Having been an engineer myself in the UK through much of that period, and seeing innumerable companies in those areas ceasing to exist or being snapped up by foreign buyers, often just for the name, I don't think I am misrepresenting anything.
By referring to the state-owned industries moved to the private sector you are thinking only of the tip of the iceberg. But for every big state industry there were many private suppliers who's fortunes were geared to their big customer.
There are plenty of examples of private companies going to the wall since 1970, not involved in state-private movements.
Metro-Cammell for example, once builders of London Buses and Underground trains, and The Gloucester Railway Carriage Company. [I have been a railway engineer].
In shipbuilding, Cammell Laird (although the name was bought by another company) and John Browns [I have been in shipbuilding too].
Ruston and Hornsby diesel engines and gas turbines, now owned by Siemens and MAN, and mostly moved abroad. [I have also been a power station engineer]. Practically every part in any older power station (built pre-1975) was made (by private companies) in the UK, but to replace parts such as high pressure valves and steam drums today it is necessary to buy from France, Germany the USA or Japan.
Names most people will be more familiar with are Rolls Royce Cars [and almost every other make of British car), Pye [TVs], Bush [electronics - the name sold off].
Whether these companies "deserved" to fold is beside the point. My point is that the UK Government let them fold whereas in Germany or France the government would probably have intervened. I am not saying that is good or bad, just that the UK government is likely to intervene on behalf of the entertainment industry if it asks nicely
I believe it is similar in the USA, but in the UK the story went like this:-
1) First the motorcycle manufacturing industry was in trouble. The Government told them to f#@k off.
2) Then the electronics industry was in trouble. The Government told them to f#@k off.
3) Then the shipbuilding industry was in trouble. The Government told them to f#@k off.
4) Then the mining industry was in trouble. The Government told them to f#@k off.
5) Then the railway equipment and train building industry was in trouble. The Government told them to f#@k off.
6) Then the car making industry was in trouble. The Government told them to f#@k off.
7) Then the steel making industry was in trouble. The Government told them to f#@k off.
BUT
8) Then the entertainment industry was in trouble and the Government said "OH MY GOD WE CANNOT ALLOW THE ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY TO FAIL! We must give them tax breaks, subsidies, knighthoods and do everything we can to keep this luvvly bunch of luvvies in the manner to which they are accustomed!"
I put this down to the fact that the vast majority of politicians are "humanities" people. They have degrees in history, English, fine art, psychology, PPE; hardly ever science and technology. They (like most people) see entertainers face-to-face, they are charmed by them. Unlike ships, cars and electricity which are "just there".
So politicians love the entertainment industry, which is why its pronouncements are so dangerous.
PS: Some might point out that Mrs T , about the worst offender in this, had a science degree. Very unusual for a politician. There is a different explanation for her. Having changed careers she wanted to justify it by destroying what she left behind, and getting her own back for being the junior in the lab etc.
Perhaps the lesson is that there can never be intelligent support for technology in government, except in wartime or for fads like wind generators, the workings of which any humanities guy thinks he can understand more than a nuclear power station for example
Christ Almighty, you can still love Microsoft after they come up with a idea like this?
Microsoft set back personal computing by, I would say. at least five years with their hanging on to Windows-for-DOS (ie the Win95/98/ME series) long after even entry level PCs were capable of running a half-decent OS in the form of WinNT (lets not even mention Unix/Xenix/Linux). Back in 1995 they could have produced a lightweight version of NT for popular use instead of the Win95 crap that they pushed for another 5 years.
The reason they did not was departmental in-fighting at Microsoft.
While MS employ some of the best graphic designers in the business, they have done almost f#@k all in the way of innovation.
I used almost to live on a bike, but "cycle infrastructure" is what made me stop.
I will not use a bike unless I am there on the same terms as cars and with the same rights. I will not ride along a "cycle route" where I am required (by road markings) to "Give Way" to every little side road and even (as I have seen in some areas) to private driveways, which entitle car drivers to pull out in front of you without a glance whatever speed you are doing, and if you hit them it would be your fault. Even without any markings against the cyclist, the separation of "cycle path" from motor road splits the concentration of the driver pulling out - and guess where he will focus his vision.
Nor do I agree with being required by signs to dismount and walk with the pedestrians at major junctions (as signs here in Bristol require).
