Yeah, I'd really love it if anyone, including burglars casing my house, could see to the minute when I'd left my house and when I'd got to work. I'd also love it muggers could see when I'd just visited an ATM and taken out a large chunk.
Have you tried buying a SuperDisk recently? I tried to buy a drive about two or three years ago and there was nobody selling them at all. The format never really took off, partially because of the competition (regular floppy drives, Zip drives), and is practically dead.
A good idea, granted, but it takes more than that to succeed.
My journal says nothing of the sort. I'm decidely anti-imperialism and pro-free trade. The EU, first and foremost, is a free trading block, with people and goods able to move freely between states. Someone who's born in Denmark has just as much right to work in Britain as someone born there. A company in Spain can sell its goods in Sweden without any tarriffs being applied. Etc, etc.
On the debate about British imperialism in the past, I firmly believe that it's part of British heritage that can't be dismissed or shed but I just as firmly believe that imperialism (of any sort) isn't the way forward. It's precisely because of this that I'm for global responsibility and globally accepted solutions than unilateral or partisan ones, such as the short-sighted US-led invasion of Iraq and current US foreign policy in general.
If from that you want to (incorrectly) extrapolate that I'm pro-EU imperialism then that's your perogative. But that's about as logical as saying that anyone who opposes communism is a fascist, or vice versa.
1. I'd have a lot more respect for you and your opinion if you didn't feel the need to hide behind an AC comment.
2. Made up quotes really add so much weight to your argument. No, really, they do. Why not just say that the EU demands that you hand over your first-born for summary execution? The fact that it's a lie shouldn't bother you.
3. The debate about Britain's role in the EU and how it will affect the everyday lives of Britons, today and tomorrow, is so distorted by the majority of the press. In particular, Rupert Murdoch's The Sun misses no opportunity to bash the EU over anything and everything, and the right-wing Daily Mail and Daily Express are no better.
4. It is possible to have a sensible debate about the pros and cons of the EU. When you're mature enough not to have that debate in the gutter, by making up facts and building delusions of some pan-European empire, then we'll talk further.
This is the kind of crap that Euro-skeptics would have us all believe: that the European Union is taking all power from its member states and that the individual parliaments of countries such as the UK, Germany, France, Spain, Italy, the Netherlands, Sweden, Ireland, etc are all becoming toothless entities.
Please, realise that this is a troll attacking the EU. Nothing more, nothing less.
I didn't brand anyone as fanatical. What I said was "I would have thought that that much would be obvious to even the most fanatical Firefox/Mozilla user".
So stop putting words into my mouth and learn to appreciate how English works.
You miss the damn point. Firefox and other browsers are trying to take market share from IE, not the other way around, so it's far more important that new Firefox users can successfully import settings from IE than the other way around.
I would have thought that that much would be obvious to even the most fanatical Firefox/Mozilla user.
The bottom line is that a key tool used to help migrate users from IE to Firefox doesn't always work, so that's a clear minus point against Firefox. If the first thing that you try do when moving to Firefox from IE causes crash after crash wouldn't that curb your enthusiasm for carrying on with the transition? After all, switching to any new piece of software is often a leap of faith, and it's hard to make that leap successfully if you find a brick wall in your way.
You might not see things that way, and these things might not bother you, but that doesn't make them any less frustrating to others.
I didn't say that nobody had thought of it sooner, I said that I'm surprised that nobody had thought of it sooner. Ie, I was expressing my incredulity that this was the first time that anyone had thought of and applied the concept.
God, what is it about the English language that makes it so hard for some people to understand?
The amount of silicon on an average GPU overtook the amount of silicon on the average CPU some time ago.
Having all that processing power available to do more than just shift pixels makes perfect sense. I'm just surprised that nobody thought of doing it sooner.
I say this because it's fucking ironic that the safest building in Britain in terms of surveillance cameras, anti-tank obstacles, etc is the US Embassy in Grosvenor Square.
I remember a time when I was a kid when you could drive round all four sides of the square, but now you can't (and you haven't been able to for a long time) because of the anti-terrorist measures that have been placed there to protect the US Embassy from potential attacks. This protection, which has been there for well over a decade, maybe two, is greater than that afforded to Parliament or even Buckingham Palace. And the number of cameras attached to the building itself. Well, it's like they're going for a record or something.
