As a matter of fact, most terrorists in Europe are extreme amateurs -- 18-year-old losers with fantasies of becoming a mujahedeen. They boast to the whole world that they will carry something out, and get arrested at the stage of trying to buy weapons.
Examples/references please. In fact, most terrorists in Europe are white, most of them nationalists and/or christians, who's got years of experience in planning and carrying out operations (IRA and splinter groups and ETA etc.). As a result several EU governments have decades of experience is what works and what doesn't work against terrorists. Apart from groups that are still a potential threat, such as IRA splinter groups and ETA, we've had a long list of other terror groups, such as the Rote Armee Fraktion in Germany etc. (that was successfully crushed).
Of the muslim terrorists in Europe, most have been older, and of the ones who have been taken before successfully carrying out their plits most have been taken after major intelligence operations, rather than after having boasted to the whole world about anything.
If the airlines violate the EU data privacy directive, they also directly violate the national laws of every EU country they operate in, as the EU directives are implemented by the national legislatives as separate laws in each country. In most EU countries this would mean a criminal liability which might include prison-sentences for the directors of the company or it's EU subsidiaries. Knowingly handing over information in violation of data privacy laws is taken very seriously here.
So no, I don't think they'll ignore this.
All it takes is a single passenger in each country making a complaint.
Lumbe. Lumbar has to do with your lower back, so unless you were subliminally trying to imply the Canadians had no spine when it comes to the lumber dispute you might want to get it right.
The point is that collecting this data would violate EU data privacy laws. How would collecting MORE data make that situation any better? Contrary to the US we don't apply different standards of liberty to citizens and non-citizens (gitmo...)
Love the forms. I just flew in to SFO on Friday, and I always chuckle over the visa waiver form. You forgot the question about whether we're coming to the US with the intent of carrying out illegal or immoral acts... Surely if I was a dangerous criminal I'd want to tell the armed border patrol guards that I wanted to enter the country to start a crime syndicate or rob a bank...
However, once I have learned something, I know it.
If you really believe this you don't have much experience with academic work.
Most universities have rules about this exactly because the fact that someone managed to write a paper right after having read a book about it a few years back proves nothing about what they know about the subject today, and because work during a course is meant to give the instructors an idea of the development of your skills.
If your knowledge and understanding of a subject haven't developed at all since the last time you wrote an essay on that subject, despite taking a course covering the subject, then you're not doing very good work.
Especially university level work is not only about the end product, but about proving that you are capable of carrying out academic work and demonstrating how skilled you are at expanding your knowledge and communicating what you have learned.
If you do an MSc. for instance, the end product rarely has much value - few people contribute much to the knowledge of their field in an MSc. thesis. The key thing is the work you have put in to demonstrate your ability to carry out a research project from start to finish within a reasonable timeframe. The thesis on it's own mainly has value as a way of assessing those skills, and if you've self-plagiarised that purpose isn't met.
This wouldn't be a problem, as the original author (or the authors estate) can't retroactively revoke a license unless the license itself allows that. That has nothing to do with GPL, and everything to do with copyright law.
I don't know if wooden houses were outright banned, but when the government funded the rebuilding of London, they did ensure the rebuilding happened with brick and stone, and no thatched roofs were used in London from the fire (1666) until 1997 when they built a replica of the Globe theatre.
Birthrates ARE down in the industrialized world. In fact they're so far down that we will have to depend on net immigration to sustain our populations in the very near future. If you are concerned about overcrowding, then you should support more aid to developing nations - improving health, education and overall life quality has historically shown to be the most effective way of cutting birth rates.
Where did you get the idea that the "infant rate" (by which I assume you mean birth rate) is steadily increasing? In fact it is well established that when a region reaches a certain development level, birth rates plummet. There's a strong argument to make that this is tied to health and longevity - when people expect to live for a long time, children become less of a concern. In most of the industrialised world the birth rate is so low that at the current life expectancy of the population we'll see reduction in population sizes in most industrialised countries in the near future when the effects of immigration are factored out. Even China is moving towards population decline, though in their case a large part of it is the (now watered down) "one child" policy.
The population growth in the world is currently driven almost entirely by developing countries. If you care about overpopulation the best thing you can do is support increased development aid, and in particular health and education projects.
Forcing people onto public transport is bad, but having a public transport system that's good enough that people use it is another matter. Whenever I go to the US one thing that hits me is how impersonal and cold most areas outside the city centres seem to me. I'm used to people walking or taking public transport because it is practical (driving in London during the day is stupid if you have any choice at all - congestion means the underground or trains are almost always a significantly faster alternative), and it makes a huge difference to how communities get laid out. People walking around translates into business opportunities for store owners, and you end up seeing shops etc. much more spread out because there's much more business to be done locally. It also means freeways tend to be limited to between/around major cities, not cutting through communities.
