No thanks. I've tried one of those, but I never had a TV, and I never got hassled for a licence. Students are supposed to have one, if they do have a TV though. Single motherhood ain't gonna happen without dramatic surgery.
I think for me, the only sane option is the Lib Dems. I don't actually agree with everything they say... but I do believe they are telling the truth and that's worth more than anything to me.
No, it wasn't. Or at least, no one has produced any evidence for that. Gilligan claimed Kelly said it, but that's not terribly conclusive, especially considering Kelly killed himself a few days later.
I don't understand. The Tories have come out and said they'd keep the BBC more accountable to government, and yet somehow you accuse Labour of being the control freaks...
I think your biases have overcome your rationality there, friend.
Funny how no one has pointed out that he could do them for unfair dismissal
He wasn't dismissed. He tendered his resignation, firmly believing it would not be accepted. He was wrong.
the 45 minute was, in fact, as we knew all along, complete bollocks.
The rubbishing of the 45 minute claim wasn't what upset the government. What upset the government was the suggestion that they -- and not the security services -- had inserted the claim into the dossier. This was what Gilligan suggested in his first broadcast, having first failed to clear it with his editor, or the BBC's lawyers. Furthermore, all inquiries have shown this suggestion to be not true.
Some are worried that the independence of the "Beeb" could be compromised
I haven't heard this much in the British media. In fact, these reforms seem likely to *increase* the Beeb's independence, since it adds another layer of distance between the Governors (now the BBC Trust) and the patronage of government.
The Governors at present are appointed directly by the government -- and the last Labour and Tory administrations have made partly-political appointments; in the future, their replacements will be appointed by a more independent executive.
I'd also just like to say this : as a License Fee payer, I believe firmly that the BBC works, and having travelled a fair amount, I've never seen a media organisation produce comparable amounts of quality output.
44% of the Supreme Court think executing minors is neither "cruel", nor "unusual".
And as to the influence of corporate lobbyists, if you think the Supremes are intellectual, thoughtful jurists who consider only the facts, you're wrong.
Remember, the Supreme Court decided Corporations have the same rights as citizens, despite there being absolutely no legal or constitutional reasoon for them to do so.
44% of the Supreme Court thought its fine to execute children. I'm not confident they're going to get this right, in the face of substantial corporate lobbyists.
While that's certainly true, it doesn't mean that it necessarily *should*. The fact that some unregulated doctor in a lawless country can practice eugenics, for example, doesn't mean the UK should, merely to maintain some perceived technological advantage.
We're should be civilised enough to say "That's advantageous to us, but morally and ethically repugnant, and potentially dangerous. Therefore, we choose not to do it, even though we can."
This isn't dying by the sword, this is more like a paper-cut even if they have to pay cash.
While that may well be true in this case, it's not always going to be true.
With the rise of dedicated Intellectual Property companies, dedicated to acquiring and licensing patents, cross-licensing will become less and less important. A hypothetical dedicated IP company has no need to cross-licence other's patents, because they don't actually create anything. So *everyone*, even MS ends up paying the IP firm.
And MS may well be stiffed hardest, because if I've got a solid case for pursuing royalties from someone, I'm going after the guy with the most cash lying around.
Often times I wonder if the people, who can't install Debian or Slackware, can actually pass a reading comprehension test, cause thats all it takes.
Oh yeah? Which document should I read to persuade their X version to recognise my graphics card (that Fedora set up out-of-the-box)? Oh wait, there isn't one, because Debian's X version *doesn't* support my graphics card.
Pick the right algorithm, but realize that n vs. n^2 vs. 2^n is not a big deal in 99% of applications. Code it so it works first. Make it go. Then, if it sucks performance-wise, replace those slow algorithms.
And, as a rider to this, modularise. If you've a choice of algorithms and don't know which one to use, decide on an generic interface to your algorithm *first*, then code one of them. If that's sub-optimal, code another using the same interface, with all the internal functions/subroutines as well hidden from the algorithm calling them as your language choice allows.
"Microsoft does not knowingly provide copyrighted Microsoft Windows OS files to users of third-party emulators or cross-platform API translation technologies such as Wine."
It's going to be interesting to see if any here has the raw brassneck to suggest that MS *should* provide these files to Wine users.
I bet dollars to donuts that someone tries, though.
I agree with you, basically. The opinion I stated wasn't my own.
Or rather, it was my own. I do think the policy is religiously motivated, but I don't feel its necessarily a bad thing to have politicians with principles, even when [as in this case] they're not principles I share.
Well, the problem that most people have is that this specific set of guidelines were motivated by religion, rather than the promotion of the best interests of the citizens of the United States.
Civil courts are not there to "punish" lawbreakers
The concept of punitive damages appears to have passed you by somewhat. Civil courts are most certainly there to punish people, as and when they feel it's appropriate.
Slashdot Mirror
I think your biases have overcome your rationality there, friend.
Furthermore, all inquiries have shown this suggestion to be not true.
The Governors at present are appointed directly by the government -- and the last Labour and Tory administrations have made partly-political appointments; in the future, their replacements will be appointed by a more independent executive.
I'd also just like to say this : as a License Fee payer, I believe firmly that the BBC works, and having travelled a fair amount, I've never seen a media organisation produce comparable amounts of quality output.
Your distinction between executing minors and sentencing them to death (then executing them later), is quite reasonable, well made, and duly noted.
Personally, I don't think it makes much of a difference to my opinion of people who think it's ok.
This decision, made yesterday. Do try and keep up.
44% of the Supreme Court think executing minors is neither "cruel", nor "unusual".
And as to the influence of corporate lobbyists, if you think the Supremes are intellectual, thoughtful jurists who consider only the facts, you're wrong.
Remember, the Supreme Court decided Corporations have the same rights as citizens, despite there being absolutely no legal or constitutional reasoon for them to do so.
44% of the Supreme Court thought its fine to execute children. I'm not confident they're going to get this right, in the face of substantial corporate lobbyists.
Right, and it's *only* the telephone company proposing this. No one in the Costa Rican government is (as yet) onside.
Can you say "Nothing to see here. Move Along"?
The fact that some unregulated doctor in a lawless country can practice eugenics, for example, doesn't mean the UK should, merely to maintain some perceived technological advantage.
We're should be civilised enough to say "That's advantageous to us, but morally and ethically repugnant, and potentially dangerous. Therefore, we choose not to do it, even though we can."
With the rise of dedicated Intellectual Property companies, dedicated to acquiring and licensing patents, cross-licensing will become less and less important. A hypothetical dedicated IP company has no need to cross-licence other's patents, because they don't actually create anything. So *everyone*, even MS ends up paying the IP firm.
And MS may well be stiffed hardest, because if I've got a solid case for pursuing royalties from someone, I'm going after the guy with the most cash lying around.
Oh, and Office updates *do* work with WINE.
I bet dollars to donuts that someone tries, though.
I agree with you, basically. The opinion I stated wasn't my own.
Or rather, it was my own. I do think the policy is religiously motivated, but I don't feel its necessarily a bad thing to have politicians with principles, even when [as in this case] they're not principles I share.