Then sky caught on and now episodes are broadcast within a week of u.s. airings (some series we had the episodes before the u.s!)
The stuff we got before the US always tended to be because the US insist on having a mid-season break whereas we generally don't. So the start of the series came a couple of weeks after the US showed it, and then the US went into their mid-season break and we overtook them for the second half.
However we don't bother any more, too much hassle, we simply wait for the DVDs to come out. Just finished watching Sanctuary, and have reached season 7 of 24 (we gave up when it left the BBC after day 2). We do lose something in the lack of cliffhangers, but the lack of adverts, the lack of faff of downloading, and the instant availability when and where we want, more than makes up for it.
We occasionally dip back into TV -- we watched Terra Nova last year. Just got into it, and then it was cancelled. By waiting a few years we can see when a series is worthwhile buying.
I gave up my Sky subscription years ago. I realised that I was basically only watching 2 or 3 programmes on Sky, and for that had to pay £20/month for 60 channels I wasn't interested in. Cheaper to buy the DVDs of the shows I want to watch. I do still watch broadcast TV, but its pretty much entirely BBC and S4C, I certainly don't feel like I'm losing out by dropping pay TV. If the pay-TV broadcasters stopped bundling channels I'm not interested in (and making me pay for them), stopped the wall-to-wall adverts, *and* stopped with their crazy DRM that prevents me using MythTV with their broadcasts, then its vaguely possible I might resubscribe, but to be honest the convenience of just buying DVDs instead of having to deal with the broadcasters' shit is good.
Phone networks originated in the U.S. If the international standard differs from and is incompatible with that of the U.S., you need to be asking why it differs. Not why the U.S. had the temerity to keep its existing system, instead of uprooting it and replacing it wholesale it to comply with a different standard.
Your argument would hold water if the US was still using the original system that was in place before international standardisation. That's not the case - the original US phone system didn't use SS7, for example. As it stands, the ITU produce standards by collaberation with all stakeholders (the US included), the various national standards bodies, such as ETSI, ANSI, etc. then take those standards and modify them. ETSI, etc. tend to use those standards more or less as-is, with fairly minimal changes. ANSI tend to take those standards and make vast numbers of unneccessary and pointless changes - Some of this is useful (i.e. the ANSI pointcode address space is bigger than the ITU standard), but most of it is stuff like swapping bit-fields around, etc which serve no useful purpose and just makes the US system incompatible with everyone else's.
But your assumption should be that the first system was the standard. And if a different standard was chosen elsewhere, you should be questioning that decision first. Not immediately criticizing the first system developed for not changing to adopt the new standard.
I'm not criticising the US for not changing an existing system to a new international standard, I'm criticising the US for intentionally making *new* systems incompatible with the rest of the world.
most switches use the first digit being a "1" to denote the beginning of a long distance call.
Untrue. In most (but not all) of the world, the international dialing prefix is 00
And in the UK, the prefix 0 denotes a non-local call (i.e. outside your own STD code) whilst 1 usually denotes a service local to your specific telco (customer services, etc) although there are exceptions to this, such as the 118xxx numbers for directory enquiries. Numbers starting 2-9 are local (within your STD code) except for 999 (emergency services).
Going with '112' breaks a perfectly good standard in a country that at least has a standard phone number format.
The problem with this attitude is that mobile standards are international, and there are numerous countries with standard domestic number formats that are not the same as the US's. Unfortunately, the US attitude always seems to be to disagree with any international standardisation process rather than reach a compromise (I think anyone who has worked on the international telephone network protocols will agree with this - most of the ANSI protocols are different to the ITU recommendations for no reason other than to be different)
For example, Steve Jobs only drew a $1 salary from Apple, but also had the use of a corporate jet.
The downside of this is that he wouldn't be amassing any liquid wealth himself. Presumably he had a large amount of stock though, and would just sell some of that off when he needed some liquidity (and his inheritance would of course be made up of the stock). Selling off stock would make him liable for cap-gains of course.
I he used it to go anywhere for a holiday, then it counted as a taxable benefit, but it didn't for business use it did not. And business use included flying to another country for a half-hour meeting and then staying there for a week.
The HMRC rules (for UK tax payers) explicitly say that only expenses used *exclusively* for business may claim full tax relief. For things that are not exclusively business expenses you can often claim a proportionate amount of relief. For example, my office is in my home, which means I can claim tax back on things like heating, but not the full cost of heating the whole house - I apportion my expenses based on the proportion of my home I use for business purposes.
