>You wouldn't expect the Chevy dealer to honor your Ford's warranty - so why expect "Bank A" to dole out its money to customers of "Bank B" free of charge? Fees charged to non-customers are what keep most of those tellers employed.
This has always struck me as a badly missed opportunity: Of course honouring a car warranty incurs a significant cost; the cost of performing an ATM transaction for another bank's customer is neglibile, particularly since it's effectively netted off against your customers using the other bank's ATMs. What's lacking is targeted marketing: if I'm using Bank X's ATM, they know I'm a bank Y customer - why don't they tell me that my savings could earn an extra.02% in their account? or I could borrow.05% cheaper? Or their account charges are Z less?
Sounds like a great way of getting free advertising out of your ATM network to me.
> Why are you under the impression that war should be fair? That crew is not obligated to give the insurgents a fighting chance -- if they don't have weapons ready, don't know where the fire is coming from and cannot defend themselves -- tough luck! What gives you the impression that they were actually insurgents? I haven't watched the video yet but the OP gives the impression they may well have been innocent worshippers.
> This response reminds me of recent comments about Israel's "disproportionate response" to Hezbollah. I have great sympathy for Israel, but I still think their response is counterproductive. Bombing Beirut won't stop the attacks on Israel, and long term helps Hezbollah's recruitment.
> The whole point of war is to destroy the enemy. War is not an Olympic event! If it was an Olympic event, drugs would be more prevalent. No one objects to destroying "the enemy", but people object to innocent bystanders being killed.
To continue Clausewitz's thought: If war is the continuation of politics by other means, then you have to make sure that the war actually achieves the end that you aim for. That is rather suspect in either case.
> The fundamental question you have to ask is simple. If something is so bad, why is it not a straightforward criminal offense, and why is it not prosecuted in the normal way?
For the same reason that they have locked foreign "terrorist suspects" up for years without trial now. Because they can, and they know that not enough people care.
> Is it a coincidence, do you think, that the Cabinet that has introduced this legislation step by step is disporportionately composed of former members of the authoritarian left?
Nope. They've moved from authoritarian left to authoritarian right without passing go.
> We still are free. But we are free in practice, not by right. How free we still are is open to some question. You can be arrested for wearing slogans on your T-shirt now, or for publically reading a newspaper with the wrong article, if it's done too close to westminster. The government can tap your phone, order you to hand over your keys, or - if you're not a UK citizen - place you under indefinite house arrest with (respectively) no, no, or banana judicial oversight. And there's strong evidence that while the UK government does not disappear people, it aides and abetts governments that do.
As a European in the UK I don't get to vote in important elections, I just get to pay taxes;(
But for the record, roughly two thirds of the people that did vote voted AGAINST Labour. They only got in because of blatant jerrymandering^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H a charming historical voting system.
If you think companies don't value domain knowledge, try to get an IT job in the front office of an investment bank, especially in derivatives. You'll see how much in demand it is, and how much is paid for it.
> When I change locations to work on a hairy problem, I'm not trucking through an airport, staying in a hotel, etc. I'm going into my truck, driving somewhere in town, and pulling out my desktop-replacement.
If you need a truck to take your laptop to the coffe shop, you have a whole host of issues, dude,
>The U.S. is a soverign nation, not part of the EU. Travel into the U.S. is at the discretion of the U.S. No one is disputing that, but at least in Europe we can spell. The non Anglo-Saxons amongst us usually even in several languages.
Troll? Moi? Mais non!
Anyway, neither the US nor the EU will actually block air traffic - neither side is stupid enough for that. You may not think (as an American) that you need the EU, but you do. And, painful as it is to admit it, we probably need you, too. It's a bit like your big brother being a bit thick and a bully at school - embarrassing and useful;)
I'm not too fussed about this particular issue, I'm more bothered about nitwit politicians in the UK (where, sadly, I reside at the moment) signing away rights unilatteraly to the US. E.g. they signed a treaty to deport their own citizens to the US without serious judicial oversight - you can get sent there for doing something completely legal in the UK, for example - without reciprocity. That's the really irksome part. One shouldn't kowtow to one's allies like that; either one deals with equals, or one does not at all.