Even at recent prices, behavior isn't changing very much. Maybe $6.00 gasoline would make a difference.
Maybe. Most of Europe is in the $4.50 to $6 range per gallon, mainly due to aggressive taxation (in the UK about 70% or more of the gas price is taxes)
Keep in mind that in roulette the house advantage is only about 5%, so the casino does expect you to win a lot. Just shifting that to a 5% advantage in your favour, and not playing for too long at a time should stave off any suspicion - many player will have long winning streaks without cheating when the house advantage is that small.
Their examples are Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union -- both were totalitarian, but economically Germany leaned to the right and the USSR to the left.
That depends a lot on your definitions of "left" and "right". USSR had an economical system that was close to feudal - the party elite had effective if not legal control of the economy, just as in nazi Germany, and citizens were cared for because they were effectively state resources. The main real difference was where the legal ownership of industry was (i.e. the state in USSR or a small elite of private industrialists in nazi Germany) and the symbols use. Socially, they both maintained systems that focused on the collective and on the state as caretaker and the individual as subordinate to the nation, but neither did anything to reduce the differences between the economic elite and the rest.
Both economically and socially both the USSR and nazi Germany to some extent fit into what Marx' called "reactionary socialism" (in other words right wing) - systems that use some socialist principles of government to avoid changing the overall structure of society rather than promoting it, thereby maintaining an economic elite rather than redistributing wealth.
IANAL, but it depends on the level of "hurling abuse". If you through verbal abuse (or other means, such as threats or general behavior) cause someone to genuinely fear for their safety, it is assault under UK law. The odds of getting charged is low unless the case is pretty extreme, and the odds of getting convicted even lower.
If I yelled "motherfucker" to someone while passing them in the street it wouldn't be assault. But if I'd walk menacingly towards someone yelling motherfucker at them and clenching my fist it could be, unless I was doing it towards someone who obviously would have nothing to fear from me.
Except that guncrime is so rare here (as in you can count most fatalities due to guncrime in double digits most years) that it would be a pointless exercise.
Go read some crime stats. Crime in the UK is still at low levels compared to the US. And if you look at gun crime levels the difference is staggering - the US is at levels unimaginable for any West European country. I doubt anyone here "feel trapped" - I certainly don't. Rather I feel far safer here than I do whenever I visit anywhere in the US, knowing how high the rates of violent crimes are in the US.
However, the link to gun ownership is far from clear. The US has a far higher rate of gun violence than ALL West European countries, for instance. But many of these countries, such as Switzerland and Norway have extremely high rates of gun ownership. Few Norwegians (I'm from Norway myself) would think of Norway that way, though, and our police is generally unarmed (only arming themselves when answering callouts to situations where there is a high risk the suspect is armed, and having to follow extremely strict rules for when gun use is acceptable). But what people forget is that about a third of all households have rifles (for hunting) or AG3's (for any members of "heimevernet" - a local defense force similar to the UK's Territorial Army).
There could be a link to handguns. EU countries with high gun ownership but low gun crime rates generally have few handguns in private hands. Or there might be no link at all. Or it might be tied to treatment of gun crime - carrying a gun while comitting a crime in Norway automatically puts you at risk of an armed response and adds years to your sentence, while comitting a crime without a gun means police will likely leave their guns sealed in their cars, and your sentence if caught will be far lighter. In a situation like that there is a strong incentive to stay unarmed.
But there is no direct relationship purely between the number of privately held firearms and crime.
You wrote:
So, is it really a load of crap, or are you of the belief that we should not be able to defend ourselves, and we must suffer the arrival of the police to handle all of our protection needs?
How many Americans die as a result of accidental shootings (whether pure accidents or because someone thought they were an intruder or attacker) or get shot with their own weapon, compared to the number that actually successfully protect themselves with a firearm? The problem with the idea of protecting yourself with firearms and having armed police as a routine measure is that it doesn't stop criminals driven by desperation (as the high crime rates in the US show very clearly) but it does force criminals to arms themselves or be at a significant disadvantage.
Personally I'd rather face a robber unarmed and let them take what they want, than risk a showdown with someone who likely would have more experience with a firearm than myself.
The worst case (from a hackers point of view) time to crack a password is reduced if passwords are forced to be "good", assuming the attacker knows the rules (or an approximation) that the users are required to follow.
