The UK used to have a lot of bizzare local laws that predate the existence of the USA...
Aye, that's partly what I was thinking about - the 1994 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act (CJA), for example, removed the need for English police officers persuing a felon into Scotland to "carry a burning sod atop a pike, and announce their purpose to the first Scotsman they encountered". However I was also thinking of laws enacted recently: staying with the CJA, the police have substantial abilities to prevent picketing and protests. It's rare, however, that these laws are applied - like many current UK laws, they're "enabling" laws.
Maybe the Aussies and Brits are not subject to a draconian legal system designed to control the common man for the benefit of the wealthy?
I (UK resident) discussed this with a friend, a US citizen, resident in the UK, recently. The US legal system is based on the English legal system, but has obviously diverged over time (just as the Canadian, Australian, New Zealand etc legal systems aren't exact replicas of England's). My friend suggested that, from his experience, the practical difference between the two systems was that the US has comparatively less law, but those laws it does have are upheld. Britain, by contrast, has more laws, but those laws aren't necessarily enforced. I can't comment myself as to US law; but certainly the UK does seem to be full of laws that are rarely, if ever, enforced.
It's like the thing was designed *by*, bureucrats *for* bureaucrats
Well, and I don't mean this in a bad-way, that's pretty much how the EU was set-up - or, more accurately, that's how the fore-runner(s) of the EU were set-up. Six European nations decided to have a coal and steel agreement. One thing led to another, over a long period, and with other nations joining at semi-regular intervals. The decisions were taken by career politicians and bureaucrats. It's comparatively recent that we've even had a parliament, and still more recent that we've actually been permitted to elect the members of said parliament.
Re: EU-civics-101. I'll second that. We - even those of us in Europe - desperately need to know how the hell our continent is run.
if software CAN'T be patented, then couldn't one LEGALLY take that unpatented open source code and make a commercial product out of it
No, because the open source code is still copyrighted. (Patents != Copyright). Patents are more general than copyrights, pplying to ideas rather than realisations (and, please, IANAL - someone speak up if I've missed out/messed up).
What patents bring to the table is the ability for someone to patent a concept (one-click purchasing, say) and then prevent anyone else from implementing something similar.
I guess if you're dumb enough to fall for the phishing lures, IE is probably an ok idea.
I'm replying to you, partly because I disagree with the "IE is probably an OK idea" (even for dumb people;) , but mainly because I don't want to draw attention to the troll you're replying to.
The Macworld article is refering to the recent IDN exploit that affects many browsers, but not IE. Macworld presumably considered this newsworthy because the exploit (a) affected Safari, and (b) didn't affect IE. However, IE had already suffered similar exploits, covered here on Slashdot and elsewhere. I had a quick peek on Secunia to see if I could find it, but got sidetracked by the pretty colours on the graphs: IE Firefox
Bottom line: IE is still horendously insecure, while Firefox has very few issues, and what few issues it does have are patched quickly.
The sad thing is: I use IE. Apart from the security issues (I don't use it enough to be affected - I use Firefox normally, naturally;) it's not a bad browser. Trolls like the GP don't help its case. The really sad thing is: one day soon there'll be trolls like this evangelizing (or trying to...) Firefox.
I don't argue the uselessness of the GDP, but its counter-productiveness.
I should probably have said "relatively useless"!
If some greens argue for zero- growth (or negative!), they're freaking mad.
I don't want to disparage Greens here; I made that comment based on a (sympathetic) understanding of their policies - not being a member of a Green Party, I think I'm probably better off not trying to make any claims for their beliefs anymore;-)
So the 2053/2056 thing has to be qualified... it may in this case be a very, very good thing.
I agree completely. My original comment regarding the difference between 2053 and 2056 was intended to convey that, 50 years from now, an extra 3 years really ain't going to make much difference - especially if our children are able to enjoy a healthier environment.
