For them joining the EU would mean paying for less-rich (basically most) members.
We British do that anyway. The French have managed to avoid it for 20 years with their usual tactics, and the Germans way overpay. The Irish get way too much, just like the Spanish. The rest seems fair 8-)
One of the results of having not joined the Euro, is that the European Central Bank is now located in Frankfurt, instead of London.
There is no reason to believe that at all; and every reason to believe it would always be Frankfurt.
The Germans were very attached to the Bundesbank and wouldn't have settled for anything else. Besides, the Germans and particularly the French are very jealous of London, and have done everything they can in the last 20 years to reduce it's grip. Sadly for them, they've failed, and London is still the financial capital of the world (with the debatable exception of NY; though I think the fact that we own the Bond, Gold, FX, Swap and Euromarkets settles it).
Re:Appreciate, inflate, depreciate...
on
The Euro
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
The biggest thing that will happen initially will be that the Euro will appreciate. This is simply because of supply and demand. And initial euphoria of a happy new year!
They said that at the beginning of 1999. So far, they're down 30%.
As for supply and demand, that all happened since 1999. Plus, all that money now coming from under the bed is sure creating a lot of supply of currency, but no more demand.
Still so sure? I bet we see the Euro go under 0.80 U.S. this year.
Re:The real reason the Euro is BAD NEWS
on
The Euro
·
· Score: 1
Which cereal box did you read this on? The UK doesn't even have the second-largest GNP in Europe.
Last time I looked, only one of the U.S., Japan and Germany was in Europe. Everyone else, including France, has at least a 5% smaller economy than the UK.
Re:Its recession if they don't join
on
The Euro
·
· Score: 1
Because British exports to the continent are just not going to be competitive unless they either devalue or join the Euro zone.
Dude, how to you explain the last 6 years? Britain has way outperformed all of Europe during the time it's "overvalued" currency was going to kill off all its companies. And we're still growing faster than them. When the facts don't fit the theory, maybe you should reconsider your fundamental assumptions?
The Norwegians had a referendum about even joining the EU, and they said NO!
And to all those who claim not joining in the political games of Jacques Delors will weaken the economy, Norway is doing better than almost all of Europe, thanks.
However, the real reason is as has been said is that there is a lot or irrational resistance to becoming integrated into Europe to this extent.
I think the resistance is quite rational. The EU has done nothing but try to screw over the UK and its strengths since before we joined the EEC. Mostly the underhand French.
It's easy to brush off people you disagree with as being irrational; try finding a real argument. Oh wait...
Re:The Euro is here, i can feel it in my wallet.
on
The Euro
·
· Score: 1
believe it our not the Euro is a stable currency
If your idea of stable is losing 30% of its value to the dollar in 3 years, then yeah, it is stable.
And despite the competitive devaluation (that the Frogs always claimed the Brits wanted to pull off - LOL), the European economy still sucks and everyone still wants to in vest in the U.S. and U.K.
If you use half the value of the pound(it's real value)
LOL! If you really believe that; I've got a lot of Euros I'd like to change into pounds at your rate. Your size.
Just because the media and some whinging corporations say the pound is overvalued, doesn't mean it is. It's been there for 6 years now! If you ask me, it's undervalued - for those 6 years we've been kicking the asses of the European countries despite the currency being "overvalued". And getting an average of 6% on our currency rather than 3% to boot!
Our GDP per head is now above that of Germany and France, and our economy 5% larger than France's. Our pension system is not fucked up like that of the continental countries - they just want to sponge of our wealth! Who wants to invest in a country where you can't adjust your capacity and workforce to suit the prevailing economic conditions? Clearly, not as many as want to invest in old Blighty!
Get a clue and watch - we'll keep kicking their asses for some time to come.
If you had a clue, you'd know that Excel is what all investment banks use for trading in financial markets with their own add-ins. It's simply indispensible.
And, no, Gnumeric is nowhere near up to it. On my machine, Gnumeric takes longer to load a 3-sheet workbook than XL does to load a 50-sheet workbook where each sheet is at least twice as large. It also feels slow; XL tends to feel punchy and responsive.