The bottom line regarding CCTV cameras is this: most are either in shops (which are privately owned), stations and airports (for obvious crowd control in case of emergency/accident reasons), or in city centres. So, if you tried your damn hardest you could probably be filmed by 300 cameras in one day if you traipsed all over London but you'd have a nigh on impossible time hitting that 300 figure anywhere outside any major shopping precinct.
And, on top of all that, these cameras are hardly linked as part of some all-seeing network: if they were, do you think that we'd have any crime at all in central London? Think.
Now, if you want to take the article as being accurate, or if you want to assume that your experiences on your little sight-seeing tour were typical of everywhere in Britain, then feel free to be totally in the dark as to the real picture.
The average street doesn't have a camera on it. In fact, despite living in a London suburb, I'd have to go a couple of miles to find a camera that's not in either a private premise (such as a shop or pub) or train station (to prevent things like platform overcrowding). Even then, those cameras would be outside a public building (such as a Police Station) or in a popular shopping centre. Now, if that's your definition of "Big Brother is watching you" then you really have a warped idea of how effectively someone can watch me from a few cameras a couple of miles away.
You're argument's just shifted from a land mass one to a need to have a monopoly/100 percent coverage one?
Since when did you need to have nationwide coverage to be able to deliver high-speed broadband services? My ISP offers up to 3Mbit/s to all the homes it covers but it doesn't have a national network. By your (latest) rationale, it seems that it shouldn't be able to do this unless it can offer near blanket coverage.
Climatologists have been pointing out that weather patterns have been getting more extreme for some time now.
I'm sure we could all argue until the end of time as to why this has been happenning but I find it rather hilarious that, any time someone mentions the possible negative effects that mankind is having on his environment, hundreds of otherwise sensible people throw rational thought out of the window and refuse point blank to even concede the possibility - even the very smallest chance - that climate change for the worse might be partially our fault.
Here in Britain we've just gone from having the hottest August on record in 2003 to the wettest August on record in 2004. Climatic extremes like those experienced here, in the US and elsewhere aren't things to be taken lightly, they're things to be studied and, ultimately, acted upon. Collectively shrugging our shoulders and sticking our heads in the sand when it comes to finding out why these things are happening with ever greater frequency aren't model solutions.
But, hey, that's just my worthless point of view. Until there's more money in sorting out the problem than there is in exacerbating it, nothing's going to change. Well, at least not for the better.
Broadband has been available in the UK for a lot longer than "the last couple of years", the first service was available six years ago, and there are a range of service providers to choose from. With my own provider, Telewest Blueyonder, I have a range of options from 768kbit/s to 3Mbit/s, with no download limits whatsoever.
Also, as best as I can remember, there's only one ISP that attempted to call its 128kbit/s connections "broadband", and that was NTL. Other ISPs complained about it to the ASA (Advertising Standards Authority) but the complaint wasn't upheld because there wasn't a clearly defined definition of what constituted "broadband", so the ASA was unable to rule against NTL on that basis.
In terms of broadband coverage, I'll say just this: if there's a town or city on the UK mainland without broadband then it's news to me. Even the telephone exchanges that serve most larger villages are starting to be converted and it's only a matter of time until all but the most unprofitable exchanges (serving two men and a dog) become capable of delivering broadband services.
I think you forget that delivering broadband isn't as easy as flicking a switch. There's infrastructure, etc to worry about, so it's only to be expected that things take a little time.
Also, bare in mind this is consumer broadband we're talking about. It you wanted a 4 or 40Mbit/sec connection for your business then you could get it: many businesses already do. You might not like the price, but you could get it.
After all, you don't exactly dial when you call someone on the phone nowadays, do you?
When was the last time you saw, let alone used, a rotary dial phone? Outside film and television, the last time I saw or used one must have been close to 15 years ago.
In fact, I bet if you gave anyone under the age of 20 such a phone and told them to dial 911 (999, 112, or whatever) then they wouldn't have a clue how to do it.
Dialling, per se, is obsolete. However the language is still with us, and likely will be for a very long time.
The Home Office isn't likely to use my details to commit identity, credit or other types of fraud, which is what I'm concerned about.
As for the possibility of getting a new NI number, well, I've spoken to someone on the NI Helpline in the last 24 hours and he said that getting a new NI number wasn't possible. Frankly, I'm always skeptical when I speak to any hotline operator (no matter what the organisation) because I've learnt from experience that what they say isn't always accurate.