However the reason "strong" passwords are generally still better is that a large portion of users pick bad passwords if they are not reminded or forced to pick good ones. That leads to a situation where the space of likely passwords is still dramatically smaller than the total space of possible passwords, and adding rules to a password cracker to try a set of common rules first (such as permutations of dictionary words) before resorting to brute force checking all remaining combinations is straightforward.
The house has the advantage no matter which of the methods you linked to you use, so your chances of making any money that way are tiny. However the house advantage is in the 2%-6% range. In other words, you only need a slight improvement in the odds to win, but it requires timing the wheel, which is how these guys got away with more than 1m pounds from a casino in London.
What happens when you've discovered that your first estimate was wrong?
ALTER TABLE foo ENGINE=InnoDB;
Thing is for many types of applications transactions are rarely needed, and performance is more important than integrity. People use MySQL because it offers choice and flexibility (particularly with pluggable storage engines), and because finding people with reasonable MySQL skills is easy. People don't pick MySQL because of some idea that it is "perfect" because it's far from it.
For me, the reason I've never spent much time on Postgres is that I know MySQL well enough and haven't needed to look for alternatives and the perceived potential gain from what I have seen is too small to be worth the investment.
Slashdot Mirror
Examples/references please. In fact, most terrorists in Europe are white, most of them nationalists and/or christians, who's got years of experience in planning and carrying out operations (IRA and splinter groups and ETA etc.). As a result several EU governments have decades of experience is what works and what doesn't work against terrorists. Apart from groups that are still a potential threat, such as IRA splinter groups and ETA, we've had a long list of other terror groups, such as the Rote Armee Fraktion in Germany etc. (that was successfully crushed).
Of the muslim terrorists in Europe, most have been older, and of the ones who have been taken before successfully carrying out their plits most have been taken after major intelligence operations, rather than after having boasted to the whole world about anything.
So no, I don't think they'll ignore this.
All it takes is a single passenger in each country making a complaint.
Lumbe. Lumbar has to do with your lower back, so unless you were subliminally trying to imply the Canadians had no spine when it comes to the lumber dispute you might want to get it right.
The point is that collecting this data would violate EU data privacy laws. How would collecting MORE data make that situation any better? Contrary to the US we don't apply different standards of liberty to citizens and non-citizens (gitmo...)
But most/all of the cost is consulting, of which a significant percentage will go to salaries to people locally.
If you really believe this you don't have much experience with academic work.
Most universities have rules about this exactly because the fact that someone managed to write a paper right after having read a book about it a few years back proves nothing about what they know about the subject today, and because work during a course is meant to give the instructors an idea of the development of your skills.
If your knowledge and understanding of a subject haven't developed at all since the last time you wrote an essay on that subject, despite taking a course covering the subject, then you're not doing very good work.
Especially university level work is not only about the end product, but about proving that you are capable of carrying out academic work and demonstrating how skilled you are at expanding your knowledge and communicating what you have learned.
If you do an MSc. for instance, the end product rarely has much value - few people contribute much to the knowledge of their field in an MSc. thesis. The key thing is the work you have put in to demonstrate your ability to carry out a research project from start to finish within a reasonable timeframe. The thesis on it's own mainly has value as a way of assessing those skills, and if you've self-plagiarised that purpose isn't met.
This wouldn't be a problem, as the original author (or the authors estate) can't retroactively revoke a license unless the license itself allows that. That has nothing to do with GPL, and everything to do with copyright law.
I don't know if wooden houses were outright banned, but when the government funded the rebuilding of London, they did ensure the rebuilding happened with brick and stone, and no thatched roofs were used in London from the fire (1666) until 1997 when they built a replica of the Globe theatre.
Birthrates ARE down in the industrialized world. In fact they're so far down that we will have to depend on net immigration to sustain our populations in the very near future. If you are concerned about overcrowding, then you should support more aid to developing nations - improving health, education and overall life quality has historically shown to be the most effective way of cutting birth rates.
The population growth in the world is currently driven almost entirely by developing countries. If you care about overpopulation the best thing you can do is support increased development aid, and in particular health and education projects.
There are no "official" English rules. English is defined by usage, not by prescription by any authority unlike many other languages (like French)
Everone knows that Belgium doesn't exist...
Forcing people onto public transport is bad, but having a public transport system that's good enough that people use it is another matter. Whenever I go to the US one thing that hits me is how impersonal and cold most areas outside the city centres seem to me. I'm used to people walking or taking public transport because it is practical (driving in London during the day is stupid if you have any choice at all - congestion means the underground or trains are almost always a significantly faster alternative), and it makes a huge difference to how communities get laid out. People walking around translates into business opportunities for store owners, and you end up seeing shops etc. much more spread out because there's much more business to be done locally. It also means freeways tend to be limited to between/around major cities, not cutting through communities.
