No, that's your re-interpretation. It's not what OP said at all.
Nice to see that fascism's alive and well in Britain, though. Would you gas them? I'm from an aristocratic family, and I guess that makes me yet better than you - so I get to gas you in turn, OK?
Of course BT and BG make billions in profit! they already own all the infrastructure, but get to keep almost all of the profit, and they're in bed with their regulators.
"leased to their competitors at cost" - the fuck? They do no such thing. I know more about telecoms than gas, particularly in 2005-10, and the pricing e.g. of BT Centrals had been kept absurdly artificially high, which is why you had such high contention ratios on ADSL. To put it bluntly: BT Openreach make a profit, even on paper - and that's ignoring the various other ways any private company's accountants make something look as if it's more expensive than it really is. Perhaps you meant to say that pricing is regulated - very true, but only in the most ironic sense.
Were you paying any attention at all to the state of the world economy in the mid-late '70s?
What the fuck do you think happens to heavy industry during an oil crisis?
Those losses had nothing to do with government ownership, and everything to do with our stupid decision to ride with America into the Middle East and piss everyone off.
Do we blame "the private sector" as one big label for all the losses it's suffered in the last few years? No, we focus specifically on the causes: banking irresponsibility; plus over-emphasis on short-termism, esp. a dream of unrestricted growth. This is why you have e.g. the once glorious state-backed Telefonica shedding like a sheep with scabies to get out of its €billions of debt.
We have a thriving competitive market in telecoms? Oh, Sir, you crack me up. We have VIrgin Media, Sky and BT, and almost all your "competitors" are actually using re-sold BT services which only exist thanks to a stringent framework of regulation which nevertheless still operates in BT's favour ("regulatory capture"). Fuck, BT are even required to artificially separate the operations of their divisions - BT Openreach, BT Wholesale, and BT retail, so it isn't so obvious how they take advantage of their position as a natural monopoly.
The US is certainly worse - because it's an order of magnitude more spread out than the UK, and its privatisation was even less regulated (so, for example, BT are required to provide a certain level of service, which in a lot of cases e.g. remote Scotland is provided through government sponsorship).
RM had already been broken up into such inefficiency (as above) that it was necessary to drive up prices to make it profitable again. Even the NHS suffers this problem: all your greatly indebted Trusts were involved in New Labour's horrible public-private partnerships. The problem isn't the lack of private sector involvement: it's the existence of subcontracting to the private sector, where none before existed.
The belief that profit produces a better service per se is ideological. It sometimes does - e.g. when there is a free market - but not for essential services, especially not when they form natural monopolies.
Oh fuck I don't even know where to begin with the kind of egocentricity which comes down to "one time one service didn't deliver for me therefore DESTROY IT ALL because the alternatives will surely be better".
Followed by a link to a Daily Mail article, which is as a reliable as a link to a BNP article.
Have you actually tried to contract with a truly privatised, subdivided, "free market" style delivery service, like Yodel? They are so fucking awful it's an insult that they're even permitted to operate.
Everything you say is true, but you need to rewrite it in paragraphs. It's annoying how some sensible arguments end up looking kooky merely because they're badly formatted.
(Meanwhile, the worst kooks can be populist and eloquent, and end up leading powerful nations.)
Bingo. Every single UK privatisation since 1979 has been ideological (where the ideology is "I take your stuff and get rich from it"), and not one has improved as a result.
You would think that the private sector could manage to do at least one thing better than the British government, wouldn't you?
The RM has already been broken up and sold off in stages, each made worse:
- PO Telephones became British Telecom became British Telecom Plc. in the '80s.
- Post Offices are barely even owned by one company any more, with each outlet acting as an independent contractor.
- Much of the post is processed by private firms which get the profitable work, while RM is stuck with the last mile, and all the unprofitable routes.
- All the above has meant typical public-private partnership inefficiency, such that the price of sending letters has gone up recently way above the rate of inflation - with special increases in the last two years to reflect fattening of the cow for sale.
Just another ideological move by a country slipping down into oblivion. Will make a few people rich, though. I expect China will be interested in a piece of the pie - it's been buying up a few British infrastructure companies recently. They know how to manipulate "capitalism" all the way to the bank.
But please, carry on thinking you're better than you are. Whole religions have been based in convincing people of it, so it clearly gives many people a kick.
To "completely embrace" something is to let it own you.
And any single human who thinks they understand the "weaknesses inside out" of anything sufficiently complex is merely a dullard with an unwarranted sense of intelligence.
