This modifies what I said a little, but not much. The change would be: C had either a very restrictive open source license or very restrictive closed source licenses. Java had an open license that at the same time didn't require companies to give away code they spent a ton of money to develop. Then Apache came along and made it even sweater by expanding the code base with even more open license will still not forcing companies to give away their code. And remember that a lot of the early app servers used at least some Apache code in them, or borrowed from it heavily.
With C if you used a closed source compiler you 1) probably wanted to make enough off your code to pay it off, and two even if you gave your code away the average person wouldn't use it because they would have to pay for their own compiler. And if they didn't pay for their own compiler, they wouldn't be able to use the closed source code unless the person wrote that into the license except, often that code used closed source libraries not amenable to open sourcing. And companies didn't want and still don't want to give their code away with the GNU license (except for a very few).
So, if you were a company that had the option between two languages that would accomplish the same ends, which would you choose? The one that had free or very inexpensive development tools and libraries backed by a large community with even more open yet unrestrained (as in they don't force you to give away code) libraries. Or would you go with the language that had more restrictive libraries and a smaller community... certainly not having anything Apache-like (in terms of scale).... with a flip side of being very restrictive with the GNU license forcing you to give your code away often negating any chance of making money from it after you spent money developing it.
Many companies went the Java route. There had to be a reason. And this is my theory on why. And it reflects on the terms of the license. I've worked on huge projects in the past. And I know the large Java projects were always using Apache code or code from projects with BSD or Apache-like licenses. There was very little GNU stuff happening and of that it was mostly server side so they wouldn't have to give away their code. If they changed the GPL to force companies to give away their server side code, you would see either open source projects shy from it (like many do from the v3) and certainly no company using that code at all.
I know there are reports that C is even with Java again. But what you say made me wonder about this. Despite what Java advocates say, the idea of the app server and enterprise Java was not new to Java. There were and still are brokers around that do much of what a Java app server does, but using C/C++. Tuxedo is one. The thing I am thinking about however, is that Java started a heyday when groups like Apache came around and there was a huge resource of Java utilities and helpers and libraries that were free, and free of encumbering licenses like the GNU license. And Apache thrives despite not having the clause that says you have to give your code away if you use any part of theirs'.
I'm theorizing that Java took off because despite being further behind in enterprise architecture than C at the time (remember Tuxedo et al), it had a support community that didn't encumber the companies, so they backed this stream. C which also has a ton of libraries, but was hamstrung by GNU and thus falling behind in business use case libraries (and those being made being GNU laden and repulsive to most businesses). I see this as the reason for Java's rapid rise. I think it has faltered lately with the crap Oracle has and is trying to pull with Java which is although at the opposite end of the spectrum is just as hampering to other businesses as is the GNU license.
Anyway, maybe with a BSD (and Apache like... although yes, Apache is really BSD-like) licensed compiler, and maybe the founding of an Apache like foundation (how about C is for Comanche?), the C language can take off again.
P.S. as to your route around the license by using other types: of course you're right. It is like all software. If you bring in something that people are supposed to use at work say, but the software makes it harder to do than by hand, people will start doing things by hand again. Even if it is slightly easier but it makes it frustrating for whatever reason, they will find some other way to do the work. It takes people with real foresight to understand this though.
You may be right. Look in the Java world. When XML came out it introduced a new super hell of convoluted configuration over coding which eventually forced the creation of annotation based Java. This totally reinvigorated enterprise Java. XML did make things better by convincing the sane among us who wished to remain sane us to not use it for EVERY DAMNED THING. It also showed people how smart it is not to over engineer stuff when you don't need to... as well as how to spot dipshits who like stuff because it is new and cool. You see it isn't the new stuff that's usually bad, it's the fucktards who want to use it in every problem domain simply because its new, not because its good. But then again, that tends to force the really useful stuff yo be created.
