Hell yeh and all those race drivers should be forced to be ambulance drivers and fire truck drivers. Or maybe in the real world the skills required and the attitude to the job are different, like the difference between writing viruses and anti virus it's rare for someone to be good at both. Welcome to the real world some people are good at some things whilst being bad at another even in a realated field. If your cousin is real rather than a figment of your imagination he needed help anyway if losing a death match sent him into catatonic despair, but more likely he is fake and you have the problems.
The main difference is in the UK the burden of proof is on the defendant. So you can use libel laws to prevent something getting published if the person who's going to do the publishing can't afford to contest it, and that happens a lot. And since the burden of proof is on the defendant, they'll have to have ironclad proof of what they're saying.
actually in a libel case the person being "libelled" is the defendant as the writer is accusing them of something. As the defendant is considered innocent until proven guilty it is up the author doing the accusing to prove them guilty. The author is not the defendant as they are making the accusations the other person is taking them to court to defend themselves, remember courts are not just there for criminal law they are there for civil law and to mediate disputes. The author will be asked to prove his accusations just like any other court of law.
So you can use libel laws to prevent something getting published if the person who's going to do the publishing can't afford to contest it, and that happens a lot
Most newspapers and easily afford libel cases and individuals that cant can get legal aid, money is no barrier to representation you can often get legal even if you can afford a lawyer yourself. If the writer believes what they have written they are usually keen to go to court so as the publicise the incident.
Even if you say something untrue the other party still has to show damages and in some cases malice. Plus if the person's a public figure they get even less protection.
So I could say something completely untrue about anyone in America and so long as it doesn't cost them anything I can carry one? That's quite amazing. Isn't lying about someone pretty malicious anyway?
Has it occurred to anyone else that Microsoft quite likely owns enough licenses for this application, but the developer who needed it for Media Player knew he could get his work done faster by using an invalid license than going through the corporate bureaucracy.
A practice that has got more than one company in trouble with Microsoft (and others)so why is it alright for them to do it and to clampdown on others?
You would think if the want to keep something specific, like copyrights, they would explicitly mention it at the least. That's what I find as glaringly obvious, that it wasn't mentioned in the context of everything else that was.
I think you have that reversed, when you go to buy something from a shop. a PC for example they tell what you are getting not what you are not getting, it's easier to understand exactley what your getting.
I dont know about CBC but in what way is the government involved with the BBC. Appart from collecting the BBC's revenue for it the government is not allowed to do anything with the BBC. The only thing it can do is Fix inquires something it can do to all the TV stations.
It's been a while since I switched to something else, but isn't iexplore.exe required for the system to boot properly?
Not from my experiance no. as windows supposedly needs ie I wouldn't and haven't removed any other part of IE except the.EXE to stop idiot friend using it. 6 months no problems in XP. Also used W98 for 4 years in the same way no problems.
Quick example Abraham Lincoln in 1860 only won 40% of the vote in any other democracy he would have had to form a coalition to or there would have to be another round of voteing with the least popular candidate from the last round removed, yet he got 59% of the Electoral College vote and you know what happened next, 10% is a very big margin of error.
winning with out winning the popular vote is a possibility, a trade-off, if you will, by design. It's been there for 300 years - why didn't you make a fuss before?
A trade off for what advantage? golly gosh maybe because im only 24 and have only been interested in politics in the last 4 years and during that time I have.
Further, this has been covered before, but Arrow's Impossibility Theorem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibil ity_theorem) proves it's impossible to have a perfect system. All have anomolies of some sort. In the case of the electoral college system, one of it's anomolies is that in a very close election someone will win without winning the popular vote, albeit by a very small margin
The link doesn't work but i understand what you meen by perfection. However you can improve and evolve things just because perfection is impossible is poor excuse to not improve and make a system fairer.
The following is from the document A society needs to agree on a preference order among several different options. Each individual in the society has his or her own personal preference order. The problem is to find a general mechanism, called a social choice function, which transforms the set of preference orders, one for each individual, into a global societal preference order. This social choice function should have several desirable ("fair") properties:
domain or universality: the social choice function should create a deterministic, complete societal preference order from every possible set of individual preference orders. (The vote must have a result that ranks all possible choices relative to one another, the voting mechanism must be able to process all possible sets of voter preferences, and it should always give the same result for the same votes, without random selection)
With the way the Electoral College currently works if you change where the votes are cast i.e. which state then you change the result of the electoral college.
