Western influence , why do you think? It could sow the seeds of revolution. Maybe. But thats a different argument. Thats not asking why people *need* it but what they might use it for it they had it.
I think in the west we overrate the importance of the internet. At the end of the day if the internet suddenly vanished the world economy would survive. If the oil suddenly vanished , well you get the idea. So why do people thing that a country that has deliberately cut itself off from most of the outside world NEEDS the internet? They don't. They don't operate under a capilist economic system so any business argument is moot anyway and as for the entertainment side , well they don't even have proper TV or radio entertainment so first things first perhaps. I'm sure the population after having to survive the whims of a psychotic dictator will manage to survive the 21st century without access to Slashdot or YouTube.
Well it depends how far they get taken down initially. As long as the generations are pulled slowly enough down that they have time to adapt there shouldn't be an issue. It doubt it happened in 1 generation , probably took millions of generations and who knows how many centuries or millenia or even longer.
>Nuclear power, even with the downside of producing harmful radiation (which is almost totally controllable, incidentally), is already very useful.
Try telling that to the knee jerk hippies who always protest against it. Even with the thread of global warming and uncontrolled CO2 production , they'd still risk everything just to avoid a small amount of extra radiation getting into the enviroment, as if it makes much difference. Even chernobyl has had scant effect on its surrounding enviroments , but of course you never hear Greenpeace mention that awkward fact since it doesn't square with their anti nuclear no matter what, fossilised 1960s dogma.
Comments along the lines of "we've found life in such & such extreme enviroment which makes life elsewhere in the universe more likely." Hmm , I'm not convinced. Thing is , I think life evolved in a fairly benevolent enviroment (and even then it took quite a few billion years) where organic molecules had time to arrange themselves into precursors living cells. I very much doubt this would have happened in somewhere blasted with radiation/intense heat/cold/whatever where extremophiles live. However once the mechanisms of life are up and running THEN things can adapt to extreme enviroments because they have a number of pre existing mechanisms that be mutated to do allow this , but that doesn't mean that these mechanisms could have evolved in the extreme enviroment in the first place. Its a bit like an Alien arriving on earth and seeing humans standing on top of Everest and then assuming that a large ape evolved 7 miles up in freezing cold and low oxygen conditions. Adaptation to an enviroment is NOT the same as emergence within it.
True , but also I think a lot of the blame can be laid at the door of bloated generic C++ APIs that people use because they're too lazy and/or stupid to roll their own code which would take a bit longer but save a lot of overhead.
" would not trust IE unless it is rewritten from scratch."
Even then I wouldn't trust it. MS's record at new code isn't any better. Besides which, the Mozilla tree was originally a complete rewrite of Netscape and that hasn't been exactly bug free. I think the real issue is simply browsers having everything including the kitchen sink thrown into them. They need to be streamlined , take out some of the eye candy and functionality hardly anyone uses and you're off to a better start.
Not that much. Its actually hotter than Mercury which is only 50% of the distance from the Sun than Venus is. If Venus has the same sort of atmosphere as Earths its temperature would be around 100C.
Why doesn't it? The recent warming trend correlates almost exactly with the proportionate rise in CO2 concentrations and CO2 absorbs certain frequencies infra red radiation that would otherwise escape into space so warming the atmosphere. Which bit of this basic science don't you understand? If you want to see what lots of CO2 can do to a planet look up the temperature on Venus.
>Point me to a model that predicted the start of the free software foundation
You think Stallman was begging for scraps on the street when he started it hoping some charitable donations for his works would keep him fed? He was paid by his university, money which came from government which came from taxes which came from people who earnt it so his "Free" software was initially paid for off the backs of other peoples earnings. And I think you'll find government funded institutions (ie universities) are found in most complete full-life economic models.
"Courts have jurisdiction over whatever the sovereign state that creates them says they have."
Heh , yeah right. Thats probably how the US courts would like it to be (as long as it only applied to THEIR courts) but in the real world its another matter.
I think you'll find that a court has jurisdiction within the legal area it has authority in.
Yeah , you're right. I've only been doing IB trading system links to major stock exchanges such as LSE, NYSE, Euronext etc for the last 3 years, what would I know.
Go and play with your little Perl toy pal , and leave the real coding to those of us who have a clue.
Perl is good for scripting but 24/7 high performance apps? Don't make me laugh. Something this CPU and I/O intensive should be written in C/C++ or even assembler at a push , not a scripting language. Seems to me this project has been written in perl for the sake of writing it in perl , not because it confers any advantages over doing it in a lower level language.
Someone close to me was badly beaten up. The guy who did it got 12 months suspended because the judge was a great believer in "rehabilitation in the community". ie letting them off. So the offender just had to be a good boy for 12 months and meanwhile my friend will have the emotional scars for years not to mention the physical injuries that took weeks to recover from. Justice? I don't think so, not in this pathetic country.