No they won't. The way the system work here is that if a party gets a majority government, they have a defacto dictatorship for 5 years. The system allows the party leaders such discipline over their parliamentary members that they always vote the way the party leader wants, or they won't have a job come the next election day. And they are all shooting for their 6years in office to get a full pension at 55. And if they stay in longer they can end up getting more than $100K/year when they reach the literal golden age of 55. Bottom line is that what the PM of a majority government wants, he gets... within the limits of the constitution (I was going to say law, but they're law makers). They've invoked closure, effectively shutting off public debate, on at least a dozen occasions over the past year since they were elected, including the budget. Say what you will about partisanship in U.S. politics, but no-one can stop a republican who wants to vote for a democrat sponsored bill and vice versa. Here it isn't allowed except in rare "open votes" which as I say almost never happen.
So no, nothing will happen. And since this is coming up early in their mandate (four more years to go), the lame ass Canadian masses who only seem to get excited when the hockey is on during the winter Olympics will forget most of what happened. Unfortunately most Canadians seem to just like to sit back and take it up the ass. If it weren't for the fucked up medical system in the U.S. I'd move back in an instant. The secret police issue and patent/copyright bullshit is a wash since the government up here is evidently moving to try to emulate the U.S. in that regards. I can't help it... and what is even more maddening is they have fucked up the manufacturing sector in an effort to promote tar sands development and other resource industries trumpeting how we should be thankful that they are turning us into a third world resource based economy that is losing its manufacturing and tech base... things that make money and provide jobs more evenly across the country. But hell, they and their cronies will be long dead by the time the resource run out so what the hell. People in Canada still can't figure out why if they are going to sell resources they won't even promote refining the damned tar sands based oil in Canada instead of shipping it south or to China unrefined. Evidently their backers would rather just take the money and profit than spend money investing in value added ventures that employ more Canadians. I had high hopes for the conservatives after years of self entitlement Liberal leadership. But those hopes are tanking fast.
And if anyone cares to notice, since 60 Minutes (CBS flagship "investigative news" show) was sued over the tobacco whistle blower story, they haven't done almost any investigative journalism. I certainly haven't seen any in years. It's all most interviews and fluff pieces. i.e. stuff we already know about. Investigation isn't really part of the show any more. Mind you they may have some investigative pieces still, but as I said, I can't say I've seen any that rank with what they used to do in their heyday in the 70s and 80s. It's obvious their bosses don't like people prying into things that may upset their friends.
So what, you're advocating bigger bloatware programs and telling us we should like them. Here is a novel idea, why not keep the bloated shite off of our computers and see really fast response times and what kind of cool things really inventive people can come up with instead of just supporting some bloated pieces of shit that can drag an i7 down. But I guess it's like the truth that if you give people a month to do something, they will take the month, even if it could be done in a week. But I guess if we made code more efficient, the guys who come up with all these marvellous fucking frameworks would be out of a job.
There is a simple cause and solution to this. They aren't spraying enough pesticides and they need to spray more. Just ask the chemical companies and their congressional and parliamentary stooges. They'll back me up on this.
While Harper is originally from the Toronto area, he moved to Calgary, Alberta a long time ago and that is where he began his professional career and started into politics. He has an Alberta hard right political leaning. (That is Alberta, land of oil and tar sands.) And that is hard right as in Alberta's new 'Wild Rose' party that looks nearly set to beat the provincial conservative party in an election in the next few weeks. In Canada, normally even the conservatives are to the left of the Democrats in the U.S. Lately with Harper, they are approaching GW Bush republicans. The Wild Rose Party definitely is on a par with Bush, even if they may have to support things they find distasteful in order to get elected. Harper and the WRP share the same roots and ideology.
