>"Some basic training for all in the fundamentals of programming might very well improve the overall attitude to computer use and security."//
Unfortunately computer _use_ and secure _use_ of computers is not really a part of computer science; that's more ICT really and ICT is what's being killed to make way for computer science.
Yes, rather dishonest to categorise Information [Communication] Technology as only secretarial skills. DBAs, video producers, sound technicians, web designers... all secretarial positions apparently.
I'm all for encouraging programming and consider that an element of programming can be a great boon to most people. However, this is being done at the expense of ICT which is also a great benefit to people. The majority don't need to be concerned with low level programming, algorithm efficiency and such; they probably don't have the nous for it TBH. However, nearly everyone can benefit from being able to produce a spreadsheet or edit a video or put together a simple web page.
AFAICT, and having talked to an ICT teacher about it, it seems there is a dearth of qualified and motivated teachers to teach computer science too.
IMO if more programming was to be introduced to the curriculum it should have come in with some algorithms in mathematics initially, some simple programming mixed in with ICT for the higher achievers. Then let the A-level Computer Science curriculum pick up those who have decided to take those elements further.
>*Cannon were not mentioned in the 2nd Amendment. Rockets were not mentioned and they were around (if relatively ineffective) when it was drafted as well. That would mean a rocket launcher would not be considered a firearm.*//
Which specific arms were mentioned, not semi-auto pistols surely.
IME formula fed babies diapers are stinkier. When they hit solids though, man-oh-man, took 2 weeks before I decided we had to start potty training! (It worked to some extent too).
>"If you seriously think that Fathers have less of a bond with their children than mothers [...]"
Working for ourselves, breast-feeding aside, we've been able to arrange equal shares of parenting and income supporting work for the two of us. I go ga-ga over little babies too.
I would strongly agree that "Fathers generally have less of a bond with their _babies_ than mothers".
Having never felt a child grow and form inside me and not having the provision to directly feed a child from my bosom that seems quite normal.
>"She isn't even taking care of the child for the most part during her 'recovery' period, its only after that when she starts doing her job."
Apart from often hourly, and often initially painful, breastfeeding and very regular nappy (aka diaper) changing.
I'd agree with your assertion that for an entirely uncomplicated labour a 1 week recovery would be sufficient for someone seeking to return to a sedentary job. But that's only if the woman can't feed her child and isn't responsible for their ongoing care. As it happens though a child requires their mother to be close at hand for the first 5-6 months as they're the direct providers of their food - initial maternal bonding is to a large extent about ensuring proper nourishment for the child and this initial period has very real health and well-being repercussions.
AFAIK elective c-sections are consider less demanding on the mother than regular birth.
But "There is hardly anything in the world that some man cannot make a _the_same_quality_ and sell a little cheaper" causing only a slight depreciation in wealth for some very rich people who don't need all they have already.
I think it's more along the lines of advertising tells the parent that all the other children have Harry Potter themed lego but their own child is sad because they don't and that the only way to be a half decent parent is to work more hours away from their child in order to afford Harry Potter themed lego...
I don't actually find a problem with that; if someone gives me a piece of free-gratis software and it has a simply click-through nag screen then that seems reasonable to me.
Surely that would be the only point to such a promotion for a corporation, give people chance to become accustomed to Adobe products and encourage them to upgrade to a paid install.
>> "when the UK requests extradition it's asking to extradite someone whose actually committed a crime worth extraditing over - things like murder and so forth" >"You're applying your own moral judgment to which laws are important. That's not how the law works."//
Copyright infringement is a tort, a civil wrong. It's not even a crime.
The UK shouldn't extradite Her Majesties subjects to the USA to decide if he committed an act which the USA finds criminal when the act happened on UK soil and is known to be legal and considered to be non-infringing.
>"therein lies the problem for climate change deniers - they don't have any"
Surely no one denies that there is climate change, that's a matter of record. I assumed the point at issue was 'human accelerated adverse climate change'. No?