>any such rubbish: cold, hard, logical evidence that they did not commit the crime.
I suggest you get some more up to date facts. 2 youths have just been convicted for his murder. If you're going to reply to a post you obviously know nothing about at least get some up to date facts.
>Something else most Daily Mail readers fail to grasp.
Yeah right, because there've been no recent cases of released prisoners reoffending within days... oh wait...
>Executing them wouldn't bring back the life of the person they killed
>And you're too stupid to understand what justice is about.
Justice is about making the punishment as severe or worse than was done to the victim (something that rarely happens in the UK thanks to the weak minded liberals running the justice system).
>So what you are saying is that what's important is to judge the crime based not on what >happened, but on what the victim, or victim's entourage feels about it
No, but I'm saying that neither should their feelings be disregarded as so often happens. The damilola Taylor case is a good example. A couple lose their son to a pair of thugs who then get a measly 8 years (out in 4 or less) because some out of touch judge felt that perhaps they didn't mean to kill him. Who cares whether they meant to or not? It wasn't an accident yet they'll be able to live most of their lives free while a small boy is now 6 foot under and a family is wrecked. How is that justice? It isn't except in the mind of wolly liberals who seem to think anyone can be reformed if given the chance. Well fsck reforming them, how about a bit of punishment for a change?
Slashdot Mirror
Western influence , why do you think? It could sow the seeds of revolution. Maybe.
But thats a different argument. Thats not asking why people *need* it but what
they might use it for it they had it.
Its probably not that hard in a country where hardly anyone owns a car.
I think in the west we overrate the importance of the internet. At the end of the
day if the internet suddenly vanished the world economy would survive. If the oil
suddenly vanished , well you get the idea. So why do people thing that a country that
has deliberately cut itself off from most of the outside world NEEDS the internet?
They don't. They don't operate under a capilist economic system so any business
argument is moot anyway and as for the entertainment side , well they don't even
have proper TV or radio entertainment so first things first perhaps. I'm sure
the population after having to survive the whims of a psychotic dictator will
manage to survive the 21st century without access to Slashdot or YouTube.
Well it depends how far they get taken down initially. As long as the
generations are pulled slowly enough down that they have time to adapt
there shouldn't be an issue.
It doubt it happened in 1 generation , probably took millions of
generations and who knows how many centuries or millenia or even
longer.
>Except for the 2000 people who developed thyroid cancer.
Show me the figures. Last I read they reduced it down to less than 100
and even those were borderline statistically.
>Nuclear power, even with the downside of producing harmful radiation (which is almost totally controllable, incidentally), is already very useful.
Try telling that to the knee jerk hippies who always protest against it. Even with the thread of global warming and uncontrolled CO2 production , they'd still risk everything just to avoid a small amount of extra radiation getting into the enviroment, as if it makes much difference. Even chernobyl has had scant effect on its surrounding enviroments , but of course you never hear Greenpeace mention that awkward fact since it doesn't square with their anti nuclear no matter what, fossilised 1960s dogma.
Comments along the lines of "we've found life in such & such extreme enviroment which makes life elsewhere in the universe more likely." Hmm , I'm not convinced. Thing is , I think life evolved in a fairly benevolent enviroment (and even then it took quite a few billion years) where organic molecules had time to arrange themselves into precursors living cells. I very much doubt this would have happened in somewhere blasted with radiation/intense heat/cold/whatever where extremophiles live. However once the mechanisms of life are up and running THEN things can adapt to extreme enviroments because they have a number of pre existing mechanisms that be mutated to do allow this , but that doesn't mean that these mechanisms could have evolved in the extreme enviroment in the first place. Its a bit like an Alien arriving on earth and seeing humans standing on top of Everest and then assuming that a large ape evolved 7 miles up in freezing cold and low oxygen conditions. Adaptation to an enviroment is NOT the same as emergence within it.
True , but also I think a lot of the blame can be laid at the
door of bloated generic C++ APIs that people use because they're too
lazy and/or stupid to roll their own code which would take a bit
longer but save a lot of overhead.
" would not trust IE unless it is rewritten from scratch."
Even then I wouldn't trust it. MS's record at new code isn't any better.
Besides which, the Mozilla tree was originally a complete rewrite of
Netscape and that hasn't been exactly bug free. I think the real issue
is simply browsers having everything including the kitchen sink thrown
into them. They need to be streamlined , take out some of the eye candy
and functionality hardly anyone uses and you're off to a better start.
Not that much. Its actually hotter than Mercury which is only 50% of the distance
from the Sun than Venus is. If Venus has the same sort of atmosphere as Earths
its temperature would be around 100C.