>Actually, we have had more than one...just one using aircraft. Two serious ones inside your territorry, unless I'm miscounting.
> I wonder why that is? Maybe because we here in the US we take security fairly seriously. No, you went from stupidly lax pre 9/11 to stupidly paranoid post. That's not taking security seriously, it's just pandering to the popular news.
> Europe is so concerned about giving everyone the freedom to do whatever the hell they want that when you look at the problems they have experienced with terrorism, I'm not surprised in the least. Do remind me, which part of the world was supposed to be the land of the free and home of the brave, and which the socialist facist backwater? I'm getting all confused.
> They don't deal with terrorism and problem individuals swiftly enough...they tollerate extremism and subversion in favor of "diplomatic solutions" which never work with these people I do hope Condi consults you daily,,, in the meantime, terrorism breaks down to 1) left wing nutters 2) right wing nutters 3) religious nutters 4) nationalist nutters. 5) General nutters like the Unabomber which we won't address here. Europe's had a fair few 1), but they seem to have died down largely, and mainly targeted specific individuals The US has had a few 2), and they are either low-level racists or Oklahoma bombers. Both 1) and 2) seem largely under control.
4) has been a big issue in the UK, on the one hand because it's a difficult situation if people keep on looking backwards and not forwards (Shudder - I've just paraphrased Tony Blair), on the other because the IRA used to be generously funded by individuals in the US. Spain and ETA is a different issue - again it's a longstanding problem and some people are just fucking stupid. The Welsh burning English holidsy homes doesn't get past the threshold.
3) has not been a big problem in Europe in general - there were the bombs in London, but while more callous than the IRA they're not dramatically different. Low level stuff - awful, yes, but low-level - goes on, like the stabbing of Theo van Raadt (not sure of the spelling of the name). Not that serious, as a general issue, though.
4) Obviously 9/11. I had friends and family in there, and it was shit. But there's a reason the U.S. was attacked and not Europe, and if you think a bit you'll find it.
> I hope the UK is getting blasted in Europe for kicking our extremists...at least they are taking a stance where the rest of Europe will not. Actually, I hope not. We've had enough shit because our idiotic prime minister is your stupid president's willing poodle when it comes to foreign policy. "We" aren't taking the stance you think we are - Tony is, and he definitely isn't doing it on our behalf.
> For the record, I am a Brit living in Calgary, Canada, who has just started working on an airline IT project. So you're not biased then. Calgary's nice. Hope you like it there. Don't rush back.
> What bothers me, is that even driving -- in your own car -- untrackably is increasingly difficult. not in europe - you can -(and I have) drive from Sweden to France without showing ID. You could go on to Spain, or Italy, or Poland, but I had to get back to work.
>A train? Nope, have to give your name too (ID is checked). Don't have to give ID in the UK (though you have to give your name for season tickets). Of course you pay through the nose and get crap service, but that's a different issue.
Och Aye, but the Marshall Plan went to Germany after you bombed the shit out of it (somewhat justifiably so - I may argue about the choice of targets but not the intent). But then you made your allies - the brits - repay every penny of the war loans, plus interest, and gave them AFAIK no help at all.
>You don't sign the document? You don't get on the flight. >Result: terrorists fly to mexico and walk into the US. No, result: You sign he fucking document and do whatever you like.
Do you really think signing a Visa Waiver ever stopped a Nazi war criminal going to the US? And it's going to stop a terrorist?
>Many of these passages, as with other religion documents around the world, are taken out of context and/or questionably translated. I thought that's the whole point of not translating it but reading it in the original Arabic.
Of course, with the Bible that would require you to read Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and Latin, which would rather limit the readership;)
SWIG is useful, but less useful with C++ than with C. It also doesn't cope well with modern C++.