Maybe. Most of Europe is in the $4.50 to $6 range per gallon, mainly due to aggressive taxation (in the UK about 70% or more of the gas price is taxes)
We have far more expensive gas, but the result is that people care far more about fuel economy.
Keep in mind that in roulette the house advantage is only about 5%, so the casino does expect you to win a lot. Just shifting that to a 5% advantage in your favour, and not playing for too long at a time should stave off any suspicion - many player will have long winning streaks without cheating when the house advantage is that small.
That depends a lot on your definitions of "left" and "right". USSR had an economical system that was close to feudal - the party elite had effective if not legal control of the economy, just as in nazi Germany, and citizens were cared for because they were effectively state resources. The main real difference was where the legal ownership of industry was (i.e. the state in USSR or a small elite of private industrialists in nazi Germany) and the symbols use. Socially, they both maintained systems that focused on the collective and on the state as caretaker and the individual as subordinate to the nation, but neither did anything to reduce the differences between the economic elite and the rest.
Both economically and socially both the USSR and nazi Germany to some extent fit into what Marx' called "reactionary socialism" (in other words right wing) - systems that use some socialist principles of government to avoid changing the overall structure of society rather than promoting it, thereby maintaining an economic elite rather than redistributing wealth.
If I yelled "motherfucker" to someone while passing them in the street it wouldn't be assault. But if I'd walk menacingly towards someone yelling motherfucker at them and clenching my fist it could be, unless I was doing it towards someone who obviously would have nothing to fear from me.
Except that guncrime is so rare here (as in you can count most fatalities due to guncrime in double digits most years) that it would be a pointless exercise.
However, the link to gun ownership is far from clear. The US has a far higher rate of gun violence than ALL West European countries, for instance. But many of these countries, such as Switzerland and Norway have extremely high rates of gun ownership. Few Norwegians (I'm from Norway myself) would think of Norway that way, though, and our police is generally unarmed (only arming themselves when answering callouts to situations where there is a high risk the suspect is armed, and having to follow extremely strict rules for when gun use is acceptable). But what people forget is that about a third of all households have rifles (for hunting) or AG3's (for any members of "heimevernet" - a local defense force similar to the UK's Territorial Army).
There could be a link to handguns. EU countries with high gun ownership but low gun crime rates generally have few handguns in private hands. Or there might be no link at all. Or it might be tied to treatment of gun crime - carrying a gun while comitting a crime in Norway automatically puts you at risk of an armed response and adds years to your sentence, while comitting a crime without a gun means police will likely leave their guns sealed in their cars, and your sentence if caught will be far lighter. In a situation like that there is a strong incentive to stay unarmed.
But there is no direct relationship purely between the number of privately held firearms and crime.
You wrote:
So, is it really a load of crap, or are you of the belief that we should not be able to defend ourselves, and we must suffer the arrival of the police to handle all of our protection needs?
How many Americans die as a result of accidental shootings (whether pure accidents or because someone thought they were an intruder or attacker) or get shot with their own weapon, compared to the number that actually successfully protect themselves with a firearm? The problem with the idea of protecting yourself with firearms and having armed police as a routine measure is that it doesn't stop criminals driven by desperation (as the high crime rates in the US show very clearly) but it does force criminals to arms themselves or be at a significant disadvantage.
Personally I'd rather face a robber unarmed and let them take what they want, than risk a showdown with someone who likely would have more experience with a firearm than myself.
However the reason "strong" passwords are generally still better is that a large portion of users pick bad passwords if they are not reminded or forced to pick good ones. That leads to a situation where the space of likely passwords is still dramatically smaller than the total space of possible passwords, and adding rules to a password cracker to try a set of common rules first (such as permutations of dictionary words) before resorting to brute force checking all remaining combinations is straightforward.
The house has the advantage no matter which of the methods you linked to you use, so your chances of making any money that way are tiny. However the house advantage is in the 2%-6% range. In other words, you only need a slight improvement in the odds to win, but it requires timing the wheel, which is how these guys got away with more than 1m pounds from a casino in London.
ALTER TABLE foo ENGINE=InnoDB;
Thing is for many types of applications transactions are rarely needed, and performance is more important than integrity. People use MySQL because it offers choice and flexibility (particularly with pluggable storage engines), and because finding people with reasonable MySQL skills is easy. People don't pick MySQL because of some idea that it is "perfect" because it's far from it.
For me, the reason I've never spent much time on Postgres is that I know MySQL well enough and haven't needed to look for alternatives and the perceived potential gain from what I have seen is too small to be worth the investment.