Being able to move to a different network and keep the same number is a benefit, as it lets you move to a better tariff if there's a better one available, without having to change your number. As for the disadvantages, Oftel have an entry in their faq about this (only applies to the uk, I assume.)
Basically, from a landline, calls will be charged at the rate for the origonal network, not the network the number has been ported to. For calls from a mobile, the charge will be according to current network. They (Oftel) don't see any reason why charging for mobile to mobile calls needs to change ("Although some charges may be more than anticipated, callers my also be pleasantly surprised when an assumed off-net call is charged at an on-net tariff.")
Who calls land lines anymore if they can avoid it? Me. Because, unless I'm calling someone else on Orange, landlines are cheeper to call (free, if I haven't used all my inclusive minutes for the month yet.)
That's not gonna happen. Why? Money. The paid links are how search engines make their money (what would be the point otherwise?) so unless you're willing to pay for paid-link-free searching, they aint gonna give you an option to remove the paid links.
Unauthorised access carries a maximum of six months and/or a fine. Unauthorised access "with intent to commit or facilitate commission of further offences", or unauthorised modification, can get you up to five years and/or a larger fine.
Well of course not. Its taken centuries of inbreeding and pampering to produce our high-quality barmy old fogies. You can't expect other countries to even come close to that, old boy;-)
Well, according to JaNet's "External Network access Provision" page, there's another 2.5Gbits from JaNet to the US that isn't KPNQ. And, incidentally, my connection to slashdot, from bris.ac.uk (on janet,) doesn't go via any of janet's transatlantic links, it goes though linx and then UUNet. No black holes here, thank you very much:-)
"A few of the currently delegated ccTLDs do not appear on the ISO 3166-1 list. The United Kingdom was assigned the ccTLD.uk in the mid-1980s even though ISO 3166-1 calls for use of.gb. This assignment occurred before the IANA began using any standard list of country-code abbreviations. During a brief period in 1996, the IANA followed the policy of delegating ccTLDs not only from the ISO 3166-1 list but also from codes the ISO 3166 Maintenance Agency had reserved specifically for purposes of the Universal Postal Union. That policy proved unsatisfactory and was quickly abandoned in favor of strict adherence to the ISO 3166-1 list. Finally, a few ccTLDs that were established from the ISO 3166-1 list were later deleted from that list. An example is the ccTLD for Zaire,.zr." (http://www.iana.org/reports/ps-report-22mar00.htm )
IMHO, UK is a better abreviation of "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" than GB is, but I'm not the ISO 3166 Maintenance Agency, so...
Here we have an artice that's, basically, saying "Lack of data retention is bad. It helps terrorists." Four articles further down the front page, we have an article critising EU data renention policies, on the grounds that it's a privacy breach to force companies to retain data. (From the summary - "[it's] so that law enforcement can go data-mining.") Look, you can't have your cake and eat it. Either don't enforce data retention, and accept that data you would like to have access to will sometimes be lost, or you force data retention and accept that you might lose a bit of privacy as a result. (But hey, it's to stop terrorism, so it must be OK, right?)
Last I checked, Canada was on the continent of America, thus you are an American. Unless, of course, you've been busy with the hacksaws recently, and sliced yourselves off from the USA. Yeah, I know, I'm being pedantic, but it's 10 to 3 in the morning...
Of course an egg or sperm cannot, on it's own, become human. But, your definition of human (which, incidentally, is a circular definition - it doesn't really define what a human is) only asks that it have the capability to become human. And an egg or sperm does have that capability, although it requires a specific event (combining with a sperm or egg, respectivly) to occur before that capability can be realised.
Of course, arguing over semantics can seem utterly pointless, but there are two flaws in your definition of human - firstly that it seems to require that eggs and sperm be classed as human, and secondly that it is a circular definition - by extending it, we can get that a human is what has the capability of forming what has the capability of forming what has the capability of forming what has the capability of forming.......... ad infinitum (or at least until it seg faults or something - hey, this is slashdot, the occasional geek joke is obligitory, and it's 3:10am, so it doesn't have to be a funny joke:-) )
The definition of what is human is what has the capability of forming a human.
OK, starting from there...
An embryo has the capability of forming a human, so by your definition, it is a human.
Now, if the embryo is human, then that which has the capability to form an embryo is human. That is, an egg or a sperm, which have the capability to form a human, are therefore, by your definition, human.
Should masturbation therefore be classed as murder, since it is destroying sperm? (Which have the capability of forming a human, and so by your definition are human.) How about menstruation - every month, an egg (with the capability to form a human) is lost by every woman from puberty until the menopause. Should we do something about that, too?