I think for things like travelling expenses, most self employed people would do as you say - claim tax back on the whole lot if any part of the trip was for business reasons, and the HMRC would struggle to prove otherwise; but technically it isn't allowed (in the UK - no idea about US tax laws).
Council parking enforcement in general however, is one of the biggest factors killing high streets... If parking within range of the high street shops is expensive or difficult, then people will happily drive to the out of town shopping centres who provide large free car parks.
This is a primary motivation in me rarely going into the city centre (the other motivation being that generally I want to do my shopping on a weekday evening - I, like most people, work during the day on week days, and would prefer to spend my weekend doing something *fun* rather than shopping. I'd love to buy my groceries at the local market, and since they have generally sold out of produce and closed by the afternoon the only chance I'd get is saturday morning and as you can imagine I have better things to be doing at weekends.)
I did, a few years ago, hear one of the councils complaining that out of town retail parks were killing the town centres because of the free parking. Their proposed solution: ban all out of town retail parks from offering free parking. That's obviosuly completely bonkers - for less than the price of town centre parking I can order stuff over the internet, so that kind of action isn't going to save the town centres, it's just going to kill the out of town retail parks _as well_.
The problem in many places or at least Copenhagen were I used to live, is that the city will reduce the number of legal parking places, and increase parking costs and tickets, so instead of using the money to expand the service for those they tax, they use the money to destroy the service for those they taxed, for the purpose of "earning" more tax.
Also, I know a number of development projects in my area received EU funding on the basis of being "public transport friendly". This sounds good on the surface until you realise that "public transport friendly" actually just means "not enough parking spaces" rather than any kind of sensible tie-in with public transport.
The local councils don't "profit" from parking charges, the money from charges and permits goes into the funding pool to help pay for everything the council does like street sweeping etc. If councils reduced the parking charges or zeroed them out they'd have to raise rates and other fees to cover the shortfall.
Why should the councils be overcharging for one service in order to subsidise another? What's next, charging everyone with kids over the cost of providing schools in order to also fund the police?
Pictures of my city, Edinburgh from the 1960s show a few cars parked in busy city centre streets with no traffic meters or wardens because back then not many people had cars so there was no problem finding space to park them. Today is a different matter with more people around and a higher percentage of them owning cars.
I'm relatively supportive of charges where there is contention for the parking, so long as they are set at an appropriate level to discourage people from overstaying in order to allow more people to use the facilities. However, my council places high parking charges all year round, 24 hours a day on certain car parks - for example, there is no contention for beach-front parking during the winter, yet over the past couple of years *all* of the free beach parking in the area has now started charging relatively high tariffs all year round. We're constantly told we have to do more exercise, but the councils are ensuring that getting to places where we can do exercise is costly by overcharging for parking (yes, I'm aware that you can have exercise by walking down the side of a busy road, but that doesn't fall into my definition of "fun", so I'm not as likely to do that as go for a nice stroll/surf/swim at the beach).
On the other hand, as I live in Brighton and the local Green council have fucked the parking costs, I'm delighted that B&H have been blocked...
Parking prices across the whole of the UK seem to have gone nuts over the past few years as councils have found it an easy way to make money. The council is there to provide services to residents, so IMHO shouldn't be in the business of profiting from them - charge the running costs of the carpark and nothing more please.
The difference is, on a Mac, you can still easily find the "Shutdown" menu option, should you want to. You don't need it all that often, but it's easy to find.
The result of a hidden shutdown menu is simply that the end user holds down the power button until it powers down... Nor would I particularly blame them.
Reality = Insurance pays, you pay more and some crack head gets high. Legalize drugs is the answer.
Not that I particularly oppose legalising and regulating drugs, but how does having commercial drugs (hence, not free) prevent a crack head from stealing stuff to pay for the drugs?
You do realize that with UEFI... THERE IS NO FUCKING BIOS right?
Every time you people say shit like this you make it clear that you don't even know what the fuck you're talking about.
Yes, ok, there is no classical BIOS. There is, however, a user interface to the firmware to set various options, just as there is on an actual BIOS. It was pretty obvious what I was talking about, I think everyone understood it except for you, who instead chose to be a complete bellend about it for no good reason.
Actually UK law does require they let you do that. Of course they don't have to agree to your modified contact, but the opportunity to examine and edit to must at least exist.