Finally Just because people are used to something doesn't meen it shouldn't or can't be changed. Most people where used to others being and owning slaves but we improved, most people where used to horses, most of us now own and drives cars. Most where used to children going up chimneys or working in coal mine (still dangerous today) but we changed.
because the Electoral College that was setup as the 12th amendment in 1804, did it's job.
Is it it's job to allow an unpopular president? Actually it did work this time but it didn't the time before when someone is only doing there job half the time wouldn't you fire them?
You may have issues with the Electoral College, but the popular vote thingy is a false issue.
Please explain why it is a false issue. I don't have issues with the Electoral College it's an odd system but if it proportionally represented the views of the people it would be OK. I have issues with the unrepresentative nature of the vote. Allowing someone to win all the available Electoral College votes for a state because they won the state by one popular vote is undemocratic no matter how you spin it.
Quick example Abraham Lincoln in 1860 only won 40% of the vote in any other democracy he would have had to form a coalition to or there would have to be another round of voteing with the least popular candidate from the last round removed, yet he got 59% of the Electoral College vote and you know what happened next.
there's one thing I'd like to see changed in the American governmental structure. It's not the election, but I think it would have an effect. In Great Britain, the Prime Minister has to defend his position to the opposition. (I don't know whether it's in the House of Lords or Commons. Could a British reader elaborate on this?) I've seen this several times on "The News Hour" (and now, once I've mentioned a PBS program, I'm sure I'll be branded a liberal and a lot of people will use that as cause to ignore anything I say), with Tony Blair having to justify and explain his reasoning for his position or actions.
It's called prime ministers question time, an important thing to remember is that the Prime minister is first amongst equals he is answerable to his peers i.e every member of parliament. Prime minister used to be an insult for the leader of the ruling party that got ideas above there station now a days people call them a presidential prime minister a charge often levelled at TB.
TB has tried to game this process by shortening the time allowed for questions and only allowing questions he's seen in advance, worst of all are the sycophantic arse licking he get from some of the cronies in his party "does the prime minister realise how fabulous he looks today" that last was exaggerated but not by much.
Despite what TB has tried to do to it Prime Minister Question Time is still one of the best examinations of a leader's action possible, also goverment ministers have there own question time where they answer for there actions as well.
As a weird simile, do you read the Good Beer Guide, Ian? It's a publication by CAMRA and the choices are put in based on local branch involvement. In other words, pubs that people use and like get put in there. And IMO anyway, it's the best. Occassionally you get a duff one, but overall it's really good.
Actually i do it's a perfect example of a guide with unpaid adverts and there increased accuracy.
We know empirically that paid inclusion improves the quality of results, and reduces spam,
What! in my experience the paid inclusion are often only loosely related to what I'm searching for where as the normal stuff is usually bang on at least for the first couple of pages.
this won't be so bad if they put the paid results to one side like Google but if there part of the main result (presumably at the top) the accuracy is going to be reduced.
The easies way to test it is to make a Chembuster and see if it works.
But be carefull every one. From the site
be aware that a Reichean style Cloudbuster is not a toy. It directs orgone energy, both the good type and the harmful DOR type. Don's modification of the traditional CB has removed most of the concern and potential dangers of DOR, since the orgen neutralizes the DOR, but one individual reported getting a headache after touching the pipes of a Chembuster and NOT touching the base to ground himself out. Always touch the base after handling the pipes of an active Chembuster.
It's shameful that you know little of history. The only form of funding for schools (which were run by the church) was from royalty without royalty there would have been no education. Another one for you the first state education in the UK was funded by Henry the 8th, directly from the removal of the Catholic Church from the UK. Before this time education was given by churches that did discriminate against the poor where as with Henry's state schools merit was the factor that got you in.
what curriculum schools taught was entirely at the head masters discretion what was a decent school was widely open to interpretation, do you want your child to go to a school that taught religion or this new fangled science stuff.
Re:I thought the first programmer is
on
The Real da Vinci Code
·
· Score: 3, Informative
However it was never actually built until a hundred years after his death, as engireeing wasn't of a high enough standard in those days to build the parts he required.
babbage
Not quite When first concieved in 1821 Babbage could find nobody with the skills to make the machine until 1832 see the rest below for why it wasn't completed.