Clearly these are rediculous positions to hold, but they follow logically from you're definition of what a human is.
A classic song by Monty Python comes to mind, doesn't it?
"10 years ago we gave a bunch of colleged kids arapnet, and we got the web."
I think you'll find the web started life at CERN.
Now, maybe I'm being pedantic, but I don't think they would apreciate being called "a bunch of colleged kids."
And a foot is defined as 12 inches, and an inch is defined as 0.0254 metres. Incidentally, this gives a mile as being 1,609.344 metres, but I think we can put that 7.85cm down to rounding errors:-)
Using the notes from my stats lecture this morning (yeah, I'm a student, but I can plug numbers into formulae perfectly well:-) ) I reckon that, given a mean time between earthquakes of 1 minute, the probability of two detectable quakes in 30 seconds is 0.39 (i.e. 39%) As for them being on opposite sides of the planet, well, I'm not a staistician, I'm an engineering student who's forced to learn some stats:-)
Are you calling me an American? Because, if you are, I think we should step outside to discuss this matter. Of course the boycott wasn't the only reason for the fall of apartheid, but it did have an effect.
One of RMS's criticisms of the Plan 9 lisence is that:
Plane 9 lisence: Distribution of Licensed Software to third parties pursuant to this grant shall be subject to the same terms and conditions as set forth in this Agreement,
RMS: This seems to say when you redistribute you must insist on a contract with the recipients, just as Lucent demands when you download it.
The GPL states that:
You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.
So, it seems to me that RMS is criticising Plan 9's lisence for doing exactly the same thing as the GPL does. Can you say hypocrite, Richard?
Slashdot Mirror
Being able to move to a different network and keep the same number is a benefit, as it lets you move to a better tariff if there's a better one available, without having to change your number. As for the disadvantages, Oftel have an entry in their faq about this (only applies to the uk, I assume.)
Basically, from a landline, calls will be charged at the rate for the origonal network, not the network the number has been ported to. For calls from a mobile, the charge will be according to current network. They (Oftel) don't see any reason why charging for mobile to mobile calls needs to change ("Although some charges may be more than anticipated, callers my also be pleasantly surprised when an assumed off-net call is charged at an on-net tariff.")
Who calls land lines anymore if they can avoid it?
Me. Because, unless I'm calling someone else on Orange, landlines are cheeper to call (free, if I haven't used all my inclusive minutes for the month yet.)
Just to add, it's just gone 2am here, I'm allowed to have a humour failure and try to be a smartarse.
483km/litre = 1.22*10^-8 lightyear/hogshead
Common sense in the legal system?????
Since when was there are of that, eh?
That's not gonna happen.
Why?
Money.
The paid links are how search engines make their money (what would be the point otherwise?) so unless you're willing to pay for paid-link-free searching, they aint gonna give you an option to remove the paid links.
Unauthorised access carries a maximum of six months and/or a fine.
Unauthorised access "with intent to commit or facilitate commission of further offences", or unauthorised modification, can get you up to five years and/or a larger fine.
The web.
(well sort of. Tim Berners-Lee is a Brit, but he was working at cern, in Switzerland, at the time)
Since we're in an "international thingies" mood...
A pound sign look like this: £
# is called a hash.
Well of course not. ;-)
Its taken centuries of inbreeding and pampering to produce our high-quality barmy old fogies. You can't expect other countries to even come close to that, old boy
Janet's connections are not, and were not, solely KPNQwest. There's LINX, GÉANT, and Teleglobe as well.
Well, according to JaNet's "External Network access Provision" page, there's another 2.5Gbits from JaNet to the US that isn't KPNQ. And, incidentally, my connection to slashdot, from bris.ac.uk (on janet,) doesn't go via any of janet's transatlantic links, it goes though linx and then UUNet. No black holes here, thank you very much :-)
"A few of the currently delegated ccTLDs do not appear on the ISO 3166-1 list. The United Kingdom was assigned the ccTLD .uk in the mid-1980s even though ISO 3166-1 calls for use of .gb. This assignment occurred before the IANA began using any standard list of country-code abbreviations. During a brief period in 1996, the IANA followed the policy of delegating ccTLDs not only from the ISO 3166-1 list but also from codes the ISO 3166 Maintenance Agency had reserved specifically for purposes of the Universal Postal Union. That policy proved unsatisfactory and was quickly abandoned in favor of strict adherence to the ISO 3166-1 list. Finally, a few ccTLDs that were established from the ISO 3166-1 list were later deleted from that list. An example is the ccTLD for Zaire, .zr." (http://www.iana.org/reports/ps-report-22mar00.htm )
IMHO, UK is a better abreviation of "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" than GB is, but I'm not the ISO 3166 Maintenance Agency, so...
