I think it's a historical thing. Back in the '60s, when colour TV was introuced, it was more expensive to produce, so those equipped to receive it paid more than those still struggling along with 405-line VHF sets (like my family).
It used to be the case that people registered blind could have a colour set and only pay for a black & white licence. Nowadays, they just get a 10 quid reduction. So I suppose if a partially-sighted person wanted to save money, they could get an old black & white set from a junkshop and only pay 28.50.
(Totally OT, but I've always thought it mildly amusing that one of the first BBC shows produced in colour was The Black & White Minstrel Show;-)
follow this link... you'll have to use IE 5.0 on a windows machine, or turn off javascript in your browser to view it. http://www.buymusic.com/support/help.aspx#Howto_Bu rn
you must be on a Windows Operating System using Internet Explorer version 5.0 or higher
Hmm... I used Safari's Debug menu to make out I was using IE6 for Windoze, and the site loaded fine. (Couldn't download, being outside the States, but I've RTFA, so I wouldn't want to;-)
So they should change it to "This site doesn't actually require either Windoze or IE, but we're too stupid to realise that."
There's a Liberal Democrat MP here in the UK who has been trying, on behalf of his party, to interest the powers that be in showing some concern over this matter.
Unfortunately, the fact that his name is Lembit Opik means that in the Palace of Westminster, Fleet Street and BBC Television Centre, he is usually referred to as "Anagram".
As he's the only person going on about this, all serious debate is lost in the laughter surrounding his nickname.
I well remember the shift from 405 line VHF to 625 line UHF, mainly because we moved to a part of the country where our TV didn't work any more. It was probably that that got me vaguely interested in the subject ("I was a childhood nerd", etc.), but frankly I've devoted so much of my life to watching 405/625 line PAL that I don't think I can be sure of the difference that 109.25 lines per second might have made to my life, once summed and analysed.
In 2002, no federal wiretap reports indicated that encryption was encountered
One point to note is that the Russian mobile network uses GSM, which is (IIRC) encrypted by default. I think I'm correct in saying that in 2002, the US was predominantly using unencrypted analogue mobile phones. If they were in Russia (or indeed Europe), every mobile communication they tapped would be encrypted.
Then again, I get the impression that the NSA wouldn't have much trouble with GSM "encryption".
A "Nutshell" or "Definitive Guide" book isn't a learning resource; it's a reference.
If you can't be bothered to find out what a book is for before you buy it, that's your problem. O'Reilly have full details of all their books on their website, with sample chapters. Just check it out before you buy it; if you don't know enough about the subject to make use of the book, go elsewhere.
Java in a Nutshell is what it says - an encapsulation; not "Everything You Might Ever Want to Know About Java in 28 Days!!!". That's why it has that title, and is part of that series.
The Definitive Guides won't teach you the basics; that's why they aren't called "The Definitive Tutorial". They are the best reference books on their subjects, and the best to consult when you're most of the way there.
I believe some people do produce books with "For Dummies" in the title, but as you know enough to read O'Reilly books, they really should be beneath you;-) But please don't expect a book to do something other than what it says it will. I use O'Reilly's books every day, but I go elsewhere when I'm beginning.
And to get back on topic: I have well-worn copies of the first and current editions of this book, and it is the book to look stuff up in. But it won't get you through the start of the learning curve. That's what the web is for.
IANAL, but I always understood that theft involved the intention to permanently deprive the owner of their property. If you got caught with the stereo, you would have to prove that you intended to give it back (which would be difficult), but once it had been returned, legally there would have been no theft.
Perhaps (I'm just guessing now) that's why a burglar will be done for breaking and entering - to avoid them escaping a theft charge.
(This is all based on my very vague understanding of English common law.)
Exactly. Usual procedure is a front page splash saying <Famous Name here> Sucks Horse's Cock See pages 2,3,4,5,6,7 & 13, followed within days/weeks/months (depending on how long Press Complaints Commission/lawyers dick about for) by a small box on page 37, below the fold in 4 point type, saying "Sorry, we made that up".
