If the rule sucks, the rule needs changing. In the UK, there really aren't *that* many stop signs, as almost every sign of that type is a "give way" sign, where it's your responsibility to give way appropriately (which may or may not involve stopping). If there's a stop sign, it's because there's an issue that means you're unlikely to be in a position to give way appropriately without stopping (say as a result of poor visibility due to walls or other obstructions). On that basis, I have absolutely no problem with people being charged with not stopping at a stop sign, as they really *should*.
Do you/really/ think this is true? Worker productivity in technical jobs is piss poor when you first hire, however good the individual is. Trained and experienced staff are an asset well worth developing, and if you just think you can burn through staff I personally think you'll end up paying more for less.
In Norway, I reckon when the oil runs out they'd choose to maintain their standard of life, but not their personal wealth. They'd have less stuff, but the scandinavian attitude to what matters in life means they're not going to flog themselves to the bone to let them have shiny toys.
I'm baffled by how many hours some people are willing to work (at a job they often don't greatly enjoy) to pay for their shiny new Mercedes.
I'm not sure of the exact mechanics, but they're attached with fittings that are hard to remove, and attempting to just pull the plate off without removing the two fixings makes it come off in pieces. They're still quite resistant to being kicked, it's not like they're fragile.
The petrol station would be allowed to override it if it was broken. If you were that bothered, you could make it a condition that they put in a service call before disabling it.
My other favourite with the congestion charge was people applying for a private-hire taxi license, which only cost £82 to apply and then £27pa. Then you were exempt from the £8 per day congestion charge. From memory there were Lamborghinis and Rolls Royces registered in this way.
They try to control plate production, and fit them in a way that makes them hard to remove without shattering them. Doesn't sound like an easy war to win.
Forget false plates, they stick out like a vicar in a tutu. A black marker pen and a bottle of white spirits is all you need. Change an "L" to an "E" and wipe it off around the corner.
There's quite a line in stealing plates from cars to fit on matching makes and models. Non-trivial to spot unless you're happy to keep pulling over the victim, or reissue registrations.
They should target the drink drivers, increase the tax on fuel, stop the car tax and have a national fund for insurance. Everyone pays then. The more you drive, the more you pay.
I both like and dislike those options. Road tax allows you to tax differently efficient and inefficient cars. And by that I mean 99g of CO2/km gets free road tax, whereas your V8 Bentley would be paying £460pa. If you switched to pure fuel tax rather than that being a 0% vs 100% example, it'd end up being more like 20% vs 100%. Maybe that's okay. It'd directly discourage people from driving more miles, which would be no bad thing.
I'm not sure you should apply the same to insurance though, as then are you not subsidising poor drivers? I've always paid my tax/insurance/MOT and have a clean license and insurance. Under a national fund, would I end up paying the same as the 25 year old with 9 points on his license who has already been disqualified three times?
Ah, but I can get a tax disc and then cancel my insurance. Or I can not pay so it's invalidated. Or I can cancel it but then reapply for insurance from another company and one company being faster to report it to the DVLA than the other means I'm insured but the DVLA think I'm not. Trust me, their records aren't 100% accurate. In the past I was under no obligation to inform the DVLA when the car was off the road (SORN) so they couldn't be sure whether it was valid me having the car uninsured. Fixing that loophole made quite a big difference in itself, as it means any car owner who hasn't got a SORN and doesn't have insurance *is* breaking the law. Unless you claim you've just sold it and you've only just posted the forms off...
You might think it's trivial, but the way it's setup at the minute, it really isn't. Equally you blame the driver here for being late renewing. If I've got insurance that runs out just before my tax disc, I can't get my new tax disc with the old insurance (because the DVLA reject it as invalid is it's nearly expired), but the new insurance details can't be entered on the DVLA site until they're valid. Is that my fault for being last minute?