While I'd back using Python in conjunction with the existing C++ code, boost::python seems a better option. It looks like a bit more work upfront, but designing the interface properly is better than hacking headerfiles to get around SWIG limitations. Don't get me wrong, SWIG is great, but it just doesn't cope well with complex headers.
As for moving to Java: 1. Switching the language is not going to solve your problems. 2. If you insist on switching the language, and you're tied to MS anyway, why not use C#? Same kind of language, and unless portability is important, you might as well continue using the MS toolchain you're familiar with.
>Wait, I thought the free market and privatization was supposed to make things cheaper? I think the only way you can describe the US Health Market as "free" is by closing both eyese and looking the other way. Among other things, IIRC, MediCare and another govnmt program are the largest payers for health.
>While state-run systems like the British NHS were supposed to be horribly inefficient and expensive? It is. Don't get me wrong - a lot of people work very hard in it, and if you are really sick they are very good, but as a system it is unpleasant for all involved. Incredibly inefficient and completely resistant to the ever increasing amounts of money thrown at it.
>The question is, do these same companies ban cell phones? Some do, for traders on the floor. Obviously they can't actually stop you from using your personal mobile while out for lunch.
>If not, then there's a double standard involved, and it's fairly stupid to ban IM under the guise of recording requirements if you don't ban phone conversations. No, they have to show that they've made reasonable provisions to record what employees do with company equipment on company time. They don't have to tape their employees' personal conversation from home, either.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly. We do, and should, expect a higher standard of behaviour from police officers than from the general public because they are police officers.
Did you sue them? Did you complain to your MP?
What was the outcome, and if not, why not?
>You wouldn't expect the Chevy dealer to honor your Ford's warranty - so why expect "Bank A" to dole out its money to customers of "Bank B" free of charge? Fees charged to non-customers are what keep most of those tellers employed.
.02% in their account? or I could borrow .05% cheaper? Or their account charges are Z less?
This has always struck me as a badly missed opportunity: Of course honouring a car warranty incurs a significant cost; the cost of performing an ATM transaction for another bank's customer is neglibile, particularly since it's effectively netted off against your customers using the other bank's ATMs. What's lacking is targeted marketing: if I'm using Bank X's ATM, they know I'm a bank Y customer - why don't they tell me that my savings could earn an extra
Sounds like a great way of getting free advertising out of your ATM network to me.
> Why are you under the impression that war should be fair? That crew is not obligated to give the insurgents a fighting chance -- if they don't have weapons ready, don't know where the fire is coming from and cannot defend themselves -- tough luck!
What gives you the impression that they were actually insurgents? I haven't watched the video yet but the OP gives the impression they may well have been innocent worshippers.
> This response reminds me of recent comments about Israel's "disproportionate response" to Hezbollah.
I have great sympathy for Israel, but I still think their response is counterproductive. Bombing Beirut won't stop the attacks on Israel, and long term helps Hezbollah's recruitment.
> The whole point of war is to destroy the enemy. War is not an Olympic event!
If it was an Olympic event, drugs would be more prevalent. No one objects to destroying "the enemy", but people object to innocent bystanders being killed.
To continue Clausewitz's thought: If war is the continuation of politics by other means, then you have to make sure that the war actually achieves the end that you aim for. That is rather suspect in either case.
This is the most insightful comment. The real problem is between you and your sister, not between your sister and her computer.
> The fundamental question you have to ask is simple. If something is so bad, why is it not a straightforward criminal offense, and why is it not prosecuted in the normal way?
For the same reason that they have locked foreign "terrorist suspects" up for years without trial now. Because they can, and they know that not enough people care.
> Is it a coincidence, do you think, that the Cabinet that has introduced this legislation step by step is disporportionately composed of former members of the authoritarian left?
Nope. They've moved from authoritarian left to authoritarian right without passing go.
> We still are free. But we are free in practice, not by right.
