Academic standards for CS are high at a variety of UK universities. Hell, Tim Berners-Lee (You know, invented the Web) is part of the CS faculty at Southampton. Imperial College is academically brilliant at pretty much all technical and scientific disciplines.
C/C++ and Java still pretty much rule the roost in terms of jobs, with the MS.Net technologies bringing up the rear. Of these only the MS stuff is within the last decade.
Software tech does not move anywhere nearly as fast as a lot of folks like to believe.
You f'd over regular customers for a bunch of 20-somthing cheapskates - we have not returned and may not.
Not that I'm disagreeing with your central point, but the only person I know who actually uses Groupon is my mother, who is quite some way from her 20s now.
Oh it probably is just a matter of degree, yes. The UK is already the country with the largest imprisoned population in the EU, IIRC, and while it's quite a way off the US proportion it's certainly moving in the wrong direction.
I don't think the surveillance state is a good thing, and it is setting the country up for massive future abuse. However at present the US is (IMHO) far and away more fond of harassing and imprisoning its people.
It's swings and roundabouts really. And I have no idea how it can be turned around.
I don't think that the riots were in any way political. They were comparatively small and all about stealing stuff.
The misguided but mostly good intent here is to stop them being able to organise. You'll notice that later debate focussed on taking away the ability for the instigators of this criminal activity to cause more trouble through these services.
"Immediately quit afterwards, because you helped govern the country into the mess that required extreme measures.
This is basically true anywhere in the world. And guess how many people step up and say "Uh.. yeah. So, it turns out I suck at this job. I'm resigning immediately after this announcement. Please find someone better equipped to run the country." Its gonna be a short list."
And in democracies we don't always have the same people in power now that actually caused the trouble, do we? In the UK we currently call the people that caused the deep financial suffering of many in the UK "The Labour Party". I agree that they all would have resigned had they any honour.
Have you ever seen "Cops"? You know, the show that's supposed to show the best of the US police but instead ends up showing people harassed and arrested for looking at an officer the wrong way?
The uk may be a surveillance state like no other, but it's not half the police state the US is turning into.
And if you think that applies to the situation in which the current UK PM suggested shutting down social media, then you've been misinformed.
Don't get me wrong, the curtailing of communication freedoms is evil, but in this case it's evil done with misguided (mostly) good intent. This (IMHO) makes it all the more dangerous and would make it all the easier for Qadaffi's to take over the UK in the future.
I don't believe that UK politics is in the stage where communication of the people scares it, I believe they are in the stage where they genuinely think that censorship is a good thing.
The UK government folks probably genuinely believe that shutting down social media would be usful to stop waves of criminality like the recent rioting. The fact it hands enormous power to the government is a side effect that they either don't see or (more likely) welcome, but it's not the aim.
This ranting and posturing about evil people in charge is misguided. The point is that through good intentions both people and government can slide into sinister and easily abused situations. Not that the politicians at the top are already aiming for them.
This is why the people who notice this stuff must be extra vigilant, because it is all done with semi-good intent, but it takes us to the same bad place.
My only problem with that (comparatively enlightened) attitude is that you can take pretty much any message you feel like out of the bible, depending on which places you put the emphasis.
'Originated' is a bit strong there. The ancient greeks may have a better claim to origination of science, philosophy and other areas of thought. Maybe not the originators still, but I don't know a lot about older civilisations than that.
I don't disagree with the main premise - that humans are evolved in a way that they easily form religions and religious thought, and that that fact in itself is irrelevant to the question of whether or not one or more gods actually exist.
I think perhaps the title is misleading. Evangelical Scientists would be scientists who were evangelical about science.
These people are Evangelical Christian "Scientists", who are part of the evangelical christian movement. While it's good they realise that the genetic evidence gives a good case against their religion, what they have failed to realise is that they are now no longer fundamentalist evangelical christians because they have just put reality over and above the idea of inerrant scripture.
Alastair Reynolds explores this scenario in his Revelation Space series. The inhibitors come to eat anyone that progresses too far to keep a greater threat in check (IIRC).
Fantastic space opera, if you haven't read them yet.
You tend to need the accused to have been giving specific details in order to prosecute. Times, places, plans etc. Idle chatter is not incitement. I'm pretty sure there are protections in law against the kind of abuses you talk about.
I agree it's an area of law that will need continuing scrutiny though. Personally I'm glad that the ECHR and various cross-country conventions and declarations of rights all exist in European countries. It doesn't stop them all going wrong at the same time, but it may hold the line where a minority of governments try to get all 1984ish.