With respect, I think you're missing my point: "they" believe the impact on GDP will be minimal; I believe GDP is irrelevant (all I care about is my children and future descendants having a healthy environment to live in). My point was that mainstream politicians* and pundits recognise that - using their preferred metric - the impact is negligible.
And while I agree with you - strongly - about the comparative uselessness of GDP, it is used (along with other metrics) as a barometer of prosperity by most nations. In Western politics, I believe it's only the Greens and Radicals who argue for zero GDP growth? (YMMV: there are hard-left groups who argue for negative GDP, for example).
So called "Developing nations" dont have to conform to it. China the 2nd largest economy and our #1 economic competitor is a "Developing" nation? That just doesn't make sense.
China's only recently joined the WTO. I suspect the criteria may relate to that? I sympathise with your position: I'm prepared to support Kyoto (I'm UK resident), but I'll reevaluate that support if countries like China seem set to remain out "forever".
Looking at the question of 'will USA gain a relative economical advantage' is missing the point - it IS clear that there are certain economic disadvantages
Agreed, and I feel that the economic disadvantages have been grossly overstated: for example, a pundit on the BBC suggested that with Kyoto compliance it would take the UK until 2056 to achieve the same level of prosperity it would otherwise attain in 2053. I suspect there's grounds for error there, but that it's not far from the truth.
Mainly because my old local pub is smack in the middle of the circle.
I'll second the motion for "Avebury whups Stonehenge's arse", precisely because you can actually walk around and within Avebury's ring (and drink 6X in the centre - if there's a better beer I've not found it). The security-guards-plus-tourists-plus-carparking-at-L ondon-prices that dominates Stonehenge just pisses me off; at least at Avebury you can wander and dream and imagine without a fluro-jacketed tour-guide prodding you every two minues.
Got to say I disagree about Woodhenge, though: I pretty much thought "nothing to see here, move along please" - just a whole bunch of concrete markers informing you where the original wooden henge was. Still, each to their own! I guess my imagination ain't up to the job;-)
Soon, here in the UK they already can and do lock you up without trial. Fair enough at the moment this only to applies to immigrants
Note that "immigrants" in this context refers to my US neighbour who married a Scots woman, and to myself - a UK resident since 1979, a British Subject at birth (NZ citizen) and the son of an English woman.
I wouldn't put it past the government to get past the problems with that by applying it to everyone.
They've already decided to do that (although we'll just be put under house arrest - not sent to Belmarch/Dungavel).
(Aside: during the late 90s I read a comic - The Invisibles - which mentioned "Rex 84". I googled for it, and it was an idea that the Federal government was constructing detention camps for undesirables. At the time I thought it was a whacko conspiracy theory. How I wish it were.)
Even in Britain it happens... every now and again. Until the 1920s the two main parties were Conservative and Liberal; since the 20s the Liberals have been replaced by the Labour Party. I suspect it won't happen, but it occasionally looks like the Conservative party might drop off the political map altogether.
At a more local level, however, we do have some measure of proportional representation, and this has led to some... interesting... occurances. In Scotland the Liberal Democrats (heirs to the Liberal Party of yore) are in coalition with Labour, for example, and the main opposition is the Scottish National Party. I understand it's similar in Wales, and in Northern Ireland the main "UK" (ie. GB) parties don't typically stand candidates (though there are similar parties, eg. SDLP ~ Labour, various Unionist parties ~ Conservative, Alliance ~ Liberal Democrat).
Either you don't understand what Y!Q does, or you know something about Google that I don't. Can you explain to me how I can do the equivalent of Y!Q with Google?
Like this. Look for "Only return results from the site or domain", about 4-5 lines down.
Granted, you need to copy-and-paste a bit to do what Y!Q does a little more easily, but the fundamental tech has been there for a while.
