In this instance,.co is the TLD, and uk.co is the domain name.
When you registered fabianrodriguez.com you didn't register a subdomain, you registered a domain.
The registrar, or more accurately the registration agent, is not the same as the domain registrant. In this instance a registrant would be castle.uk.co - not the operation who sold the domain.
You're confusing yourself here.
I forsee more people sounding like Gollum ...
on
Slashdot over IPv6
·
· Score: 1
Yes, I can see that. I saw it when I read it. Now read my posting and tell me where I mention that you said it would pay for his taxis.
I merely pointed out that none of the CC income is scheduled to be assigned to non-transport related projects. If I'd have mentioned the doomed olympic bid, perhaps you'd have jumped to yet another conclusion.
I sincerely hope you don't jump to conclusions this fast when deciding where to mark your cross in the voting booth.
If you walk into Halfords and ask for a numberplate, they have to stick their postcode on it saying that they made it.
If that numberplate is then found to be used in dodgy circumstances, questions will be asked of Halfords by the plod.
If you're driving through central London everyday, you're likely to get involved in an accident - and if you have dodgy plates, the damage to your vehicle will be the least of your problems.
Up to you - you know the risks.
Personally I'm getting sick and tired of having to carry the can for low-life scum who think they are above the law. My insurance premiums are up, both car and house contents, council tax is up as is benefit fraud, the local park is a dump because people can't be arsed to take their litter home. No more will I look the other way and say "it's a victimless crime". I am the victim, and I pay more than my share because other people do not.
You're showing how little you understand about the process before starting to criticise it.
The revenue generated from the scheme is "ring-fenced", so none of it goes to pay for his shiny new offices, nor for his taxis he gets to get from home in Islington to the South Bank. (Ken is well known for taking public transport). Then again, as mayor of London maybe he should take heed of the advice from his security staff in these strange days, and take some kind of secure route to/from his offices.
You can level the "human factor" complaint at anything. How about the automated underground ticket system? Prestige cost a billion pounds, (figures here), five times that of the congestion charge, (figures here). NATS isn't doing that well either - have you ever been delayed at a UK airport due to "Air Traffic Control Issues"?
I can't see how you are so sure that this scheme is going to fail, other than you obviously have anti-Ken blinkers on. If so few people live in the centre of London, why is there so much traffic there? Oh, wait, it's because people work there... and shop there... and visit there... So let's cut down on the non-essential journies please.
I won't be in the country next time there's a mayoral election, and though I voted for Ken last time, I'd probably do it again this time, unless the CC scheme fails miserably and there's a candidate with a viable alternative (though I haven't heard of one) Somehow though, I don't think it will fail dismally. It may not do spectacularly well, but the money generated will be useful, and those who bus into London will be grateful.
Also, I've tried parking in Islington to visit a friend. But without a pass it's impossible without parking half a mile away from were you want to be. And passes are only issued to residents on a per street basis. Parking near the boundary will not "become a problem", it already is a problem.
1) Special font plates are illegal, maybe you're mixing it up with the fairly new law making it illegal to sell special font plates without the postcode of the maker on it.
2) Small motorbike plates are irrelevant here, as motorbikes are exempt from the charge.
3) Anything (e.g. mud, salt, bolts) covering your plates making them appear to be something that they are not, is illegal.
4) There is a real system for ambiguous plates to be checked by hand, so you're talking out of your tail pipe.
I already have One Hell of a Problem when trying to get through central London on a bus - idiots parking in bus lanes, White Van Man driving through rather than round, and the amount of traffic in general. If people are put off entering central London, hurray! I may get a bus ride that doesn't take an hour. If not, then there's the bonus that more money is available to be pumped back into the transport system of London.
Surely, the fact that you are driving on the PUBLIC highway means that very fact is in the PUBLIC domain. What's your privacy point here?
I am all for privacy of things meant to be private, like what I do in my own home and details about me that should not be made public, but I can't understand how this is a privacy issue when clearly you are out in public. I could stand on a street corner with a clip-board and jot down the plates of vehicles passing if I want, no law against that, nor if the council did it either. This is simply a more efficient way of deploying "clip-boards".