This would work just fine if the database was correct, which it simply isn't. Delays in getting information updated would mean you having a fully licenses, taxes, MOTed, and insured car that you couldn't fill up with petrol. So there'd need to be a way of overriding it, which puts a whole lot of pressure on the vendor.
Nice in theory, but I don't see it working. That doesn't mean I don't see it happening.
I had the exact same thought and googled magnetic jacks:
Molex Magnetic Modular Jacks incorporate wire-wound components (magnetics) in standard RJ45 jacks. These integrated magnetics, resistors and/or capacitors filter common-mode noise to provide signal integrity, protect PHY chips, provide DC isolation and offer low-mode conversion.
I'm assuming that's the case here, and the magnets are providing filtering (given the cable's got a predominantly plastic and copper end it's not going to do much to hold it in place).
I really like LED catseyes for the somewhat silly reason that I somehow find it preferable having a stream of lights in my mirrors than nothing at all. They also seem much more visible in fog.
A couple of points: I thought the claimed reduction in use of pesticides with GM crops was widely questioned. http://www.pan-uk.org/archive/Projects/Food/gmobriefing.html Some people object to GM partly on the basis that crops end up being patented. While I agree that's tangling two issues, that still could be a reasonable objection to GM in its current form.
I've got 10 year old monitors with DVI, and the sharpness improvement you get isn't something I'd ever go back on. I can think of a few at work that connect over VGA, but that's only because they're small form factor machines that only had VGA outs. At 1280x1024 or above, the softness you get over VGA compared to a digital output is noticeable. If you bought a basic GeForce 2 ten years ago you'd have a DVI output on your graphics card, so either your computer is a veritable relic, or you're relying on some weak onboard graphics and don't really care about your outputs. I mean that to the extent I've never bought an LCD monitor without a digital input.
It's true to say the KVMs often are only VGA, but that's partly because KVMs are typically either cheap two port affairs for a desktop, or multiport designed for servers where noone gives a crap about sharpness.
If you're not using DVI/HDMI/DisplayPort in this day and age on your desktop, you either have a cheap SFF machine, or you're stuck in the past. If you're okay with that, then good for you, but I'd personally guess that a majority of people with LCD monitors use DVI, and soon that'll change so that most people use HDMI or DisplayPort. You're really wide of the mark to think DVI was some sort of pointless minority sport.
Then you really have been missing out or you've been using CRT monitors. DVI's been giving people pixel perfect output on their LCD monitors for years, and DisplayPort and HDMI have only relatively recently appeared to take over the roost.
Dell 3007WFP (2560x1600), but I concede that's old stock. Barco Coronis Fusion 6MP DL is a current monitor 3280 x 2048 with a pair of dual-link DVI connectors and nothing else.
DisplayPort I've found to be particularly annoying. You/can/ end up having to reboot a monitor to get rid of display corruption, and a normal display port (DP+) on a graphics card can't output to a dual-link DVI monitor without an expensive active Displayport->DVI adapter.
Yeah, you yanks get to electrocute dogs! Woot. It was only yesterday while I was crying into my pint of Mild I was complaining that we can no longer do that.
I hear you're not currently allowed to be water boarded by your state, although that's being sorted out too. We annoying ban things like that.
They're illegal in Wales (you can get charged with animal cruelty) and as far as I knew were going to be made illegal in the rest of the UK soon enough.
I almost completely agree with you. They don't *completely* focus on throughput though. In many cases you'd be more efficient running your problem for longer on fewer processors (where that's possible given memory requirements), but you still sometimes choose not to. It's not valuable being able to produce lots of forecasts for tomorrows weather tomorrow, the value is in providing one today.
(Yes I know the reality is we produce lots of forecasts and sort of cherry-pick from them, but it reads better if I phrase it that way.)
Slashdot Mirror
If the rule sucks, the rule needs changing. In the UK, there really aren't *that* many stop signs, as almost every sign of that type is a "give way" sign, where it's your responsibility to give way appropriately (which may or may not involve stopping). If there's a stop sign, it's because there's an issue that means you're unlikely to be in a position to give way appropriately without stopping (say as a result of poor visibility due to walls or other obstructions). On that basis, I have absolutely no problem with people being charged with not stopping at a stop sign, as they really *should*.