The likes of Attenborough and Cox make assertions on their shows. As they don't generally present evidence, produce hypotheses, moderate theories and test predictability of those theories (within the program) the scientific element is limited - unless I've missed a major tranche of programming. Indeed this is one of the most frustrating things watching "science" programming for me, there seems to be so little time spent on the scientific method for which the genre is named.
If a science program can be made by young earth creationists then why shouldn't it be aired. The science (for a Popperian) is in the falsification after all, the opposing camp then can make a show giving their evidence and presenting how this falsifies the others hypotheses and proves theirs.
>"Impartiality does not mean blindly reciting the viewpoints of opposing sides in any debate (something the BBC are already wont to do)."
What does it mean then. How do you report a viewpoint impartially without reciting it (by which presumably you include quoting it or playing back the holder of the viewpoint itself reciting it)?
So your argument is that as the BBC is not like other entities, doesn't have to act commercially and so doesn't IYO pander to a lowest common denominator, then it should be treated just like other entities that have to act commercially?
Those who want to watch live TV are forced to pay the BBC by government enforced monopoly. Because of this the BBC must be as transparent as any other regular provider that the government force you to use in a similar way, an LEA, health board, police service or whatever.
>"IMHO the BBC is a public funded body that functions as an independent news service by royal charter, it is not an organ of government and thus should not be subject for FOI requests just like any other news service"
The dependency may only go one way - though I'm pretty sure the Culture Secretary has input in to BBC decisions (at arms length, like how USA moulds our laws) and that there are [loose] regulations in place concerning programming content. However other services aren't able to get the government to make laws to enforce payments to them even for those who don't use the service. Imagine if Sky News were the BBC then even if you never watched Sky you'd have to pay a subscription!
As the BBC is government mandated and using public money (they get a large stipend from the treasury too as it happens) then I feel that they should be as open as the law allows. All programming costs, internal structures, policy statements and such should be available to the license fee payer.
No, commercial entities don't have to open themselves up in this way but in their case the fee payer can choose an alternate provider. One can't choose an alternate provider to which to direct your license fee if you want to watch live TV.
>getting a server room near the outside for direct venting means giving up window offices//
Depends how creative your architect is. E.g. you could have recessed roof lights (eg down to top-floor-minus-one) that provide outside wall for a top-floor server room.
Perhaps it's actually historical - a subroutine is a generic term for functions, say, or an objects methods, reusable blocks of code. We called them subroutines back when I learnt BASIC iirc; also pretty sure that we referred to subroutines when I studied assembly (which was much more recent).
>*incessant mentions by high-profile users on TV news and shows*//
Don't watch TV and you'll never hear them; nor will the people making those mentions be high-profile to you. Rinse and repeat and those people are no longer high-profile at all.
>*trademarks _must_ be defended, or you lose them*//
I think this is actually a myth - certainly in Europe, not sure about the USA & elsewhere.
Moreover, you can give anyone a license to use your marks without making a charge. The point is not to allow the terms to pass in to general use - to become a verb for example - that's why Google never talk about "googling" as a term for 'using a search engine'.
If it weren't a myth then mega-corps would be forever getting out of trademark infringement proceedings by having created a tiny little "business" somewhere hidden that the mark owner never knew about and saying that the owner therefore wasn't protecting their marks and so should lose them.
In Europe at least you must simply use the registered trademark (and pay your fees) to retain it - 'The ECJ has said that the handing out of free drinks labelled 'Wellness-Drink' was not "genuine use" of the Wellness trade mark in the drinks category. The EU's Directive on trade marks says that trade marks can be revoked after a five year period in which no "genuine use" of it was made.' (http://www.out-law.com/page-9718)
Also this relates well: "It said that the Zappa name had only been used as part of a domain name of a website based in the US but accessible from the EU. That website had not used the trade mark to sell or advertise products for the EU market, though, and so was not used in trade." (http://www.out-law.com/page-11202)
Slashdot Mirror
>"Some basic training for all in the fundamentals of programming might very well improve the overall attitude to computer use and security." //
Unfortunately computer _use_ and secure _use_ of computers is not really a part of computer science; that's more ICT really and ICT is what's being killed to make way for computer science.