Yeah Singapore, the place where the govt harrass the opposition into submission, and threatens areas that don't vote for them with no housing improvements.
Rock solid with my AMD K62/350, couldn't wish for
anything more reliable.
Re:partially correct (HP-UX) -you need a K&R compi
on
GCC 3.0 Released
·
· Score: 4
AFAIK, gcc requires a *K&R* C compiler, as documented in the first edition of The C Programming Language. It need not support function prototypes or the void type (I think).
No, it does not require such a compiler; it is required to be bootstrappable with such a compiler.
And K&R did have void. They didn't have pointer to void.
On UNIX systems that do not natively support and include gcc, one uses the system's C compiler to generate xgcc, which is GNU C (but not compiled by GNU C).
Not really. xgcc is the name of the result of the stage1 and stage2 bootstraps; the stage2 one is created by the stage1 one (i.e. by GCC).
I don't know why xgcc is not normally installed and used
It effectively is, if you type "make install". The bootstrap process just ensures that the result of the stage3 bootstrap has identical object files as the result of the stage2 bootstrap, which formed xgcc. In other words,
that optimized GCC compiles itself into the same optimized GCC - a consistency check. Those binaries are what get installed, so it is effectively the same GCC.
but I assume that it would be an ease-of-debugging issue (and you can also debug gcc-optimized code, which most vendor compilers will not do).
Nothing to do with it. Everything after stage1 is a consistency check.
Re:its all quite unambiguous...
on
GCC 3.0 Released
·
· Score: 1
I really hate to admit it, but the only compiler that seems to implement full support of C++ (including namespaces, templates, et. al.) is MSVC 6
Well, that just shows how much you know about the standard.
CVS G++ is much closer to the standard than MS, and it still has a way to go. MS doesn't even implement macro expansion properly, forget the rest.
Slashdot Mirror
Prefetch is being worked on; 3.1 may have a partial implementation.
Anataka suki desu
You mean
Anataga suki desu.
It's curious how Security Space has Apache striding ahead for the last 4 months, while Netcraft does the opposite.
It appears that Security Space doesn't fall for the IE is IIS spoof mentioned elsewhere, or else one or the other web site has an agenda.
Again, cereal boxes don't count.
That's lame.
How about some cool hard facts instead of your fantasies?
In France, they introduced a price freeze for three months to prevent this.
LOL, and they probably think it'll work too.
For them joining the EU would mean paying for less-rich (basically most) members.
We British do that anyway. The French have managed to avoid it for 20 years with their usual tactics, and the Germans way overpay. The Irish get way too much, just like the Spanish. The rest seems fair 8-)
One of the results of having not joined the Euro, is that the European Central Bank is now located in Frankfurt, instead of London.
There is no reason to believe that at all; and every reason to believe it would always be Frankfurt.
The Germans were very attached to the Bundesbank and wouldn't have settled for anything else. Besides, the Germans and particularly the French are very jealous of London, and have done everything they can in the last 20 years to reduce it's grip. Sadly for them, they've failed, and London is still the financial capital of the world (with the debatable exception of NY; though I think the fact that we own the Bond, Gold, FX, Swap and Euromarkets settles it).
The biggest thing that will happen initially will be that the Euro will appreciate. This is simply because of supply and demand. And initial euphoria of a happy new year!
They said that at the beginning of 1999. So far, they're down 30%.
As for supply and demand, that all happened since 1999. Plus, all that money now coming from under the bed is sure creating a lot of supply of currency, but no more demand.
Still so sure? I bet we see the Euro go under 0.80 U.S. this year.
Which cereal box did you read this on? The UK doesn't even have the second-largest GNP in Europe.
Last time I looked, only one of the U.S., Japan and Germany was in Europe. Everyone else, including France, has at least a 5% smaller economy than the UK.
Because British exports to the continent are just not going to be competitive unless they either devalue or join the Euro zone.
Dude, how to you explain the last 6 years? Britain has way outperformed all of Europe during the time it's "overvalued" currency was going to kill off all its companies. And we're still growing faster than them. When the facts don't fit the theory, maybe you should reconsider your fundamental assumptions?
The Norwegians had a referendum about even joining the EU, and they said NO!