Nor do I want to share my route with errant pedestrians, dog shit, litter, broken glass, road works depots - since people do not respect a "cycle route" as they would a road with cars on it, nor is it kept "swept" by the passage of motor tyres.
When I used to ride around London or other cities I used to make journeys quicker than by car. However these "cycle facilities" are designed for people who are almost incapable of riding a bike, and it is dangerous to use them at anything above about 10mph. I remember on TV news once a politician (Linda Chalker) opening a "cycle" facility and riding a short (very short) distance on it for the cameras. She wobbled along so slowly that a cameraman was able to walk backwards in front of her. That is the sort of cyclist these facilities are designed for.
In the 1930 - 1950 period (well before my time if you were wondering) very large numbers of people cycled without "facilities" and in fact cycling organisations like the CTC strongly resisted any ideas of "facilities". Yes, there were far fewer cars then, but isn't that the very aim you are talking about?
In the UK a trailer must bear the same number as the vehicle towing it
Couchslug wrote:-
That wouldn't fly in the US, where it is very common for a person to own multiple trailers, cars, and trucks even for non-commercial use. Being able to swap trailers and towing vehicles is quite handy.
From the UK I cannot see your problem, Couchslug. If you have more than one trailer you get a number plate for each of them. There are plenty of car accesory shops (eg Halfords) wthat will make you one, maybe in minutes. Won't cost much, but you do have to show them your car registration papers in case you are after false number plates.
And to others here, yes, the front and rear plates must be visible at all times (Bikes on the back are no excuse) and be the same front and back. You would not get very far on British roads if they are not, it is the first thing a parked police patrol man will look for.
If you are hiring a trailer or if you have several tow vehicles for one trailer, you have a slot in the trailer for dropping a number plate in.
There is no way I would ever use a search facility named after an irritating 1940s smoothy singer with Brycreemed hair and ears that stuck out too far.
Just the word "Bing" makes me think of that dreary "White Xmas" song that, every year from late October onwards, every shoping mall and large store puts on their PA system in endless loop mode.
The future "PC" will be more like a flat screen TV hanging on the wall that you walk up to and start interacting with.
Codswallop. You will ask people to stand up, walk around and wave their arms like idiots just to see their e-mails and surf? It is one thing to use your fingers on a fondleslab, quite another to have to wave at full-sized screen.
Once upon a time people had to stand up and walk to their TV to change channels. Then, guess what, someone invented the remote control and all previous TV's were tossed in the skip. The mouse/pad/trackball is the remote control for a computer. You want the mouse to be "uninvented" - good luck with that.
Khallow wrote:-
There's also a lot of stuff that uses graphics. Do you really think people will fill out spreadsheets or write papers on a mobile phone?
Ruhroh wrote:-
No, of course not. They'll use a real keyboard, mouse, and monitor, plugged into a locked-down box the size of a mobile phone. Seen an Apple TV or Roku box? Very appealing to give to non-technical family members when you know you'll be stuck as the tech support, yes?
Oh, you mean a PC then, Ruhroh. Only the system unit is smaller.
What a relief. I thought for a minute that I was going to have to do my photo editing, web site design, family tree graphics, worrd processing, FPS games, TV programs etc on a tiny screen with one of those big magnifying glasses in front, like they used to have in the olden days in front of the early, tiny TV screens.
there was a non-trivial chance that the porn came from the man himself
There is a non-trivial chance that any person chosen at random will have CP on their PC. Does that mean everyone should be forbidden access to their children?
News to me. I always had the impression that individuals (from the way they drive), the authorities and (most importantly) the media hardly gave a f@#k about road accidents unless one is particularly spectacular. If you worked in the industries I have (shipbuilding, railways and power) you would be struck by the contrast between the fanatical pursuit of safety at work (such as putting up a "Do not kick the fir cones!" sign by a group of fir trees on site), and the free-for-all on the roads outside.
There is a sign as you enter the site where I work : "Safety starts here". I once suggested to our Site Safety Officer that it should say "Safety Stops Here" as you drive out, because it does for most people.
A fatal road accident is unlikely to get more than a couple of column inches in a local paper, yet a railway accident (for example) killing anybody, or even no-one, is the subject of national news headlines for days, if not still coming up years later [Eg: The case of the Darwin Award contenders at Elsenham 7 years ago).
