
Here in Australia, the majority of internet providers for home (a)DSL/Cable provide capped plans - but don't charge anything once the plan is exceeded, they simply throttle the connection speed right down (to 64 or 128k speeds). Is that the same in the US, or do ISPs generally just go to a $ per Gb model? The mobile broadband here does generally charge per Mb once a mobile plan goes over the limit however, so a phone bill can very quickly become astronomical.
I am curious if this is the same over in the US/Canada. If a user is merely throttled down to a slower speed once the data limit is reached, it seems like a lot of fuss over something quite small?
I think this is a case of the "Big boy rules" being applied to the little guy. You can't shoot a Hollywood movie in a national park without the proper permits, that's something that no-one wants to argue. However, the park isn't going to stop a family busting out a video camera and recording their holiday hike.
I think what's going on here is a few friends are having fun and doing something that falls into the latter category, but the park is (for no reason that I can fathom) against the idea of some pranksters having a good chuckle with the park patrons - so they apply the only rules that they can find to stop this happening, the rules meant for Hollywood.
If you ask me, this smells like a case of the park being douchebags, but I can't really see too much that anyone can do. You certainly don't want the next blockbuster film crew coming in and trashing a park just because the courts ruled that Jonathan and his friends could have a laugh.
If you ask me, Jonathan should find another park that isn't so full of themselves to record his sequel. "The Yeti Migration" comes to mind as a title...
This sounds like one of those brilliant ideas on paper, but one that will prove infinitely harder in reality. Re-use satelites, great idea, good luck doing it though.
I know that UK libel laws are stupidly easy to abuse, but does anyone know if those laws can be applied to a website hosted outside the UK and not having a direct UK affiliation (ie a.com not a.co.uk)?
Slashdot Mirror
What, the image of four hardened inmates, sporting tats, scars and bad facial hair all bobbing around playing Mario Cart holding little white steering wheels doesn't almost make you want to commit a crime just to join in the banter and merriment?
It's French power (plus new brown coal burning plants, yuck!) that will make up for the impending loss of nuclear plants in Germany.
Why is that (aside from the brown coal plants) a bad thing that a country decides to buy cheap electricity from another? Especially when it's all in Europe where you can throw a stone across three countries?
From a political point of view, it is actually rather sensible. You drop the cost associated with maintaining aging nuclear facilities which offsets the price you buy it for from France who will no doubt be happy to sell it to you, your country doesn't get any worse in terms of emissions and in the terrible event that something goes wrong at the plant, you will sleep happily in the political knowledge that the meltdown didn't happen in your country.
Not quite. Legislation was passed in 2003 requiring it, but the current news is that both political sides have finally hammered out a strategy, plan to do so and actually agreed to the implementation process.
Actually, for politicians, eight years to plan turning off a few power plants seems almost speedy... *cough*
I wouldn't be so sure that it is the case. Given my experience with a few large scale projects, the ineptitude of middle managers and a summary of what was provided as a solution for what price, I would worry about how much it would end up costing a government to make systems "impregnable". While I could well be wrong, but I wouldn't at all be surprised if the final cost of such an undertaking ended up being simply astronomical.
If you worry too much about your neighbour getting too much advantage in manufacturing, stop buying ALL their stuff and stop sending your designs to be made there then sold back to your own country. It's not an easy fix, it's not a short term fix, but if a country doesn't have markets for anything and everything they sell, they won't be raking in all that much money - meaning that you can once again sit unfettered on the top of the SuperPower steps.
Our taxes have made us all indentured servants and Serfs to the government. We don't work for ourselves, we work to pay taxes.
While I roll my eyes at the amazing numbers that our (Australian) government pulls out when it starts quoting how much money is needed to fix this or that, and at the same time wonder how much it could REALLY be done for, I actually like paying taxes. I don't consider paying taxes as making me an indentured serf to the government. I consider it a small price to pay to have roads built, an army there to protect my country, help in case of a medical emergency (I also have private health insurance for those extra big emergencies if needed) and all those other wonderful things that make up life in a civilised world. I don't want to have to even worry about all those insignificant things that town councils look at, city mayors and their offices, state governments or the federal lot. My taxes are a get out of jail free card to not have to do all of that. That buys me the time and liberty to do what I want to do.