What they also share is the backing of the big oil companies, most of whose headquarters in Canada are located where else, in Alberta. Home of oil reserves, natural gas out the waazoo, and a very large chunk of the oil errr, tar sands (a large portion also falls under Saskatchewan's jurisdiction). A lot of the backing money for the conservative party also comes from the same source. And whereas the Liberal and NDP base is in the central/east and Quebec, the conservative base is in the west, primarily in Alberta. This is why Harper does everything he can to protect big oil and supports the anti-global warming faction as much as he can. He and his base are also fairly high on the Christian fundamentalist scale. That is, his base, not everyone who voted for him.
He has evidenced over the past number of years a strong anti science agenda. He has fired scientists for talking to the press and IIRC even for publishing papers his government doesn't like. He has barred scientists from the National Research Council climate research from attending a number of conferences including United Nations climate conferences. This would be equivalent to barring experts from NOAA or NASA weather experts from attending. He even managed to find a way to bar other members of the government, including opposition parties from attending. When they were caught out in some lie, his minister of the environment had the gall to tell the opposition parties that if they wanted to make a certain point, they should have attended the conference they were barred from going to.
Any time something threatens the oil sands projects, he mobilizes his forces like going to war. He wants to sell oil for his supporters at almost any cost. So why didn't he flip out more when the pipeline through the states didn't pan out? It's because it is ultimately not that big a deal for him or his benefactors. He has an 'out'. He was already in the process and since then has already passed legislation that will make ramming a pipeline to the west coast through B.C. a done deal. If U.S. politicians won't back a path to a market, he has a majority in the house in Canada, which makes him a defacto dictator for five years able to pass any laws he wants (and yes, when the Liberals were in majority we had glorious leader Chretien). Then he will sell China as much oil as they can buy. AFWIW, any law within reason. If any leader with a majority tried to force through legislation to give himself an extra longer term or something, the Queen or the Governor General can boot him out. Hasn't happened before but it's why we still give those other guys the power to do so... just in case. And at least when I was in the military, we swore allegiance to the Queen and Canada. The PM is not the CIC.
Given all this, it is not surprising that the people he has running the NRC now are doing a superb job running interference when any press... any press asks questions even remotely connected to the weather.
Why did Canadians elect them? Mainly because the Liberals and NDP were fighting over who could be the most left leaning party in the country. That left no middle ground. But the middle ground people didn't want to lean that far left so they had no choice but bite the bullet and vote for the ri
Old news. Canada has had chip + pin for at least two years now. I'm pretty sure I've had my CC with chip and pin three and just got my debit last year with the c&p when my old swipable one wore out. I'd rather have the swipe since the chip cards take longer to process and are a pain in the ass. I'd rather swipe, put the card back in my wallet and leave when the transaction clears instead of waiting with it in the machine forever. And personally, I don't see what extra security a chip has over a magnetic strip. Besides aren't the chips open to unauthorized proximity scans? I know magnetic strips aren't. Anyway, I don't remember the last time I signed for a CC transaction. So stick that in your pipe and smoke it. Canada has a long history of being ahead of the curve with electronic banking. I was using a debit card.in 1981 or 1982 in Canada. B4 interac was the standard. We were one of the first to have widespread use of direct debit. Mah and pah stores on every corner in every city here were using them by 84. So maybe someone else could take the lead for a short while. Just don't get uppity about it.
Besides, I'd rather have a banking system with swipe cards that can manage its money than one that is constantly in the throws of defaulting and credit downgrading. At least my money is safe in Canadian banks. So, how's that whole eurozone thing going anyway?
The Canadian mint is releasing a quarter with a dinosaur on it where, when you turn off the light, a glow in the dark image of it's skeleton shows up. I find this more interesting and relevant to my day to day life than digital currency I'm not likely to use in the near future... unless forced. Well that, and the fact they Canadian mint has just been ordered to stop producing the penny... Canada will penny free very soon. Anyway, I like the current system of Interac and cash very much, thank you. With the Harper government busily trying to catch up to the U.S. in terms of snooping on its own citizens (not sure anyone could catch up to the British government... even the Chinese), the less I want to do with any form of Canadian government information network.
