Out of curiousity, which council? Mine (Glasgow)... oh, hell, my council's been called "Disnae Land" - the bin disnae get emptied, the streetlight disnae come on, etc. Recycling? Hell, that somethink to do with bi-cycles?
This is probably true for the East Coast (Edinburgh - London), but the West Coast (Glasgow - Birmingham - Bristol) is a different story. Virgin at their worst, 6 hour journey times, that fat bastard travels on Virgin Trains when he's not flying with you. In contrast, EasyJet to Bristol is cheaper, includes car-parking at Glasgow Airport, Bristol Airport is fairly accessible, etc.
In summary: not all airports like Embra and Lundin.
I think it's because most/. readers seems to have at least a passing understanding of the language of the UK;)
I'd certainly be interested in geek news from France and Germany. These days I seem scarily familiar with the USA and Australia (I'm UK resident, so UK too) but hardly know anything about the rest of the geek world. For all I know, France has been using 802.11z for 19 years, and broadband in Germany means legally downloading DivX's in minutes. On second thoughts...maybe that's why we hear so little from the rest of the world...
Possibly not - obviously the various PATRIOT acts have changed the landscape somewhat, but hasn't it traditionally been against the law for the US government to monitor US citizens without a warrant? Echelon was established in the aftermath of the 2nd World War, and basically provided a mechanism for spying on your own citizens: Canada spies on US citizens, and alerts the US authorities, and vice verca. Insert any combination of UK, Australia and NZ governments here for the full horror.
In other words - the NSA probably don't need to monitor you. They'll find out the naughty things you're plotting, regardless!
The main objective of the ATS is to ensure in the interests of all mankind that Antarctica shall continue forever to be used exclusively for peaceful purposes and shall not become the scene or object of international discord. The treaty... also defers the question of territorial claims asserted by some nations and not recognized by others.
Basically, any current territorial claims are ignored, and future claims are prohibited. In any event - it's seriously cold!
Let me explain. I'm not a US citizen, never even lived in the US. I'm a New Zealander, living in Scotland, with experience of living in numerous countries around the world. Despite this, I recognise that the phrase "We, the People" is a revolutionary phrase, and just because it's commonly associated with one great republic, doesn't mean that citizens of other (non-republican) nations can't aspire to it.
...dammit! You'll be suggesting that someone's called dibs on "Live Free or Die!" next!
True (although Spain or <ahem> France might find it quite easy to invade...), but I think this just demonstrates that there are reasons besides superior firepower that might make any given country less desirable for invasion. Britain, historically, was weakly armed (no "standing" navy until Henry VIII, no standing army until Cromwell) but rarely invaded. In contrast, Russia has a vast population, a standing army for most of recent history, and history (the Russian Winter) on it's side - yet it's been invaded several times (albeit unsuccessfully).
So your argument is what? -- That defenselessness will always lead to peace and never function (as it has historically) as a magnet for risk-free aggression? "Those that will not bear swords can still die on them" (Tolkien)
...or that wars would be harder to wage if we - the people - only agreed to fight defensive wars?
Incidentally, Andora (between Spain and France) had, not that long ago, a defense budget that stretched to a clip of ammo. Andora hasn't been invaded recently, not even during the 20th century when pretty much all of Europe was occupied at various points. There are other examples of pacifist nations within the American hemisphere, too. (I forget where, and wikipedia is acting up, but possibly Costa Rica?)
It's a logical fallacy to presume that those that oppose wars are pacifists - there are those who oppose certain wars while recognising that defense is preferrable to occupation.
And we all know what end lusers do when their computer complains mightilly don't we?...
You make it sound so easy, but you forgot to mention that a luser's job is much, much harder than you say:
If the pop-up tells you your "IP Address" is visible - you must click it, because visible "IP Addresses" are really, really bad. If your "IP Address" is visible then hackers can find you!!!!1!
If the pop-up tells you your hidden information can be recovered by los Federales - you must click it, because otherwise law enforcement will find your pr0n stash, you'll get the sack, go to jail, and lose 6" off your Johnson.
If the pop-up tells you that you have a virus - ignore it! It's some company trying to sell you more software that sits on your PC and does nothing (like a "firewall" - honestly! Like my PCs going to catch on fire!)
Issues like these are what makes being a fulltime luser so challenging!
As long as he's not sticking the USB drive up where the sun don't shine in public.
Call me odd, but I'd be prepared to tolerate watching that happen in public. I reckon it'd only need to happen a few times before the flow of spam becomes <ahem> constipated.
In the U.K. "billion" is 10^12. (10^9 is called "thousand million".)
Historically, yes, but the US billion is now widespread. I'm not even convinced that the old UK billion (10^12) is a UK standard anymore: Britain and Australia traditionally employed the international usage of 10^12, but have recently largely switched to the U.S. version of 10^9. (from everyone's favourite encyclopaedia: wikipedia)
We all already know that Open Source Defense Projects is an oxymoron, you know source has to be closed to be truely secure.