Do you /really/ think this is true? Worker productivity in technical jobs is piss poor when you first hire, however good the individual is. Trained and experienced staff are an asset well worth developing, and if you just think you can burn through staff I personally think you'll end up paying more for less.
In Norway, I reckon when the oil runs out they'd choose to maintain their standard of life, but not their personal wealth. They'd have less stuff, but the scandinavian attitude to what matters in life means they're not going to flog themselves to the bone to let them have shiny toys.
I'm baffled by how many hours some people are willing to work (at a job they often don't greatly enjoy) to pay for their shiny new Mercedes.
I'm not sure of the exact mechanics, but they're attached with fittings that are hard to remove, and attempting to just pull the plate off without removing the two fixings makes it come off in pieces. They're still quite resistant to being kicked, it's not like they're fragile.
The petrol station would be allowed to override it if it was broken. If you were that bothered, you could make it a condition that they put in a service call before disabling it.
My other favourite with the congestion charge was people applying for a private-hire taxi license, which only cost £82 to apply and then £27pa. Then you were exempt from the £8 per day congestion charge. From memory there were Lamborghinis and Rolls Royces registered in this way.
If I had to guess, yes.
They try to control plate production, and fit them in a way that makes them hard to remove without shattering them. Doesn't sound like an easy war to win.
Having a written constitution is great, but it's a shame so many people fail to understand them.
Policing the enforcement of democratically enacted laws doesn't in any way clash with democracy, constitutional or otherwise.
/Normally/ this requires you drive with trade plates on though as far as I'm aware.
Forget false plates, they stick out like a vicar in a tutu. A black marker pen and a bottle of white spirits is all you need. Change an "L" to an "E" and wipe it off around the corner.
There's quite a line in stealing plates from cars to fit on matching makes and models. Non-trivial to spot unless you're happy to keep pulling over the victim, or reissue registrations.
They should target the drink drivers, increase the tax on fuel, stop the car tax and have a national fund for insurance. Everyone pays then. The more you drive, the more you pay.
I both like and dislike those options. Road tax allows you to tax differently efficient and inefficient cars. And by that I mean 99g of CO2/km gets free road tax, whereas your V8 Bentley would be paying £460pa. If you switched to pure fuel tax rather than that being a 0% vs 100% example, it'd end up being more like 20% vs 100%. Maybe that's okay. It'd directly discourage people from driving more miles, which would be no bad thing.
I'm not sure you should apply the same to insurance though, as then are you not subsidising poor drivers? I've always paid my tax/insurance/MOT and have a clean license and insurance. Under a national fund, would I end up paying the same as the 25 year old with 9 points on his license who has already been disqualified three times?
We already give foreigners a cushty ride on driving penalties, I don't imagine this will be any different.
Ah, but I can get a tax disc and then cancel my insurance. Or I can not pay so it's invalidated. Or I can cancel it but then reapply for insurance from another company and one company being faster to report it to the DVLA than the other means I'm insured but the DVLA think I'm not. Trust me, their records aren't 100% accurate. In the past I was under no obligation to inform the DVLA when the car was off the road (SORN) so they couldn't be sure whether it was valid me having the car uninsured. Fixing that loophole made quite a big difference in itself, as it means any car owner who hasn't got a SORN and doesn't have insurance *is* breaking the law. Unless you claim you've just sold it and you've only just posted the forms off...
You might think it's trivial, but the way it's setup at the minute, it really isn't. Equally you blame the driver here for being late renewing. If I've got insurance that runs out just before my tax disc, I can't get my new tax disc with the old insurance (because the DVLA reject it as invalid is it's nearly expired), but the new insurance details can't be entered on the DVLA site until they're valid. Is that my fault for being last minute?
