No, what's really dumb is that the BBC didn't sign him up for the first series with a contract that optioned him for other series if they wanted to carry on the run. All the cast of ST:TNG were signed up for one year with the option of a further six, all the cast of X-Men were signed up for one movie with the option of another one (although I bet the producers wish that had been another three or four now).
How hard is it to draw up a contract that says if we want you for another year or two then you're ours? Evidently too hard for the BBC Wales team responsible for the latest production.
Someone is going to interpret this as a flame but, heck, it's not as if you didn't know when you bought your Mac Mini that 10.4 would be out a few months later. And it's not as if Apple's policy on free upgrades isn't already well established either.
To be honest, although you don't want to hear it, you should have waited until 10.4 was shipping (or at least until it had been officially unveiled by Apple) before you bought your Mac Mini if you wanted 10.4 for free.
I happen to know the head of a major hospital in east London (one of the parts of Britain with the highest Asian populations) and I've talked to him about parents eagerness to know what sex their babies are going to be, etc.
Apparently, parents-to-be of Asian origin aren't any more interested than parents-to-be in general about knowing whether they're expecting a boy or a girl. His explanation is simple: they don't care as long as it's a healthy baby, so why would things be much different for Asians undergoing IVF treatment?
I can only assume that your history education was as flawed as that being received by the other poster's students.
1. The US didn't save anyone in World War I. By the time the US got involved, the war was practically over. Also, the US got involved because of the threat of a war on its own soil - didn't you learn about the Zimmerman telegram at school? - and not because of any altruism it felt towards France.
Without US intervention, France would still have been on the winning side.
2. The US played a role in liberating Europe in World War II but it didn't save the day single-handedly. Again, the US got involved way after the party started, being the last of the combatants to join the war. And, again, that US involvement was for its own reasons - because Hitler had declared war on the US in the aftermath of the attack on Pearl Harbour - and not because of any altruism it felt towards France.
Without US intervention, France would still have been on the winning side, only it would probably have been gifted with a communist government by Soviet liberators.
3. The US involvement in Indo-China was a disaster. By the time that the US decided to involve itself, France had realised that its postition there was untenable. The US, however, once again decided to get involved for its own reasons - to stop the "domino effect" and the spread of communism in that part of the world - and not because of any altruism it felt towards France.
Without US intervention, France's borders would still have been secure.
Ask yourself this: In all three cases if the US really had French interests at heart then why didn't it help out its ally right away? Why did it always stand back and watch until it was practically dragged kicking and screaming into things?
The men of the US armed forces did the peoples of Europe a great service once their nation finally entered WWII. But to pretend that they were sent to war for anything other than fighting a threat to their own country is the sort of revisionist crap that I expect from a Hollywood studio.
Yeah, right. Because American gamers have shunned other handheld consoles made by Japanese manufacturers like, say, the Nintendo GameBoy, haven't they?
Now you've alluded to it, it's so obvious: American gamers are waiting for an American handheld system. Wow, if only someone had clued Sony in before they made this collosal PSP mistake...
No wonder most Americans have such a distorted view of world history if this is how an American high school history teacher thinks.
Seriously, in that one sentence you've demonstrated that you're so clueless about history that you're a danger in the classroom. I have to agree with the other poster that I'd be very worried if you were teaching my kids.
Please, let it go already. Bitch and moan all you like but, when it comes down to it, you couldn't have fallen asleep as a kid fantasising that you were Han Solo or Luke Skywalker about to save the galaxy without him.
You're post deserves to be modded +5. Of course, that should be +5 funny rather than +5 informative.
Everyone and his brother raved about Radiohead's two albums prior to Kid A, The Bends and OK Computer respectively. And not only did they receive critical rave reviews, the music-buying public loved them too.
For example, Q Magazine's readers' poll of the top 100 albums of all time had both prominently in the top dozen or so, with OK Computer at number 1 in that chart. Of course, such a chart is pretty skewed towards recent releases but that gives you some kind of indication as to the popularity that Radiohead enjoyed before the release of Kid A.
Now, you may disagree but I think the success of Kid A had more to do with the fact that it was the much-anticipated, latest album release by one of the most popular rock bands on the planet rather than the fact that it was leaked onto a P2P network.