How true is that really? In cryptography, I'd guess there are only a handful of nations for whom "security-through-obscurity" is possible: the USA and their echelon partners (Canada, UK, Australia, NZ), France (maybe? They can afford their own nuclear defence programme) and a few others.
I'd guess most countries buy defense equipment from partners and allies - and pray that their friend remains friendly.
I've long thought that this would be ideal for "sucks..." sites:
acmewidgetssucks.co.ck
All the prestige of a.co, all the insult of a "sucks" site, with the added bonus of boosting the Cook Islands economy! It's win, win!
Re:Who uses IE for the mac anyway?
on
CSS for the LDP?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I'll second that, and add that in many cases CSS-based sites only work on IE because the developers jumped through hoops to make it so. There are numerous IE-specific hacks to stop IE from choking on CSS, even CSS1. Not that long ago/. looked at IE7, a style-sheet that brings IE6 upto an acceptable level of CSS compliancy. Hacks like this should not be necessary - it's not like MS are ignorant of standards that have, in some cases, been around since 1997.
The problem I get is the left nav frame doesn't display - if you can tell me it's a pebkac "problem existing between keyboard and chair" - I'll be eternally grateful: it's embarrasing dropping into IE when I'm always telling my colleagues that Firefox can do "everything and more" that IE can do.
Offtopic: Slashdot requires you to wait 2 minutes between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment. C'mon,/.! Cut some slack for the stupid!
(yes, even open source projects can be A-holes when it comes to "stealing" thier stuff).
As I understand it, this is a necessary by-product of US trademark law - "enforce your trademark or lose it". Mozilla recently sent out enforcement letters to t-shirt retailers, etc, which has to be the nicest, sweetest, most kindly example of legalese I've ever seen - along the lines of "you're using our trademark without permission. We understand why you're doing this, but we have to ask you to stop. Hope you're not too offended, and if there's anything we can do to help, don't hesitate to ask."
I believe that that may have changed, and that Firefox will remain the brand name of the browser, which - once it reaches version 1.0 - will continue to be available separately to, as well as part of, the suite. That's why so much effort has been expended on the Firefox *image* - the logo, the cute "ads" ("Reclaim the Web", etc) and marketing. Then again, my information dates back at least a few days, so it's possibly out of date already;)
The original announcement on mozillazine suggests that Firefox is a permanent name, though I couldn't find other postings about the brand-identity. Like I say, this information is probably out-of-date already...
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks!
Out of curiousity, which council? Mine (Glasgow) ... oh, hell, my council's been called "Disnae Land" - the bin disnae get emptied, the streetlight disnae come on, etc. Recycling? Hell, that somethink to do with bi-cycles?
Do you sell patented Irradiated Tin Foil Hat plans, or do you just expect us to trust that you don't work ... with them?
This is probably true for the East Coast (Edinburgh - London), but the West Coast (Glasgow - Birmingham - Bristol) is a different story. Virgin at their worst, 6 hour journey times, that fat bastard travels on Virgin Trains when he's not flying with you. In contrast, EasyJet to Bristol is cheaper, includes car-parking at Glasgow Airport, Bristol Airport is fairly accessible, etc.
In summary: not all airports like Embra and Lundin.
I think it's because most /. readers seems to have at least a passing understanding of the language of the UK ;)
I'd certainly be interested in geek news from France and Germany. These days I seem scarily familiar with the USA and Australia (I'm UK resident, so UK too) but hardly know anything about the rest of the geek world. For all I know, France has been using 802.11z for 19 years, and broadband in Germany means legally downloading DivX's in minutes. On second thoughts...maybe that's why we hear so little from the rest of the world...
Possibly not - obviously the various PATRIOT acts have changed the landscape somewhat, but hasn't it traditionally been against the law for the US government to monitor US citizens without a warrant? Echelon was established in the aftermath of the 2nd World War, and basically provided a mechanism for spying on your own citizens: Canada spies on US citizens, and alerts the US authorities, and vice verca. Insert any combination of UK, Australia and NZ governments here for the full horror.
In other words - the NSA probably don't need to monitor you. They'll find out the naughty things you're plotting, regardless!
The Antarctic Treaty largely prohibits this:
Basically, any current territorial claims are ignored, and future claims are prohibited. In any event - it's seriously cold!
...this post brought to you courtesy of Wikipedia
Au contraire.
Let me explain. I'm not a US citizen, never even lived in the US. I'm a New Zealander, living in Scotland, with experience of living in numerous countries around the world. Despite this, I recognise that the phrase "We, the People" is a revolutionary phrase, and just because it's commonly associated with one great republic, doesn't mean that citizens of other (non-republican) nations can't aspire to it.
...dammit! You'll be suggesting that someone's called dibs on "Live Free or Die!" next!