First, after the bullshit British historians claimed about Canadians in Hong Kong I suspect anything British historians say about WWII, and especially if they put "glorious" in the title. British historians have as distorted a perception and self importance about these events that I think many were cast out of the same mould as that pinnacle of self importance, Montgomery. So now based on one probably flawed historical book that gives you the impression that the merchant marine were a purely British institution, you have come to the conclusion that merchants were not allowed to fire on submarines? Or is it that because submarines are called boats you are going to split hairs and say when they fired on submarines they weren't firing on ships. Or are you saying that when a merchant vessel fired on a submarine it was somehow not attacking it? Are you also going to tell me that if and when surface ships fired on a merchant they would just let them sink them unchallenged. Or that merchant vessels fitted with guns were naval ships and not merchant vessels with guns? I suggest you look up Canadian 'Park' class ship and American 'Liberty' class ship. And this is based on what, one book you read that slanted the British as the sole heroes and saviours in the Battle of the Atlantic? Or are you disagreeing with the point was that putting guns on ships to defend themselves didn't turn the people eventually into pirates themselves. I'm not citing anything since there is enough evidence to be had, as long as you try to read something that is no British centric.
This is pretty close to what worries me, but on the opposite side. I'd worry that they rely on it too much and not flag a vessel as being a pirate (or miss it entirely) even though it is one. And then have the ships ignore it and as a result someone gets killed because whatever navy uses it, reduces the number of lookouts who would have correctly judged the situation.
Bullshit. From Wikipedia, and it is a good definition: A privateer is a private person or ship authorized by a government by letters of marque to attack foreign shipping during wartime. These are people authorized during wartime by a government. Some may have become pirates later, but often were just considered pirates by those on the opposing side in the war.
In fact some privateers are considered some of the greatest heroes in history. For example, Sir Francis Drake who repelled the Spanish Armada during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I was a privateer (but considered by the Spanish to be a pirate).
Armed merchantmen were also known as the Merchant Marine (or Merchant Navy) during World War II. They were one of the most important reasons that the Allies won the war, and they were on the front line for the entirety of the Battle of the Atlantic, the longest single campaign of the war. No matter what equipment we, the Allies had, no matter how many men or how great our generals, none would have made it to the fight without the Merchant Marine. Not only were they essential, they were true heroes. Until antisubmarine technology and tactics came up to speed, many were at the mercilessness of the German U-boat wolf packs that killed many of the seamen. And if they were not armed, many more would have perished and we would have lost the war before it began since neither Britain nor Russia would have been able to get enough food or military equipment and ammunition to hold off the Axis forces. And none of these men became pirates after. And as I see it, since they were private merchant vessels authorized by governments to be armed and attack enemy ships, they were technically speaking, privateers.
The way I see it, all shipping in areas where pirates are known to operate should be expected to carry armed guards and weapons. Why the hell should we be expected to spend money... let me rephrase that... why the hell should we be expected to waste money on trials and food and jail space for these thieves and murderers is beyond me. I think all the politically correct governments should get their heads out of their asses (including mine: Canada). If they see a pirate, blow him out of the water. Then let the survivors drown. Soon enough these thieving fucks will stop. It's not like they have the kind of resources to be able to take on anything of any size anyway. Nor will they be able to. They don't have the resources, so we won't see them attacking with Harpoon missiles or Excocets, or heaven forbid P-700, P-800, or Brahmas either. If that extremely unlikely day ever comes, they won't be attacking from small boats either.
Slashdot Mirror
This modifies what I said a little, but not much. The change would be: C had either a very restrictive open source license or very restrictive closed source licenses. Java had an open license that at the same time didn't require companies to give away code they spent a ton of money to develop. Then Apache came along and made it even sweater by expanding the code base with even more open license will still not forcing companies to give away their code. And remember that a lot of the early app servers used at least some Apache code in them, or borrowed from it heavily.