Ok, you're right, you are allowed to strike out clauses you don't like. It won't do you any good though since they will reject the contract, so you're back to "either accept the terms as stated or don't use the service". If most service providers have bad terms in their contracts then "don't use the service" becomes a big problem, and that's where you need regulation.
As I understand it, UEFI is not a requirement for Win8,
AFAIK Windows 8 doesn't require UEFI, but the vendors are required to implement it in order to be able to use the "Designed for Windows 8" stickers. I think they're also required to enable it by default. x86 vendors can have an option in the BIOS to allow it to be turned off (I imagine the vendors who largely sell servers will do this whilst the cheap brands won't because implementing a "off" option would cost them a few pennies more in coding time). As I understand it, MS has mandated that ARM machines are required to have UEFI that can't be switched off (not entirely sure how they are enforcing this last one).
But you give Facebook a licence to use this data when you agree to their TOS. The data may have originated from you, but you transferred ownership of it in exchange for the services Facebook provided you with.
Not in the UK. British data protection laws hold that your data still belongs to you, even if its being held by another company. This is why that company needs your permission to sell it on. Of course, if it is illegally sold on without your permission and the seller lies to the buyer and tells them you authorised further sales then even if the buyer cares about the law, they may end up selling your data on even though you never gave that permission. (This happened to my data)
What is needed is a law that prevents dissemination of your data by a company who you haven't given explicit permission to directly.
If you want full control over your personal data, only sign up with services that gives you full control of the data. This includes not signing up to any service that have a TOS that allows them to change their TOS.
Good luck finding such a service. For personal customers, contracts aren't negotiated, you don't have the option to strike out terms you don't like. And when so mant companies require you to permit them to use and sell your data in ways not directly associated with the services they provide, some regulation is needed to stop the public being railroaded into agreeing to this by virtue of having little choice.
And that goes to show that while prefixes might have been a cute idea, they can't work. Because a lot of web developers will opt to use only one set of prefixes (say -webkit- or -ms-) and omit the others (and rightly so, because they're on a schedule too) and that in turn will force browsers to support each other's prefixes, making the prefixes useless.
Well, not really. If your browser includes support for a "-webkit-*" property, that just means that it behaves like Webkit's nonstandard one does, it doesn't mean you *are* webkit. Also, these properties are generally cosmetic things where it just doesn't matter if they aren't implemented - if your boxes render with square corners instead of rounded ones then your website will still be perfectly usable, just not quite as pretty; this is completely different to what MS used to do, which was implement ratified standards *wrong*, which meant that the standard feature now couldn't be used anywhere (without IE comment hacks) since your choice came down to: use it in a way that works in IE but breaks badly in anything else, or use it in a way that works in everything else but breaks badly in IE.
Interesting... I know granite contains radioactive thorium, but had never heard of radon (which is a gas). Guess there are some. Radon gas is much more likely to come from soil or along with natural gas. Fracking tends to bring it up, as well.
Granite contains uranium, which decays into radon gas.
Modern coal plants right now only emmit CO2. And with sequestering as it is planned in the EU, they emmit nothing at all. If you life in a country where coal plants emit dangerous poluttants I would suggest you talk to your representative instead of claiming nuclear would be more harmless. But if you think it is, talk to your representative and let him exchange the local coal plant by a nuclear one...
And has a radiator on top of her head to keep her brain from literally cooking? There's no reason to suppose that an order-of-magnitude increase in computation power won't require an order-of-magnitude increase in power.
Brains are actually quite good at what they do - I don't really see a need for an "extra brain" coprocessor. Something more specific would be more useful - for example, a maths coprocessor that you can offload all the complex maths to, a wikipedia processor for looking up badly researched facts, etc...
On a related note, I bought an Acer notebook computer this past summer to replace an antiquated IBM (not Lenovo) ThinkPad. The advertisement did not mention hardware VT-x support in the CPU was non-existent.
I've got an Acer... Won't be getting another one - their customer support is atrocious:
Fell at the first hurdle - it ships with Windows and they flatly refused to refund the Windows licence without me physically sending the machine and paying them a "handling fee" far in excess of the licence fee itself (a French court has since ruled that this is illegal, unfortunately the ruling was too late for me).
