The country called Ireland is independent. You are referring to Northern Ireland, which is a contituent part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
But the country Ireland is not entirely independent, it's a constituent part of the island Ireland, which is composed of two countries, Ireland (the country), and Northern Ireland (part of the United Kingdom), the former being a country and not an island, though it's located on an island by the same name. Furthermore, Ireland (the country), while independent of the UK (which includes Northern Ireland (the country), is a constituent part of the EU, which will very soon not include the UK, nor the entirety of Ireland (the island).
I feel like a character in a Monty Python movie....
Would it still be "Great" Britain if it was just England and Wales?
Your question makes zero sense actually.
"Great Britain" is not a country. It's an island. It has 3 countries on it, England, Wales, and Scotland. It will always be "Great Britain", regardless of any political divisions, unless 1) it sinks into the ocean, 2) some wacky geological process causes it to merge with continental Europe (not likely, the English Channel is actually rather shallow and used to be dry land not that long ago), or 3) people for some reason simply stop calling it "Great Britain" and call it by some other name.
The name of the country you're thinking of is "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". Really a rather ridiculous name IMO. It's usually shortened to "United Kingdom". If Scotland leaves, I don't really see why they'd be forced to change the name; it doesn't specify that the UK occupies the entirety of GB, just that it's largely located there, which won't change with Scexit. However, if Northern Ireland also decides to leave this sinking ship, then they really will be forced to change the long-form version of their name. But it'll still be called "UK" for short, even though the union only composes two countries (England and Wales), plus some other territories (Isle of Man, Channel Islands, Gibraltar, etc.).
What'd be really interesting is if Wales also decided to secede. It's unlikely of course, since the graphs I saw showed very strong support for Brexit in Wales, but suppose they all changed their minds and managed to secede. Then there really wouldn't be anything that could properly called "The United Kingdom", since a union of one political entity really doesn't make sense. I suppose they could hang onto it out of nostalgia, or try to argue that the various Shires are united, or that the presence of territories like Isle of Man still make it a "union", but it's pretty weak, but they can call themselves whatever they like. But at that point it'd make more logical sense to just call themselves "England".
Comcast can't insert ads into email you read on a webmail platform like GMail, thanks to it being https protected. Of course, the webmail provider (like Google) could insert their own ads, but at least there you have a choice of provider and can change if you want. You can even set up your own webmail system with squirrelmail on your own server.
The problem is getting everyone (or even a critical mass) to adopt it. Email was created back in a time when academia was running the internet, and wasn't interested in marketshare, profits, vendor lock-in, etc. It became universally adopted, and then when the internet became commercialized email was a necessity so the corporations had to adopt it or else be irrelevant. Now it's not like that. The corps won't adopt any kind of open, universal standard on anything (look at the mess that exists with IM protocols: open ones are shut down in favor of closed, proprietary ones). Google could create an open standard for email 2.0, and Microsoft and Yahoo will refuse to adopt it, for instance, and without support in MS Exchange/Outlook/OWA, it won't go far. MS could make email 2.0, but of course their version is going to be vendor-locked somehow and require license fees from others to implement.
So please don't make up lies trying to paint us as vapid thralls for the Democratic Party.
The problem is that many liberals really are vapid thralls for the Democratic Party. The reality is that there's two sides to the party and its voters: the progressive side, and the establishment side. Hillary and her legion of supporters are in the latter, Bernie and his enthusiastic supporters were in the former. The former is arguably larger (and certainly more vocal), but the latter is where all the big money is, which is the real problem with the Democratic Party: the party insiders chase the big corporate donations and Wall Street for campaign funding, and so the progressives get alienated and the lower-class people don't feel the Dems represent them.
On the Republican side, the politicians chase corporate money, spew a bunch of trickle-down economics BS, and throw in some stupid Christian crap (abortion is bad, gays are evil, Jesus love rich people and AR15s, etc.) and their voters eat it up and happily vote for them.
Are you unable to read? He never said anything about "serious golfers", he said "most golfers", which obviously means casual players.
Serious enthusiasts in any amateur activity always buy higher-end equipment. They even have a name for it: "prosumer". They're not the majority of customers.
So working on low-level embedded programming and designing electronics as a hobby isn't enough to be "geek" enough for you, because I don't play stupid FPS video games?