Yes, rather dishonest to categorise Information [Communication] Technology as only secretarial skills. DBAs, video producers, sound technicians, web designers ... all secretarial positions apparently.
I'm all for encouraging programming and consider that an element of programming can be a great boon to most people. However, this is being done at the expense of ICT which is also a great benefit to people. The majority don't need to be concerned with low level programming, algorithm efficiency and such; they probably don't have the nous for it TBH. However, nearly everyone can benefit from being able to produce a spreadsheet or edit a video or put together a simple web page.
AFAICT, and having talked to an ICT teacher about it, it seems there is a dearth of qualified and motivated teachers to teach computer science too.
IMO if more programming was to be introduced to the curriculum it should have come in with some algorithms in mathematics initially, some simple programming mixed in with ICT for the higher achievers. Then let the A-level Computer Science curriculum pick up those who have decided to take those elements further.
>*Cannon were not mentioned in the 2nd Amendment. Rockets were not mentioned and they were around (if relatively ineffective) when it was drafted as well. That would mean a rocket launcher would not be considered a firearm.* //
Which specific arms were mentioned, not semi-auto pistols surely.
It's called contributory [copyright] infringement.
IME formula fed babies diapers are stinkier. When they hit solids though, man-oh-man, took 2 weeks before I decided we had to start potty training! (It worked to some extent too).
Preach it brother.
>"If you seriously think that Fathers have less of a bond with their children than mothers [...]"
Working for ourselves, breast-feeding aside, we've been able to arrange equal shares of parenting and income supporting work for the two of us. I go ga-ga over little babies too.
I would strongly agree that "Fathers generally have less of a bond with their _babies_ than mothers".
Having never felt a child grow and form inside me and not having the provision to directly feed a child from my bosom that seems quite normal.
>"She isn't even taking care of the child for the most part during her 'recovery' period, its only after that when she starts doing her job."
Apart from often hourly, and often initially painful, breastfeeding and very regular nappy (aka diaper) changing.
I'd agree with your assertion that for an entirely uncomplicated labour a 1 week recovery would be sufficient for someone seeking to return to a sedentary job. But that's only if the woman can't feed her child and isn't responsible for their ongoing care. As it happens though a child requires their mother to be close at hand for the first 5-6 months as they're the direct providers of their food - initial maternal bonding is to a large extent about ensuring proper nourishment for the child and this initial period has very real health and well-being repercussions.
AFAIK elective c-sections are consider less demanding on the mother than regular birth.
You don't need to dig them out, you can just use a magnet.
>A single "work" is whatever is registered at the Copyright office //
You're not a copyright lawyer then I take it.
But "There is hardly anything in the world that some man cannot make a _the_same_quality_ and sell a little cheaper" causing only a slight depreciation in wealth for some very rich people who don't need all they have already.
I think it's more along the lines of advertising tells the parent that all the other children have Harry Potter themed lego but their own child is sad because they don't and that the only way to be a half decent parent is to work more hours away from their child in order to afford Harry Potter themed lego ...
I don't actually find a problem with that; if someone gives me a piece of free-gratis software and it has a simply click-through nag screen then that seems reasonable to me.
Surely that would be the only point to such a promotion for a corporation, give people chance to become accustomed to Adobe products and encourage them to upgrade to a paid install.
>> "when the UK requests extradition it's asking to extradite someone whose actually committed a crime worth extraditing over - things like murder and so forth" //
>"You're applying your own moral judgment to which laws are important. That's not how the law works."
Copyright infringement is a tort, a civil wrong. It's not even a crime.
The UK shouldn't extradite Her Majesties subjects to the USA to decide if he committed an act which the USA finds criminal when the act happened on UK soil and is known to be legal and considered to be non-infringing.
>"therein lies the problem for climate change deniers - they don't have any"
Surely no one denies that there is climate change, that's a matter of record. I assumed the point at issue was 'human accelerated adverse climate change'. No?
The likes of Attenborough and Cox make assertions on their shows. As they don't generally present evidence, produce hypotheses, moderate theories and test predictability of those theories (within the program) the scientific element is limited - unless I've missed a major tranche of programming. Indeed this is one of the most frustrating things watching "science" programming for me, there seems to be so little time spent on the scientific method for which the genre is named.