The Difference Engine
The Difference Engine was conceived in 1821 in an effort to mechanise the production of mathematical tables. Unlike the earlier calculators of Schickard, Pascal and Liebniz, the engine was not designed to perform basic arithmetic but to calculate a series of numerical values and automatically print the results. Difference engines were designed to calculate using the `method of finite differences', a well used principle of the time. The advantage of using the method of differences is that it eliminates the need for multiplication and division in the calculation of a particular class of mathematical functions called polynomials. The Difference Engine only used addition which is easier to mechanise than multiplication and division.
Manufacturing parts for his engines stretched the standards of engineering practice of the time. The intricate shapes required special jigs and tools and the Engines' mechanisms demanded hundreds of near-identical precision parts. Babbage conceived his Engine designs at a time when production techniques were in transition between craft traditions and mass-production and there was not yet the means of producing repeated parts automatically.
Babbage conducted an extensive survey of manufacturing techniques and practice by visiting manufactures and craft workshops in England and on the Continent. He concluded that the precision and intricacy required for the construction of his Engine were beyond the capabilities of the technology of the day. This study, conducted during the 1820s, formed the basis of his influential book entitled On the Economy of Machinery and Manufactures, published in 1832.
The design specification for the full size Difference Engine No. 1 required an estimated 25,000 parts which would have had a combined weight of some fifteen tonnes. The Engine, if completed would have stood eight feet high, seven feet long and three feet in depth. Babbage hired Joseph Clement, a skilled toolmaker and draughtsman, to build the Engine. This portion of the Difference Engine, 'the finished portion of the unfinished engine', was completed in 1832 and is among the most celebrated icons in the prehistory of computing. It is the oldest surviving automatic calculator and among the finest examples of precision engineering of the time.
Babbage benefited from substantial government funding - £17,500. But work on the Engine was halted in 1833 when Clement downed tools following an unresolved dispute over compensation for moving his workshop four miles to new premises near Babbage's house.
He also designed the Diffrence engine No.2 which was much simpiler than the original but with the same computing power as Diffrence engine No.1.
I'm sure that many in the UK would be supportive of Churchill if he had caved in to Germany and Hitler if he said that it might not be in the best interest of queen and country but was certainly in the best interest of the world. Yeah, they would be thrilled.
Actually there where those (lord halifax)who thought it a good idea to sue for peace as it was in the the best intrests of Britains long term future. They where probably correct but they were not "right". Chruchilc wanted to carry on because he was conviced that Hitler wanted to bring the entire world to it's knees he felt it was up to Britain (as the only ones willing) to save the world from hitler and made it the core of his pro war speeches. Study some history before using at an example.
comparing bush and Churchill is like comparing Britany spears and Frank sinatra or a Vauxhall Nova with a Rolls Royce.
please, stop making that argument. the more people point to the fact that alcohol and tabacco are drugs as well, the stronger the case for outlawing them will be. It already started. Your argument will not get drugs leagized, it will get A&T banned
I don't mind if there banned so long as it ends the hypocrisy, yes i do use them but would accept there loss. anyway the chance of Alcohol and Tobacco Banned are slim because the majority of politicians use (and even abuse) them, the hypocrisy im talking about. It could also do society good but most likley it will do it more harm like prohabition.
Here's the problem with your comment: The Times is indeed notorious for pulling "Rowbacks," but in the journalism community they are also widely derided for it. In other words, you are correct that they do it, but incorrect in assuming that means it's acceptable.
So other journalists think it's more acceptable to stick by you story even when it's wrong? just confused over the use of acceptable. It's seems rowbacks are far more aceptable than the alternative.
Places like China, India and Russia are completely innocent and incapable of having any negative impact on the rest of the world. Any country in Europe is, of course, holy and pure.
Umm I never saw this claim anywhere, You seem to mistake attempts at self improvement like the Kyoto agreement for claims of perfection, instead Kyoto admits we are not holy and pure and that we should try to make up for that fact. We are mature enough to know that we don't know everything about the world and perhaps we could improve what we do and how we do it in a way that makes the environment better for the entire world. Sticking your fingers in your ears and going "LALALALALA it's not happening, it's everyone else's fault/problem nothing to do with us." This helps no-one least of all yourself.