I'd be interested (and grateful) if you could provide me with any further details as to how a replacement number can be obtained, because I'd rather err on the side of caution when it comes to this sort of data.
I'll second that. A little over a month ago, a letter was sent to me but went missing in the post. That letter contained my full name, address and National Insurance number (similar to a US Social Security number).
That lost letter contains more information than I'd give out to anyone who's not an authorised government official (policeman, doctor, etc). Through no fault of my own, and despite my vigilance (I shred and burn every bit of correspondence that has my name and address on it, let alone financial or other personal details) that information is now potentially in the hands of someone unscrupulous.
If anything untoward were to happen, I have virtually no recourse, as it would be nigh on impossible to actually prove where my details were obtained and (as far as I know) it's impossible to get a new NI number: I'm stuck with the one that's issued to me at 16 until the day I die.
The reason why continental Europe feared the English in battle (cf, Henry V at Agincourt) was precisely because the English archers were able to decimate even armoured opponents at long range.
It wasn't armour that nullified the tactical advantage of the longbow, it was the invention of gunpowder and the musket.
Uh, I saw these mice in the shops weeks ago. I didn't play with one but a couple of stores that I visited on my last journey to Tottenham Court Road (where you go to buy consumer electronics and computers in London if you know one side of a CD-R from the other) had them out on display.
They didn't look like anything special and, having read the sales booklet, I don't think that they'll set the world on fire. If anything, they look like the kind of product that will appeal to those who prefer style over substance.
Where people get turned away from voting stations by police, disenfranchised because they share the same name as people who were previously convicted of crimes in other US states, have to put up with butterfly ballot papers (only in the poorest districts though) and where chads reign supreme.
What makes anyone think that Florida will get in right this time?
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, I'd really love it if anyone, including burglars casing my house, could see to the minute when I'd left my house and when I'd got to work. I'd also love it muggers could see when I'd just visited an ATM and taken out a large chunk.
Try thinking for a change. It works for me.
Nintendo originally started out selling "Hanafunda" playing cards, 48 card decks that soon became popular with Yakuza for high stakes gambling.
So, in a way, Nintendo's empire was built thanks to gangsters.
What really would be funny would be if this were happening to the Xerox colour laser printer range previously owned by Tektronix.
Why? Because the name of the range is Phaser.
Have you tried buying a SuperDisk recently? I tried to buy a drive about two or three years ago and there was nobody selling them at all. The format never really took off, partially because of the competition (regular floppy drives, Zip drives), and is practically dead.
A good idea, granted, but it takes more than that to succeed.
My journal says nothing of the sort. I'm decidely anti-imperialism and pro-free trade. The EU, first and foremost, is a free trading block, with people and goods able to move freely between states. Someone who's born in Denmark has just as much right to work in Britain as someone born there. A company in Spain can sell its goods in Sweden without any tarriffs being applied. Etc, etc.
On the debate about British imperialism in the past, I firmly believe that it's part of British heritage that can't be dismissed or shed but I just as firmly believe that imperialism (of any sort) isn't the way forward. It's precisely because of this that I'm for global responsibility and globally accepted solutions than unilateral or partisan ones, such as the short-sighted US-led invasion of Iraq and current US foreign policy in general.
If from that you want to (incorrectly) extrapolate that I'm pro-EU imperialism then that's your perogative. But that's about as logical as saying that anyone who opposes communism is a fascist, or vice versa.
1. I'd have a lot more respect for you and your opinion if you didn't feel the need to hide behind an AC comment.
2. Made up quotes really add so much weight to your argument. No, really, they do. Why not just say that the EU demands that you hand over your first-born for summary execution? The fact that it's a lie shouldn't bother you.
3. The debate about Britain's role in the EU and how it will affect the everyday lives of Britons, today and tomorrow, is so distorted by the majority of the press. In particular, Rupert Murdoch's The Sun misses no opportunity to bash the EU over anything and everything, and the right-wing Daily Mail and Daily Express are no better.
4. It is possible to have a sensible debate about the pros and cons of the EU. When you're mature enough not to have that debate in the gutter, by making up facts and building delusions of some pan-European empire, then we'll talk further.
This is the kind of crap that Euro-skeptics would have us all believe: that the European Union is taking all power from its member states and that the individual parliaments of countries such as the UK, Germany, France, Spain, Italy, the Netherlands, Sweden, Ireland, etc are all becoming toothless entities.