How free we still are is open to some question. You can be arrested for wearing slogans on your T-shirt now, or for publically reading a newspaper with the wrong article, if it's done too close to westminster. The government can tap your phone, order you to hand over your keys, or - if you're not a UK citizen - place you under indefinite house arrest with (respectively) no, no, or banana judicial oversight. And there's strong evidence that while the UK government does not disappear people, it aides and abetts governments that do.
But we are still free by right.
As a European in the UK I don't get to vote in important elections, I just get to pay taxes ;(
But for the record, roughly two thirds of the people that did vote voted AGAINST Labour. They only got in because of blatant jerrymandering^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H a charming historical voting system.
And since abolishing due process worked so well in the war on drugs, we should now use it in the war on copyright infringers?
Bah.
If you think companies don't value domain knowledge, try to get an IT job in the front office of an investment bank, especially in derivatives. You'll see how much in demand it is, and how much is paid for it.
So basically you're saying you have an irrational dislike of Indians?
> When I change locations to work on a hairy problem, I'm not trucking through an airport, staying in a hotel, etc. I'm going into my truck, driving somewhere in town, and pulling out my desktop-replacement.
If you need a truck to take your laptop to the coffe shop, you have a whole host of issues, dude,
>The U.S. is a soverign nation, not part of the EU. Travel into the U.S. is at the discretion of the U.S.
;)
No one is disputing that, but at least in Europe we can spell. The non Anglo-Saxons amongst us usually even in several languages.
Troll? Moi? Mais non!
Anyway, neither the US nor the EU will actually block air traffic - neither side is stupid enough for that. You may not think (as an American) that you need the EU, but you do. And, painful as it is to admit it, we probably need you, too. It's a bit like your big brother being a bit thick and a bully at school - embarrassing and useful
I'm not too fussed about this particular issue, I'm more bothered about nitwit politicians in the UK (where, sadly, I reside at the moment) signing away rights unilatteraly to the US. E.g. they signed a treaty to deport their own citizens to the US without serious judicial oversight - you can get sent there for doing something completely legal in the UK, for example - without reciprocity. That's the really irksome part. One shouldn't kowtow to one's allies like that; either one deals with equals, or one does not at all.
Never let good facts get in the way of bad policy.
>Actually, we have had more than one...just one using aircraft.
Two serious ones inside your territorry, unless I'm miscounting.
> I wonder why that is? Maybe because we here in the US we take security fairly seriously.
No, you went from stupidly lax pre 9/11 to stupidly paranoid post. That's not taking security seriously, it's just pandering to the popular news.
> Europe is so concerned about giving everyone the freedom to do whatever the hell they want that when you look at the problems they have experienced with terrorism, I'm not surprised in the least.
Do remind me, which part of the world was supposed to be the land of the free and home of the brave, and which the socialist facist backwater? I'm getting all confused.
> They don't deal with terrorism and problem individuals swiftly enough...they tollerate extremism and subversion in favor of "diplomatic solutions" which never work with these people
I do hope Condi consults you daily,,, in the meantime, terrorism breaks down to 1) left wing nutters 2) right wing nutters 3) religious nutters 4) nationalist nutters. 5) General nutters like the Unabomber which we won't address here.
Europe's had a fair few 1), but they seem to have died down largely, and mainly targeted specific individuals The US has had a few 2), and they are either low-level racists or Oklahoma bombers. Both 1) and 2) seem largely under control.
4) has been a big issue in the UK, on the one hand because it's a difficult situation if people keep on looking backwards and not forwards (Shudder - I've just paraphrased Tony Blair), on the other because the IRA used to be generously funded by individuals in the US. Spain and ETA is a different issue - again it's a longstanding problem and some people are just fucking stupid. The Welsh burning English holidsy homes doesn't get past the threshold.
