Do you REALLY want your toaster to electrocute you because the maker cut corners with the safety checks in engineering or hired insufficiently qualified engineers?
Fair enough, but many in Britain think that new regulations are strangling our innovative culture. In the trade-off between cost and risk, there is a lot of room for some people to exploit others using the politics of permits. I don't know who is worse - the greedy or the fearful.
In any case, the British way is to accept that life is risky and always ends miserably, so let's have some fun without Euro-beamters poking their noses in all the time.
There's a Germanic streak in North American society. It's odd that in the land of the free, often we need a license for this and a permit for that and so on. It's getting bad in the UK now as well, thanks to a load of regulations from our friends in Europe.
On the other hand, I guess all that permit stamping and inspection stuff makes work for somebody, somewhere. But does it do any good apart from that?
No need to worry about Britain. The UK is a leading trillion dollar economy - one of the strongest in Europe. While manufacturing has been in decline for 50 years, it still has the edge in some sectors, for example aero engines.
It may be small, but if you flattened it out, it would be bigger than California! It was the Welsh who first colonised the American mid West. They needed somewhere flat to keep their stuff.
Or use RMAN/NetBack integration to make a full hot backup of your data using a 12 terrabyte tape robot and a backup catalog without stopping operations - that's what I call backup.
If something bad happens and humans life is wiped out on Earth, it would only be a very Good Thing to have humans/life beyond Earth if I was one of the human beings, otherwise I'd be dead, and who could give a hoot when they are dead?
I hope the gcc on this version works better than the one on Fedora Core 1. My makefiles make bad code on FC1, and I've more or less abandoned it. Now I do most of my stuff on Solaris instead.
No way is it the same as Open Source. I'm assuming that the source code of Dynac is closed source/trade secret and has been cut to fit the specific bespoke requirements on this job. In some bespoke software models, it is advantageous to prevent access to the source, and limit interoperability with the outside world, in order to prolong the business relationship and create repeat business, by creating high costs to switch. It is a very old trick that all proper project managers are wary of. But it is quite legal unless the contract says otherwise.
Transdyn have a SCADA system called Dynac. Now Honeywell have a contract to build the next phase of the control system and Transdyn "refused to turn over the Dynac source code to Honeywell, claiming that the technology was proprietary".
Do the Project Managers even know that SCADA software is almost always a trade-secret, like Windows or anything else? Just because Dynac had been modified as part of the project does not mean that it is state property, or Open Source or anything at all, unless the contract says that.
The BBC made untrue allegations that Downing Street knowingly issued false information that Iraq could launch WMD in 45-minutes. It did turn out that the information was false, but it was not shown that Downing Street knew it was false at the time. The BBC was in the wrong, but Downing Street may not have been. In the aftermath, the BBC handled the matter very poorly, resulting in the resignation of the Boss, Greg Dyke.
It is speculation to suggest that the outcome of the review is related to the WMD issue.
It's an easy mistake to make. The UK is totally London Centric. All the roads and rail routes lead out like spokes from London, all the media is centered in London, London is the economic focus of the country and London has all the main airports. All major trials are conducted in London, almost all laws are made in London and most of the taxes are administered from London. The governement is based in London, the main banks and many other important businesses have thier head offices in London and the national TV company, BBC, has shows mostly about London and is firmly centred in London. The Bank of England is in London. The national bid for the Olympics wants the games in London. From North America, it looks like the rest of the UK is only there to support London!
I think that assessing works of art will always be a human speciality, because computers will turn out a lot of junk, and the occaisional hit that can be fished out by persons.
This is more or less how it goes with automated drug discovery. The system churns out millions of candidates, and filters millions of them them out itself, but the last few thousand have to be whittled away by a proper chemist, to find the real gems that might do something good.
Art can be classified as human art and artificial art, in the same way that intelligence can be grouped into human intelligence and artificial intelligence . And the Turing test can be used to assess it. The Turing test, when applied to systems, asks whether a user can determine whether a system is human or a computer. Similarly, the Turing Art Test (henceforth to be known as the Basingwerk Art Test!) will ask if a person can tell whether the art is artificial, and if not, then it is art.
We have the same problem in the UK, and I expect it is the same everywhere. I have worked on good projects backed by government money, but the problems seem to arise when the government is the provider of the detailed requirements. I think this is because the government can only provide top level requirements, and the detail should be fleshed out by experienced requirements analysts. Unfortunately, government organisations do not consist of high achievers who have made their way to the top through good decisions. Government organisations consist of people who have made their way to the top by cautiously waiting long enough, and their natural instinct is to avoid tough decisions. Of course, tough trade-offs have to be faced and dealt with to reach a coherent set of requirements. Any project with the government will not be able to do this without a lot of futile hand wringing and back tracking.
Coupled with all that is the fact that government people have an innate belief that they, not the technologists, are in control. They believe they can realise change faster that the technologists can provide it. Technology development has a pace that technologists understand, while government people have different objectives that may be changed in a hurry as public opinion sways this way and that.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you REALLY want your toaster to electrocute you because the maker cut corners with the safety checks in engineering or hired insufficiently qualified engineers?
Fair enough, but many in Britain think that new regulations are strangling our innovative culture. In the trade-off between cost and risk, there is a lot of room for some people to exploit others using the politics of permits. I don't know who is worse - the greedy or the fearful. In any case, the British way is to accept that life is risky and always ends miserably, so let's have some fun without Euro-beamters poking their noses in all the time.