Secondly, the TravelMate 6410 line (at least) has a firmware bug - the DSDT is broken, I informed them of this, even fixed it and sent them a patch. Their support people did the usual job of only bothering to read the first sentence of each of my emails and drawing their own conclusions about what the rest of the email said. When I asked them to actually read my email they told me they were escalating to a supervisor - I never received any further response from them and they flat ignored further emails from me. In the 3 years since I reported the issue they have not released an updated firmware, despite the fact that they have been made aware of a bug (and been given a fix!) in that entire product line. http://nexusuk.org/~steve/acer.xhtml
Thirdly, it eats batteries for breakfast. I don't know whether its a poor battery or a poor charger, but after a year the battery capacity is down to a fraction of its as-new life. I know that batteries don't last forever and that leaving the machine on charge for most of its life isn't great for it, but no other machine I've ever had has been this bad - the Macbook Pro I've got for testing is subjected to similar working conditions and the battery (over 3 years old) still has excellent life. To make matters worse, Acer consider the battery to a consumable and therefore only consider it (or the charger) to have failed if it dies within 6 months - they flatly refused to replace the battery.
Over all, the hardware itself is not bad, but their complete failure to offer any kind of an after-sales customer service means that I won't be buying another, my company won't be buying any and we won't ever recommend them to our customers.
How do you like your new Apple toilet paper? Hope its not too scratchy? The new Apple socks and underwear ok for you?
Apple has responded to complaints that iBogroll 5 is more scratchy than the iBogroll 4. In a statement they said that this was not a bug and that people experiencing this problem are not holding it right when wiping...
Being fired from your job without conviction would result in your employer hurled in front of an industrial tribunal here in the UK and losing.
You might not be fired, but good luck getting a new job later on if you work in a sector that requires CRB checks. CRB checks record accusations as well as convictions, and no sane school (for example) is going to employ a teacher who has previously been accused of kiddy fiddling, even if a court has found them innocent. This is precisely because if something *did* happen in the future, the school would be crucified by the press for employing someone who has bad stuff come up on their CRB check.
Slashdot Mirror
Then sky caught on and now episodes are broadcast within a week of u.s. airings (some series we had the episodes before the u.s!)
The stuff we got before the US always tended to be because the US insist on having a mid-season break whereas we generally don't. So the start of the series came a couple of weeks after the US showed it, and then the US went into their mid-season break and we overtook them for the second half.
However we don't bother any more, too much hassle, we simply wait for the DVDs to come out. Just finished watching Sanctuary, and have reached season 7 of 24 (we gave up when it left the BBC after day 2). We do lose something in the lack of cliffhangers, but the lack of adverts, the lack of faff of downloading, and the instant availability when and where we want, more than makes up for it.
We occasionally dip back into TV -- we watched Terra Nova last year. Just got into it, and then it was cancelled. By waiting a few years we can see when a series is worthwhile buying.
I gave up my Sky subscription years ago. I realised that I was basically only watching 2 or 3 programmes on Sky, and for that had to pay £20/month for 60 channels I wasn't interested in. Cheaper to buy the DVDs of the shows I want to watch. I do still watch broadcast TV, but its pretty much entirely BBC and S4C, I certainly don't feel like I'm losing out by dropping pay TV. If the pay-TV broadcasters stopped bundling channels I'm not interested in (and making me pay for them), stopped the wall-to-wall adverts, *and* stopped with their crazy DRM that prevents me using MythTV with their broadcasts, then its vaguely possible I might resubscribe, but to be honest the convenience of just buying DVDs instead of having to deal with the broadcasters' shit is good.
Phone networks originated in the U.S. If the international standard differs from and is incompatible with that of the U.S., you need to be asking why it differs. Not why the U.S. had the temerity to keep its existing system, instead of uprooting it and replacing it wholesale it to comply with a different standard.
Your argument would hold water if the US was still using the original system that was in place before international standardisation. That's not the case - the original US phone system didn't use SS7, for example. As it stands, the ITU produce standards by collaberation with all stakeholders (the US included), the various national standards bodies, such as ETSI, ANSI, etc. then take those standards and modify them. ETSI, etc. tend to use those standards more or less as-is, with fairly minimal changes. ANSI tend to take those standards and make vast numbers of unneccessary and pointless changes - Some of this is useful (i.e. the ANSI pointcode address space is bigger than the ITU standard), but most of it is stuff like swapping bit-fields around, etc which serve no useful purpose and just makes the US system incompatible with everyone else's.
But your assumption should be that the first system was the standard. And if a different standard was chosen elsewhere, you should be questioning that decision first. Not immediately criticizing the first system developed for not changing to adopt the new standard.