This would work just fine if the database was correct, which it simply isn't. Delays in getting information updated would mean you having a fully licenses, taxes, MOTed, and insured car that you couldn't fill up with petrol. So there'd need to be a way of overriding it, which puts a whole lot of pressure on the vendor.
Nice in theory, but I don't see it working. That doesn't mean I don't see it happening.
Ah yes, that makes much more sense. Magnetics isn't a term I knew.
I had the exact same thought and googled magnetic jacks:
Molex Magnetic Modular Jacks incorporate wire-wound components (magnetics) in standard RJ45 jacks. These integrated magnetics, resistors and/or capacitors filter common-mode noise to provide signal integrity, protect PHY chips, provide DC isolation and offer low-mode conversion.
I'm assuming that's the case here, and the magnets are providing filtering (given the cable's got a predominantly plastic and copper end it's not going to do much to hold it in place).
I really like LED catseyes for the somewhat silly reason that I somehow find it preferable having a stream of lights in my mirrors than nothing at all. They also seem much more visible in fog.
A couple of points:
I thought the claimed reduction in use of pesticides with GM crops was widely questioned. http://www.pan-uk.org/archive/Projects/Food/gmobriefing.html
Some people object to GM partly on the basis that crops end up being patented. While I agree that's tangling two issues, that still could be a reasonable objection to GM in its current form.
I've got 10 year old monitors with DVI, and the sharpness improvement you get isn't something I'd ever go back on. I can think of a few at work that connect over VGA, but that's only because they're small form factor machines that only had VGA outs. At 1280x1024 or above, the softness you get over VGA compared to a digital output is noticeable. If you bought a basic GeForce 2 ten years ago you'd have a DVI output on your graphics card, so either your computer is a veritable relic, or you're relying on some weak onboard graphics and don't really care about your outputs. I mean that to the extent I've never bought an LCD monitor without a digital input.
It's true to say the KVMs often are only VGA, but that's partly because KVMs are typically either cheap two port affairs for a desktop, or multiport designed for servers where noone gives a crap about sharpness.
If you're not using DVI/HDMI/DisplayPort in this day and age on your desktop, you either have a cheap SFF machine, or you're stuck in the past. If you're okay with that, then good for you, but I'd personally guess that a majority of people with LCD monitors use DVI, and soon that'll change so that most people use HDMI or DisplayPort. You're really wide of the mark to think DVI was some sort of pointless minority sport.
Then you really have been missing out or you've been using CRT monitors. DVI's been giving people pixel perfect output on their LCD monitors for years, and DisplayPort and HDMI have only relatively recently appeared to take over the roost.
Dell 3007WFP (2560x1600), but I concede that's old stock.
Barco Coronis Fusion 6MP DL is a current monitor 3280 x 2048 with a pair of dual-link DVI connectors and nothing else.
DisplayPort I've found to be particularly annoying. You /can/ end up having to reboot a monitor to get rid of display corruption, and a normal display port (DP+) on a graphics card can't output to a dual-link DVI monitor without an expensive active Displayport->DVI adapter.
They may be in and readily available, but many of them are still widely disputed.
Yeah, you yanks get to electrocute dogs! Woot. It was only yesterday while I was crying into my pint of Mild I was complaining that we can no longer do that.
I hear you're not currently allowed to be water boarded by your state, although that's being sorted out too. We annoying ban things like that.
They're illegal in Wales (you can get charged with animal cruelty) and as far as I knew were going to be made illegal in the rest of the UK soon enough.
I almost completely agree with you. They don't *completely* focus on throughput though. In many cases you'd be more efficient running your problem for longer on fewer processors (where that's possible given memory requirements), but you still sometimes choose not to. It's not valuable being able to produce lots of forecasts for tomorrows weather tomorrow, the value is in providing one today.
(Yes I know the reality is we produce lots of forecasts and sort of cherry-pick from them, but it reads better if I phrase it that way.)