I suspect you'd be near the front of the queue of people complaining about wasting money if Red Ken had decided to employ thousands of clip-boarders.
Do you have a better way of reducing congestion or even pollution in central London?
Maybe if there were a decent UK based software house that could do the work...... or if the UK companies could compete on prices...... or if Ken were looking at bang for buck rather than spending more than there was in his wallet...
That won't work in London for a number of reasons. It may be something to think about in the USA, but not here.
In London, there is no room for "innovative motorways to decrease congestion". Many major roads out of London are single file in some places (A4, A3, even the A1). The buildings that get in the way are not only inhabited, but in some cases listed buildings (i.e. of historical or architectural interest and therefore protected).
Better public transportation? Well, the underground is DEEP undergound in central London, and the geology of the city makes it difficult to run new tunnels through the area. There have already been some land collapses due to tunnel digging.
No government is going to introduce a GBP500 tax on cars. Can you imagine the outcry in New York (or Chicago!) if each car cost the owner an extra USD800 per year? Not only would households be paying USD1,600 extra for no added benefit (I drove then, I drive now but pay more...) but the money goes to the GOVERNMENT! Yeah, like that'll make everyone happy...
Nope, you hit the problem on the head with "attitude", but as we're all human, that's not going to work. We're all selfish, and the planet was doomed from the day we discovered tools.
Excuse me while I fill up at 80p per litre. (GBP4.40 per UK gallon = USD7 per UK gallon)
I'm surprised no-one has mentioned (or maybe I missed it) that drivers of alternative fuel vehicles are exempt from the charge.
It's not only the amount of traffic on the roads in central London that's the problem, it's also the level of pollution. So hopefully this initiative will encourage the use of less polluting vehicles.
Pollution and congestion has been a problem for years in central London, and even if you can't stand Ken Livingstone, mayor of London, you have to admire him for actually doing something about it, rather than moan about it like other politicians.
You seem to think that all television exists to sell audiences to sponsors. Here in the UK, the major broadcaster is the BBC. In this case, the world's first regular broadcaster of high-definition television serves the public, with no main-channel TV sponsorship contracts to tie them.
It works well - they make excellent programmes, which alas are often repeated, but they run from start to finish with no ad breaks. It's funded by the government, who levy a tax (about US$170 per year) applied to people with TVs. The money buys you a licence to watch TV, and gives the BBC a fund to play with as they see fit. So far, it seems to have worked - great drama, documentaries, game shows, news.
So your leap from Television isn't free (true) to Every minute of commercial TV is a transaction (also true) and finally to the purpose of TV isn't to entertain the masses... the purpose of TV is to sell audiences to sponsors (false) misses out a vital step, i.e. that it's not only commercial TV that exists and flourishes.
If you've never enjoyed the BBC, you've missed a lot. My Canadian wife moved here and was shocked that each household had to pay about a hundred quid a year for a licence to watch TV. Now we're planning on moving to Canada, she says she'll miss the BBC a lot. So will I - I've seen North American TV:-)
Would this be the six year period where the US sat on their arses for two years until they were attacked?
Europeans are quite happy to let Europeans be Europeans, and Americans be Americans. Europe is great, America is free, and vice versa. Neither is perfect, and if you don't like one you can go live in the other (or at least apply to).
European bigots piss me off, but so do Americans who think they know better simply because they're American.
Socialism is alive and well thank you. Plenty of socialist governments exist, and have done for decades, in peace and democratic freedom. I think you're mixing up the brands of left wing politics, which is easy to do if all you've been exposed to in 70 years is that "socialism = communism = pinko-commie-scum-must-die".
I also find it very odd that "liberal" is a dirty word in a nation that preaches liberty above all else.
We obviously work in different universes, and it seems from your own admission you are in the wrong one. Everyone in yours has the same at-odds-with-your viewpoint on phones. Mine is different, I suggest you switch universes.
The one I inhabit, people have a switched on attitude to the levels of immediacy and urgency, and not everyone has a pager. Maybe it's a culural thing - I live in the UK.