I'm not criticising the US for not changing an existing system to a new international standard, I'm criticising the US for intentionally making *new* systems incompatible with the rest of the world.
most switches use the first digit being a "1" to denote the beginning of a long distance call.
Untrue. In most (but not all) of the world, the international dialing prefix is 00
And in the UK, the prefix 0 denotes a non-local call (i.e. outside your own STD code) whilst 1 usually denotes a service local to your specific telco (customer services, etc) although there are exceptions to this, such as the 118xxx numbers for directory enquiries. Numbers starting 2-9 are local (within your STD code) except for 999 (emergency services).
Going with '112' breaks a perfectly good standard in a country that at least has a standard phone number format.
The problem with this attitude is that mobile standards are international, and there are numerous countries with standard domestic number formats that are not the same as the US's. Unfortunately, the US attitude always seems to be to disagree with any international standardisation process rather than reach a compromise (I think anyone who has worked on the international telephone network protocols will agree with this - most of the ANSI protocols are different to the ITU recommendations for no reason other than to be different)
For example, Steve Jobs only drew a $1 salary from Apple, but also had the use of a corporate jet.
The downside of this is that he wouldn't be amassing any liquid wealth himself. Presumably he had a large amount of stock though, and would just sell some of that off when he needed some liquidity (and his inheritance would of course be made up of the stock). Selling off stock would make him liable for cap-gains of course.
I he used it to go anywhere for a holiday, then it counted as a taxable benefit, but it didn't for business use it did not. And business use included flying to another country for a half-hour meeting and then staying there for a week.
The HMRC rules (for UK tax payers) explicitly say that only expenses used *exclusively* for business may claim full tax relief. For things that are not exclusively business expenses you can often claim a proportionate amount of relief. For example, my office is in my home, which means I can claim tax back on things like heating, but not the full cost of heating the whole house - I apportion my expenses based on the proportion of my home I use for business purposes.
I think for things like travelling expenses, most self employed people would do as you say - claim tax back on the whole lot if any part of the trip was for business reasons, and the HMRC would struggle to prove otherwise; but technically it isn't allowed (in the UK - no idea about US tax laws).
Council parking enforcement in general however, is one of the biggest factors killing high streets... If parking within range of the high street shops is expensive or difficult, then people will happily drive to the out of town shopping centres who provide large free car parks.
This is a primary motivation in me rarely going into the city centre (the other motivation being that generally I want to do my shopping on a weekday evening - I, like most people, work during the day on week days, and would prefer to spend my weekend doing something *fun* rather than shopping. I'd love to buy my groceries at the local market, and since they have generally sold out of produce and closed by the afternoon the only chance I'd get is saturday morning and as you can imagine I have better things to be doing at weekends.)
I did, a few years ago, hear one of the councils complaining that out of town retail parks were killing the town centres because of the free parking. Their proposed solution: ban all out of town retail parks from offering free parking. That's obviosuly completely bonkers - for less than the price of town centre parking I can order stuff over the internet, so that kind of action isn't going to save the town centres, it's just going to kill the out of town retail parks _as well_.
The problem in many places or at least Copenhagen were I used to live, is that the city will reduce the number of legal parking places, and increase parking costs and tickets, so instead of using the money to expand the service for those they tax, they use the money to destroy the service for those they taxed, for the purpose of "earning" more tax.
Also, I know a number of development projects in my area received EU funding on the basis of being "public transport friendly". This sounds good on the surface until you realise that "public transport friendly" actually just means "not enough parking spaces" rather than any kind of sensible tie-in with public transport.
The local councils don't "profit" from parking charges, the money from charges and permits goes into the funding pool to help pay for everything the council does like street sweeping etc. If councils reduced the parking charges or zeroed them out they'd have to raise rates and other fees to cover the shortfall.
Why should the councils be overcharging for one service in order to subsidise another? What's next, charging everyone with kids over the cost of providing schools in order to also fund the police?
Pictures of my city, Edinburgh from the 1960s show a few cars parked in busy city centre streets with no traffic meters or wardens because back then not many people had cars so there was no problem finding space to park them. Today is a different matter with more people around and a higher percentage of them owning cars.