Life was much easier for the average Western worker before computers came along. And the signal-to-noise ratio he was presented with in daily life might have been occasionally irksome, but today it's so small that we spend most of our time busy doing absolutely nothing.
Nah, most weapons bans can be traced back to, "If we did it to them, they'd do it back to us... and that would really suck." This is probably why "not even Hitler" used chemical weapons (except that he did, once or twice, on the battlefield, and all the time with PoWs etc.).
So the traditional powers get to make nice rules for symmetric warfare which cripple asymmetric warfare by painting the strategies (e.g. terrorism) as somehow less moral.
I have read your posts throughout this thread, and you're not very clever.
Testing for randomness is just testing for an even distribution, and is not the same thing as testing for predictability. A known sequence encrypted with a sufficiently strong cipher will appear to give a random output.
tl;dr You can't actually prove unpredictability, only predictability.
I'm not sure what you mean by "head of the operating system".
Linux is the combined success of: 1. GPL; 2. "Good enough" mentality; 3. thousands of developers and testers across the planet. Linus himself could be substituted with any number of people, but he's good enough.
Every Western scheme in Africa is ultimately designed to prop up local corruption, so keep us doing better.
If you haven't noticed this, you've been asleep since the early British empire. It used to be called "white man's burden", but the colour's not really the thing.
What you mean is: you've adopted a philosophy in which there is something called "personal responsibility" and in which only certain people are deserving of "sympathy". It's the same reasoning all the worst people use to explain why some people should live in the lap of luxury and others should suffer horribly.
Slashdot Mirror
tl;dr the mail is an essential service and natural monopoly which shouldn't ever be privatised.
No, that's your re-interpretation. It's not what OP said at all.
Nice to see that fascism's alive and well in Britain, though. Would you gas them? I'm from an aristocratic family, and I guess that makes me yet better than you - so I get to gas you in turn, OK?
Of course BT and BG make billions in profit! they already own all the infrastructure, but get to keep almost all of the profit, and they're in bed with their regulators.
"leased to their competitors at cost" - the fuck? They do no such thing. I know more about telecoms than gas, particularly in 2005-10, and the pricing e.g. of BT Centrals had been kept absurdly artificially high, which is why you had such high contention ratios on ADSL. To put it bluntly: BT Openreach make a profit, even on paper - and that's ignoring the various other ways any private company's accountants make something look as if it's more expensive than it really is. Perhaps you meant to say that pricing is regulated - very true, but only in the most ironic sense.
Were you paying any attention at all to the state of the world economy in the mid-late '70s?
What the fuck do you think happens to heavy industry during an oil crisis?
Those losses had nothing to do with government ownership, and everything to do with our stupid decision to ride with America into the Middle East and piss everyone off.
Do we blame "the private sector" as one big label for all the losses it's suffered in the last few years? No, we focus specifically on the causes: banking irresponsibility; plus over-emphasis on short-termism, esp. a dream of unrestricted growth. This is why you have e.g. the once glorious state-backed Telefonica shedding like a sheep with scabies to get out of its €billions of debt.
My goodness, you're dull.
The argument was that people got poor by having children they could not afford, yes?
This means some people are too poor to reproduce, whereas others are not.
Fixing your misguided sense of causality, now?
We have a thriving competitive market in telecoms? Oh, Sir, you crack me up. We have VIrgin Media, Sky and BT, and almost all your "competitors" are actually using re-sold BT services which only exist thanks to a stringent framework of regulation which nevertheless still operates in BT's favour ("regulatory capture"). Fuck, BT are even required to artificially separate the operations of their divisions - BT Openreach, BT Wholesale, and BT retail, so it isn't so obvious how they take advantage of their position as a natural monopoly.
The US is certainly worse - because it's an order of magnitude more spread out than the UK, and its privatisation was even less regulated (so, for example, BT are required to provide a certain level of service, which in a lot of cases e.g. remote Scotland is provided through government sponsorship).
RM had already been broken up into such inefficiency (as above) that it was necessary to drive up prices to make it profitable again. Even the NHS suffers this problem: all your greatly indebted Trusts were involved in New Labour's horrible public-private partnerships. The problem isn't the lack of private sector involvement: it's the existence of subcontracting to the private sector, where none before existed.
The belief that profit produces a better service per se is ideological. It sometimes does - e.g. when there is a free market - but not for essential services, especially not when they form natural monopolies.
Oh fuck I don't even know where to begin with the kind of egocentricity which comes down to "one time one service didn't deliver for me therefore DESTROY IT ALL because the alternatives will surely be better".
Followed by a link to a Daily Mail article, which is as a reliable as a link to a BNP article.