Wow, this site has really turned into a pile of shit.
I'm over 40 too. I don't know anyone who plays computer games period, though I suspect some of the young single guys at work might. I never asked them. The only time I play any games at all is if I (rarely) get the urge to play a NES or DOS game from when I was a teenager, and those work great in emulators under Linux. All the other 30+ adults I know, and know well enough to know about what they do on their PCs, don't play games, and aren't in tech either. The only things they do with their PCs are web surfing, playing DVDs, light document editing, that's about it.
The ISS is already designed for significant thrust, as it's boosted in orbit regularly by visiting spacecraft. The onboard thrusters are for minor corrections only.
The lumpy gravity field shouldn't be *that* big a problem. The ISS is designed to orbit Earth, which has an atmosphere (which gives a little drag on the ISS at that altitude), and 6 times the gravity of the Moon. So even if the Moon's gravity is uneven compared to Earth's, it should be possible to compensate for that pretty easily. The ISS can also be placed in a higher orbit where presumably the lumpy gravity will be less of a factor. On Earth, the LEO orbit is probably chosen because of radiation protection and ease of resupply. On the Moon, there's no radiation protection anywhere (no atmosphere, no Van Allen belts) so it's somewhat irrelevant, plus resupply missions from Earth will probably have an easier time reaching a higher Lunar orbit.
The main problem is radiation protection, and for that it seems like they just need a new space station, though perhaps they could get away with a new, highly shielded crew module or two, where the crew is supposed to sleep and spend most of their time, out of the older sections.
Of course, I'd much rather see them dump it and just build a gigantic rotating space station, like the one in 2001, in a Lagrangian spot. Instead of spending tons more money on a military build-up, we should just partner with Japan and Germany on this.
We should just give our modules to some other country or countries that are interested. Maybe the ESA or JAXA would like it. Obviously we're too short-sighted to do space exploration competently any more, so we should leave it to other nations, and perhaps pay them to do it too.
Exactly. If you don't trust Microsoft to upgrade their own software properly and without data loss (and after this, you really shouldn't), then maybe you should look for a new OS vendor.
When that pizza restaurant is infamous worldwide for this kind of customer service, and has been acting this way for many decades, then yes, it really is your fault.
Seconded. This is really the first time I've heard of anyone complaining about mouse wheel problems, and I've never had a problem with it on KDE. I can easily adjust the sensitivity too.
That's a bad analogy. Brakes are a safety-critical item, so the standards are higher. Microsoft software clearly states in the EULA that it is not suitable for safety-critical systems, and also that they're not liable for any problems that may occur from use of the software, including data loss. You use their software at your own risk.
Are you using GNOME? That's your problem right there. GNOME is almost single-handedly ruining desktop Linux. Try KDE instead, or any DE really except GNOME.
I don't know anyone who plays video games on their PC. Maybe it's because I'm over 30, and don't hang out with single men who still live in their parents' basement.
Hmm, I just got a brand-new Brother color laser WiFi workgroup printer a few months ago. Works great in Linux. Brother even has drivers on their website for it.
8: After a while you don't even notice it. There is definitely less yard work noise etc. than suburbs
I have to agree with this one heartily. When I lived in the suburbs of Phoenix, not only did I have to listen to barking dogs day and night, there was also constant leaf-blower noise. It was a maddening, loud din. To me, suburbs are the noisiest places possible to live. In cities with high-rises, you have some sirens now and then, and train noise if you live next to a rail line, but no leaf-blowers and no dogs at all hours. In rural areas, it depends on how close your neighbors are, but here listening to dogs barking all day and night seems to be the norm from everything I've seen and experienced. I've lived in all 3 BTW.
It's not worth never getting to be loud, it's not worth never getting to have a real pet.
Sounds good to me, because the other side of the coin is that your neighbors have to put up with your noise and your stupid dog barking its head off at all hours of the day and night. I've lived in suburbs and this is exactly how it was.
Slashdot Mirror
The country called Ireland is independent. You are referring to Northern Ireland, which is a contituent part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
But the country Ireland is not entirely independent, it's a constituent part of the island Ireland, which is composed of two countries, Ireland (the country), and Northern Ireland (part of the United Kingdom), the former being a country and not an island, though it's located on an island by the same name. Furthermore, Ireland (the country), while independent of the UK (which includes Northern Ireland (the country), is a constituent part of the EU, which will very soon not include the UK, nor the entirety of Ireland (the island).