If we get 3 speeding tickets in a 3 year period we are automatically banned from driving for a year.
One further point about the UK: get 2 tickets (6 penalty points) within the first 2 years after passing your test, and your licence is revoked. That means you have to start again from scratch: theory test, hazard awareness test and, finally, practical (on-road) test.
I passed my test 18 months ago, so I don't dare take the risk of speeding for another 6 months (it's not uncommon for somebody to get caught by 2 cameras in one journey of a few miles). I think the idea is that by then, I'll have learnt to get by within the speed limits.
Don't know how it works out for others, but it keeps my mind concentrated on driving safely, because I don't want to do my test again. (I'm 41, and it's far too stressful:-) If the boy racers get caught out, good; they can keep retaking their tests until they learn how to drive with a sense of responsibility to other road users. After all, that's what lies at the heart of the regulations.
Also note that many police forces throughout the UK have now subscribed to the scheme whereby all cameras are clearly marked, painted in bright colours (dayglo yellow round here), and are clearly visible on your approach to them; in return, the police get to use a proportion of the fines on dealing with road safety issues in their area. Somebody driving too fast without concentrating on the road ahead will get caught, but I don't really mind if they are.
It seems to me from talking with friends that it's only the ones who admit to irresponsible driving habits who also go off on the paranoid trip about cameras being a revenue-generating exercise. Those who are in the habit of driving safely (not necessarily always within limits) know where the cameras are, or take notice of large road signs warning "Speed Cameras". People who can't spot the signs probably wouldn't see the ones saying "School Crossing" either.
It's in Sanskrit, and many different ways of transliterating it into the Latin alphabet are used.
I am also aware of its sacred nature, and feel no guilt about attaching a smiley to it. Just because the fscked-up puritan adherents of various debased versions of the (immensely valuable) teachings of Christ think faith ought to make you miserable, there is no reason why Buddhists should follow their lead. Having been brought up in one of those faiths (RC), I think the Lord's Prayer would be improved by a smiley or two; it might make people think a bit more about how Christ advised them to live, rather than driving themselves mad conforming to St Paul's major hangups.
As it says in the Order of the Golden Dawn's Neophyte initiation ritual:
Remember that you hold all religions in reverence, for there is not one but contains a ray from the ineffable light which you are seeking
I take that as one of my guiding principles, and would point out that smiling when saying a sacred phrase is something you find a lot of Buddhist monks doing.
Bhutan has been a civilised nation throughout its history. In fact, your post reveals that you have completely failed to take advantage of the possibilities your society has offered to you to become civilised.
Your definition of an "intelligent adult" is itself conditioned by the social context in which you were raised (which didn't seem to rate orthography very highly).
I read this article in the print edition earlier today, and feel that your point is perfectly addressed by the words in the conclusion:
But television is a portal, and in Bhutan it is systematically replacing one culture with another, skewing the notion of Gross National Happiness, persuading a nation of novice Buddhist consumers to become preoccupied with themselves, rather than searching for their self.
Some may think it's naive of a nation to base its national goals on a "Gross National Happiness" metric; I think we could do a lot worse. Don't slag off the people of Bhutan until you appreciate what they had, and appear to be losing.
But also bear in mind that this article isn't claiming that there is any definitive proof that the advent of TV is destroying Bhutan's society; it's raising a question which is being debated by the people of Bhutan, the question of whether or not TV is having an adverse effect on a land which has been one of the last bastions of civilisation without the thirst for mass communication.
Slashdot Mirror
I think it's a historical thing. Back in the '60s, when colour TV was introuced, it was more expensive to produce, so those equipped to receive it paid more than those still struggling along with 405-line VHF sets (like my family).
It used to be the case that people registered blind could have a colour set and only pay for a black & white licence. Nowadays, they just get a 10 quid reduction. So I suppose if a partially-sighted person wanted to save money, they could get an old black & white set from a junkshop and only pay 28.50.