Y!Q is more like Google's site-specific search than Firefox's find-as-you-type: from the article, 'For instance, a reader looking at a news story about the State of the Union address might highlight the phrase "Social Security" to get a listing of pages that deal with that topic.'. You're absolutely correct that this isn't very original, however: it's just Yahoo playing catch-up with Google and - dammit! - it's MSN's turn to play catch-up!
"(Obligatory Gentoo comment) It's more letters than just typing "emerge PROGRAMX"?;-)"
(Obligatory Debian comment) It may be more letters but it still doesn't take as long;) . Course there's always alias's, those even the playing field somewhat:).
/me slinks off to be alone with my uncompiled source-code. Pesky binaries!;-)
I was speaking about any space travel. Rockets don't really make for a "space program"...in that case, if it did...telecommunications companies would say "look at our awesome space program."
I was really getting at the dependency NASA et al had on von Braun; without him US Space Exploration (and earlier ancilliary developments) would likely have been delayed significantly. At no point has NASA or the USAF been dependent on Vodaphone for future development - quite the reverse: Vodaphone relies on NASA launching satellites;) Without von Braun Vodaphone would have been using trans-oceanic cabling for a good deal longer;)
I guess the other side of the coin is the German's saying Mars by 2009. *shrug* I guess when you have nothing substantial in your space program in the past, you've got nothing to lose with ridiculous goals for the future?
Uh, Wernher von Braun ring any bells?
From Wikipedia: "In the United States, he is regarded as a hero of the space program."
you can draw a picture of which cables go where and how to mount it. You can't draw a picture of how to answer all the install/config questions and what to do with your data files.
When I read your original post, I assumed you meant that a hardware shop replaced the harddrive for mum and dad. Personally I think that proposal is great, though I share other people's concern about handing my mum a screwdriver and a diagram;)
I still don't understand how typing apt-get install PROGRAMX is complicated.
(Obligatory Gentoo comment) It's more letters than just typing "emerge PROGRAMX"?;-)
A slightly more useful answer is that it takes people out of their "comfort zone". They have to use one of those wierd black-and-white DOS thingies. They have to look up a command, rather than just point-and-click. They may have to remember a password other than their own (and, although *their* password is the easy-to-remember "password", their security-conscious offspring set a *really*difficult* password for root: "p455w0rd"). And the real killer is: what do they do "when something goes wrong"? (I know, it's really not likely to, but still...)
There *are* easy ways to install software on Linux - Mandrake springs to mind - but the lack of consistency across distros is another aspect that confuses and frightens people used to double-clicking on a pretty icon.
"The Ocho" was also the ESPN channel that the dodgeball competition was aired on, in the movie Dodgeball. That was the first thing I thought of at least.
You thought correctly, then! Personally, though, I was disappointed that the Auckland suberb convention GrumpySimon mentioned ended: I was holding out for "Takapuna" where I was born, so I'd have some vague claim-to-fame...
Nope, it's a common misconception that she's the head of the CoS. The CoS doesn't have a "head", just a elected moderator who serves as a spokesperson for one year.
unless perhaps this happened in a country which doesn't bother with trials before jailing someone
Well, that part does seem to apply to the UK at the moment, even though the Law Lords found it illegal.
Dude, be fair! Currently it's only Johnny Foreigner who can be detained indefinitely without trial! And it's only in the interests of fairness that the Government are changing the law to allow anyone in the UK to be detained indefinitely!
(Disclaimer: humour. And I'm planning to emigrate before Straw-Blunkett-Clarke does anymore damage to our freedoms).
Slashdot Mirror
The UK used to have a lot of bizzare local laws that predate the existence of the USA...
Aye, that's partly what I was thinking about - the 1994 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act (CJA), for example, removed the need for English police officers persuing a felon into Scotland to "carry a burning sod atop a pike, and announce their purpose to the first Scotsman they encountered". However I was also thinking of laws enacted recently: staying with the CJA, the police have substantial abilities to prevent picketing and protests. It's rare, however, that these laws are applied - like many current UK laws, they're "enabling" laws.