Basically, it is because most people think they are too "clever" to have a road accident themselves, but on a train they feel at the mercy of the railway.
Did you mean 100% (50% on each side)? In a sense they did, in that many historians reckon the ACW was the first "total war". When I read the GP I was thinking myself for an example when I read the parent and realised the ACW is a good one.
You cannot expect the elderly, women (in those days anyway) and children to fight on the battlefield, but, particularly in the South, they did things on the home front like making observation balloons out of their silk dresses, a bit like in Britain in WW2. Then there was Sherman's terrible "Ride" though the south when they were beaten.
Because the Union won, it wrote the history books; so we don't hear so much about the awful things it did to the civil population of the South.
... I have *never*, in my 24 years of life, owned a printer. I think those thing are really deprecated.
I don't know what kind of lifestyle you lead, but it must be very uneventful.
Have you never done anything with legal significance, like buying a house? You don't distrust putting everything in emails that someone afterwards could claim they never received or you never sent? You need to send things by registered post, on paper.
You have never made anything, which needs a drawing at the point of work. I am currently making a playhouse in the garden for which I have dimensioned drawing, done on the PC but which I need out there with me in the garden. Fondleslabs and mud don't mix well.
You have never needed to show eg family pictures in a casual way to visitors without having to drag them into the basement computer room or embarass them by asking them to use a fondleslab they have never used before.
You have none of your own pictures on your walls and shelves, at least not without a digital picture frame for each one - which would not only be expensive and OTT but need a lot of wall bricks and wires hanging around.
You have never at work needed to force someone to pay attention to something by plonking paperwork down in front of them. You never been in a situation where you have said "Would you mind going to the network directory xyz, subdirectory pqr, file abcdef12345.pdf [among thousands]" , or "Would you mind looking at the email I sent yesterday and opening the fifth attachment...?" and seen their eyes glaze over and been told to come back later?
Sure, in a world where the printers are a lot smarter (recognizing the media type and adjusting printing settings automatically - i.e. glossy photo paper = highest DPI, adjust ink levels automatically, etc., transparency = mirror the input, etc.) that would be great. If that's what Apple would be pushing for, awesome.
Adjusting for media type automatically is not necessary and likely to go wrong. Even the most dumb user (well, almost the most dumb) knows what paper they are wanting to use, and most of the time it rarely changes anyway.
This discussion is about installing printer drivers and managing the print queue, which is what CUPS does
Until then, I'll take my printer driver over poking at buttons on the printer or going through the printer's HTML interface just because the OS developer thinks printer drivers and per-session/per-job settings are stupid.
I like buttons on the printer because they do what the printer maker hard-wires them to do without OS interference. For instance I like a big button that says "Stop printing and delete all jobs that have been received" - a button I can press when I print a web page that looks like a single sheet but turns out to be folowed by 10+ pages of white-on white text or some other trickery to increase its page rankings.
The last line of your comment makes no sense. An OS developer thinks printer drivers are stupid? What does that mean?
He says that even with only a few connected cars, the system still works
Great, it only works under very low traffic conditions, in which case where's the problem ?
The problem is that you are still held at a red light even when there is no traffic coming the other way. In fact this idea is of no use in heavy traffic conditions, as others have pointed out
Um, if you wanted better computers, why did you keep buying from a company which didn't sell them?
I didn't, nor did the GP poster by the sound of it.
This is the problem with the whole 'evil Intel' argument; you're assuming that customers would continue to buy second-rate products
Plenty of examples of that. Where should I start? Ford Edsel, Windows 95, VHS, Practika cameras, Ryobi garden equipment.... I admit I bought the last of that list because I knew no better at the time. You are assuming that purchasers are all-knowing, but they are not.
Interesting to know what country you are posting from.
In the UK they turn red and orange together when about to turn green, not just orange on its own (officially it is called "amber"). It is meant to give you time to get into gear (but most people ride the clutch of course). We get orange on its own between turning from green to red.
It is not illegal to cross the lone amber if you are too close to stop (a matter of opinion). It is however illegal to start on the red+amber, so red is absolute; but people do of course, it is still like a starter gun.
The Professor is missing the point, at least as far as the UK is concerned.
I believe that the more modern traffic lights here deliberately turn red as you approach, as part of someone's idea of "traffic calming".