As for wilderness hike - that would have been a choice I made before going, i.e. to sever links with the "outside world". Choices such as that were unavailable 20 years ago, as the ability to be in touch 24/7 wasn't yet widespread.
You're right when you say that in theory the call is most likely not an emergency, but if my wife is in a car crash, I'd rather be on the way to the hospital than arguing about next year's widget quota.
If someone walks up to me to chat about something in my cube, they expect that we may be interrupted. If they say, "this is important", we'd likely adjourn to somewhere without interruptions. Failing that, I'd kick the phone to Mailbox mode. There are times when I don't want to be interrupted by anything, and times that I don't mind. Widgets can wait 20 seconds for a phone call - if not, it's a sad, sad universe.
That's a bit different from "just because the phone rings does not mean you have to answer it. In fact if there is someone physically in your presense it is IMPOLITE to answer the phone unless you are expecting an emergency"...
I could send my wife out of the room when the phone rings before I answer it, but she'd get a bit suspicious.
Fact is, the person calling may have an emergency, but you won't know unless you answer the phone. How do they know that you're deeply engrossed in a deeply meaningful discussion about how many widgets you have to produce next week. Your wife being hit by a car is oh-so less important.
It's about choice. If the phone rings and I'm too busy with someone else, I'll let it ring. Such instances are rare though, as I am surrounded by people who understand the way business is conducted. Unless the discussion is REALLY important, the phone gets answered. Anything REALLY important tends to get addressed immediately, or in places away from the admin area of my desk. In your case, "asking a deep technical question" would probably mean us slipping off to a meeting room for privacy, or sticking the phone onto Mailbox mode.
I'm assuming that this is common, as it's been the MO everywhere I've worked for the past 20 years.
Nothing at all - but the post to which I was commenting said nothing about Canada in particular, so I took it that you were making a general economic reference, in that it's a given that you cannot cut social programs and shunt the money over to military applications when you need to, in ANY country.
My wife is Canadian, so I keep one eye on the.ca press.
Yeah, well so "are" mugging as an expression of my human poverty, by that argument.
If freedom of speech is absolute, then I'd like to see the right to life as absolute, and bring an end to the death penalty. That's just as much in the US constitution as freedom of speech isn't it? "Life, liberty and etc."
Why is there a law against mugging? Because it's wrong? Who said it's wrong? Is it because there's a victim who is disadvantaged by the actions of another, actions specifically perpetrated to disadvantage that victim? Maybe so... Now apply that logic to hate speech. An action specifically perpetrated to disadvantage a victim. Why is that not a crime?
Is it because there's no outwardly perceived crime? So why is telling sexist jokes in an office something that gets you on the wrong end of a law suit?
Let's be consistent about this please, at the very least. Freedom of speech follows freedom not to be killed by the State, and freedom to say what I like where I like. If you're going to stamp on any one of those, why complain about stamping on Hate Speech?
That's PEANUTS. It won't even affect their budget, which is probably measured in $M, or at worst, $0.1M. I work in a global automotive comany, and strategy bit of the service slice of the dealer portion of the IT section of the European arm of the marketing division has budgets allocated in $0.1M.
Then again, the way NASA's budget is heading, it could well eat up the majority of their budget in a decade or so.
I suspect that if you were to ask a random sample of anyone (/.ers, Americans, Corporate Whores, even the (wo)man on the street in London/Paris/Sydney/Rio/Cape Town/Tokyo) who springs to mind first when you utter the phrase "I'll sue your ass off at the drop of a hat", the answer will more than likely be "Americans" rather than "Corporate Whores".
Meanwhile, back on topic, what's the definition of "publishing", when considering web pages? The act of uploadiong, or the act of linking to it? Discuss...
Slashdot Mirror
Ex-squeeze me?
.co is the TLD, and uk.co is the domain name.
In this instance,
When you registered fabianrodriguez.com you didn't register a subdomain, you registered a domain.
The registrar, or more accurately the registration agent, is not the same as the domain registrant. In this instance a registrant would be castle.uk.co - not the operation who sold the domain.
You're confusing yourself here.
goatse.cx.sixxs.org
My precioussssss.....