Maybe the Aussies and Brits are not subject to a draconian legal system designed to control the common man for the benefit of the wealthy?
I (UK resident) discussed this with a friend, a US citizen, resident in the UK, recently. The US legal system is based on the English legal system, but has obviously diverged over time (just as the Canadian, Australian, New Zealand etc legal systems aren't exact replicas of England's). My friend suggested that, from his experience, the practical difference between the two systems was that the US has comparatively less law, but those laws it does have are upheld. Britain, by contrast, has more laws, but those laws aren't necessarily enforced. I can't comment myself as to US law; but certainly the UK does seem to be full of laws that are rarely, if ever, enforced.
It's like the thing was designed *by*, bureucrats *for* bureaucrats
Well, and I don't mean this in a bad-way, that's pretty much how the EU was set-up - or, more accurately, that's how the fore-runner(s) of the EU were set-up. Six European nations decided to have a coal and steel agreement. One thing led to another, over a long period, and with other nations joining at semi-regular intervals. The decisions were taken by career politicians and bureaucrats. It's comparatively recent that we've even had a parliament, and still more recent that we've actually been permitted to elect the members of said parliament.
Re: EU-civics-101. I'll second that. We - even those of us in Europe - desperately need to know how the hell our continent is run.
if software CAN'T be patented, then couldn't one LEGALLY take that unpatented open source code and make a commercial product out of it
No, because the open source code is still copyrighted. (Patents != Copyright). Patents are more general than copyrights, pplying to ideas rather than realisations (and, please, IANAL - someone speak up if I've missed out/messed up).
What patents bring to the table is the ability for someone to patent a concept (one-click purchasing, say) and then prevent anyone else from implementing something similar.
I guess if you're dumb enough to fall for the phishing lures, IE is probably an ok idea.
I'm replying to you, partly because I disagree with the "IE is probably an OK idea" (even for dumb people ;) , but mainly because I don't want to draw attention to the troll you're replying to.
The Macworld article is refering to the recent IDN exploit that affects many browsers, but not IE. Macworld presumably considered this newsworthy because the exploit (a) affected Safari, and (b) didn't affect IE. However, IE had already suffered similar exploits, covered here on Slashdot and elsewhere. I had a quick peek on Secunia to see if I could find it, but got sidetracked by the pretty colours on the graphs:
IE
Firefox
Bottom line: IE is still horendously insecure, while Firefox has very few issues, and what few issues it does have are patched quickly.
The sad thing is: I use IE. Apart from the security issues (I don't use it enough to be affected - I use Firefox normally, naturally ;) it's not a bad browser. Trolls like the GP don't help its case. The really sad thing is: one day soon there'll be trolls like this evangelizing (or trying to...) Firefox.
I don't argue the uselessness of the GDP, but its counter-productiveness.
I should probably have said "relatively useless"!
If some greens argue for zero- growth (or negative!), they're freaking mad.
I don't want to disparage Greens here; I made that comment based on a (sympathetic) understanding of their policies - not being a member of a Green Party, I think I'm probably better off not trying to make any claims for their beliefs anymore ;-)
So the 2053/2056 thing has to be qualified... it may in this case be a very, very good thing.
I agree completely. My original comment regarding the difference between 2053 and 2056 was intended to convey that, 50 years from now, an extra 3 years really ain't going to make much difference - especially if our children are able to enjoy a healthier environment.
With respect, I think you're missing my point: "they" believe the impact on GDP will be minimal; I believe GDP is irrelevant (all I care about is my children and future descendants having a healthy environment to live in). My point was that mainstream politicians* and pundits recognise that - using their preferred metric - the impact is negligible.
And while I agree with you - strongly - about the comparative uselessness of GDP, it is used (along with other metrics) as a barometer of prosperity by most nations. In Western politics, I believe it's only the Greens and Radicals who argue for zero GDP growth? (YMMV: there are hard-left groups who argue for negative GDP, for example).