"Hundreds of millions of young men with no prospects but joining the army..."
Is that what they're calling call centres now?
"That doesn't make any sense at all."
Why doesn't it? The recent warming trend correlates almost exactly
with the proportionate rise in CO2 concentrations and CO2 absorbs
certain frequencies infra red radiation that would otherwise escape
into space so warming the atmosphere. Which bit of this basic science
don't you understand? If you want to see what lots of CO2 can do to
a planet look up the temperature on Venus.
>Point me to a model that predicted the start of the free software foundation
You think Stallman was begging for scraps on the street when he started it
hoping some charitable donations for his works would keep him fed? He was
paid by his university, money which came from government which came from
taxes which came from people who earnt it so his "Free" software was
initially paid for off the backs of other peoples earnings. And I think
you'll find government funded institutions (ie universities) are found
in most complete full-life economic models.
"Courts have jurisdiction over whatever the sovereign state that creates them says they have."
Heh , yeah right. Thats probably how the US courts would like it to be (as long
as it only applied to THEIR courts) but in the real world its another matter.
I think you'll find that a court has jurisdiction within the legal area it has
authority in.
Thanks for playing...
Yeah , you're right. I've only been doing IB trading system
links to major stock exchanges such as LSE, NYSE, Euronext etc
for the last 3 years, what would I know.
Go and play with your little Perl toy pal , and leave the real
coding to those of us who have a clue.
If you're dealing with large data dumps you want something that can
process that data fast.
Perl is good for scripting but 24/7 high performance apps?
Don't make me laugh. Something this CPU and I/O intensive should
be written in C/C++ or even assembler at a push , not a scripting
language. Seems to me this project has been written in perl for
the sake of writing it in perl , not because it confers any
advantages over doing it in a lower level language.
>How about you?
Someone close to me was badly beaten up. The guy who did it got 12 months
suspended because the judge was a great believer in "rehabilitation in the
community". ie letting them off. So the offender just had to be a good boy
for 12 months and meanwhile my friend will have the emotional scars for years
not to mention the physical injuries that took weeks to recover from.
Justice? I don't think so, not in this pathetic country.
"Except in Vista, 99% of drivers DON'T reside and CAN NO LONGER reside in kernel space."
So how do they access the hardware if they're not in ring 0?
"the world's top minds simply don't want to live in India."
Bad food , bad hygiene, poor infrastructure, 3rd world poverty...
Shall I go on?
>any such rubbish: cold, hard, logical evidence that they did not commit the crime.
I suggest you get some more up to date facts. 2 youths have just been convicted
for his murder. If you're going to reply to a post you obviously know nothing about
at least get some up to date facts.
>Something else most Daily Mail readers fail to grasp.
Yeah right, because there've been no recent cases of released
prisoners reoffending within days... oh wait...
>Executing them wouldn't bring back the life of the person they killed
Executed criminals tend not to reoffend.
>And stop the Daily Mail ranting.
Stop being so naive.
>they had been convicted when they were still 12 & 13 would you be calling for blood so much?
Yes , absolutely. They knew exactly what they were doing therefor they deserve
appropriate punishment.
>They may have been vicious thugs at that time, but they were still children.
I'm guessing you've never been around many rough estates in london.
Theres no such thing as 13 year old "children" anymore.
>Err... no. Not since some time in the 18th century has that been the case, in
Really? Thats strange because I'm sure we still had the death penalty until
the 60s until the hippies took it away.
>Justice systems exist to (a) deter crime
Agreed.
>rehabilitate offenders
If they can be. If they can't be then just get rid of them. Far simpler.
Its also punishment too.
>Let me guess, you're a Daily Mail reader, right?
No , let me guess , you're some kid who's never been a
victim of a serious crime and so have zero idea of how
it feels to the victim or their familt?
>And you're too stupid to understand what justice is about.
Justice is about making the punishment as severe or worse than
was done to the victim (something that rarely happens in the UK
thanks to the weak minded liberals running the justice system).
>So what you are saying is that what's important is to judge the crime based not on what
>happened, but on what the victim, or victim's entourage feels about it
No, but I'm saying that neither should their feelings be disregarded as
so often happens. The damilola Taylor case is a good example. A couple lose
their son to a pair of thugs who then get a measly 8 years (out in 4 or
less) because some out of touch judge felt that perhaps they didn't mean
to kill him. Who cares whether they meant to or not? It wasn't an accident
yet they'll be able to live most of their lives free while a small boy
is now 6 foot under and a family is wrecked. How is that justice? It isn't
except in the mind of wolly liberals who seem to think anyone can be
reformed if given the chance. Well fsck reforming them, how about a bit
of punishment for a change?
>Punishment is not revenge.
Yes it is partly, certainly in the minds of the victim(s).