I know that I am almost certainly replying to a troll, but I am actually curious how a student loan system can get so bad in terms of money coming in and out. Seeing as it is actually that simple a process to maintain in terms of student loans here, I am wondering what has caused the system to go so far off the rails in the US. What is different about the US student loan system or perhaps what is different in the US that makes the system work so poorly if it is basically the same thing?
Any student loans are put onto your tax return, the ATO (Our form of IRS) knows about it, and if you can't pay for it, it simply garnishes them from your tax return if you have overpayed or been able to claim tax benefits that aren't taken into account (which most of us are able to do) in your normal PAYG tax payment?
We don't have any problems with student loans going out of control here that I am aware of? Seems a really simple idea to follow...
Okay, I think you need to learn a bit about laser light. Laser light is VERY different to light coming from a torch. The whole point is that it does NOT spread out like a torch. I even went to the bother of googling you a link to a pretty easy to read webpage which explains the difference. Laser pointers do diverge, but nowhere near that of a torch. It is exactly due to this low beam divergence that even a low powered laser can still temporarily (or permanently) blind someone over a long distance.
What you really need is a filter for stupid, but I'm afraid there's no such animal.
It's called evolution, but sadly it seems to take generations for visible progress and there are always offshoot branches that seem to be occupied by the stupid group.
Yeah, but I am pretty sure that one of the judges actually declared their "parent" companies as liable as the only business that RH was doing was on their behalf. He stated that the RH business was an extension of the media companies as as such, they were liable for damages and bills that RH incurred. Simply declaring RH bankrupt won't be enough to stop the media companies forking out what is owed. It will make it a little harder, but not impossible.
If this gets you in a pickle, you should really spend a moment reading some of the funnier astronomy acronyms for names although be warned. If you feel strongly about this title, you should be seated for the link.
As another user commented above, although IE is bundled with Win7, removing it leavesthe files required by Windows to keep running to be left there. I don't want this to get into a technical nit-picking about whether IE is really uninstalled and ripped out or whether I merely removed the majority of it through an uninstall. I have no Internet Explorer in any start menu, no webpage loads into it, I am content enough. I would have been happier if it hadn't come installed on my machine to start with - even if that meant that some sections of code meant for IE were installed anyhow.
My point here, and I think the general consensus is that I am (un)happy to do this in Win 7, but won't be able to do this in Win 8. At all. If I want to use Firefox, I will still have a copy of IE sitting there for all eternity.
Indeed. The mark of a good post is when you can't help but smirk because it is so spot on right, but also wince because it is so spot on right.
Yup, first thing I did on my laptop after downloading Firefox. (Well, first thing if you count "the four hours I spent un-installing garbage that came with it and tweaking things" as the first thing I did).
I have had no problems by doing so, though I don't like all that rubbish "flashy" stuff. A nice picture on the background and the plainest UI theme I can get is about as shiny a UI as I want. No point in doing any of the fancy rubbish when pressing ALT-TAB or the like. I will keep my CPU cycles and battery for things I need - like extra battery time, not asinine pretty-ness that might look nice for the first time you use it, then just becomes tedious and makes simple tasks take longer.
China is returning to glory days, where China will have everything everyone else has and the question will be, "What can you possibly offer to the Chinese?" Tough question to answer.
Markets for the stuff they want to get rid of.
Code re-use isn't bad at all. It is however if the code you are re-using is in another program - in this case, IE10. It's code re-se gone topsy turvy.
If they merely wanted to re-use the code, then write it into Win8 so that Win8 can natively support the extra features and have IE10 leverage it off there. The way that it has been done here just seems to be a case of "Ohhh. IE10 does some shiny stuff, lets just hack up a way to use that rather than improve Win8 to do it on its own.".