And really they don't seem that high anyway, in comparison.
Apple store US price for basic iPad2 499 Apple store AU price for basic iPad2 579
Considering that there's GST of 10% in there and the currencies are at rough parity (AU slightly higher) it's not that much.
Compared to every other damned thing for sale in Australia, that's not much of a markup. If the government want to get upset over something they should look at why it costs double the US price for imported cars!
Lol, trade sites, where someone charges a premium and then goes and buys what you want from another store, some folks selling used cd keys for games and a few people getting rid of old pc equipment.
You have a low standard for a functioning economy my friend.
How about "they certainly wanted change in their personal situation, they just didn't care about politics and the real world at all, so they took what they wanted".
Sure, I can't really disagree with that. People stealing sports shoes and televisions clearly have a lot less than those in the same society who can afford to buy whatever they want. Media perception that 'everyone' has all this great new stuff probably doesn't help matters either.
It's still not a 'protest' by any definition I know of though.
I don't think these rioters are a danger to freedom, there were not enough of them for that. I agree that not stopping them was not an option, as they were violent and dangerous, but I really don't think the numbers were there to make it a real possibility that they couldn't be stopped. The only threat to freedom here comes from politicians using this to gain ground, much like 9/11 was used in the US. This is not nearly on the same scale as that but the closet (and not so closet) authoritarians will still try their best to use it.
There is a difference between demonstrating people who want political change in a non-democratic country, and people who go on a looting rampage in one of the richest democracies in the world.
I do not think that the rioters were trying to achieve change. I have yet to see anything other than people taking stuff and destroying things because they thought they could. Why it seemed like a good idea is something to look into.
It's not even a basic level of morality that's required, a political protest requires at the very least some sort of aim (other than acquisition), wouldn't you say?
Slashdot Mirror
What on earth are you blathering about?
Academic standards for CS are high at a variety of UK universities. Hell, Tim Berners-Lee (You know, invented the Web) is part of the CS faculty at Southampton. Imperial College is academically brilliant at pretty much all technical and scientific disciplines.
"50% of jobs in the UK are obtained through networking."
Evidence or STFU.
I'm sure there's a bit of an exclusive club atmosphere at the very top, but the rest... I don't believe you for a second.
Meh, the joke's on you really.
C/C++ and Java still pretty much rule the roost in terms of jobs, with the MS .Net technologies bringing up the rear. Of these only the MS stuff is within the last decade.
Software tech does not move anywhere nearly as fast as a lot of folks like to believe.
Which I always found really funny considering you can scan something in, digitally apply someone else's signature, then fax it using your modem.
Not that I'm disagreeing with your central point, but the only person I know who actually uses Groupon is my mother, who is quite some way from her 20s now.
While true, Inventor Guy was not necessarily going to work for them, only sell them the tech.
Oh it probably is just a matter of degree, yes. The UK is already the country with the largest imprisoned population in the EU, IIRC, and while it's quite a way off the US proportion it's certainly moving in the wrong direction.
I don't think the surveillance state is a good thing, and it is setting the country up for massive future abuse. However at present the US is (IMHO) far and away more fond of harassing and imprisoning its people.
It's swings and roundabouts really. And I have no idea how it can be turned around.
I don't think that the riots were in any way political. They were comparatively small and all about stealing stuff.
The misguided but mostly good intent here is to stop them being able to organise. You'll notice that later debate focussed on taking away the ability for the instigators of this criminal activity to cause more trouble through these services.
"Immediately quit afterwards, because you helped govern the country into the mess that required extreme measures.
This is basically true anywhere in the world. And guess how many people step up and say "Uh.. yeah. So, it turns out I suck at this job. I'm resigning immediately after this announcement. Please find someone better equipped to run the country." Its gonna be a short list."
And in democracies we don't always have the same people in power now that actually caused the trouble, do we? In the UK we currently call the people that caused the deep financial suffering of many in the UK "The Labour Party". I agree that they all would have resigned had they any honour.
The UK is a police state but the US isn't?
Have you ever seen "Cops"?
You know, the show that's supposed to show the best of the US police but instead ends up showing people harassed and arrested for looking at an officer the wrong way?
The uk may be a surveillance state like no other, but it's not half the police state the US is turning into.
And if you think that applies to the situation in which the current UK PM suggested shutting down social media, then you've been misinformed.
Don't get me wrong, the curtailing of communication freedoms is evil, but in this case it's evil done with misguided (mostly) good intent. This (IMHO) makes it all the more dangerous and would make it all the easier for Qadaffi's to take over the UK in the future.