Yes, I can see that. I saw it when I read it. Now read my posting and tell me where I mention that you said it would pay for his taxis.
I merely pointed out that none of the CC income is scheduled to be assigned to non-transport related projects. If I'd have mentioned the doomed olympic bid, perhaps you'd have jumped to yet another conclusion.
I sincerely hope you don't jump to conclusions this fast when deciding where to mark your cross in the voting booth.
If you walk into Halfords and ask for a numberplate, they have to stick their postcode on it saying that they made it.
...
If that numberplate is then found to be used in dodgy circumstances, questions will be asked of Halfords by the plod.
If you're driving through central London everyday, you're likely to get involved in an accident - and if you have dodgy plates, the damage to your vehicle will be the least of your problems.
Up to you - you know the risks.
Personally I'm getting sick and tired of having to carry the can for low-life scum who think they are above the law. My insurance premiums are up, both car and house contents, council tax is up as is benefit fraud, the local park is a dump because people can't be arsed to take their litter home. No more will I look the other way and say "it's a victimless crime". I am the victim, and I pay more than my share because other people do not.
Excuse the rant. Must go lie down
You're showing how little you understand about the process before starting to criticise it.
... and shop there ... and visit there ... So let's cut down on the non-essential journies please.
The revenue generated from the scheme is "ring-fenced", so none of it goes to pay for his shiny new offices, nor for his taxis he gets to get from home in Islington to the South Bank. (Ken is well known for taking public transport). Then again, as mayor of London maybe he should take heed of the advice from his security staff in these strange days, and take some kind of secure route to/from his offices.
You can level the "human factor" complaint at anything. How about the automated underground ticket system? Prestige cost a billion pounds, (figures here), five times that of the congestion charge, (figures here). NATS isn't doing that well either - have you ever been delayed at a UK airport due to "Air Traffic Control Issues"?
I can't see how you are so sure that this scheme is going to fail, other than you obviously have anti-Ken blinkers on. If so few people live in the centre of London, why is there so much traffic there? Oh, wait, it's because people work there
I won't be in the country next time there's a mayoral election, and though I voted for Ken last time, I'd probably do it again this time, unless the CC scheme fails miserably and there's a candidate with a viable alternative (though I haven't heard of one) Somehow though, I don't think it will fail dismally. It may not do spectacularly well, but the money generated will be useful, and those who bus into London will be grateful.
Also, I've tried parking in Islington to visit a friend. But without a pass it's impossible without parking half a mile away from were you want to be. And passes are only issued to residents on a per street basis. Parking near the boundary will not "become a problem", it already is a problem.
Why is this +5 insightful?
1) Special font plates are illegal, maybe you're mixing it up with the fairly new law making it illegal to sell special font plates without the postcode of the maker on it.
2) Small motorbike plates are irrelevant here, as motorbikes are exempt from the charge.
3) Anything (e.g. mud, salt, bolts) covering your plates making them appear to be something that they are not, is illegal.
4) There is a real system for ambiguous plates to be checked by hand, so you're talking out of your tail pipe.
I already have One Hell of a Problem when trying to get through central London on a bus - idiots parking in bus lanes, White Van Man driving through rather than round, and the amount of traffic in general. If people are put off entering central London, hurray! I may get a bus ride that doesn't take an hour. If not, then there's the bonus that more money is available to be pumped back into the transport system of London.
Surely, the fact that you are driving on the PUBLIC highway means that very fact is in the PUBLIC domain. What's your privacy point here?
I am all for privacy of things meant to be private, like what I do in my own home and details about me that should not be made public, but I can't understand how this is a privacy issue when clearly you are out in public. I could stand on a street corner with a clip-board and jot down the plates of vehicles passing if I want, no law against that, nor if the council did it either. This is simply a more efficient way of deploying "clip-boards".
I suspect you'd be near the front of the queue of people complaining about wasting money if Red Ken had decided to employ thousands of clip-boarders.
Do you have a better way of reducing congestion or even pollution in central London?
Maybe if there were a decent UK based software house that could do the work
That won't work in London for a number of reasons. It may be something to think about in the USA, but not here.