If you can't see that people who love an album will be very much inclined to rush out and buy the next album that the same artist releases then you really have no clue about how the music industry works.
That The Bends, OK Computer or any other Radiohead album hadn't previously been in the US top 20 is irrelevant. More relevant would be the sales figures for any of those albums (which could have been sure but steady rather than flavour-of-the-month in nature) and the number of people who'd paid to see them perform live in the three year hiatus between the release of OK Computer and Kid A.
I believe wow's bt patcher uses blizzard ports, not the standard bittorrent ports, and a custom implementation
It's not without its problems, but I believe it does work in at least some schools that block bt ports
There are no such things as "bt ports": with most popular BitTorrent clients you can assign the ports used yourself. You could use the defaults, you could pick ports at random, or you could just as easily assign ports that are commonly used for other applications.
For someone who wants to correct other people's usage of English, you sure make a lot of basic mistakes yourself.
You might want to look up the correct spellings of "aggrivate", "appologies" and "arrogent".
By the way, there's a saying that applies here: "people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones". In other words, before telling me that I come off as a wanker, perhaps you should examine how you come off here.
Oh, and it's only in the US that "spelled" is preferred over "spelt". I have no idea why, because Americans don't seem to have any problems dealing with "dreamt", "slept", "felt", "dealt", etc.
And, of course, IVF conceptions are a small fraction of the total number of pregnancies that occur, which means that we're definitely talking about thousands of kids every year.
Should have read:
And, of course, IVF conceptions are a small fraction of the total number of pregnancies that occur, which means that we're definitely not talking about thousands of kids every year.
This isn't about eugenics. This isn't about designer babies with parents choosing the colour of their offsprings' eyes, hair, etc. This is about parents who find it impossible to conceive naturally and who have limited opportunities to do so with the help of modern science being able to have some say if they child that they have is the boy or girl that they've always wanted.
We're talking about giving parents who might have dreamt about having a child of a specific gender the chance to have that dream come true. And we're not talking about giving that choice to everyone, we're talking about giving it to those who won't be able to try, try and try again until that boy or girl comes along. And, if it needs saying, most parents desperate for a kid won't care what gender their baby is, they'll be happy to let nature decide.
Remember also that IVF conceptions often result in multiple births, normally with non-identical twins or triplets, so the chances are that this sort of selection will only be necessary in a small number of cases. And, of course, IVF conceptions are a small fraction of the total number of pregnancies that occur, which means that we're definitely talking about thousands of kids every year.
Lastly, I'd like to add that IVF treatment is provided for free by the NHS. Of course, not everyone needs it but at least those people who can't conceive naturally don't have to choose between trying for a baby and having a positive bank balance.
So, any chance of cutting down on the some of the knee-jerk, distopic comments now?
There's more to Gmail than the 1GB account limit. The sooner that Microsoft, Yahoo and everyone else realise this the better.
I've had a Hotmail account for almost 10 years now (way before Microsoft got it hands on it) and a Gmail account for just under a year too. In the last three years Hotmail has been going backwards, especially with regards to interoperability with browsers other than MSIE (every iteration has broken something or another) and core features. It's clear that Microsoft's strategy is to push people to pay for the premium Hotmail Plus service and to do that it's happy to let the free service atrophy to the minimum possible standards. Meanwhile, with Gmail the focus seems to be on providing as good a HTML-based email application as possible.
I haven't had as much experience of Yahoo's mail service (I've got an account, but only because one was created automatically when I wanted to use another of their services) but from what I've seen it's little different to Hotmail.
Gmail wins vs Hotmail, Yahoo Mail, etc in so many ways. The interface, the features (message threads, labels, etc) are just superior to what the competition has to offer and it's these reasons rather than the default account size that makes Gmail the best at what it does.
Wales have contested the 6 Nations (prior to 2000, the 5 Nations) every year since then. They've had had a shot at winning the Grand Slam every year, and to do it all they've had to do was beat 5 (4) other teams.