I'm relatively supportive of charges where there is contention for the parking, so long as they are set at an appropriate level to discourage people from overstaying in order to allow more people to use the facilities. However, my council places high parking charges all year round, 24 hours a day on certain car parks - for example, there is no contention for beach-front parking during the winter, yet over the past couple of years *all* of the free beach parking in the area has now started charging relatively high tariffs all year round. We're constantly told we have to do more exercise, but the councils are ensuring that getting to places where we can do exercise is costly by overcharging for parking (yes, I'm aware that you can have exercise by walking down the side of a busy road, but that doesn't fall into my definition of "fun", so I'm not as likely to do that as go for a nice stroll/surf/swim at the beach).
On the other hand, as I live in Brighton and the local Green council have fucked the parking costs, I'm delighted that B&H have been blocked...
Parking prices across the whole of the UK seem to have gone nuts over the past few years as councils have found it an easy way to make money. The council is there to provide services to residents, so IMHO shouldn't be in the business of profiting from them - charge the running costs of the carpark and nothing more please.
On pretty much any modern PC or laptop, you don't need to hold it. You just press it, and the OS detects it and shuts down.
Depends on the configuration of the machine. My (Fedora) laptop is it to go to sleep when I tap the power button, no idea what windows 8 defaults to.
The difference is, on a Mac, you can still easily find the "Shutdown" menu option, should you want to. You don't need it all that often, but it's easy to find.
The result of a hidden shutdown menu is simply that the end user holds down the power button until it powers down... Nor would I particularly blame them.
Reality = Insurance pays, you pay more and some crack head gets high. Legalize drugs is the answer.
Not that I particularly oppose legalising and regulating drugs, but how does having commercial drugs (hence, not free) prevent a crack head from stealing stuff to pay for the drugs?
You do realize that with UEFI ... THERE IS NO FUCKING BIOS right?
Every time you people say shit like this you make it clear that you don't even know what the fuck you're talking about.
Yes, ok, there is no classical BIOS. There is, however, a user interface to the firmware to set various options, just as there is on an actual BIOS. It was pretty obvious what I was talking about, I think everyone understood it except for you, who instead chose to be a complete bellend about it for no good reason.
Actually UK law does require they let you do that. Of course they don't have to agree to your modified contact, but the opportunity to examine and edit to must at least exist.
Ok, you're right, you are allowed to strike out clauses you don't like. It won't do you any good though since they will reject the contract, so you're back to "either accept the terms as stated or don't use the service". If most service providers have bad terms in their contracts then "don't use the service" becomes a big problem, and that's where you need regulation.
As I understand it, UEFI is not a requirement for Win8,
AFAIK Windows 8 doesn't require UEFI, but the vendors are required to implement it in order to be able to use the "Designed for Windows 8" stickers. I think they're also required to enable it by default. x86 vendors can have an option in the BIOS to allow it to be turned off (I imagine the vendors who largely sell servers will do this whilst the cheap brands won't because implementing a "off" option would cost them a few pennies more in coding time). As I understand it, MS has mandated that ARM machines are required to have UEFI that can't be switched off (not entirely sure how they are enforcing this last one).
But you give Facebook a licence to use this data when you agree to their TOS. The data may have originated from you, but you transferred ownership of it in exchange for the services Facebook provided you with.
Not in the UK. British data protection laws hold that your data still belongs to you, even if its being held by another company. This is why that company needs your permission to sell it on. Of course, if it is illegally sold on without your permission and the seller lies to the buyer and tells them you authorised further sales then even if the buyer cares about the law, they may end up selling your data on even though you never gave that permission. (This happened to my data)
What is needed is a law that prevents dissemination of your data by a company who you haven't given explicit permission to directly.
If you want full control over your personal data, only sign up with services that gives you full control of the data.
This includes not signing up to any service that have a TOS that allows them to change their TOS.
Good luck finding such a service. For personal customers, contracts aren't negotiated, you don't have the option to strike out terms you don't like. And when so mant companies require you to permit them to use and sell your data in ways not directly associated with the services they provide, some regulation is needed to stop the public being railroaded into agreeing to this by virtue of having little choice.
1993 called...
Oh my god, did you warn them?!?!
And that goes to show that while prefixes might have been a cute idea, they can't work.
Because a lot of web developers will opt to use only one set of prefixes (say -webkit- or -ms-) and omit the others (and rightly so, because they're on a schedule too) and that in turn will force browsers to support each other's prefixes, making the prefixes useless.