With C if you used a closed source compiler you 1) probably wanted to make enough off your code to pay it off, and two even if you gave your code away the average person wouldn't use it because they would have to pay for their own compiler. And if they didn't pay for their own compiler, they wouldn't be able to use the closed source code unless the person wrote that into the license except, often that code used closed source libraries not amenable to open sourcing. And companies didn't want and still don't want to give their code away with the GNU license (except for a very few).
So, if you were a company that had the option between two languages that would accomplish the same ends, which would you choose? The one that had free or very inexpensive development tools and libraries backed by a large community with even more open yet unrestrained (as in they don't force you to give away code) libraries. Or would you go with the language that had more restrictive libraries and a smaller community... certainly not having anything Apache-like (in terms of scale).... with a flip side of being very restrictive with the GNU license forcing you to give your code away often negating any chance of making money from it after you spent money developing it.
Many companies went the Java route. There had to be a reason. And this is my theory on why. And it reflects on the terms of the license. I've worked on huge projects in the past. And I know the large Java projects were always using Apache code or code from projects with BSD or Apache-like licenses. There was very little GNU stuff happening and of that it was mostly server side so they wouldn't have to give away their code. If they changed the GPL to force companies to give away their server side code, you would see either open source projects shy from it (like many do from the v3) and certainly no company using that code at all.
Sorry you were only able to focus on one aspect of what I was saying and unable to comprehend the whole.
And now Volkswagon (Hitler's revenge) aren't so cheap anymore either.
I know there are reports that C is even with Java again. But what you say made me wonder about this. Despite what Java advocates say, the idea of the app server and enterprise Java was not new to Java. There were and still are brokers around that do much of what a Java app server does, but using C/C++. Tuxedo is one. The thing I am thinking about however, is that Java started a heyday when groups like Apache came around and there was a huge resource of Java utilities and helpers and libraries that were free, and free of encumbering licenses like the GNU license. And Apache thrives despite not having the clause that says you have to give your code away if you use any part of theirs'.
I'm theorizing that Java took off because despite being further behind in enterprise architecture than C at the time (remember Tuxedo et al), it had a support community that didn't encumber the companies, so they backed this stream. C which also has a ton of libraries, but was hamstrung by GNU and thus falling behind in business use case libraries (and those being made being GNU laden and repulsive to most businesses). I see this as the reason for Java's rapid rise. I think it has faltered lately with the crap Oracle has and is trying to pull with Java which is although at the opposite end of the spectrum is just as hampering to other businesses as is the GNU license.
Anyway, maybe with a BSD (and Apache like... although yes, Apache is really BSD-like) licensed compiler, and maybe the founding of an Apache like foundation (how about C is for Comanche?), the C language can take off again.
P.S. as to your route around the license by using other types: of course you're right. It is like all software. If you bring in something that people are supposed to use at work say, but the software makes it harder to do than by hand, people will start doing things by hand again. Even if it is slightly easier but it makes it frustrating for whatever reason, they will find some other way to do the work. It takes people with real foresight to understand this though.
You may be right. Look in the Java world. When XML came out it introduced a new super hell of convoluted configuration over coding which eventually forced the creation of annotation based Java. This totally reinvigorated enterprise Java. XML did make things better by convincing the sane among us who wished to remain sane us to not use it for EVERY DAMNED THING. It also showed people how smart it is not to over engineer stuff when you don't need to... as well as how to spot dipshits who like stuff because it is new and cool. You see it isn't the new stuff that's usually bad, it's the fucktards who want to use it in every problem domain simply because its new, not because its good. But then again, that tends to force the really useful stuff yo be created.
Naw... he'd be George W Bush sitting down for drink and a laugh with Anthony Scalia.