(Totally OT, but I've always thought it mildly amusing that one of the first BBC shows produced in colour was The Black & White Minstrel Show ;-)
190 what?
From the TV Licensing site:
That's not a link, that's just a piece of text.
This is a link.
(Retrieved using a Mac, OS X and Safari, with JavaScript enabled... thank you, Debug menu :-)
Hmm... I used Safari's Debug menu to make out I was using IE6 for Windoze, and the site loaded fine. (Couldn't download, being outside the States, but I've RTFA, so I wouldn't want to ;-)
So they should change it to "This site doesn't actually require either Windoze or IE, but we're too stupid to realise that."
There's a Liberal Democrat MP here in the UK who has been trying, on behalf of his party, to interest the powers that be in showing some concern over this matter.
Unfortunately, the fact that his name is Lembit Opik means that in the Palace of Westminster, Fleet Street and BBC Television Centre, he is usually referred to as "Anagram".
As he's the only person going on about this, all serious debate is lost in the laughter surrounding his nickname.
UKism; it's a shortened version of "It is a good thing that..." or "You did well to...", or similar phrases.
HTH
Good job you backed it up.
You did back it up, didn't you..?
I well remember the shift from 405 line VHF to 625 line UHF, mainly because we moved to a part of the country where our TV didn't work any more. It was probably that that got me vaguely interested in the subject ("I was a childhood nerd", etc.), but frankly I've devoted so much of my life to watching 405/625 line PAL that I don't think I can be sure of the difference that 109.25 lines per second might have made to my life, once summed and analysed.
YMMV :-)
My mistake :-(
Yup, and 525 lines are so much better than 625 lines.
(When I was a kid, I always wondered why American programmes were so fuzzy.)
One point to note is that the Russian mobile network uses GSM, which is (IIRC) encrypted by default. I think I'm correct in saying that in 2002, the US was predominantly using unencrypted analogue mobile phones. If they were in Russia (or indeed Europe), every mobile communication they tapped would be encrypted.
Then again, I get the impression that the NSA wouldn't have much trouble with GSM "encryption".
EDS do a lot of systems that don't work, or don't work properly, or run massively over schedule and budget, here in the UK as well.
I just can't understand why governments insist on using them with the track record of cock-ups they have; they're not even cheap.
The references are given in the article (the Grauniad one).
I don't think it's ironic that you didn't notice them, but I could be wrong, which would be ironic.. hang on... heck, I'm off to re-read the article.
A "Nutshell" or "Definitive Guide" book isn't a learning resource; it's a reference.
If you can't be bothered to find out what a book is for before you buy it, that's your problem. O'Reilly have full details of all their books on their website, with sample chapters. Just check it out before you buy it; if you don't know enough about the subject to make use of the book, go elsewhere.
Java in a Nutshell is what it says - an encapsulation; not "Everything You Might Ever Want to Know About Java in 28 Days!!!". That's why it has that title, and is part of that series.
The Definitive Guides won't teach you the basics; that's why they aren't called "The Definitive Tutorial". They are the best reference books on their subjects, and the best to consult when you're most of the way there.
I believe some people do produce books with "For Dummies" in the title, but as you know enough to read O'Reilly books, they really should be beneath you ;-) But please don't expect a book to do something other than what it says it will. I use O'Reilly's books every day, but I go elsewhere when I'm beginning.
And to get back on topic: I have well-worn copies of the first and current editions of this book, and it is the book to look stuff up in. But it won't get you through the start of the learning curve. That's what the web is for.
IANAL, but I always understood that theft involved the intention to permanently deprive the owner of their property. If you got caught with the stereo, you would have to prove that you intended to give it back (which would be difficult), but once it had been returned, legally there would have been no theft.
Perhaps (I'm just guessing now) that's why a burglar will be done for breaking and entering - to avoid them escaping a theft charge.