Slashdot Mirror
Hell yeh and all those race drivers should be forced to be ambulance drivers and fire truck drivers. Or maybe in the real world the skills required and the attitude to the job are different, like the difference between writing viruses and anti virus it's rare for someone to be good at both. Welcome to the real world some people are good at some things whilst being bad at another even in a realated field. If your cousin is real rather than a figment of your imagination he needed help anyway if losing a death match sent him into catatonic despair, but more likely he is fake and you have the problems.
actually in a libel case the person being "libelled" is the defendant as the writer is accusing them of something. As the defendant is considered innocent until proven guilty it is up the author doing the accusing to prove them guilty. The author is not the defendant as they are making the accusations the other person is taking them to court to defend themselves, remember courts are not just there for criminal law they are there for civil law and to mediate disputes. The author will be asked to prove his accusations just like any other court of law.
So you can use libel laws to prevent something getting published if the person who's going to do the publishing can't afford to contest it, and that happens a lot
Most newspapers and easily afford libel cases and individuals that cant can get legal aid, money is no barrier to representation you can often get legal even if you can afford a lawyer yourself. If the writer believes what they have written they are usually keen to go to court so as the publicise the incident.
Even if you say something untrue the other party still has to show damages and in some cases malice. Plus if the person's a public figure they get even less protection.
So I could say something completely untrue about anyone in America and so long as it doesn't cost them anything I can carry one? That's quite amazing. Isn't lying about someone pretty malicious anyway?
The more i think about the more i think your right. The supporters of Liberal Gun laws (NRA) are pretty mental.
A practice that has got more than one company in trouble with Microsoft (and others)so why is it alright for them to do it and to clampdown on others?
Take the pin out release the handle and your grenade is primed, you might want to throw it after that.
I think you have that reversed, when you go to buy something from a shop. a PC for example they tell what you are getting not what you are not getting, it's easier to understand exactley what your getting.
I dont know about CBC but in what way is the government involved with the BBC. Appart from collecting the BBC's revenue for it the government is not allowed to do anything with the BBC. The only thing it can do is Fix inquires something it can do to all the TV stations.
Learn about your subject before commenting.
Not from my experiance no. as windows supposedly needs ie I wouldn't and haven't removed any other part of IE except the .EXE to stop idiot friend using it. 6 months no problems in XP. Also used W98 for 4 years in the same way no problems.
Quick example Abraham Lincoln in 1860 only won 40% of the vote in any other democracy he would have had to form a coalition to or there would have to be another round of voteing with the least popular candidate from the last round removed, yet he got 59% of the Electoral College vote and you know what happened next, 10% is a very big margin of error.
A trade off for what advantage? golly gosh maybe because im only 24 and have only been interested in politics in the last 4 years and during that time I have.
Further, this has been covered before, but Arrow's Impossibility Theorem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibil ity_theorem) proves it's impossible to have a perfect system. All have anomolies of some sort. In the case of the electoral college system, one of it's anomolies is that in a very close election someone will win without winning the popular vote, albeit by a very small margin
The link doesn't work but i understand what you meen by perfection. However you can improve and evolve things just because perfection is impossible is poor excuse to not improve and make a system fairer.
I managed to make the link work.
The following is from the document A society needs to agree on a preference order among several different options. Each individual in the society has his or her own personal preference order. The problem is to find a general mechanism, called a social choice function, which transforms the set of preference orders, one for each individual, into a global societal preference order. This social choice function should have several desirable ("fair") properties:
domain or universality: the social choice function should create a deterministic, complete societal preference order from every possible set of individual preference orders. (The vote must have a result that ranks all possible choices relative to one another, the voting mechanism must be able to process all possible sets of voter preferences, and it should always give the same result for the same votes, without random selection)
With the way the Electoral College currently works if you change where the votes are cast i.e. which state then you change the result of the electoral college.
Finally Just because people are used to something doesn't meen it shouldn't or can't be changed. Most people where used to others being and owning slaves but we improved, most people where used to horses, most of us now own and drives cars. Most where used to children going up chimneys or working in coal mine (still dangerous today) but we changed.
Is it it's job to allow an unpopular president? Actually it did work this time but it didn't the time before when someone is only doing there job half the time wouldn't you fire them?