No they won't. The way the system work here is that if a party gets a majority government, they have a defacto dictatorship for 5 years. The system allows the party leaders such discipline over their parliamentary members that they always vote the way the party leader wants, or they won't have a job come the next election day. And they are all shooting for their 6years in office to get a full pension at 55. And if they stay in longer they can end up getting more than $100K/year when they reach the literal golden age of 55. Bottom line is that what the PM of a majority government wants, he gets... within the limits of the constitution (I was going to say law, but they're law makers). They've invoked closure, effectively shutting off public debate, on at least a dozen occasions over the past year since they were elected, including the budget. Say what you will about partisanship in U.S. politics, but no-one can stop a republican who wants to vote for a democrat sponsored bill and vice versa. Here it isn't allowed except in rare "open votes" which as I say almost never happen.
So no, nothing will happen. And since this is coming up early in their mandate (four more years to go), the lame ass Canadian masses who only seem to get excited when the hockey is on during the winter Olympics will forget most of what happened. Unfortunately most Canadians seem to just like to sit back and take it up the ass. If it weren't for the fucked up medical system in the U.S. I'd move back in an instant. The secret police issue and patent/copyright bullshit is a wash since the government up here is evidently moving to try to emulate the U.S. in that regards. I can't help it... and what is even more maddening is they have fucked up the manufacturing sector in an effort to promote tar sands development and other resource industries trumpeting how we should be thankful that they are turning us into a third world resource based economy that is losing its manufacturing and tech base... things that make money and provide jobs more evenly across the country. But hell, they and their cronies will be long dead by the time the resource run out so what the hell. People in Canada still can't figure out why if they are going to sell resources they won't even promote refining the damned tar sands based oil in Canada instead of shipping it south or to China unrefined. Evidently their backers would rather just take the money and profit than spend money investing in value added ventures that employ more Canadians. I had high hopes for the conservatives after years of self entitlement Liberal leadership. But those hopes are tanking fast.
And if anyone cares to notice, since 60 Minutes (CBS flagship "investigative news" show) was sued over the tobacco whistle blower story, they haven't done almost any investigative journalism. I certainly haven't seen any in years. It's all most interviews and fluff pieces. i.e. stuff we already know about. Investigation isn't really part of the show any more. Mind you they may have some investigative pieces still, but as I said, I can't say I've seen any that rank with what they used to do in their heyday in the 70s and 80s. It's obvious their bosses don't like people prying into things that may upset their friends.
So what, you're advocating bigger bloatware programs and telling us we should like them. Here is a novel idea, why not keep the bloated shite off of our computers and see really fast response times and what kind of cool things really inventive people can come up with instead of just supporting some bloated pieces of shit that can drag an i7 down. But I guess it's like the truth that if you give people a month to do something, they will take the month, even if it could be done in a week. But I guess if we made code more efficient, the guys who come up with all these marvellous fucking frameworks would be out of a job.
I prefer Pliable Pussy.
Never beat off after chopping up scotch bonnet peppers.
There is a simple cause and solution to this. They aren't spraying enough pesticides and they need to spray more. Just ask the chemical companies and their congressional and parliamentary stooges. They'll back me up on this.
While Harper is originally from the Toronto area, he moved to Calgary, Alberta a long time ago and that is where he began his professional career and started into politics. He has an Alberta hard right political leaning. (That is Alberta, land of oil and tar sands.) And that is hard right as in Alberta's new 'Wild Rose' party that looks nearly set to beat the provincial conservative party in an election in the next few weeks. In Canada, normally even the conservatives are to the left of the Democrats in the U.S. Lately with Harper, they are approaching GW Bush republicans. The Wild Rose Party definitely is on a par with Bush, even if they may have to support things they find distasteful in order to get elected. Harper and the WRP share the same roots and ideology.
What they also share is the backing of the big oil companies, most of whose headquarters in Canada are located where else, in Alberta. Home of oil reserves, natural gas out the waazoo, and a very large chunk of the oil errr, tar sands (a large portion also falls under Saskatchewan's jurisdiction). A lot of the backing money for the conservative party also comes from the same source. And whereas the Liberal and NDP base is in the central/east and Quebec, the conservative base is in the west, primarily in Alberta. This is why Harper does everything he can to protect big oil and supports the anti-global warming faction as much as he can. He and his base are also fairly high on the Christian fundamentalist scale. That is, his base, not everyone who voted for him.