* Excepting the USA and Australia.
So called "Developing nations" dont have to conform to it. China the 2nd largest economy and our #1 economic competitor is a "Developing" nation? That just doesn't make sense.
China's only recently joined the WTO. I suspect the criteria may relate to that? I sympathise with your position: I'm prepared to support Kyoto (I'm UK resident), but I'll reevaluate that support if countries like China seem set to remain out "forever".
Looking at the question of 'will USA gain a relative economical advantage' is missing the point - it IS clear that there are certain economic disadvantages
Agreed, and I feel that the economic disadvantages have been grossly overstated: for example, a pundit on the BBC suggested that with Kyoto compliance it would take the UK until 2056 to achieve the same level of prosperity it would otherwise attain in 2053. I suspect there's grounds for error there, but that it's not far from the truth.
Mainly because my old local pub is smack in the middle of the circle.
I'll second the motion for "Avebury whups Stonehenge's arse", precisely because you can actually walk around and within Avebury's ring (and drink 6X in the centre - if there's a better beer I've not found it). The security-guards-plus-tourists-plus-carparking-at-L ondon-prices that dominates Stonehenge just pisses me off; at least at Avebury you can wander and dream and imagine without a fluro-jacketed tour-guide prodding you every two minues.
Got to say I disagree about Woodhenge, though: I pretty much thought "nothing to see here, move along please" - just a whole bunch of concrete markers informing you where the original wooden henge was. Still, each to their own! I guess my imagination ain't up to the job ;-)
Get a copy of perl/tk or something and start hacking.
I'd add: get a copy of Logo* and start hacking with him.
* (and, ideally, a "turtle" or some other fun drawing robot - you could even DIY)
Soon, here in the UK they already can and do lock you up without trial. Fair enough at the moment this only to applies to immigrants
Note that "immigrants" in this context refers to my US neighbour who married a Scots woman, and to myself - a UK resident since 1979, a British Subject at birth (NZ citizen) and the son of an English woman.
I wouldn't put it past the government to get past the problems with that by applying it to everyone.
They've already decided to do that (although we'll just be put under house arrest - not sent to Belmarch/Dungavel).
(Aside: during the late 90s I read a comic - The Invisibles - which mentioned "Rex 84". I googled for it, and it was an idea that the Federal government was constructing detention camps for undesirables. At the time I thought it was a whacko conspiracy theory. How I wish it were.)
We have Mardi Gras, which I will put up against any other public drunkenness holiday around the world.
I'll see your Mardi Gras, and raise you one Hogmannay.
Hah! Trying to out puiblic-drunkeness the Scots! Tsk!
Even in Britain it happens... every now and again. Until the 1920s the two main parties were Conservative and Liberal; since the 20s the Liberals have been replaced by the Labour Party. I suspect it won't happen, but it occasionally looks like the Conservative party might drop off the political map altogether.
At a more local level, however, we do have some measure of proportional representation, and this has led to some ... interesting ... occurances. In Scotland the Liberal Democrats (heirs to the Liberal Party of yore) are in coalition with Labour, for example, and the main opposition is the Scottish National Party. I understand it's similar in Wales, and in Northern Ireland the main "UK" (ie. GB) parties don't typically stand candidates (though there are similar parties, eg. SDLP ~ Labour, various Unionist parties ~ Conservative, Alliance ~ Liberal Democrat).
Either you don't understand what Y!Q does, or you know something about Google that I don't. Can you explain to me how I can do the equivalent of Y!Q with Google?
Like this. Look for "Only return results from the site or domain", about 4-5 lines down.
Granted, you need to copy-and-paste a bit to do what Y!Q does a little more easily, but the fundamental tech has been there for a while.