I am often driving late with no other traffic around when a green light I see ahead turns red as I approach. They turn green again when I have slowed to about 5mph, if not stopped. I am particularly thinking as an example the lights on the big roundabout at Avonmouth, near Bristol, that gives access to the M5, if anyone else here knows it.
And for readers outside the UK, yes we have roundabouts with traffic lights at every entry; it can take 5 minutes to get round one. Why these cannot be switched off outside busy times is beyond me.
And far from "traffic calming" I know several people (otherwise law abiding) who admit they jump such lights at quiet times. Respect for traffic lights is being undermined.
Anyway, such a device already exists - what else are those magnetic loops buried in the road surface?
Even assuming it were possible to build a small reactor that could withstand things like vehicles and aircraft crashing into it
I agree that the scheme of multiple small reactors is daft, but what are your own plans against being hit personally by a crashing aircraft?
.. nuclear plants in the UK regularly leak dangerous amounts of radioactive material.
References please?.. and I do not mean fantasy claims by Greenpeace and the like. I was a nuclear safety assessor for certain UK nuclear stations in the UK for several years and there were no such cases during my tenure.
If you just took the time actually listen to people's concerns you would understand they are not as dumb as you think they are, and that if you were in the same situation you would be forced to come to the same conclusion.
Having been heavily involved in two public inquiries into new nuclear power stations I have spent a lot of time listening to and reading people's concerns. I agree these people are not necessarily dumb. It is like listening people of opposite political views to yourself; I might strongly disgree with Obama or Cameron for example, but would not suggest they are dumb. But neither would I act as they do if I were in their "situation", nor be "forced to the same conclusions" as they reach. People are all different, view things differently, and act differently.
The differences are more cultural; opponents to nuclear power are part of a post 1970's trend of distrusting technology, and a towards touchy-feely approaches and mysticism. It is manifested for example in the tendency to hide any sign of how manufactured things are made (I am looking at Apple devices), the declining status of scientist and engineers in the West, and the feeling that manufacturing and technology are things best left to the other side of the world.
Icebike wrote:- concept of "walk away safe" is just another example of The Arrogance of Engineers
I am a nuclear engineer and would never make such a claim about anything, let alone a nuclear power plant, nor would any of the guys I have ever worked with. If you know such an engineer then he does not deserve to be called one.
In fact it is easy to make the mistake that someone talking about a subject (energy, medicine, economics) is a practising professional in that topic when in fact they are more likely to be just a professional spokesman or joirnalist.
Anyway, why should a "small modular" unit, whatever that is, be safer or more reliable than a large one? Better to concentrate the power generation where there are experts, emergency services and facilities close to hand as part of the site, and at the same time not close to urban areas. For example the nuclear power stations I have worked with have all had a large reservoir of back-up cooling water on site - where would that fit in with a local urban generator?
And just who is going to keep an eye on these numerous "walk away" local generators? The neighbourhood street cleaner? The mayor? The local plod? Neighbourhood watch? You're kidding.
What if I'm trying to showcase my art, but not sell it. What if my art is creative writing, or recipes.
I have some of my art on the web, because I want to show it. I don't expect to make money from it, I just want to share it as think it is rather good. Whether others think so is beside the point.
If I wanted to sell it, then the selling should cover the costs - otherwise get the message that it is not worth selling. Very, very few 'artists' make money from their work. For companies like Barnes and Noble selling stuff, the expense of the website is just part of the cost of retailing. If I want to buy something I go to their website and expect advertising - the whole website is an advert and it is my choice to go there.
Retail websites like that will always exist.
Obviously at the very least I should be able to cover my hosting costs
No, it is not obvious. And I don't know what hosting company you are with, but my hosting costs are trivial, pocket money. Don't tell me you fell for one of those "hosting for only $250 per year!" adverts.
What if I'm trying to showcase my art, but not sell it........... and I should be able to [] earn a living creating things
Those two things are contradictory. Are you trying to sell or not?
I am hardly a noob and I emphatically find Unity fit for professional and productive use, thank you very much. Ubuntu with Unity definitely is a distro that takes care of people who need some work done in Linux.
Slashdot Mirror
Having been an engineer myself in the UK through much of that period, and seeing innumerable companies in those areas ceasing to exist or being snapped up by foreign buyers, often just for the name, I don't think I am misrepresenting anything.
By referring to the state-owned industries moved to the private sector you are thinking only of the tip of the iceberg. But for every big state industry there were many private suppliers who's fortunes were geared to their big customer.