In London, there is no room for "innovative motorways to decrease congestion". Many major roads out of London are single file in some places (A4, A3, even the A1). The buildings that get in the way are not only inhabited, but in some cases listed buildings (i.e. of historical or architectural interest and therefore protected).
Better public transportation? Well, the underground is DEEP undergound in central London, and the geology of the city makes it difficult to run new tunnels through the area. There have already been some land collapses due to tunnel digging.
No government is going to introduce a GBP500 tax on cars. Can you imagine the outcry in New York (or Chicago!) if each car cost the owner an extra USD800 per year? Not only would households be paying USD1,600 extra for no added benefit (I drove then, I drive now but pay more...) but the money goes to the GOVERNMENT! Yeah, like that'll make everyone happy...
Nope, you hit the problem on the head with "attitude", but as we're all human, that's not going to work. We're all selfish, and the planet was doomed from the day we discovered tools.
Excuse me while I fill up at 80p per litre. (GBP4.40 per UK gallon = USD7 per UK gallon)
I'm surprised no-one has mentioned (or maybe I missed it) that drivers of alternative fuel vehicles are exempt from the charge.
It's not only the amount of traffic on the roads in central London that's the problem, it's also the level of pollution. So hopefully this initiative will encourage the use of less polluting vehicles.
Pollution and congestion has been a problem for years in central London, and even if you can't stand Ken Livingstone, mayor of London, you have to admire him for actually doing something about it, rather than moan about it like other politicians.
Correction - it has had 3 changes, and four codes:
I'm afraid you have the misconception.
:-)
...
You seem to think that all television exists to sell audiences to sponsors. Here in the UK, the major broadcaster is the BBC. In this case, the world's first regular broadcaster of high-definition television serves the public, with no main-channel TV sponsorship contracts to tie them.
It works well - they make excellent programmes, which alas are often repeated, but they run from start to finish with no ad breaks. It's funded by the government, who levy a tax (about US$170 per year) applied to people with TVs. The money buys you a licence to watch TV, and gives the BBC a fund to play with as they see fit. So far, it seems to have worked - great drama, documentaries, game shows, news.
So your leap from Television isn't free (true) to Every minute of commercial TV is a transaction (also true) and finally to the purpose of TV isn't to entertain the masses... the purpose of TV is to sell audiences to sponsors (false) misses out a vital step, i.e. that it's not only commercial TV that exists and flourishes.
If you've never enjoyed the BBC, you've missed a lot. My Canadian wife moved here and was shocked that each household had to pay about a hundred quid a year for a licence to watch TV. Now we're planning on moving to Canada, she says she'll miss the BBC a lot. So will I - I've seen North American TV
Chill
Would this be the six year period where the US sat on their arses for two years until they were attacked?
Europeans are quite happy to let Europeans be Europeans, and Americans be Americans. Europe is great, America is free, and vice versa. Neither is perfect, and if you don't like one you can go live in the other (or at least apply to).
European bigots piss me off, but so do Americans who think they know better simply because they're American.
We're different but equal. Deal with it.
Socialism is alive and well thank you. Plenty of socialist governments exist, and have done for decades, in peace and democratic freedom. I think you're mixing up the brands of left wing politics, which is easy to do if all you've been exposed to in 70 years is that "socialism = communism = pinko-commie-scum-must-die".
I also find it very odd that "liberal" is a dirty word in a nation that preaches liberty above all else.
Gr
We obviously work in different universes, and it seems from your own admission you are in the wrong one. Everyone in yours has the same at-odds-with-your viewpoint on phones. Mine is different, I suggest you switch universes.
The one I inhabit, people have a switched on attitude to the levels of immediacy and urgency, and not everyone has a pager. Maybe it's a culural thing - I live in the UK.
As for wilderness hike - that would have been a choice I made before going, i.e. to sever links with the "outside world". Choices such as that were unavailable 20 years ago, as the ability to be in touch 24/7 wasn't yet widespread.
You're right when you say that in theory the call is most likely not an emergency, but if my wife is in a car crash, I'd rather be on the way to the hospital than arguing about next year's widget quota.