He has evidenced over the past number of years a strong anti science agenda. He has fired scientists for talking to the press and IIRC even for publishing papers his government doesn't like. He has barred scientists from the National Research Council climate research from attending a number of conferences including United Nations climate conferences. This would be equivalent to barring experts from NOAA or NASA weather experts from attending. He even managed to find a way to bar other members of the government, including opposition parties from attending. When they were caught out in some lie, his minister of the environment had the gall to tell the opposition parties that if they wanted to make a certain point, they should have attended the conference they were barred from going to.
Any time something threatens the oil sands projects, he mobilizes his forces like going to war. He wants to sell oil for his supporters at almost any cost. So why didn't he flip out more when the pipeline through the states didn't pan out? It's because it is ultimately not that big a deal for him or his benefactors. He has an 'out'. He was already in the process and since then has already passed legislation that will make ramming a pipeline to the west coast through B.C. a done deal. If U.S. politicians won't back a path to a market, he has a majority in the house in Canada, which makes him a defacto dictator for five years able to pass any laws he wants (and yes, when the Liberals were in majority we had glorious leader Chretien). Then he will sell China as much oil as they can buy. AFWIW, any law within reason. If any leader with a majority tried to force through legislation to give himself an extra longer term or something, the Queen or the Governor General can boot him out. Hasn't happened before but it's why we still give those other guys the power to do so... just in case. And at least when I was in the military, we swore allegiance to the Queen and Canada. The PM is not the CIC.
Given all this, it is not surprising that the people he has running the NRC now are doing a superb job running interference when any press... any press asks questions even remotely connected to the weather.
Why did Canadians elect them? Mainly because the Liberals and NDP were fighting over who could be the most left leaning party in the country. That left no middle ground. But the middle ground people didn't want to lean that far left so they had no choice but bite the bullet and vote for the ri
It's OK, they'll make them at Foxconn.
What you expect from porn related intrusion?
FTFY: FF logs the target in and then everyone in their address book gets porn and malware sperm links.
Old news. Canada has had chip + pin for at least two years now. I'm pretty sure I've had my CC with chip and pin three and just got my debit last year with the c&p when my old swipable one wore out. I'd rather have the swipe since the chip cards take longer to process and are a pain in the ass. I'd rather swipe, put the card back in my wallet and leave when the transaction clears instead of waiting with it in the machine forever. And personally, I don't see what extra security a chip has over a magnetic strip. Besides aren't the chips open to unauthorized proximity scans? I know magnetic strips aren't. Anyway, I don't remember the last time I signed for a CC transaction. So stick that in your pipe and smoke it. Canada has a long history of being ahead of the curve with electronic banking. I was using a debit card.in 1981 or 1982 in Canada. B4 interac was the standard. We were one of the first to have widespread use of direct debit. Mah and pah stores on every corner in every city here were using them by 84. So maybe someone else could take the lead for a short while. Just don't get uppity about it. Besides, I'd rather have a banking system with swipe cards that can manage its money than one that is constantly in the throws of defaulting and credit downgrading. At least my money is safe in Canadian banks. So, how's that whole eurozone thing going anyway?
The Canadian mint is releasing a quarter with a dinosaur on it where, when you turn off the light, a glow in the dark image of it's skeleton shows up. I find this more interesting and relevant to my day to day life than digital currency I'm not likely to use in the near future... unless forced. Well that, and the fact they Canadian mint has just been ordered to stop producing the penny... Canada will penny free very soon. Anyway, I like the current system of Interac and cash very much, thank you. With the Harper government busily trying to catch up to the U.S. in terms of snooping on its own citizens (not sure anyone could catch up to the British government... even the Chinese), the less I want to do with any form of Canadian government information network.