There are plenty of examples of private companies going to the wall since 1970, not involved in state-private movements.
Metro-Cammell for example, once builders of London Buses and Underground trains, and The Gloucester Railway Carriage Company. [I have been a railway engineer].
In shipbuilding, Cammell Laird (although the name was bought by another company) and John Browns [I have been in shipbuilding too].
Ruston and Hornsby diesel engines and gas turbines, now owned by Siemens and MAN, and mostly moved abroad. [I have also been a power station engineer]. Practically every part in any older power station (built pre-1975) was made (by private companies) in the UK, but to replace parts such as high pressure valves and steam drums today it is necessary to buy from France, Germany the USA or Japan.
Names most people will be more familiar with are Rolls Royce Cars [and almost every other make of British car), Pye [TVs], Bush [electronics - the name sold off].
Whether these companies "deserved" to fold is beside the point. My point is that the UK Government let them fold whereas in Germany or France the government would probably have intervened. I am not saying that is good or bad, just that the UK government is likely to intervene on behalf of the entertainment industry if it asks nicely
I believe it is similar in the USA, but in the UK the story went like this :-
1) First the motorcycle manufacturing industry was in trouble. The Government told them to f#@k off.
2) Then the electronics industry was in trouble. The Government told them to f#@k off.
3) Then the shipbuilding industry was in trouble. The Government told them to f#@k off.
4) Then the mining industry was in trouble. The Government told them to f#@k off.
5) Then the railway equipment and train building industry was in trouble. The Government told them to f#@k off.
6) Then the car making industry was in trouble. The Government told them to f#@k off.
7) Then the steel making industry was in trouble. The Government told them to f#@k off.
BUT
8) Then the entertainment industry was in trouble and the Government said "OH MY GOD WE CANNOT ALLOW THE ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY TO FAIL! We must give them tax breaks, subsidies, knighthoods and do everything we can to keep this luvvly bunch of luvvies in the manner to which they are accustomed!"
I put this down to the fact that the vast majority of politicians are "humanities" people. They have degrees in history, English, fine art, psychology, PPE; hardly ever science and technology. They (like most people) see entertainers face-to-face, they are charmed by them. Unlike ships, cars and electricity which are "just there".
So politicians love the entertainment industry, which is why its pronouncements are so dangerous.
PS: Some might point out that Mrs T , about the worst offender in this, had a science degree. Very unusual for a politician. There is a different explanation for her. Having changed careers she wanted to justify it by destroying what she left behind, and getting her own back for being the junior in the lab etc.
Perhaps the lesson is that there can never be intelligent support for technology in government, except in wartime or for fads like wind generators, the workings of which any humanities guy thinks he can understand more than a nuclear power station for example
Christ Almighty, you can still love Microsoft after they come up with a idea like this?
Microsoft set back personal computing by, I would say. at least five years with their hanging on to Windows-for-DOS (ie the Win95/98/ME series) long after even entry level PCs were capable of running a half-decent OS in the form of WinNT (lets not even mention Unix/Xenix/Linux). Back in 1995 they could have produced a lightweight version of NT for popular use instead of the Win95 crap that they pushed for another 5 years.
The reason they did not was departmental in-fighting at Microsoft.
While MS employ some of the best graphic designers in the business, they have done almost f#@k all in the way of innovation.
I used almost to live on a bike, but "cycle infrastructure" is what made me stop.
I will not use a bike unless I am there on the same terms as cars and with the same rights. I will not ride along a "cycle route" where I am required (by road markings) to "Give Way" to every little side road and even (as I have seen in some areas) to private driveways, which entitle car drivers to pull out in front of you without a glance whatever speed you are doing, and if you hit them it would be your fault. Even without any markings against the cyclist, the separation of "cycle path" from motor road splits the concentration of the driver pulling out - and guess where he will focus his vision.
Nor do I agree with being required by signs to dismount and walk with the pedestrians at major junctions (as signs here in Bristol require).
Nor do I want to share my route with errant pedestrians, dog shit, litter, broken glass, road works depots - since people do not respect a "cycle route" as they would a road with cars on it, nor is it kept "swept" by the passage of motor tyres.