And to all those who claim not joining in the political games of Jacques Delors will weaken the economy, Norway is doing better than almost all of Europe, thanks.
However, the real reason is as has been said is that there is a lot or irrational resistance to becoming integrated into Europe to this extent.
I think the resistance is quite rational. The EU has done nothing but try to screw over the UK and its strengths since before we joined the EEC. Mostly the underhand French.
It's easy to brush off people you disagree with as being irrational; try finding a real argument. Oh wait...
believe it our not the Euro is a stable currency
If your idea of stable is losing 30% of its value to the dollar in 3 years, then yeah, it is stable.
And despite the competitive devaluation (that the Frogs always claimed the Brits wanted to pull off - LOL), the European economy still sucks and everyone still wants to in vest in the U.S. and U.K.
If you use half the value of the pound(it's real value)
LOL! If you really believe that; I've got a lot of Euros I'd like to change into pounds at your rate. Your size.
Just because the media and some whinging corporations say the pound is overvalued, doesn't mean it is. It's been there for 6 years now! If you ask me, it's undervalued - for those 6 years we've been kicking the asses of the European countries despite the currency being "overvalued". And getting an average of 6% on our currency rather than 3% to boot!
Our GDP per head is now above that of Germany and France, and our economy 5% larger than France's. Our pension system is not fucked up like that of the continental countries - they just want to sponge of our wealth! Who wants to invest in a country where you can't adjust your capacity and workforce to suit the prevailing economic conditions? Clearly, not as many as want to invest in old Blighty!
Get a clue and watch - we'll keep kicking their asses for some time to come.
If you had a clue, you'd know that Excel is what all investment banks use for trading in financial markets with their own add-ins. It's simply indispensible.
And, no, Gnumeric is nowhere near up to it. On my machine, Gnumeric takes longer to load a 3-sheet workbook than XL does to load a 50-sheet workbook where each sheet is at least twice as large. It also feels slow; XL tends to feel punchy and responsive.
Yeah Singapore, the place where the govt harrass the opposition into submission, and threatens areas that don't vote for them with no housing improvements.
NT doesn't have any concept of a symbolic link
Yes it does. How do you think MS handled a Posix subsystem? And you've not tried Cygwin have you?
It is the Win32 API that does not have any concept of a symbolic link, not the NT kernel.
Dude, most recent planes already have them. Ask a pilot.
Dude, that can't be an actual quote as it's not Japanese. Try
Nekubi o kite wa ikenai
instead.
Rock solid with my AMD K62 /350, couldn't wish for
anything more reliable.
AFAIK, gcc requires a *K&R* C compiler, as documented in the first edition of The C Programming Language. It need not support function prototypes or the void type (I think).
No, it does not require such a compiler; it is required to be bootstrappable with such a compiler.
And K&R did have void. They didn't have pointer to void.
On UNIX systems that do not natively support and include gcc, one uses the system's C compiler to generate xgcc, which is GNU C (but not compiled by GNU C).
Not really. xgcc is the name of the result of the stage1 and stage2 bootstraps; the stage2 one is created by the stage1 one (i.e. by GCC).
I don't know why xgcc is not normally installed and used
It effectively is, if you type "make install". The bootstrap process just ensures that the result of the stage3 bootstrap has identical object files as the result of the stage2 bootstrap, which formed xgcc. In other words,
that optimized GCC compiles itself into the same optimized GCC - a consistency check. Those binaries are what get installed, so it is effectively the same GCC.
but I assume that it would be an ease-of-debugging issue (and you can also debug gcc-optimized code, which most vendor compilers will not do).
Nothing to do with it. Everything after stage1 is a consistency check.
It's illegal because you forgot the } and }.
I'm fed up of reading this stupid logic. They can still protect their trademark by giving the developers of this software a free licence.
and in bad need of a cleanup. The Makefiles are utterly incomprehensible for a start.
I really hate to admit it, but the only compiler that seems to implement full support of C++ (including namespaces, templates, et. al.) is MSVC 6 Well, that just shows how much you know about the standard. CVS G++ is much closer to the standard than MS, and it still has a way to go. MS doesn't even implement macro expansion properly, forget the rest.