England have had the chance to win a footballing tournament every other year, against a much greater field of opposition. When it comes to the European Championship, there have been 20-30+ contesting each tournament. When it comes to the World Cup, there have been about five times that number.
Bottom line: statistically, it's easier to win the Grand Slam in rugby union than it is to win a football tournament.
Heck, Wales haven't even qualified for the finals of any football competition since 1958, and even then they only played that year because of India's late withdrawal. There aren't many positives that one can take from Welsh football, are there?
Nevertheless, let me congratulate Wales on their 2005 success. At least one Michael Owen will have one something this year.
This AC comment is a clear example of why some people look at the F/OSS community with distrust and disgust. Remember folks, if someone says something that you disagree with then, clearly, they must be "a fucking idiot".
To the AC that wrote this I'll say only this: you, sir, must be a real man. After all, hiding behind the anonymity of the AC option and then launching into a pathetic verbal tirade is how real men voice their objections in the real world. Bravo for taking the cowardly route rather than stand up and be proud of what you have to say.
Providing their own implementation? You're kidding, right?
OK, so you clearly didn't like my analogy, so let's do something different. Let's suppose for a moment that it was one of the small guys (someone like you or me) who designed Scrabble and who had all the necessary copyrights, trademarks and protections in place. Now let's suppose a big games company just came along and copied the game, and set up e-Scrabble as a means of promoting its brand. Now who's got your support: the little guy or the big corporation?
If both times (in reality and in this hypothetical exercise) you said "the little guy", well, then you're biased beyond the point where rationally debate is possible. Protections are there for everyone, irrespective of whether we're talking about a guy working from his basement or a large multi-national. If you want to protect the rights of the former then sometimes you have to protect the rights of the latter too.
Slashdot Mirror
Both you and 2sheds are wrong.
12 regenerations, but William Hartnell doesn't count. He's the original Doctor, not a regeneration. Patrick Troughton was the first regeneration.
By the way, the films starring Peter Cushing definitely don't count.
No, what's really dumb is that the BBC didn't sign him up for the first series with a contract that optioned him for other series if they wanted to carry on the run. All the cast of ST:TNG were signed up for one year with the option of a further six, all the cast of X-Men were signed up for one movie with the option of another one (although I bet the producers wish that had been another three or four now).
How hard is it to draw up a contract that says if we want you for another year or two then you're ours? Evidently too hard for the BBC Wales team responsible for the latest production.
Someone is going to interpret this as a flame but, heck, it's not as if you didn't know when you bought your Mac Mini that 10.4 would be out a few months later. And it's not as if Apple's policy on free upgrades isn't already well established either.
To be honest, although you don't want to hear it, you should have waited until 10.4 was shipping (or at least until it had been officially unveiled by Apple) before you bought your Mac Mini if you wanted 10.4 for free.
I happen to know the head of a major hospital in east London (one of the parts of Britain with the highest Asian populations) and I've talked to him about parents eagerness to know what sex their babies are going to be, etc.
Apparently, parents-to-be of Asian origin aren't any more interested than parents-to-be in general about knowing whether they're expecting a boy or a girl. His explanation is simple: they don't care as long as it's a healthy baby, so why would things be much different for Asians undergoing IVF treatment?
I can only assume that your history education was as flawed as that being received by the other poster's students.
1. The US didn't save anyone in World War I. By the time the US got involved, the war was practically over. Also, the US got involved because of the threat of a war on its own soil - didn't you learn about the Zimmerman telegram at school? - and not because of any altruism it felt towards France.
Without US intervention, France would still have been on the winning side.
2. The US played a role in liberating Europe in World War II but it didn't save the day single-handedly. Again, the US got involved way after the party started, being the last of the combatants to join the war. And, again, that US involvement was for its own reasons - because Hitler had declared war on the US in the aftermath of the attack on Pearl Harbour - and not because of any altruism it felt towards France.
Without US intervention, France would still have been on the winning side, only it would probably have been gifted with a communist government by Soviet liberators.
3. The US involvement in Indo-China was a disaster. By the time that the US decided to involve itself, France had realised that its postition there was untenable. The US, however, once again decided to get involved for its own reasons - to stop the "domino effect" and the spread of communism in that part of the world - and not because of any altruism it felt towards France.