When I used to ride around London or other cities I used to make journeys quicker than by car. However these "cycle facilities" are designed for people who are almost incapable of riding a bike, and it is dangerous to use them at anything above about 10mph. I remember on TV news once a politician (Linda Chalker) opening a "cycle" facility and riding a short (very short) distance on it for the cameras. She wobbled along so slowly that a cameraman was able to walk backwards in front of her. That is the sort of cyclist these facilities are designed for.
In the 1930 - 1950 period (well before my time if you were wondering) very large numbers of people cycled without "facilities" and in fact cycling organisations like the CTC strongly resisted any ideas of "facilities". Yes, there were far fewer cars then, but isn't that the very aim you are talking about?
I despair at how low cycling has sunk.
Zemran wrote :-
:-
In the UK a trailer must bear the same number as the vehicle towing it
Couchslug wrote
That wouldn't fly in the US, where it is very common for a person to own multiple trailers, cars, and trucks even for non-commercial use. Being able to swap trailers and towing vehicles is quite handy.
From the UK I cannot see your problem, Couchslug. If you have more than one trailer you get a number plate for each of them. There are plenty of car accesory shops (eg Halfords) wthat will make you one, maybe in minutes. Won't cost much, but you do have to show them your car registration papers in case you are after false number plates.
And to others here, yes, the front and rear plates must be visible at all times (Bikes on the back are no excuse) and be the same front and back. You would not get very far on British roads if they are not, it is the first thing a parked police patrol man will look for. If you are hiring a trailer or if you have several tow vehicles for one trailer, you have a slot in the trailer for dropping a number plate in.
There is no way I would ever use a search facility named after an irritating 1940s smoothy singer with Brycreemed hair and ears that stuck out too far.
Just the word "Bing" makes me think of that dreary "White Xmas" song that, every year from late October onwards, every shoping mall and large store puts on their PA system in endless loop mode.
I tried "fleegal fins" but they've just got Slashdotted.
Shiftless wrote :-
The future "PC" will be more like a flat screen TV hanging on the wall that you walk up to and start interacting with.
Codswallop. You will ask people to stand up, walk around and wave their arms like idiots just to see their e-mails and surf? It is one thing to use your fingers on a fondleslab, quite another to have to wave at full-sized screen.
Once upon a time people had to stand up and walk to their TV to change channels. Then, guess what, someone invented the remote control and all previous TV's were tossed in the skip. The mouse/pad/trackball is the remote control for a computer. You want the mouse to be "uninvented" - good luck with that.
This is the future, and we are building it now
That sounds like a marketing soundbite to me.
Sorry, that quote I credited to Ruhroh should have been to lgw
Khallow wrote :-
:-
There's also a lot of stuff that uses graphics. Do you really think people will fill out spreadsheets or write papers on a mobile phone?
Ruhroh wrote
No, of course not. They'll use a real keyboard, mouse, and monitor, plugged into a locked-down box the size of a mobile phone. Seen an Apple TV or Roku box? Very appealing to give to non-technical family members when you know you'll be stuck as the tech support, yes?
Oh, you mean a PC then, Ruhroh. Only the system unit is smaller.
What a relief. I thought for a minute that I was going to have to do my photo editing, web site design, family tree graphics, worrd processing, FPS games, TV programs etc on a tiny screen with one of those big magnifying glasses in front, like they used to have in the olden days in front of the early, tiny TV screens.
Holmedog wrote :-
there was a non-trivial chance that the porn came from the man himself
There is a non-trivial chance that any person chosen at random will have CP on their PC. Does that mean everyone should be forbidden access to their children?
You don't seem to know what he meant by "reductio"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
He is on the same side as yourself.
Raisey-raison wrote :-
we overly obsess about the roads
News to me. I always had the impression that individuals (from the way they drive), the authorities and (most importantly) the media hardly gave a f@#k about road accidents unless one is particularly spectacular. If you worked in the industries I have (shipbuilding, railways and power) you would be struck by the contrast between the fanatical pursuit of safety at work (such as putting up a "Do not kick the fir cones!" sign by a group of fir trees on site), and the free-for-all on the roads outside.
There is a sign as you enter the site where I work : "Safety starts here". I once suggested to our Site Safety Officer that it should say "Safety Stops Here" as you drive out, because it does for most people.