There's a Germanic streak in North American society. It's odd that in the land of the free, often we need a license for this and a permit for that and so on. It's getting bad in the UK now as well, thanks to a load of regulations from our friends in Europe. On the other hand, I guess all that permit stamping and inspection stuff makes work for somebody, somewhere. But does it do any good apart from that?
How can Linux compete with the current desktop market leader, which surely must be either chipboard or pine?
No need to worry about Britain. The UK is a leading trillion dollar economy - one of the strongest in Europe. While manufacturing has been in decline for 50 years, it still has the edge in some sectors, for example aero engines.
> Greek roofs were described as "intellectually squalid" by
> the late civil engineer J E Gordon.
This J E Gordon bloke didn't invent the A-frame roof truss either, so he had nothing to boast about!
Yes ... many people can't afford to live in England, so they have to find somewhere else.
The Canadians have been operating one since 1995 (http://www.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca/ccrs/data/satsens/rad arsat/rsatndx_e.html). This was the first satellite to radar image the entire south pole.
You should move to England - the minimum wage there is $9!
It may be small, but if you flattened it out, it would be bigger than California! It was the Welsh who first colonised the American mid West. They needed somewhere flat to keep their stuff.
Once you have been colonised, you are always a colony, unless you get wiped out.
If colonies like Canada, America and Australia can call themselves nations, why can't a principality like Wales?
Or use RMAN/NetBack integration to make a full hot backup of your data using a 12 terrabyte tape robot and a backup catalog without stopping operations - that's what I call backup.
Network Rail is the new name for Rail Track, which came off the rails when it was split off from British Rail!
If something bad happens and humans life is wiped out on Earth, it would only be a very Good Thing to have humans/life beyond Earth if I was one of the human beings, otherwise I'd be dead, and who could give a hoot when they are dead?
I hope the gcc on this version works better than the one on Fedora Core 1. My makefiles make bad code on FC1, and I've more or less abandoned it. Now I do most of my stuff on Solaris instead.
Have you seen his elegant heapsort algorithm? No normal person could invent that!
No way is it the same as Open Source. I'm assuming that the source code of Dynac is closed source/trade secret and has been cut to fit the specific bespoke requirements on this job. In some bespoke software models, it is advantageous to prevent access to the source, and limit interoperability with the outside world, in order to prolong the business relationship and create repeat business, by creating high costs to switch. It is a very old trick that all proper project managers are wary of. But it is quite legal unless the contract says otherwise.
Transdyn have a SCADA system called Dynac. Now Honeywell have a contract to build the next phase of the control system and Transdyn "refused to turn over the Dynac source code to Honeywell, claiming that the technology was proprietary". Do the Project Managers even know that SCADA software is almost always a trade-secret, like Windows or anything else? Just because Dynac had been modified as part of the project does not mean that it is state property, or Open Source or anything at all, unless the contract says that.
This is fine and dandy as long as it is not elCAIDA behind all this.
The BBC made untrue allegations that Downing Street knowingly issued false information that Iraq could launch WMD in 45-minutes. It did turn out that the information was false, but it was not shown that Downing Street knew it was false at the time. The BBC was in the wrong, but Downing Street may not have been. In the aftermath, the BBC handled the matter very poorly, resulting in the resignation of the Boss, Greg Dyke. It is speculation to suggest that the outcome of the review is related to the WMD issue.
It's an easy mistake to make. The UK is totally London Centric. All the roads and rail routes lead out like spokes from London, all the media is centered in London, London is the economic focus of the country and London has all the main airports. All major trials are conducted in London, almost all laws are made in London and most of the taxes are administered from London. The governement is based in London, the main banks and many other important businesses have thier head offices in London and the national TV company, BBC, has shows mostly about London and is firmly centred in London. The Bank of England is in London. The national bid for the Olympics wants the games in London. From North America, it looks like the rest of the UK is only there to support London!
You also pay to get the plastic carrier bag, which you can re-use whenever you go shopping to make people think you've been to Harrods!
I think that assessing works of art will always be a human speciality, because computers will turn out a lot of junk, and the occaisional hit that can be fished out by persons. This is more or less how it goes with automated drug discovery. The system churns out millions of candidates, and filters millions of them them out itself, but the last few thousand have to be whittled away by a proper chemist, to find the real gems that might do something good.
Art can be classified as human art and artificial art, in the same way that intelligence can be grouped into human intelligence and artificial intelligence . And the Turing test can be used to assess it. The Turing test, when applied to systems, asks whether a user can determine whether a system is human or a computer. Similarly, the Turing Art Test (henceforth to be known as the Basingwerk Art Test!) will ask if a person can tell whether the art is artificial, and if not, then it is art.
We have the same problem in the UK, and I expect it is the same everywhere. I have worked on good projects backed by government money, but the problems seem to arise when the government is the provider of the detailed requirements. I think this is because the government can only provide top level requirements, and the detail should be fleshed out by experienced requirements analysts. Unfortunately, government organisations do not consist of high achievers who have made their way to the top through good decisions. Government organisations consist of people who have made their way to the top by cautiously waiting long enough, and their natural instinct is to avoid tough decisions. Of course, tough trade-offs have to be faced and dealt with to reach a coherent set of requirements. Any project with the government will not be able to do this without a lot of futile hand wringing and back tracking. Coupled with all that is the fact that government people have an innate belief that they, not the technologists, are in control. They believe they can realise change faster that the technologists can provide it. Technology development has a pace that technologists understand, while government people have different objectives that may be changed in a hurry as public opinion sways this way and that.