You know, they could really speed things up if whenever they get stuck, they just post an 'Ask Slashdot' question.
You probably celebrate Halloween the same way as most every Tennessean. You pump kin.
I heard a story about a virus written in C. That's why I'm writing this on Slashdot with an abacus.
First, after the bullshit British historians claimed about Canadians in Hong Kong I suspect anything British historians say about WWII, and especially if they put "glorious" in the title. British historians have as distorted a perception and self importance about these events that I think many were cast out of the same mould as that pinnacle of self importance, Montgomery. So now based on one probably flawed historical book that gives you the impression that the merchant marine were a purely British institution, you have come to the conclusion that merchants were not allowed to fire on submarines? Or is it that because submarines are called boats you are going to split hairs and say when they fired on submarines they weren't firing on ships. Or are you saying that when a merchant vessel fired on a submarine it was somehow not attacking it? Are you also going to tell me that if and when surface ships fired on a merchant they would just let them sink them unchallenged. Or that merchant vessels fitted with guns were naval ships and not merchant vessels with guns? I suggest you look up Canadian 'Park' class ship and American 'Liberty' class ship. And this is based on what, one book you read that slanted the British as the sole heroes and saviours in the Battle of the Atlantic? Or are you disagreeing with the point was that putting guns on ships to defend themselves didn't turn the people eventually into pirates themselves. I'm not citing anything since there is enough evidence to be had, as long as you try to read something that is no British centric.
This is pretty close to what worries me, but on the opposite side. I'd worry that they rely on it too much and not flag a vessel as being a pirate (or miss it entirely) even though it is one. And then have the ships ignore it and as a result someone gets killed because whatever navy uses it, reduces the number of lookouts who would have correctly judged the situation.
Bullshit. From Wikipedia, and it is a good definition: A privateer is a private person or ship authorized by a government by letters of marque to attack foreign shipping during wartime. These are people authorized during wartime by a government. Some may have become pirates later, but often were just considered pirates by those on the opposing side in the war.
In fact some privateers are considered some of the greatest heroes in history. For example, Sir Francis Drake who repelled the Spanish Armada during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I was a privateer (but considered by the Spanish to be a pirate).
Armed merchantmen were also known as the Merchant Marine (or Merchant Navy) during World War II. They were one of the most important reasons that the Allies won the war, and they were on the front line for the entirety of the Battle of the Atlantic, the longest single campaign of the war. No matter what equipment we, the Allies had, no matter how many men or how great our generals, none would have made it to the fight without the Merchant Marine. Not only were they essential, they were true heroes. Until antisubmarine technology and tactics came up to speed, many were at the mercilessness of the German U-boat wolf packs that killed many of the seamen. And if they were not armed, many more would have perished and we would have lost the war before it began since neither Britain nor Russia would have been able to get enough food or military equipment and ammunition to hold off the Axis forces. And none of these men became pirates after. And as I see it, since they were private merchant vessels authorized by governments to be armed and attack enemy ships, they were technically speaking, privateers.
The way I see it, all shipping in areas where pirates are known to operate should be expected to carry armed guards and weapons. Why the hell should we be expected to spend money... let me rephrase that... why the hell should we be expected to waste money on trials and food and jail space for these thieves and murderers is beyond me. I think all the politically correct governments should get their heads out of their asses (including mine: Canada). If they see a pirate, blow him out of the water. Then let the survivors drown. Soon enough these thieving fucks will stop. It's not like they have the kind of resources to be able to take on anything of any size anyway. Nor will they be able to. They don't have the resources, so we won't see them attacking with Harpoon missiles or Excocets, or heaven forbid P-700, P-800, or Brahmas either. If that extremely unlikely day ever comes, they won't be attacking from small boats either.
Is that little man in the boat a ninja? No wonder so many guys can't find him.