I feel like a character in a Monty Python movie....
Would it still be "Great" Britain if it was just England and Wales?
Your question makes zero sense actually.
"Great Britain" is not a country. It's an island. It has 3 countries on it, England, Wales, and Scotland. It will always be "Great Britain", regardless of any political divisions, unless 1) it sinks into the ocean, 2) some wacky geological process causes it to merge with continental Europe (not likely, the English Channel is actually rather shallow and used to be dry land not that long ago), or 3) people for some reason simply stop calling it "Great Britain" and call it by some other name.
The name of the country you're thinking of is "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". Really a rather ridiculous name IMO. It's usually shortened to "United Kingdom". If Scotland leaves, I don't really see why they'd be forced to change the name; it doesn't specify that the UK occupies the entirety of GB, just that it's largely located there, which won't change with Scexit. However, if Northern Ireland also decides to leave this sinking ship, then they really will be forced to change the long-form version of their name. But it'll still be called "UK" for short, even though the union only composes two countries (England and Wales), plus some other territories (Isle of Man, Channel Islands, Gibraltar, etc.).
What'd be really interesting is if Wales also decided to secede. It's unlikely of course, since the graphs I saw showed very strong support for Brexit in Wales, but suppose they all changed their minds and managed to secede. Then there really wouldn't be anything that could properly called "The United Kingdom", since a union of one political entity really doesn't make sense. I suppose they could hang onto it out of nostalgia, or try to argue that the various Shires are united, or that the presence of territories like Isle of Man still make it a "union", but it's pretty weak, but they can call themselves whatever they like. But at that point it'd make more logical sense to just call themselves "England".
Why would they have a problem with these terms? It looks like the Scots are pretty sick of the Brits and their nonsense at this point.
Comcast can't insert ads into email you read on a webmail platform like GMail, thanks to it being https protected. Of course, the webmail provider (like Google) could insert their own ads, but at least there you have a choice of provider and can change if you want. You can even set up your own webmail system with squirrelmail on your own server.
The problem is getting everyone (or even a critical mass) to adopt it. Email was created back in a time when academia was running the internet, and wasn't interested in marketshare, profits, vendor lock-in, etc. It became universally adopted, and then when the internet became commercialized email was a necessity so the corporations had to adopt it or else be irrelevant. Now it's not like that. The corps won't adopt any kind of open, universal standard on anything (look at the mess that exists with IM protocols: open ones are shut down in favor of closed, proprietary ones). Google could create an open standard for email 2.0, and Microsoft and Yahoo will refuse to adopt it, for instance, and without support in MS Exchange/Outlook/OWA, it won't go far. MS could make email 2.0, but of course their version is going to be vendor-locked somehow and require license fees from others to implement.
So please don't make up lies trying to paint us as vapid thralls for the Democratic Party.
The problem is that many liberals really are vapid thralls for the Democratic Party. The reality is that there's two sides to the party and its voters: the progressive side, and the establishment side. Hillary and her legion of supporters are in the latter, Bernie and his enthusiastic supporters were in the former. The former is arguably larger (and certainly more vocal), but the latter is where all the big money is, which is the real problem with the Democratic Party: the party insiders chase the big corporate donations and Wall Street for campaign funding, and so the progressives get alienated and the lower-class people don't feel the Dems represent them.
On the Republican side, the politicians chase corporate money, spew a bunch of trickle-down economics BS, and throw in some stupid Christian crap (abortion is bad, gays are evil, Jesus love rich people and AR15s, etc.) and their voters eat it up and happily vote for them.
Are you unable to read? He never said anything about "serious golfers", he said "most golfers", which obviously means casual players.
Serious enthusiasts in any amateur activity always buy higher-end equipment. They even have a name for it: "prosumer". They're not the majority of customers.
So working on low-level embedded programming and designing electronics as a hobby isn't enough to be "geek" enough for you, because I don't play stupid FPS video games?
Wow, this site has really turned into a pile of shit.