If a science program can be made by young earth creationists then why shouldn't it be aired. The science (for a Popperian) is in the falsification after all, the opposing camp then can make a show giving their evidence and presenting how this falsifies the others hypotheses and proves theirs.
>"Impartiality does not mean blindly reciting the viewpoints of opposing sides in any debate (something the BBC are already wont to do)."
What does it mean then. How do you report a viewpoint impartially without reciting it (by which presumably you include quoting it or playing back the holder of the viewpoint itself reciting it)?
>"So, what do you call people who reject the heliocentric solar system?"
I call them physicists.
Never heard of relativity? You can choose any point for the center that you wish, they're all fine.
So your argument is that as the BBC is not like other entities, doesn't have to act commercially and so doesn't IYO pander to a lowest common denominator, then it should be treated just like other entities that have to act commercially?
Those who want to watch live TV are forced to pay the BBC by government enforced monopoly. Because of this the BBC must be as transparent as any other regular provider that the government force you to use in a similar way, an LEA, health board, police service or whatever.
>"IMHO the BBC is a public funded body that functions as an independent news service by royal charter, it is not an organ of government and thus should not be subject for FOI requests just like any other news service"
The dependency may only go one way - though I'm pretty sure the Culture Secretary has input in to BBC decisions (at arms length, like how USA moulds our laws) and that there are [loose] regulations in place concerning programming content. However other services aren't able to get the government to make laws to enforce payments to them even for those who don't use the service. Imagine if Sky News were the BBC then even if you never watched Sky you'd have to pay a subscription!
As the BBC is government mandated and using public money (they get a large stipend from the treasury too as it happens) then I feel that they should be as open as the law allows. All programming costs, internal structures, policy statements and such should be available to the license fee payer.
No, commercial entities don't have to open themselves up in this way but in their case the fee payer can choose an alternate provider. One can't choose an alternate provider to which to direct your license fee if you want to watch live TV.
>getting a server room near the outside for direct venting means giving up window offices //
Depends how creative your architect is. E.g. you could have recessed roof lights (eg down to top-floor-minus-one) that provide outside wall for a top-floor server room.
Perhaps it's actually historical - a subroutine is a generic term for functions, say, or an objects methods, reusable blocks of code. We called them subroutines back when I learnt BASIC iirc; also pretty sure that we referred to subroutines when I studied assembly (which was much more recent).
Perhaps you could share with Opera Unite and just mirror the automated pages online somewhere?
>*incessant mentions by high-profile users on TV news and shows* //
Don't watch TV and you'll never hear them; nor will the people making those mentions be high-profile to you. Rinse and repeat and those people are no longer high-profile at all.
There's a European directive - the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive - that makes this illegal in Europe, http://www.out-law.com/page-10583.
>*trademarks _must_ be defended, or you lose them* //
I think this is actually a myth - certainly in Europe, not sure about the USA & elsewhere.
Moreover, you can give anyone a license to use your marks without making a charge. The point is not to allow the terms to pass in to general use - to become a verb for example - that's why Google never talk about "googling" as a term for 'using a search engine'.
If it weren't a myth then mega-corps would be forever getting out of trademark infringement proceedings by having created a tiny little "business" somewhere hidden that the mark owner never knew about and saying that the owner therefore wasn't protecting their marks and so should lose them.
In Europe at least you must simply use the registered trademark (and pay your fees) to retain it - 'The ECJ has said that the handing out of free drinks labelled 'Wellness-Drink' was not "genuine use" of the Wellness trade mark in the drinks category. The EU's Directive on trade marks says that trade marks can be revoked after a five year period in which no "genuine use" of it was made.' (http://www.out-law.com/page-9718)
Also this relates well: "It said that the Zappa name had only been used as part of a domain name of a website based in the US but accessible from the EU. That website had not used the trade mark to sell or advertise products for the EU market, though, and so was not used in trade." (http://www.out-law.com/page-11202)
IANAL