Please, realise that this is a troll attacking the EU. Nothing more, nothing less.
I didn't brand anyone as fanatical. What I said was "I would have thought that that much would be obvious to even the most fanatical Firefox/Mozilla user".
So stop putting words into my mouth and learn to appreciate how English works.
You miss the damn point. Firefox and other browsers are trying to take market share from IE, not the other way around, so it's far more important that new Firefox users can successfully import settings from IE than the other way around.
I would have thought that that much would be obvious to even the most fanatical Firefox/Mozilla user.
The bottom line is that a key tool used to help migrate users from IE to Firefox doesn't always work, so that's a clear minus point against Firefox. If the first thing that you try do when moving to Firefox from IE causes crash after crash wouldn't that curb your enthusiasm for carrying on with the transition? After all, switching to any new piece of software is often a leap of faith, and it's hard to make that leap successfully if you find a brick wall in your way.
You might not see things that way, and these things might not bother you, but that doesn't make them any less frustrating to others.
I didn't say that nobody had thought of it sooner, I said that I'm surprised that nobody had thought of it sooner. Ie, I was expressing my incredulity that this was the first time that anyone had thought of and applied the concept.
God, what is it about the English language that makes it so hard for some people to understand?
The amount of silicon on an average GPU overtook the amount of silicon on the average CPU some time ago.
Having all that processing power available to do more than just shift pixels makes perfect sense. I'm just surprised that nobody thought of doing it sooner.
I say this because it's fucking ironic that the safest building in Britain in terms of surveillance cameras, anti-tank obstacles, etc is the US Embassy in Grosvenor Square.
I remember a time when I was a kid when you could drive round all four sides of the square, but now you can't (and you haven't been able to for a long time) because of the anti-terrorist measures that have been placed there to protect the US Embassy from potential attacks. This protection, which has been there for well over a decade, maybe two, is greater than that afforded to Parliament or even Buckingham Palace. And the number of cameras attached to the building itself. Well, it's like they're going for a record or something.
The bottom line regarding CCTV cameras is this: most are either in shops (which are privately owned), stations and airports (for obvious crowd control in case of emergency/accident reasons), or in city centres. So, if you tried your damn hardest you could probably be filmed by 300 cameras in one day if you traipsed all over London but you'd have a nigh on impossible time hitting that 300 figure anywhere outside any major shopping precinct.
And, on top of all that, these cameras are hardly linked as part of some all-seeing network: if they were, do you think that we'd have any crime at all in central London? Think.
Now, if you want to take the article as being accurate, or if you want to assume that your experiences on your little sight-seeing tour were typical of everywhere in Britain, then feel free to be totally in the dark as to the real picture.
The average street doesn't have a camera on it. In fact, despite living in a London suburb, I'd have to go a couple of miles to find a camera that's not in either a private premise (such as a shop or pub) or train station (to prevent things like platform overcrowding). Even then, those cameras would be outside a public building (such as a Police Station) or in a popular shopping centre. Now, if that's your definition of "Big Brother is watching you" then you really have a warped idea of how effectively someone can watch me from a few cameras a couple of miles away.
I might be out of touch here but don't Nascar cars drive anticlockwise around the ovals that they race on?
So wouldn't a car that only turns right (rather than left) be the last thing that a Nascar driver would want?
You're argument's just shifted from a land mass one to a need to have a monopoly/100 percent coverage one?
Since when did you need to have nationwide coverage to be able to deliver high-speed broadband services? My ISP offers up to 3Mbit/s to all the homes it covers but it doesn't have a national network. By your (latest) rationale, it seems that it shouldn't be able to do this unless it can offer near blanket coverage.
Climatologists have been pointing out that weather patterns have been getting more extreme for some time now.
I'm sure we could all argue until the end of time as to why this has been happenning but I find it rather hilarious that, any time someone mentions the possible negative effects that mankind is having on his environment, hundreds of otherwise sensible people throw rational thought out of the window and refuse point blank to even concede the possibility - even the very smallest chance - that climate change for the worse might be partially our fault.
Here in Britain we've just gone from having the hottest August on record in 2003 to the wettest August on record in 2004. Climatic extremes like those experienced here, in the US and elsewhere aren't things to be taken lightly, they're things to be studied and, ultimately, acted upon. Collectively shrugging our shoulders and sticking our heads in the sand when it comes to finding out why these things are happening with ever greater frequency aren't model solutions.