A fatal road accident is unlikely to get more than a couple of column inches in a local paper, yet a railway accident (for example) killing anybody, or even no-one, is the subject of national news headlines for days, if not still coming up years later [Eg: The case of the Darwin Award contenders at Elsenham 7 years ago). Basically, it is because most people think they are too "clever" to have a road accident themselves, but on a train they feel at the mercy of the railway.
Did you mean 100% (50% on each side)? In a sense they did, in that many historians reckon the ACW was the first "total war". When I read the GP I was thinking myself for an example when I read the parent and realised the ACW is a good one.
You cannot expect the elderly, women (in those days anyway) and children to fight on the battlefield, but, particularly in the South, they did things on the home front like making observation balloons out of their silk dresses, a bit like in Britain in WW2. Then there was Sherman's terrible "Ride" though the south when they were beaten.
Because the Union won, it wrote the history books; so we don't hear so much about the awful things it did to the civil population of the South.
... I have *never*, in my 24 years of life, owned a printer. I think those thing are really deprecated.
I don't know what kind of lifestyle you lead, but it must be very uneventful.
Have you never done anything with legal significance, like buying a house? You don't distrust putting everything in emails that someone afterwards could claim they never received or you never sent? You need to send things by registered post, on paper.
You have never made anything, which needs a drawing at the point of work. I am currently making a playhouse in the garden for which I have dimensioned drawing, done on the PC but which I need out there with me in the garden. Fondleslabs and mud don't mix well.
You have never needed to show eg family pictures in a casual way to visitors without having to drag them into the basement computer room or embarass them by asking them to use a fondleslab they have never used before.
You have none of your own pictures on your walls and shelves, at least not without a digital picture frame for each one - which would not only be expensive and OTT but need a lot of wall bricks and wires hanging around.
You have never at work needed to force someone to pay attention to something by plonking paperwork down in front of them. You never been in a situation where you have said "Would you mind going to the network directory xyz, subdirectory pqr, file abcdef12345.pdf [among thousands]" , or "Would you mind looking at the email I sent yesterday and opening the fifth attachment...?" and seen their eyes glaze over and been told to come back later?
Apparently not.
Sure, in a world where the printers are a lot smarter (recognizing the media type and adjusting printing settings automatically - i.e. glossy photo paper = highest DPI, adjust ink levels automatically, etc., transparency = mirror the input, etc.) that would be great. If that's what Apple would be pushing for, awesome.
Adjusting for media type automatically is not necessary and likely to go wrong. Even the most dumb user (well, almost the most dumb) knows what paper they are wanting to use, and most of the time it rarely changes anyway.
This discussion is about installing printer drivers and managing the print queue, which is what CUPS does
Until then, I'll take my printer driver over poking at buttons on the printer or going through the printer's HTML interface just because the OS developer thinks printer drivers and per-session/per-job settings are stupid.
I like buttons on the printer because they do what the printer maker hard-wires them to do without OS interference. For instance I like a big button that says "Stop printing and delete all jobs that have been received" - a button I can press when I print a web page that looks like a single sheet but turns out to be folowed by 10+ pages of white-on white text or some other trickery to increase its page rankings.
The last line of your comment makes no sense. An OS developer thinks printer drivers are stupid? What does that mean?
He says that even with only a few connected cars, the system still works
Great, it only works under very low traffic conditions, in which case where's the problem ?
The problem is that you are still held at a red light even when there is no traffic coming the other way. In fact this idea is of no use in heavy traffic conditions, as others have pointed out
Um, if you wanted better computers, why did you keep buying from a company which didn't sell them?
I didn't, nor did the GP poster by the sound of it.
This is the problem with the whole 'evil Intel' argument; you're assuming that customers would continue to buy second-rate products
Plenty of examples of that. Where should I start? Ford Edsel, Windows 95, VHS, Practika cameras, Ryobi garden equipment .... I admit I bought the last of that list because I knew no better at the time. You are assuming that purchasers are all-knowing, but they are not.
Interesting to know what country you are posting from.
In the UK they turn red and orange together when about to turn green, not just orange on its own (officially it is called "amber"). It is meant to give you time to get into gear (but most people ride the clutch of course). We get orange on its own between turning from green to red.
It is not illegal to cross the lone amber if you are too close to stop (a matter of opinion). It is however illegal to start on the red+amber, so red is absolute; but people do of course, it is still like a starter gun.
The Professor is missing the point, at least as far as the UK is concerned.