Have you actually tried to contract with a truly privatised, subdivided, "free market" style delivery service, like Yodel? They are so fucking awful it's an insult that they're even permitted to operate.
Everything you say is true, but you need to rewrite it in paragraphs. It's annoying how some sensible arguments end up looking kooky merely because they're badly formatted.
(Meanwhile, the worst kooks can be populist and eloquent, and end up leading powerful nations.)
So poor people get that way by having children they cannot afford...
So not-poor people are not-poor because they can afford their children...?
These graphs have cycles. This is making about as much sense as a mid-C20 eugenics programme.
Is it gay when your male doctor gives you a butt exam? Perhaps only if you enjoy the process rather than the outcome?
You report - you decide.
Bingo. Every single UK privatisation since 1979 has been ideological (where the ideology is "I take your stuff and get rich from it"), and not one has improved as a result.
You would think that the private sector could manage to do at least one thing better than the British government, wouldn't you?
The RM has already been broken up and sold off in stages, each made worse:
- PO Telephones became British Telecom became British Telecom Plc. in the '80s.
- Post Offices are barely even owned by one company any more, with each outlet acting as an independent contractor.
- Much of the post is processed by private firms which get the profitable work, while RM is stuck with the last mile, and all the unprofitable routes.
- All the above has meant typical public-private partnership inefficiency, such that the price of sending letters has gone up recently way above the rate of inflation - with special increases in the last two years to reflect fattening of the cow for sale.
Just another ideological move by a country slipping down into oblivion. Will make a few people rich, though. I expect China will be interested in a piece of the pie - it's been buying up a few British infrastructure companies recently. They know how to manipulate "capitalism" all the way to the bank.
...would be an adequate summary of the Internet.
But please, carry on thinking you're better than you are. Whole religions have been based in convincing people of it, so it clearly gives many people a kick.
To "completely embrace" something is to let it own you.
And any single human who thinks they understand the "weaknesses inside out" of anything sufficiently complex is merely a dullard with an unwarranted sense of intelligence.
Life was much easier for the average Western worker before computers came along. And the signal-to-noise ratio he was presented with in daily life might have been occasionally irksome, but today it's so small that we spend most of our time busy doing absolutely nothing.
Nah, most weapons bans can be traced back to, "If we did it to them, they'd do it back to us... and that would really suck." This is probably why "not even Hitler" used chemical weapons (except that he did, once or twice, on the battlefield, and all the time with PoWs etc.).
So the traditional powers get to make nice rules for symmetric warfare which cripple asymmetric warfare by painting the strategies (e.g. terrorism) as somehow less moral.
"...after 20 years of work..."
All the most corrupt people start off as idealists.
But I've never seen Torvalds as an idealist, so I'm not sure that this is relevant.
And note that not all idealists end up corrupt - RMS seems to have stuck to his guns.
You communicate badly and you seem angry.
The babe in his cradle is closing his eyes;
The blossom embraces the bee.
But soon, says a whisper; "Arise, arise...
"Being involved in popular science fiction makes me an authority on philosophy." - William Shatner
I have read your posts throughout this thread, and you're not very clever.
Testing for randomness is just testing for an even distribution, and is not the same thing as testing for predictability. A known sequence encrypted with a sufficiently strong cipher will appear to give a random output.
tl;dr You can't actually prove unpredictability, only predictability.
Oooh a millionaire - that must make him right!
I'm not sure what you mean by "head of the operating system".
Linux is the combined success of: 1. GPL; 2. "Good enough" mentality; 3. thousands of developers and testers across the planet. Linus himself could be substituted with any number of people, but he's good enough.
IME that was a lot easier than writing a working ACPI layer that actually successfully detects all devices on the average motherboard.
ACPI could have been amazing. It's actually just fucking complex and kludgy.
This is Western rules of war! Pain and suffering must only be of a certain TYPE!
BUY LOCKHEED. BUY BOEING.
Every Western scheme in Africa is ultimately designed to prop up local corruption, so keep us doing better.
If you haven't noticed this, you've been asleep since the early British empire. It used to be called "white man's burden", but the colour's not really the thing.
Do you think of the brain as some idealistic device for applying free will, rather than just another organ of the body?
Do you think that anyone who does something this stupid, or more stupid, ends up dead?
"...should be... there is..."
What you mean is: you've adopted a philosophy in which there is something called "personal responsibility" and in which only certain people are deserving of "sympathy". It's the same reasoning all the worst people use to explain why some people should live in the lap of luxury and others should suffer horribly.