Without US intervention, France's borders would still have been secure.
Ask yourself this: In all three cases if the US really had French interests at heart then why didn't it help out its ally right away? Why did it always stand back and watch until it was practically dragged kicking and screaming into things?
The men of the US armed forces did the peoples of Europe a great service once their nation finally entered WWII. But to pretend that they were sent to war for anything other than fighting a threat to their own country is the sort of revisionist crap that I expect from a Hollywood studio.
Yeah, right. Because American gamers have shunned other handheld consoles made by Japanese manufacturers like, say, the Nintendo GameBoy, haven't they?
Now you've alluded to it, it's so obvious: American gamers are waiting for an American handheld system. Wow, if only someone had clued Sony in before they made this collosal PSP mistake...
No wonder most Americans have such a distorted view of world history if this is how an American high school history teacher thinks.
Seriously, in that one sentence you've demonstrated that you're so clueless about history that you're a danger in the classroom. I have to agree with the other poster that I'd be very worried if you were teaching my kids.
Please, let it go already. Bitch and moan all you like but, when it comes down to it, you couldn't have fallen asleep as a kid fantasising that you were Han Solo or Luke Skywalker about to save the galaxy without him.
You're post deserves to be modded +5. Of course, that should be +5 funny rather than +5 informative.
Everyone and his brother raved about Radiohead's two albums prior to Kid A, The Bends and OK Computer respectively. And not only did they receive critical rave reviews, the music-buying public loved them too.
For example, Q Magazine's readers' poll of the top 100 albums of all time had both prominently in the top dozen or so, with OK Computer at number 1 in that chart. Of course, such a chart is pretty skewed towards recent releases but that gives you some kind of indication as to the popularity that Radiohead enjoyed before the release of Kid A.
Now, you may disagree but I think the success of Kid A had more to do with the fact that it was the much-anticipated, latest album release by one of the most popular rock bands on the planet rather than the fact that it was leaked onto a P2P network.
If you can't see that people who love an album will be very much inclined to rush out and buy the next album that the same artist releases then you really have no clue about how the music industry works.
That The Bends, OK Computer or any other Radiohead album hadn't previously been in the US top 20 is irrelevant. More relevant would be the sales figures for any of those albums (which could have been sure but steady rather than flavour-of-the-month in nature) and the number of people who'd paid to see them perform live in the three year hiatus between the release of OK Computer and Kid A.
I believe wow's bt patcher uses blizzard ports, not the standard bittorrent ports, and a custom implementation
It's not without its problems, but I believe it does work in at least some schools that block bt ports
There are no such things as "bt ports": with most popular BitTorrent clients you can assign the ports used yourself. You could use the defaults, you could pick ports at random, or you could just as easily assign ports that are commonly used for other applications.
For someone who wants to correct other people's usage of English, you sure make a lot of basic mistakes yourself.
You might want to look up the correct spellings of "aggrivate", "appologies" and "arrogent".
By the way, there's a saying that applies here: "people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones". In other words, before telling me that I come off as a wanker, perhaps you should examine how you come off here.
Oh, and it's only in the US that "spelled" is preferred over "spelt". I have no idea why, because Americans don't seem to have any problems dealing with "dreamt", "slept", "felt", "dealt", etc.
And, of course, IVF conceptions are a small fraction of the total number of pregnancies that occur, which means that we're definitely talking about thousands of kids every year.
Should have read:
And, of course, IVF conceptions are a small fraction of the total number of pregnancies that occur, which means that we're definitely not talking about thousands of kids every year.
Yes, but Britain is hardly that sort of culture, is it?
Duh. How is this "hereditary improvement"?
No, I grew up in a place where people are judged and defined by their actions rather than their accents.
This isn't about eugenics. This isn't about designer babies with parents choosing the colour of their offsprings' eyes, hair, etc. This is about parents who find it impossible to conceive naturally and who have limited opportunities to do so with the help of modern science being able to have some say if they child that they have is the boy or girl that they've always wanted.