You may have issues with the Electoral College, but the popular vote thingy is a false issue.
Please explain why it is a false issue. I don't have issues with the Electoral College it's an odd system but if it proportionally represented the views of the people it would be OK. I have issues with the unrepresentative nature of the vote. Allowing someone to win all the available Electoral College votes for a state because they won the state by one popular vote is undemocratic no matter how you spin it.
Quick example Abraham Lincoln in 1860 only won 40% of the vote in any other democracy he would have had to form a coalition to or there would have to be another round of voteing with the least popular candidate from the last round removed, yet he got 59% of the Electoral College vote and you know what happened next.
It's called prime ministers question time, an important thing to remember is that the Prime minister is first amongst equals he is answerable to his peers i.e every member of parliament. Prime minister used to be an insult for the leader of the ruling party that got ideas above there station now a days people call them a presidential prime minister a charge often levelled at TB.
TB has tried to game this process by shortening the time allowed for questions and only allowing questions he's seen in advance, worst of all are the sycophantic arse licking he get from some of the cronies in his party "does the prime minister realise how fabulous he looks today" that last was exaggerated but not by much.
Despite what TB has tried to do to it Prime Minister Question Time is still one of the best examinations of a leader's action possible, also goverment ministers have there own question time where they answer for there actions as well.
General information about what prime ministers do
How can you say a system that allows someone who didn't win the popular vote become the president work?
That electing a president with a minority of the popular vote is impossible.
What General Gates refers to as the battle of netscape has ended, the battle for firefox is about to begin.
Actually i do it's a perfect example of a guide with unpaid adverts and there increased accuracy.
We know empirically that paid inclusion improves the quality of results, and reduces spam,
What! in my experience the paid inclusion are often only loosely related to what I'm searching for where as the normal stuff is usually bang on at least for the first couple of pages.
this won't be so bad if they put the paid results to one side like Google but if there part of the main result (presumably at the top) the accuracy is going to be reduced.
But be carefull every one. From the site be aware that a Reichean style Cloudbuster is not a toy. It directs orgone energy, both the good type and the harmful DOR type. Don's modification of the traditional CB has removed most of the concern and potential dangers of DOR, since the orgen neutralizes the DOR, but one individual reported getting a headache after touching the pipes of a Chembuster and NOT touching the base to ground himself out. Always touch the base after handling the pipes of an active Chembuster.
Remember this is not a toy.
what curriculum schools taught was entirely at the head masters discretion what was a decent school was widely open to interpretation, do you want your child to go to a school that taught religion or this new fangled science stuff.
babbage Not quite When first concieved in 1821 Babbage could find nobody with the skills to make the machine until 1832 see the rest below for why it wasn't completed.
He also designed the Diffrence engine No.2 which was much simpiler than the original but with the same computing power as Diffrence engine No.1.Actually there where those (lord halifax)who thought it a good idea to sue for peace as it was in the the best intrests of Britains long term future. They where probably correct but they were not "right". Chruchilc wanted to carry on because he was conviced that Hitler wanted to bring the entire world to it's knees he felt it was up to Britain (as the only ones willing) to save the world from hitler and made it the core of his pro war speeches. Study some history before using at an example.
comparing bush and Churchill is like comparing Britany spears and Frank sinatra or a Vauxhall Nova with a Rolls Royce.
I don't mind if there banned so long as it ends the hypocrisy, yes i do use them but would accept there loss. anyway the chance of Alcohol and Tobacco Banned are slim because the majority of politicians use (and even abuse) them, the hypocrisy im talking about. It could also do society good but most likley it will do it more harm like prohabition.
Not only that but whilst watching fox there sexual performance is increased by 10X.
So other journalists think it's more acceptable to stick by you story even when it's wrong? just confused over the use of acceptable. It's seems rowbacks are far more aceptable than the alternative.
Umm I never saw this claim anywhere, You seem to mistake attempts at self improvement like the Kyoto agreement for claims of perfection, instead Kyoto admits we are not holy and pure and that we should try to make up for that fact. We are mature enough to know that we don't know everything about the world and perhaps we could improve what we do and how we do it in a way that makes the environment better for the entire world. Sticking your fingers in your ears and going "LALALALALA it's not happening, it's everyone else's fault/problem nothing to do with us." This helps no-one least of all yourself.