If someone walks up to me to chat about something in my cube, they expect that we may be interrupted. If they say, "this is important", we'd likely adjourn to somewhere without interruptions. Failing that, I'd kick the phone to Mailbox mode. There are times when I don't want to be interrupted by anything, and times that I don't mind. Widgets can wait 20 seconds for a phone call - if not, it's a sad, sad universe.
Gr
1. Spot a vacancy
2. Write a resume
3. ???????
4. Get hired!
That's a bit different from "just because the phone rings does not mean you have to answer it. In fact if there is someone physically in your presense it is IMPOLITE to answer the phone unless you are expecting an emergency" ...
:)
I could send my wife out of the room when the phone rings before I answer it, but she'd get a bit suspicious.
Fact is, the person calling may have an emergency, but you won't know unless you answer the phone. How do they know that you're deeply engrossed in a deeply meaningful discussion about how many widgets you have to produce next week. Your wife being hit by a car is oh-so less important.
It's about choice. If the phone rings and I'm too busy with someone else, I'll let it ring. Such instances are rare though, as I am surrounded by people who understand the way business is conducted. Unless the discussion is REALLY important, the phone gets answered. Anything REALLY important tends to get addressed immediately, or in places away from the admin area of my desk. In your case, "asking a deep technical question" would probably mean us slipping off to a meeting room for privacy, or sticking the phone onto Mailbox mode.
I'm assuming that this is common, as it's been the MO everywhere I've worked for the past 20 years.
Less of a troll
Gr
Nothing at all - but the post to which I was commenting said nothing about Canada in particular, so I took it that you were making a general economic reference, in that it's a given that you cannot cut social programs and shunt the money over to military applications when you need to, in ANY country.
My wife is Canadian, so I keep one eye on the
Gr
Bunkum.
... are specifically human
... Now apply that logic to hate speech. An action specifically perpetrated to disadvantage a victim. Why is that not a crime?
Speech
Yeah, well so "are" mugging as an expression of my human poverty, by that argument.
If freedom of speech is absolute, then I'd like to see the right to life as absolute, and bring an end to the death penalty. That's just as much in the US constitution as freedom of speech isn't it? "Life, liberty and etc."
Why is there a law against mugging? Because it's wrong? Who said it's wrong? Is it because there's a victim who is disadvantaged by the actions of another, actions specifically perpetrated to disadvantage that victim? Maybe so
Is it because there's no outwardly perceived crime? So why is telling sexist jokes in an office something that gets you on the wrong end of a law suit?
Let's be consistent about this please, at the very least. Freedom of speech follows freedom not to be killed by the State, and freedom to say what I like where I like. If you're going to stamp on any one of those, why complain about stamping on Hate Speech?
Gr
They're spending $15K on this
That's PEANUTS. It won't even affect their budget, which is probably measured in $M, or at worst, $0.1M. I work in a global automotive comany, and strategy bit of the service slice of the dealer portion of the IT section of the European arm of the marketing division has budgets allocated in $0.1M.
Then again, the way NASA's budget is heading, it could well eat up the majority of their budget in a decade or so.
Gr
What is the alternate use of that money?
Perhaps it could be used to feed starving children, or reduce global warming or process sperm whales into reactor fuel rods.
Fair point, if any of those uses were within NASA's remit.
Ignore an idiot and he'll be annoying. Teach an idiot and he'll be amore annoying but in a way you can influence.
Gr
Nope, I meant Sept. 11th attacks.
Maybe you mean Sept. 17th.
1862.
Gr
The biggest problem with social programs is that you can't cut them and shunt the money over to military applications when you need to.
Obviously no-one's told GWB this.
Gr
I suspect that if you were to ask a random sample of anyone (/.ers, Americans, Corporate Whores, even the (wo)man on the street in London/Paris/Sydney/Rio/Cape Town/Tokyo) who springs to mind first when you utter the phrase "I'll sue your ass off at the drop of a hat", the answer will more than likely be "Americans" rather than "Corporate Whores".
Meanwhile, back on topic, what's the definition of "publishing", when considering web pages? The act of uploadiong, or the act of linking to it? Discuss
Gr
Perfectly cromulent.