I can see this as one of two things - either Microsoft is trying to bump it's browser market share or they are cutting corners in their code to have Windows depending on bits of IE10 to give the core OS functionality.
If this is an attempt at market share, I think it is rather doomed to fail. Gone are the days where people just accepted whatever browser comes with their OS. Even the very non-technical business people that I work with mostly install their browser of choice.
If this is cost cutting and an attempt to re-use code from one thing in another, then I think it will likely just be ignored by many users who don't care as much - but alienate the nerds even more. The types that frequent /. for example, are more and more likely to find reasons for pushing them into no longer using windows (for the ones who still use it that is) and thus putting even more leaks into the ship.
My mother for example uses the computer VERY little and doesn't do much with it. When it is time to upgrade (which is fast approaching) I am seriously considering ninja-installing a distro onto her machine and simply saying "This is the new computer, things are a little different" rather than going through the same thing while installing the latest and greatest from Microsoft. For her, there isn't any difference in finding all the buttons going from XP to Win 7 or Win 8. I may as well get her onto another OS totally.
The GP is saying that their shareprice has sunk heavily due to the appointment of the new CEO who is female. I am saying that their shareprice hasn't dumped since the appointment. I did say that Apple and IBM were the two companies in the bunch that had a bit of a bad spell over the last month.
IBM shareprice Oct 14th was $189. Now it is $180.
Not really. A drop of $1 over a shareprice of $180 isn't a steep drop. In fact, most the market did somewhat fall that day. Looking at the monthly trend however, IBM and Apple are the only ones that have had a significant dip over the last month (google finance on IBM).
Well, many years ago, everyone charged per Mb over the plan limit, but I think the ACCC got involved after a number of "outrageous" bills made it into the news and told ISPs to clean up their act - or perhaps it was bad publicity over the crazy bills people were refusing to pay, but for the most part ISPs now just throttle down. A heavy user will still get the bigger plans, but users won't suddenly get slugged with a $50k bill (there were a few in this price range for a single month).
Sure, it's not really in the interest of ISPs, but it isn't an unreasonable request of them - and they all seem to do it now.
Actually I have on many occasions used throttled internet here in Aus, probably more in the past rather than recently, but I never really had an issue with it. I was always with decent providers though (such as Internode) and not the likes of Dodo or TPG. Perhaps that makes the difference?
Here in Australia, the majority of internet providers for home (a)DSL/Cable provide capped plans - but don't charge anything once the plan is exceeded, they simply throttle the connection speed right down (to 64 or 128k speeds). Is that the same in the US, or do ISPs generally just go to a $ per Gb model? The mobile broadband here does generally charge per Mb once a mobile plan goes over the limit however, so a phone bill can very quickly become astronomical.
I am curious if this is the same over in the US/Canada. If a user is merely throttled down to a slower speed once the data limit is reached, it seems like a lot of fuss over something quite small?
I think this is a case of the "Big boy rules" being applied to the little guy. You can't shoot a Hollywood movie in a national park without the proper permits, that's something that no-one wants to argue. However, the park isn't going to stop a family busting out a video camera and recording their holiday hike.
I think what's going on here is a few friends are having fun and doing something that falls into the latter category, but the park is (for no reason that I can fathom) against the idea of some pranksters having a good chuckle with the park patrons - so they apply the only rules that they can find to stop this happening, the rules meant for Hollywood.
If you ask me, this smells like a case of the park being douchebags, but I can't really see too much that anyone can do. You certainly don't want the next blockbuster film crew coming in and trashing a park just because the courts ruled that Jonathan and his friends could have a laugh.
If you ask me, Jonathan should find another park that isn't so full of themselves to record his sequel. "The Yeti Migration" comes to mind as a title...
This sounds like one of those brilliant ideas on paper, but one that will prove infinitely harder in reality. Re-use satelites, great idea, good luck doing it though.
I know that UK libel laws are stupidly easy to abuse, but does anyone know if those laws can be applied to a website hosted outside the UK and not having a direct UK affiliation (ie a .com not a .co.uk)?