(This is all based on my very vague understanding of English common law.)
Exactly. Usual procedure is a front page splash saying <Famous Name here> Sucks Horse's Cock See pages 2,3,4,5,6,7 & 13, followed within days/weeks/months (depending on how long Press Complaints Commission/lawyers dick about for) by a small box on page 37, below the fold in 4 point type, saying "Sorry, we made that up".
No problem; Our Beloved Leader doesn't know how to go online.
It's only when you need the spare wheel that you find they replaced it with a PDP 11 ;-)
One further point about the UK: get 2 tickets (6 penalty points) within the first 2 years after passing your test, and your licence is revoked. That means you have to start again from scratch: theory test, hazard awareness test and, finally, practical (on-road) test.
I passed my test 18 months ago, so I don't dare take the risk of speeding for another 6 months (it's not uncommon for somebody to get caught by 2 cameras in one journey of a few miles). I think the idea is that by then, I'll have learnt to get by within the speed limits.
Don't know how it works out for others, but it keeps my mind concentrated on driving safely, because I don't want to do my test again. (I'm 41, and it's far too stressful :-) If the boy racers get caught out, good; they can keep retaking their tests until they learn how to drive with a sense of responsibility to other road users. After all, that's what lies at the heart of the regulations.
Also note that many police forces throughout the UK have now subscribed to the scheme whereby all cameras are clearly marked, painted in bright colours (dayglo yellow round here), and are clearly visible on your approach to them; in return, the police get to use a proportion of the fines on dealing with road safety issues in their area. Somebody driving too fast without concentrating on the road ahead will get caught, but I don't really mind if they are.
It seems to me from talking with friends that it's only the ones who admit to irresponsible driving habits who also go off on the paranoid trip about cameras being a revenue-generating exercise. Those who are in the habit of driving safely (not necessarily always within limits) know where the cameras are, or take notice of large road signs warning "Speed Cameras". People who can't spot the signs probably wouldn't see the ones saying "School Crossing" either.
Just my 0.02mph
It's in Sanskrit, and many different ways of transliterating it into the Latin alphabet are used.
I am also aware of its sacred nature, and feel no guilt about attaching a smiley to it. Just because the fscked-up puritan adherents of various debased versions of the (immensely valuable) teachings of Christ think faith ought to make you miserable, there is no reason why Buddhists should follow their lead. Having been brought up in one of those faiths (RC), I think the Lord's Prayer would be improved by a smiley or two; it might make people think a bit more about how Christ advised them to live, rather than driving themselves mad conforming to St Paul's major hangups.
As it says in the Order of the Golden Dawn's Neophyte initiation ritual:
I take that as one of my guiding principles, and would point out that smiling when saying a sacred phrase is something you find a lot of Buddhist monks doing.Just my 0.02 USD. Peace to you also :-)
Actually, I'm running OS X.
Bhutan has been a civilised nation throughout its history. In fact, your post reveals that you have completely failed to take advantage of the possibilities your society has offered to you to become civilised.
I think you're making a valid point, but I have to wonder whether MTV and Fox News can be described as "new ideas".
New something, certainly. Maybe Bhutani horses needed new light cast on their excrement ;-)
Your definition of an "intelligent adult" is itself conditioned by the social context in which you were raised (which didn't seem to rate orthography very highly).
I read this article in the print edition earlier today, and feel that your point is perfectly addressed by the words in the conclusion:
Some may think it's naive of a nation to base its national goals on a "Gross National Happiness" metric; I think we could do a lot worse. Don't slag off the people of Bhutan until you appreciate what they had, and appear to be losing.
But also bear in mind that this article isn't claiming that there is any definitive proof that the advent of TV is destroying Bhutan's society; it's raising a question which is being debated by the people of Bhutan, the question of whether or not TV is having an adverse effect on a land which has been one of the last bastions of civilisation without the thirst for mass communication.
Om mane padme om :-)
Ah, Derby; that explains it, me duck :-)