I'm over 40 too. I don't know anyone who plays computer games period, though I suspect some of the young single guys at work might. I never asked them. The only time I play any games at all is if I (rarely) get the urge to play a NES or DOS game from when I was a teenager, and those work great in emulators under Linux. All the other 30+ adults I know, and know well enough to know about what they do on their PCs, don't play games, and aren't in tech either. The only things they do with their PCs are web surfing, playing DVDs, light document editing, that's about it.
I wonder if it'd be better to have a ground-based telescope, on the far side of the Moon.
The ISS is already designed for significant thrust, as it's boosted in orbit regularly by visiting spacecraft. The onboard thrusters are for minor corrections only.
The lumpy gravity field shouldn't be *that* big a problem. The ISS is designed to orbit Earth, which has an atmosphere (which gives a little drag on the ISS at that altitude), and 6 times the gravity of the Moon. So even if the Moon's gravity is uneven compared to Earth's, it should be possible to compensate for that pretty easily. The ISS can also be placed in a higher orbit where presumably the lumpy gravity will be less of a factor. On Earth, the LEO orbit is probably chosen because of radiation protection and ease of resupply. On the Moon, there's no radiation protection anywhere (no atmosphere, no Van Allen belts) so it's somewhat irrelevant, plus resupply missions from Earth will probably have an easier time reaching a higher Lunar orbit.
The main problem is radiation protection, and for that it seems like they just need a new space station, though perhaps they could get away with a new, highly shielded crew module or two, where the crew is supposed to sleep and spend most of their time, out of the older sections.
Of course, I'd much rather see them dump it and just build a gigantic rotating space station, like the one in 2001, in a Lagrangian spot. Instead of spending tons more money on a military build-up, we should just partner with Japan and Germany on this.
We should just give our modules to some other country or countries that are interested. Maybe the ESA or JAXA would like it. Obviously we're too short-sighted to do space exploration competently any more, so we should leave it to other nations, and perhaps pay them to do it too.
Exactly. If you don't trust Microsoft to upgrade their own software properly and without data loss (and after this, you really shouldn't), then maybe you should look for a new OS vendor.
They agreed to a previous version of Windows, which had nearly the same EULA, and they agreed to automatic software upgrades, which gave them Win10.
When that pizza restaurant is infamous worldwide for this kind of customer service, and has been acting this way for many decades, then yes, it really is your fault.
Seconded. This is really the first time I've heard of anyone complaining about mouse wheel problems, and I've never had a problem with it on KDE. I can easily adjust the sensitivity too.
That's a bad analogy. Brakes are a safety-critical item, so the standards are higher. Microsoft software clearly states in the EULA that it is not suitable for safety-critical systems, and also that they're not liable for any problems that may occur from use of the software, including data loss. You use their software at your own risk.
- The mouse wheel is horribly broken in Linux.
Are you using GNOME? That's your problem right there. GNOME is almost single-handedly ruining desktop Linux. Try KDE instead, or any DE really except GNOME.
I don't know anyone who plays video games on their PC. Maybe it's because I'm over 30, and don't hang out with single men who still live in their parents' basement.
Hmm, I just got a brand-new Brother color laser WiFi workgroup printer a few months ago. Works great in Linux. Brother even has drivers on their website for it.
Maybe you should stop buying shitty printers.
Considering how lousy our leaders here on Earth are, that doesn't sound so bad to me.
Yesterday, I did not walk around town and mug people to reach a goal of $1000 cash.
Therefore, I lost $1000!!
8: After a while you don't even notice it. There is definitely less yard work noise etc. than suburbs
I have to agree with this one heartily. When I lived in the suburbs of Phoenix, not only did I have to listen to barking dogs day and night, there was also constant leaf-blower noise. It was a maddening, loud din. To me, suburbs are the noisiest places possible to live. In cities with high-rises, you have some sirens now and then, and train noise if you live next to a rail line, but no leaf-blowers and no dogs at all hours. In rural areas, it depends on how close your neighbors are, but here listening to dogs barking all day and night seems to be the norm from everything I've seen and experienced. I've lived in all 3 BTW.
It's not worth never getting to be loud, it's not worth never getting to have a real pet.
Sounds good to me, because the other side of the coin is that your neighbors have to put up with your noise and your stupid dog barking its head off at all hours of the day and night. I've lived in suburbs and this is exactly how it was.