Andorra might not be the best example
True (although Spain or <ahem> France might find it quite easy to invade...), but I think this just demonstrates that there are reasons besides superior firepower that might make any given country less desirable for invasion. Britain, historically, was weakly armed (no "standing" navy until Henry VIII, no standing army until Cromwell) but rarely invaded. In contrast, Russia has a vast population, a standing army for most of recent history, and history (the Russian Winter) on it's side - yet it's been invaded several times (albeit unsuccessfully).
...or that wars would be harder to wage if we - the people - only agreed to fight defensive wars?
Incidentally, Andora (between Spain and France) had, not that long ago, a defense budget that stretched to a clip of ammo. Andora hasn't been invaded recently, not even during the 20th century when pretty much all of Europe was occupied at various points. There are other examples of pacifist nations within the American hemisphere, too. (I forget where, and wikipedia is acting up, but possibly Costa Rica?)
It's a logical fallacy to presume that those that oppose wars are pacifists - there are those who oppose certain wars while recognising that defense is preferrable to occupation.
And we all know what end lusers do when their computer complains mightilly don't we? ...
You make it sound so easy, but you forgot to mention that a luser's job is much, much harder than you say:
Issues like these are what makes being a fulltime luser so challenging!
As long as he's not sticking the USB drive up where the sun don't shine in public.
Call me odd, but I'd be prepared to tolerate watching that happen in public. I reckon it'd only need to happen a few times before the flow of spam becomes <ahem> constipated.
In the U.K. "billion" is 10^12. (10^9 is called "thousand million".)
Historically, yes, but the US billion is now widespread. I'm not even convinced that the old UK billion (10^12) is a UK standard anymore:
Britain and Australia traditionally employed the international usage of 10^12, but have recently largely switched to the U.S. version of 10^9.
(from everyone's favourite encyclopaedia: wikipedia)
Now everyone who has a gameboy will have to pay Mr. Darl $699.
No. Apparently he's forgotten all about it...
We all already know that Open Source Defense Projects is an oxymoron, you know source has to be closed to be truely secure.
How true is that really? In cryptography, I'd guess there are only a handful of nations for whom "security-through-obscurity" is possible: the USA and their echelon partners (Canada, UK, Australia, NZ), France (maybe? They can afford their own nuclear defence programme) and a few others.
I'd guess most countries buy defense equipment from partners and allies - and pray that their friend remains friendly.
Reminds me of David Brent's [The Office, BBC] recruitment policy: bin half the CVs (resumes) - that way you only employ lucky people ;)
You're pretty much guarenteed that you'll only have lucky beta-testers at the end of the process...
Your product will be ready for release when you run out of beta testers.
On the other hand...
I think the tax only applies to copying onto CD for personal use.
Disclaimer: not Canadian, not a resident of Canada.
I've long thought that this would be ideal for "sucks..." sites:
acmewidgetssucks.co.ck
All the prestige of a .co, all the insult of a "sucks" site, with the added bonus of boosting the Cook Islands economy! It's win, win!
I'll second that, and add that in many cases CSS-based sites only work on IE because the developers jumped through hoops to make it so. There are numerous IE-specific hacks to stop IE from choking on CSS, even CSS1. Not that long ago /. looked at IE7, a style-sheet that brings IE6 upto an acceptable level of CSS compliancy. Hacks like this should not be necessary - it's not like MS are ignorant of standards that have, in some cases, been around since 1997.
"...this is a Moon!"
(shudders) Now dealing with mental image of naked Australian backsides...
The problem I get is the left nav frame doesn't display - if you can tell me it's a pebkac "problem existing between keyboard and chair" - I'll be eternally grateful: it's embarrasing dropping into IE when I'm always telling my colleagues that Firefox can do "everything and more" that IE can do.
Note to self: try in Mozilla suite.
Ooh! Ooh! Nominations for a slashdotting! Lemme think... Chatzilla or Cards, because then I might get more work done...
Bad poster, forgot link to mozilla letter, need more caffeine...
Offtopic: Slashdot requires you to wait 2 minutes between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment. C'mon, /.! Cut some slack for the stupid!
(yes, even open source projects can be A-holes when it comes to "stealing" thier stuff).
As I understand it, this is a necessary by-product of US trademark law - "enforce your trademark or lose it". Mozilla recently sent out enforcement letters to t-shirt retailers, etc, which has to be the nicest, sweetest, most kindly example of legalese I've ever seen - along the lines of "you're using our trademark without permission. We understand why you're doing this, but we have to ask you to stop. Hope you're not too offended, and if there's anything we can do to help, don't hesitate to ask."
I believe that that may have changed, and that Firefox will remain the brand name of the browser, which - once it reaches version 1.0 - will continue to be available separately to, as well as part of, the suite. That's why so much effort has been expended on the Firefox *image* - the logo, the cute "ads" ("Reclaim the Web", etc) and marketing. Then again, my information dates back at least a few days, so it's possibly out of date already ;)
The original announcement on mozillazine suggests that Firefox is a permanent name, though I couldn't find other postings about the brand-identity. Like I say, this information is probably out-of-date already...