Here we have an artice that's, basically, saying "Lack of data retention is bad. It helps terrorists."
Four articles further down the front page, we have an article critising EU data renention policies, on the grounds that it's a privacy breach to force companies to retain data. (From the summary - "[it's] so that law enforcement can go data-mining.")
Look, you can't have your cake and eat it. Either don't enforce data retention, and accept that data you would like to have access to will sometimes be lost, or you force data retention and accept that you might lose a bit of privacy as a result. (But hey, it's to stop terrorism, so it must be OK, right?)
Last I checked, Canada was on the continent of America, thus you are an American. Unless, of course, you've been busy with the hacksaws recently, and sliced yourselves off from the USA.
Yeah, I know, I'm being pedantic, but it's 10 to 3 in the morning...
That much, eh? ;-)
I only need a single bit of EWOM
Of course an egg or sperm cannot, on it's own, become human. But, your definition of human (which, incidentally, is a circular definition - it doesn't really define what a human is) only asks that it have the capability to become human. And an egg or sperm does have that capability, although it requires a specific event (combining with a sperm or egg, respectivly) to occur before that capability can be realised. :-) )
Of course, arguing over semantics can seem utterly pointless, but there are two flaws in your definition of human - firstly that it seems to require that eggs and sperm be classed as human, and secondly that it is a circular definition - by extending it, we can get that a human is what has the capability of forming what has the capability of forming what has the capability of forming what has the capability of forming.......... ad infinitum (or at least until it seg faults or something - hey, this is slashdot, the occasional geek joke is obligitory, and it's 3:10am, so it doesn't have to be a funny joke
The definition of what is human is what has the capability of forming a human.
OK, starting from there...
An embryo has the capability of forming a human, so by your definition, it is a human.
Now, if the embryo is human, then that which has the capability to form an embryo is human. That is, an egg or a sperm, which have the capability to form a human, are therefore, by your definition, human.
Should masturbation therefore be classed as murder, since it is destroying sperm? (Which have the capability of forming a human, and so by your definition are human.) How about menstruation - every month, an egg (with the capability to form a human) is lost by every woman from puberty until the menopause. Should we do something about that, too?
Clearly these are rediculous positions to hold, but they follow logically from you're definition of what a human is.
A classic song by Monty Python comes to mind, doesn't it?
This whole argument is rediculous.
Spelling error.
Oh, the irony. Unless I'm very much mistaken, that would be an example of Argumentum ad Hominem...
"10 years ago we gave a bunch of colleged kids arapnet, and we got the web."
I think you'll find the web started life at CERN.
Now, maybe I'm being pedantic, but I don't think they would apreciate being called "a bunch of colleged kids."
And a foot is defined as 12 inches, and an inch is defined as 0.0254 metres. :-)
Incidentally, this gives a mile as being 1,609.344 metres, but I think we can put that 7.85cm down to rounding errors
Using the notes from my stats lecture this morning (yeah, I'm a student, but I can plug numbers into formulae perfectly well :-) ) I reckon that, given a mean time between earthquakes of 1 minute, the probability of two detectable quakes in 30 seconds is 0.39 (i.e. 39%) :-)
As for them being on opposite sides of the planet, well, I'm not a staistician, I'm an engineering student who's forced to learn some stats
I might be being stoopid here (but hey, the only other psts here are a troll and two ACs posting the article) so bear with me...
Do stars not give out any infra-red? Because, if they do, surely that would swamp any I-R detector, and the planet wouldn't be seen.
Of course, IANAA (...astronomer) so if anyone wants to explain why I'm wrong, I'd like to know.
Are you calling me an American? Because, if you are, I think we should step outside to discuss this matter.
Of course the boycott wasn't the only reason for the fall of apartheid, but it did have an effect.
The boycott of South African products during apartheid.
:-) )
(Can I have that karma now?
One of RMS's criticisms of the Plan 9 lisence is that:
Plane 9 lisence: Distribution of Licensed Software to third parties pursuant to this grant shall be subject to the same terms and conditions as set forth in this Agreement,
RMS: This seems to say when you redistribute you must insist on a contract with the recipients, just as Lucent demands when you download it.
The GPL states that: You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.
So, it seems to me that RMS is criticising Plan 9's lisence for doing exactly the same thing as the GPL does. Can you say hypocrite, Richard?