3) has not been a big problem in Europe in general - there were the bombs in London, but while more callous than the IRA they're not dramatically different. Low level stuff - awful, yes, but low-level - goes on, like the stabbing of Theo van Raadt (not sure of the spelling of the name). Not that serious, as a general issue, though.
4) Obviously 9/11. I had friends and family in there, and it was shit. But there's a reason the U.S. was attacked and not Europe, and if you think a bit you'll find it.
> I hope the UK is getting blasted in Europe for kicking our extremists...at least they are taking a stance where the rest of Europe will not.
Actually, I hope not. We've had enough shit because our idiotic prime minister is your stupid president's willing poodle when it comes to foreign policy. "We" aren't taking the stance you think we are - Tony is, and he definitely isn't doing it on our behalf.
Neighbourly yours,
Kraut (en Angleterre)
> For the record, I am a Brit living in Calgary, Canada, who has just started working on an airline IT project.
So you're not biased then. Calgary's nice. Hope you like it there. Don't rush back.
> What bothers me, is that even driving -- in your own car -- untrackably is increasingly difficult.
not in europe - you can -(and I have) drive from Sweden to France without showing ID. You could go on to Spain, or Italy, or Poland, but I had to get back to work.
>A train? Nope, have to give your name too (ID is checked).
Don't have to give ID in the UK (though you have to give your name for season tickets). Of course you pay through the nose and get crap service, but that's a different issue.
>Ungrateful gits. My parents paid many of their hard earned dollars in taxes to finance the Marshall Plan.
;)
Oh yeah. And you're OLD
Och Aye, but the Marshall Plan went to Germany after you bombed the shit out of it (somewhat justifiably so - I may argue about the choice of targets but not the intent). But then you made your allies - the brits - repay every penny of the war loans, plus interest, and gave them AFAIK no help at all.
:)
Shurely there's a moral in there?
Aid is supposed to be beneficial ....
>You don't sign the document? You don't get on the flight.
>Result: terrorists fly to mexico and walk into the US.
No, result: You sign he fucking document and do whatever you like.
Do you really think signing a Visa Waiver ever stopped a Nazi war criminal going to the US? And it's going to stop a terrorist?
>Many of these passages, as with other religion documents around the world, are taken out of context and/or questionably translated.
;)
I thought that's the whole point of not translating it but reading it in the original Arabic.
Of course, with the Bible that would require you to read Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and Latin, which would rather limit the readership
SWIG is useful, but less useful with C++ than with C. It also doesn't cope well with modern C++.
While I'd back using Python in conjunction with the existing C++ code, boost::python seems a better option. It looks like a bit more work upfront, but designing the interface properly is better than hacking headerfiles to get around SWIG limitations. Don't get me wrong, SWIG is great, but it just doesn't cope well with complex headers.
As for moving to Java:
1. Switching the language is not going to solve your problems.
2. If you insist on switching the language, and you're tied to MS anyway, why not use C#? Same kind of language, and unless portability is important, you might as well continue using the MS toolchain you're familiar with.
>Wait, I thought the free market and privatization was supposed to make things cheaper?
I think the only way you can describe the US Health Market as "free" is by closing both eyese and looking the other way. Among other things, IIRC, MediCare and another govnmt program are the largest payers for health.
>While state-run systems like the British NHS were supposed to be horribly inefficient and expensive?
It is. Don't get me wrong - a lot of people work very hard in it, and if you are really sick they are very good, but as a system it is unpleasant for all involved. Incredibly inefficient and completely resistant to the ever increasing amounts of money thrown at it.
> Now I work for a University. It's a whole other world. ;)
More freedom. More time. and a lot less money
>The question is, do these same companies ban cell phones?
Some do, for traders on the floor. Obviously they can't actually stop you from using your personal mobile while out for lunch.
>If not, then there's a double standard involved, and it's fairly stupid to ban IM under the guise of recording requirements if you don't ban phone conversations.
No, they have to show that they've made reasonable provisions to record what employees do with company equipment on company time. They don't have to tape their employees' personal conversation from home, either.