But, hey, that's just my worthless point of view. Until there's more money in sorting out the problem than there is in exacerbating it, nothing's going to change. Well, at least not for the better.
Broadband has been available in the UK for a lot longer than "the last couple of years", the first service was available six years ago, and there are a range of service providers to choose from. With my own provider, Telewest Blueyonder, I have a range of options from 768kbit/s to 3Mbit/s, with no download limits whatsoever.
Also, as best as I can remember, there's only one ISP that attempted to call its 128kbit/s connections "broadband", and that was NTL. Other ISPs complained about it to the ASA (Advertising Standards Authority) but the complaint wasn't upheld because there wasn't a clearly defined definition of what constituted "broadband", so the ASA was unable to rule against NTL on that basis.
In terms of broadband coverage, I'll say just this: if there's a town or city on the UK mainland without broadband then it's news to me. Even the telephone exchanges that serve most larger villages are starting to be converted and it's only a matter of time until all but the most unprofitable exchanges (serving two men and a dog) become capable of delivering broadband services.
I think you forget that delivering broadband isn't as easy as flicking a switch. There's infrastructure, etc to worry about, so it's only to be expected that things take a little time.
Also, bare in mind this is consumer broadband we're talking about. It you wanted a 4 or 40Mbit/sec connection for your business then you could get it: many businesses already do. You might not like the price, but you could get it.
The land mass per capita of Sweden is almost twice that of the US. Or, in other words, Sweden is almost half as densely populated as the US.
So the cost per person of cabling out Sweden is probably more than the same exercise in the US. Frankly, this blows your argument out of the water.
Well, if you must be so damn literal...
So that's one 18 year-old. Don't you think that's not typically the case?
After all, you don't exactly dial when you call someone on the phone nowadays, do you?
When was the last time you saw, let alone used, a rotary dial phone? Outside film and television, the last time I saw or used one must have been close to 15 years ago.
In fact, I bet if you gave anyone under the age of 20 such a phone and told them to dial 911 (999, 112, or whatever) then they wouldn't have a clue how to do it.
Dialling, per se, is obsolete. However the language is still with us, and likely will be for a very long time.
The Home Office isn't likely to use my details to commit identity, credit or other types of fraud, which is what I'm concerned about.
As for the possibility of getting a new NI number, well, I've spoken to someone on the NI Helpline in the last 24 hours and he said that getting a new NI number wasn't possible. Frankly, I'm always skeptical when I speak to any hotline operator (no matter what the organisation) because I've learnt from experience that what they say isn't always accurate.
I'd be interested (and grateful) if you could provide me with any further details as to how a replacement number can be obtained, because I'd rather err on the side of caution when it comes to this sort of data.
I'll second that. A little over a month ago, a letter was sent to me but went missing in the post. That letter contained my full name, address and National Insurance number (similar to a US Social Security number).
That lost letter contains more information than I'd give out to anyone who's not an authorised government official (policeman, doctor, etc). Through no fault of my own, and despite my vigilance (I shred and burn every bit of correspondence that has my name and address on it, let alone financial or other personal details) that information is now potentially in the hands of someone unscrupulous.
If anything untoward were to happen, I have virtually no recourse, as it would be nigh on impossible to actually prove where my details were obtained and (as far as I know) it's impossible to get a new NI number: I'm stuck with the one that's issued to me at 16 until the day I die.
The reason why continental Europe feared the English in battle (cf, Henry V at Agincourt) was precisely because the English archers were able to decimate even armoured opponents at long range.
It wasn't armour that nullified the tactical advantage of the longbow, it was the invention of gunpowder and the musket.
Uh, I saw these mice in the shops weeks ago. I didn't play with one but a couple of stores that I visited on my last journey to Tottenham Court Road (where you go to buy consumer electronics and computers in London if you know one side of a CD-R from the other) had them out on display.
They didn't look like anything special and, having read the sales booklet, I don't think that they'll set the world on fire. If anything, they look like the kind of product that will appeal to those who prefer style over substance.
Where people get turned away from voting stations by police, disenfranchised because they share the same name as people who were previously convicted of crimes in other US states, have to put up with butterfly ballot papers (only in the poorest districts though) and where chads reign supreme.
What makes anyone think that Florida will get in right this time?