I believe that the more modern traffic lights here deliberately turn red as you approach, as part of someone's idea of "traffic calming".
I am often driving late with no other traffic around when a green light I see ahead turns red as I approach. They turn green again when I have slowed to about 5mph, if not stopped. I am particularly thinking as an example the lights on the big roundabout at Avonmouth, near Bristol, that gives access to the M5, if anyone else here knows it.
And for readers outside the UK, yes we have roundabouts with traffic lights at every entry; it can take 5 minutes to get round one. Why these cannot be switched off outside busy times is beyond me.
And far from "traffic calming" I know several people (otherwise law abiding) who admit they jump such lights at quiet times. Respect for traffic lights is being undermined.
Anyway, such a device already exists - what else are those magnetic loops buried in the road surface?
Amimojo wrote :-
.. nuclear plants in the UK regularly leak dangerous amounts of radioactive material.
.. and I do not mean fantasy claims by Greenpeace and the like. I was a nuclear safety assessor for certain UK nuclear stations in the UK for several years and there were no such cases during my tenure.
Even assuming it were possible to build a small reactor that could withstand things like vehicles and aircraft crashing into it
I agree that the scheme of multiple small reactors is daft, but what are your own plans against being hit personally by a crashing aircraft?
References please?
If you just took the time actually listen to people's concerns you would understand they are not as dumb as you think they are, and that if you were in the same situation you would be forced to come to the same conclusion.
Having been heavily involved in two public inquiries into new nuclear power stations I have spent a lot of time listening to and reading people's concerns. I agree these people are not necessarily dumb. It is like listening people of opposite political views to yourself; I might strongly disgree with Obama or Cameron for example, but would not suggest they are dumb. But neither would I act as they do if I were in their "situation", nor be "forced to the same conclusions" as they reach. People are all different, view things differently, and act differently.
The differences are more cultural; opponents to nuclear power are part of a post 1970's trend of distrusting technology, and a towards touchy-feely approaches and mysticism. It is manifested for example in the tendency to hide any sign of how manufactured things are made (I am looking at Apple devices), the declining status of scientist and engineers in the West, and the feeling that manufacturing and technology are things best left to the other side of the world.
Icebike wrote :- concept of "walk away safe" is just another example of The Arrogance of Engineers
I am a nuclear engineer and would never make such a claim about anything, let alone a nuclear power plant, nor would any of the guys I have ever worked with. If you know such an engineer then he does not deserve to be called one.
In fact it is easy to make the mistake that someone talking about a subject (energy, medicine, economics) is a practising professional in that topic when in fact they are more likely to be just a professional spokesman or joirnalist.
Anyway, why should a "small modular" unit, whatever that is, be safer or more reliable than a large one? Better to concentrate the power generation where there are experts, emergency services and facilities close to hand as part of the site, and at the same time not close to urban areas. For example the nuclear power stations I have worked with have all had a large reservoir of back-up cooling water on site - where would that fit in with a local urban generator?
And just who is going to keep an eye on these numerous "walk away" local generators? The neighbourhood street cleaner? The mayor? The local plod? Neighbourhood watch? You're kidding.
AC Wrote :-
........... and I should be able to [] earn a living creating things
What if I'm trying to showcase my art, but not sell it. What if my art is creative writing, or recipes.
I have some of my art on the web, because I want to show it. I don't expect to make money from it, I just want to share it as think it is rather good. Whether others think so is beside the point.
If I wanted to sell it, then the selling should cover the costs - otherwise get the message that it is not worth selling. Very, very few 'artists' make money from their work. For companies like Barnes and Noble selling stuff, the expense of the website is just part of the cost of retailing. If I want to buy something I go to their website and expect advertising - the whole website is an advert and it is my choice to go there. Retail websites like that will always exist.
Obviously at the very least I should be able to cover my hosting costs
No, it is not obvious. And I don't know what hosting company you are with, but my hosting costs are trivial, pocket money. Don't tell me you fell for one of those "hosting for only $250 per year!" adverts.
What if I'm trying to showcase my art, but not sell it
Those two things are contradictory. Are you trying to sell or not?
That said, name one KDE distro that actually works?
Mepis
I am hardly a noob and I emphatically find Unity fit for professional and productive use, thank you very much. Ubuntu with Unity definitely is a distro that takes care of people who need some work done in Linux.
That depends on your profession.