We're talking about giving parents who might have dreamt about having a child of a specific gender the chance to have that dream come true. And we're not talking about giving that choice to everyone, we're talking about giving it to those who won't be able to try, try and try again until that boy or girl comes along. And, if it needs saying, most parents desperate for a kid won't care what gender their baby is, they'll be happy to let nature decide.
Remember also that IVF conceptions often result in multiple births, normally with non-identical twins or triplets, so the chances are that this sort of selection will only be necessary in a small number of cases. And, of course, IVF conceptions are a small fraction of the total number of pregnancies that occur, which means that we're definitely talking about thousands of kids every year.
Lastly, I'd like to add that IVF treatment is provided for free by the NHS. Of course, not everyone needs it but at least those people who can't conceive naturally don't have to choose between trying for a baby and having a positive bank balance.
So, any chance of cutting down on the some of the knee-jerk, distopic comments now?
Accents are a product of environment rather than genetics. They're acquired through social contact, not inherited.
There's more to Gmail than the 1GB account limit. The sooner that Microsoft, Yahoo and everyone else realise this the better.
I've had a Hotmail account for almost 10 years now (way before Microsoft got it hands on it) and a Gmail account for just under a year too. In the last three years Hotmail has been going backwards, especially with regards to interoperability with browsers other than MSIE (every iteration has broken something or another) and core features. It's clear that Microsoft's strategy is to push people to pay for the premium Hotmail Plus service and to do that it's happy to let the free service atrophy to the minimum possible standards. Meanwhile, with Gmail the focus seems to be on providing as good a HTML-based email application as possible.
I haven't had as much experience of Yahoo's mail service (I've got an account, but only because one was created automatically when I wanted to use another of their services) but from what I've seen it's little different to Hotmail.
Gmail wins vs Hotmail, Yahoo Mail, etc in so many ways. The interface, the features (message threads, labels, etc) are just superior to what the competition has to offer and it's these reasons rather than the default account size that makes Gmail the best at what it does.
Pizza isn't dead yet but it's only a matter of time. Didn't you see Demolition Man?
Even so, number of potential Grand Slams is twice the number of potential football tournament wins.
The number of Grand Slams has nothing to do with the number of potential Grand Slams. (Other than, of course, the former is less than the latter).
Wales (or anyone else) could have won the Grand Slam every year had they been good enough.
Wales have contested the 6 Nations (prior to 2000, the 5 Nations) every year since then. They've had had a shot at winning the Grand Slam every year, and to do it all they've had to do was beat 5 (4) other teams.
England have had the chance to win a footballing tournament every other year, against a much greater field of opposition. When it comes to the European Championship, there have been 20-30+ contesting each tournament. When it comes to the World Cup, there have been about five times that number.
Bottom line: statistically, it's easier to win the Grand Slam in rugby union than it is to win a football tournament.
Heck, Wales haven't even qualified for the finals of any football competition since 1958, and even then they only played that year because of India's late withdrawal. There aren't many positives that one can take from Welsh football, are there?
Nevertheless, let me congratulate Wales on their 2005 success. At least one Michael Owen will have one something this year.
You stolt it?
This AC comment is a clear example of why some people look at the F/OSS community with distrust and disgust. Remember folks, if someone says something that you disagree with then, clearly, they must be "a fucking idiot".
To the AC that wrote this I'll say only this: you, sir, must be a real man. After all, hiding behind the anonymity of the AC option and then launching into a pathetic verbal tirade is how real men voice their objections in the real world. Bravo for taking the cowardly route rather than stand up and be proud of what you have to say.
Providing their own implementation? You're kidding, right?
OK, so you clearly didn't like my analogy, so let's do something different. Let's suppose for a moment that it was one of the small guys (someone like you or me) who designed Scrabble and who had all the necessary copyrights, trademarks and protections in place. Now let's suppose a big games company just came along and copied the game, and set up e-Scrabble as a means of promoting its brand. Now who's got your support: the little guy or the big corporation?
If both times (in reality and in this hypothetical exercise) you said "the little guy", well, then you're biased beyond the point where rationally debate is possible. Protections are there for everyone, irrespective of whether we're talking about a guy working from his basement or a large multi-national. If you want to protect the rights of the former then sometimes you have to protect the rights of the latter too.