Well, not really. If your browser includes support for a "-webkit-*" property, that just means that it behaves like Webkit's nonstandard one does, it doesn't mean you *are* webkit. Also, these properties are generally cosmetic things where it just doesn't matter if they aren't implemented - if your boxes render with square corners instead of rounded ones then your website will still be perfectly usable, just not quite as pretty; this is completely different to what MS used to do, which was implement ratified standards *wrong*, which meant that the standard feature now couldn't be used anywhere (without IE comment hacks) since your choice came down to: use it in a way that works in IE but breaks badly in anything else, or use it in a way that works in everything else but breaks badly in IE.
Same. thing. Rent the dirtiest, most perverted porn that it legal in your jurisdiction and you have a small chance. And a very discreet entrance.
Why do people pay for porn any more? It's not as if it's hard to find it on the internet for free...
Interesting... I know granite contains radioactive thorium, but had never heard of radon (which is a gas). Guess there are some. Radon gas is much more likely to come from soil or along with natural gas. Fracking tends to bring it up, as well.
Granite contains uranium, which decays into radon gas.
Modern coal plants right now only emmit CO2. And with sequestering as it is planned in the EU, they emmit nothing at all. ...
If you life in a country where coal plants emit dangerous poluttants I would suggest you talk to your representative instead of claiming nuclear would be more harmless.
But if you think it is, talk to your representative and let him exchange the local coal plant by a nuclear one
Just sayin'
Regurgitating badly research facts is what our brains are best at.
But with a Wikipedia coprocessor you have access to *more* badly researched information.
And has a radiator on top of her head to keep her brain from literally cooking? There's no reason to suppose that an order-of-magnitude increase in computation power won't require an order-of-magnitude increase in power.
Brains are actually quite good at what they do - I don't really see a need for an "extra brain" coprocessor. Something more specific would be more useful - for example, a maths coprocessor that you can offload all the complex maths to, a wikipedia processor for looking up badly researched facts, etc...
On a related note, I bought an Acer notebook computer this past summer to replace an antiquated IBM (not Lenovo) ThinkPad. The advertisement did not mention hardware VT-x support in the CPU was non-existent.
I've got an Acer... Won't be getting another one - their customer support is atrocious:
Fell at the first hurdle - it ships with Windows and they flatly refused to refund the Windows licence without me physically sending the machine and paying them a "handling fee" far in excess of the licence fee itself (a French court has since ruled that this is illegal, unfortunately the ruling was too late for me).
Secondly, the TravelMate 6410 line (at least) has a firmware bug - the DSDT is broken, I informed them of this, even fixed it and sent them a patch. Their support people did the usual job of only bothering to read the first sentence of each of my emails and drawing their own conclusions about what the rest of the email said. When I asked them to actually read my email they told me they were escalating to a supervisor - I never received any further response from them and they flat ignored further emails from me. In the 3 years since I reported the issue they have not released an updated firmware, despite the fact that they have been made aware of a bug (and been given a fix!) in that entire product line. http://nexusuk.org/~steve/acer.xhtml
Thirdly, it eats batteries for breakfast. I don't know whether its a poor battery or a poor charger, but after a year the battery capacity is down to a fraction of its as-new life. I know that batteries don't last forever and that leaving the machine on charge for most of its life isn't great for it, but no other machine I've ever had has been this bad - the Macbook Pro I've got for testing is subjected to similar working conditions and the battery (over 3 years old) still has excellent life. To make matters worse, Acer consider the battery to a consumable and therefore only consider it (or the charger) to have failed if it dies within 6 months - they flatly refused to replace the battery.
Over all, the hardware itself is not bad, but their complete failure to offer any kind of an after-sales customer service means that I won't be buying another, my company won't be buying any and we won't ever recommend them to our customers.
How do you like your new Apple toilet paper? Hope its not too scratchy? The new Apple socks and underwear ok for you?
Apple has responded to complaints that iBogroll 5 is more scratchy than the iBogroll 4. In a statement they said that this was not a bug and that people experiencing this problem are not holding it right when wiping...
Being fired from your job without conviction would result in your employer hurled in front of an industrial tribunal here in the UK and losing.
You might not be fired, but good luck getting a new job later on if you work in a sector that requires CRB checks. CRB checks record accusations as well as convictions, and no sane school (for example) is going to employ a teacher who has previously been accused of kiddy fiddling, even if a court has found them innocent. This is precisely because if something *did* happen in the future, the school would be crucified by the press for employing someone who has bad stuff come up on their CRB check.