I don't believe that UK politics is in the stage where communication of the people scares it, I believe they are in the stage where they genuinely think that censorship is a good thing.
The UK government folks probably genuinely believe that shutting down social media would be usful to stop waves of criminality like the recent rioting. The fact it hands enormous power to the government is a side effect that they either don't see or (more likely) welcome, but it's not the aim.
This ranting and posturing about evil people in charge is misguided. The point is that through good intentions both people and government can slide into sinister and easily abused situations. Not that the politicians at the top are already aiming for them.
This is why the people who notice this stuff must be extra vigilant, because it is all done with semi-good intent, but it takes us to the same bad place.
Err, what people say out loud in a totalitarian state is not a good indicator of anything at all.
Your comparison fails because the people in China do not get to choose anything. Thailand is at least democratic.
Came here to say this.
How can consumers be excited about the new windows 8 devices, and be turning the market towards them, when there aren't any yet?
I smell bullcrap.
My only problem with that (comparatively enlightened) attitude is that you can take pretty much any message you feel like out of the bible, depending on which places you put the emphasis.
'Originated' is a bit strong there. The ancient greeks may have a better claim to origination of science, philosophy and other areas of thought. Maybe not the originators still, but I don't know a lot about older civilisations than that.
I don't disagree with the main premise - that humans are evolved in a way that they easily form religions and religious thought, and that that fact in itself is irrelevant to the question of whether or not one or more gods actually exist.
Yes, yes they are.
I think perhaps the title is misleading. Evangelical Scientists would be scientists who were evangelical about science.
These people are Evangelical Christian "Scientists", who are part of the evangelical christian movement. While it's good they realise that the genetic evidence gives a good case against their religion, what they have failed to realise is that they are now no longer fundamentalist evangelical christians because they have just put reality over and above the idea of inerrant scripture.
Alastair Reynolds explores this scenario in his Revelation Space series. The inhibitors come to eat anyone that progresses too far to keep a greater threat in check (IIRC).
Fantastic space opera, if you haven't read them yet.
You tend to need the accused to have been giving specific details in order to prosecute. Times, places, plans etc. Idle chatter is not incitement. I'm pretty sure there are protections in law against the kind of abuses you talk about.
I agree it's an area of law that will need continuing scrutiny though. Personally I'm glad that the ECHR and various cross-country conventions and declarations of rights all exist in European countries. It doesn't stop them all going wrong at the same time, but it may hold the line where a minority of governments try to get all 1984ish.
And really they don't seem that high anyway, in comparison.
Apple store US price for basic iPad2 499
Apple store AU price for basic iPad2 579
Considering that there's GST of 10% in there and the currencies are at rough parity (AU slightly higher) it's not that much.
Compared to every other damned thing for sale in Australia, that's not much of a markup. If the government want to get upset over something they should look at why it costs double the US price for imported cars!
Lol, trade sites, where someone charges a premium and then goes and buys what you want from another store, some folks selling used cd keys for games and a few people getting rid of old pc equipment.
You have a low standard for a functioning economy my friend.
EPIC FAIL
If you got that from what I wrote then you've clearly brought your preconceptions to the table and rank them higher than what actually happened.
Sure, I can't really disagree with that. People stealing sports shoes and televisions clearly have a lot less than those in the same society who can afford to buy whatever they want. Media perception that 'everyone' has all this great new stuff probably doesn't help matters either.
It's still not a 'protest' by any definition I know of though.
I don't think these rioters are a danger to freedom, there were not enough of them for that. I agree that not stopping them was not an option, as they were violent and dangerous, but I really don't think the numbers were there to make it a real possibility that they couldn't be stopped. The only threat to freedom here comes from politicians using this to gain ground, much like 9/11 was used in the US. This is not nearly on the same scale as that but the closet (and not so closet) authoritarians will still try their best to use it.
The UK.
Trafficking class B substances (cannabis) carries a sentence of up to 14 years.
Rape (single offence, victim not a child) carries a sentence in the range of 4-8 years.
There is a difference between demonstrating people who want political change in a non-democratic country, and people who go on a looting rampage in one of the richest democracies in the world.
I do not think that the rioters were trying to achieve change. I have yet to see anything other than people taking stuff and destroying things because they thought they could. Why it seemed like a good idea is something to look into.
It's not even a basic level of morality that's required, a political protest requires at the very least some sort of aim (other than acquisition), wouldn't you say?