Y!Q is more like Google's site-specific search than Firefox's find-as-you-type: from the article, 'For instance, a reader looking at a news story about the State of the Union address might highlight the phrase "Social Security" to get a listing of pages that deal with that topic.'. You're absolutely correct that this isn't very original, however: it's just Yahoo playing catch-up with Google and - dammit! - it's MSN's turn to play catch-up!
"(Obligatory Gentoo comment) It's more letters than just typing "emerge PROGRAMX"? ;-)"
;) . Course there's always alias's, those even the playing field somewhat :).
(Obligatory Debian comment) It may be more letters but it still doesn't take as long
/me slinks off to be alone with my uncompiled source-code. Pesky binaries! ;-)
I was speaking about any space travel. Rockets don't really make for a "space program"...in that case, if it did...telecommunications companies would say "look at our awesome space program."
I was really getting at the dependency NASA et al had on von Braun; without him US Space Exploration (and earlier ancilliary developments) would likely have been delayed significantly. At no point has NASA or the USAF been dependent on Vodaphone for future development - quite the reverse: Vodaphone relies on NASA launching satellites ;) Without von Braun Vodaphone would have been using trans-oceanic cabling for a good deal longer ;)
I guess the other side of the coin is the German's saying Mars by 2009. *shrug* I guess when you have nothing substantial in your space program in the past, you've got nothing to lose with ridiculous goals for the future?
Uh, Wernher von Braun ring any bells?
From Wikipedia: "In the United States, he is regarded as a hero of the space program."
you can draw a picture of which cables go where and how to mount it. You can't draw a picture of how to answer all the install/config questions and what to do with your data files.
When I read your original post, I assumed you meant that a hardware shop replaced the harddrive for mum and dad. Personally I think that proposal is great, though I share other people's concern about handing my mum a screwdriver and a diagram ;)
I still don't understand how typing apt-get install PROGRAMX is complicated.
(Obligatory Gentoo comment) It's more letters than just typing "emerge PROGRAMX"? ;-)
A slightly more useful answer is that it takes people out of their "comfort zone". They have to use one of those wierd black-and-white DOS thingies. They have to look up a command, rather than just point-and-click. They may have to remember a password other than their own (and, although *their* password is the easy-to-remember "password", their security-conscious offspring set a *really*difficult* password for root: "p455w0rd"). And the real killer is: what do they do "when something goes wrong"? (I know, it's really not likely to, but still...)
There *are* easy ways to install software on Linux - Mandrake springs to mind - but the lack of consistency across distros is another aspect that confuses and frightens people used to double-clicking on a pretty icon.
"The Ocho" was also the ESPN channel that the dodgeball competition was aired on, in the movie Dodgeball. That was the first thing I thought of at least.
You thought correctly, then! Personally, though, I was disappointed that the Auckland suberb convention GrumpySimon mentioned ended: I was holding out for "Takapuna" where I was born, so I'd have some vague claim-to-fame...
...well, as mainstream as the business press gets in NZ! (disclaimer, yes, I am a Kiwi)
National Business Review - Tsunami 'hack' -- London cops Swat lynx
Nope, it's a common misconception that she's the head of the CoS. The CoS doesn't have a "head", just a elected moderator who serves as a spokesperson for one year.
Live and learn! I knew about the Moderator, but I was equating the Moderator with the Archbishop of Canterbury (which is - roughly - correct), and assuming the Queen had a similar role in both Church and Kirk. You're quite correct, however: The Queen is a member of the Kirk with the same rights as any other member except that she, or her representative, normally declares the General Assembly of the Kirk formally open.
unless perhaps this happened in a country which doesn't bother with trials before jailing someone
Well, that part does seem to apply to the UK at the moment, even though the Law Lords found it illegal.
Dude, be fair! Currently it's only Johnny Foreigner who can be detained indefinitely without trial! And it's only in the interests of fairness that the Government are changing the law to allow anyone in the UK to be detained indefinitely!
(Disclaimer: humour. And I'm planning to emigrate before Straw-Blunkett-Clarke does anymore damage to our freedoms).