By reading these comments it seems that an international body controlling the internet would consist of China, Iran, Cuba, the United States and noone else!
I find this very interesting.
I've found this whole debate depressing - full of jingoism from "both" sides. On the one hand we have a concern that France/EU wants total control over the Internet to go to Syria/UN. On the other hand we have the view that while the UN sucks, at least Dubya's not involved. There seems to be a "check IT knowledge/common sense at door" policy throughout this debate.
(Any generalizations above are satirical. Though not $10000 Jack Thompson satire)
Galloway has decades of experience of thinking and debating on his feet.
(Off topic) George Galloway is the only politician I've ever seen actually on a soap-box, back when he was a Labour MP for Glasgow Hillhead. Interestingly, he wasn't campaigning for himself, but for an issue. He's got pretty out-there views, sometimes, but he is a very dedicated representative: he's fought my corner before, and I've a great deal of respect for him as a result.
Britain's right-wing Conservatives (capital "c") seem to be getting squeezed into UKIP; Britain's left-wing Labour MPs seem to be getting squeezed into Respect (and in Scotland the SSP, or forced to sit as independents). It's sad that the major parties are no longer the broad-churches they once were.
In fairness (to the US) the whole thing's a mess: the EU uses eu.int, the UN uses un.org, the UK uses.gov.uk. Outside politics, it's much the same: the US and Australia, say, use "edu" for schools and universities; the UK and New Zealand use "ac".
I'm happy to let the US keep using the ".gov" and ".edu" domains, though - so long as "France gets control of teh intarweb bwahahaha";-)
they banned it because they couldn't think of a scientific reason to go to space??
No, they banned funding astronauts because they couldn't think of a reason that justified the expense to the British tax-payer. More wealthy nations may well belive that they can justify it, given their relative wealth. As scientific focus has shifted, and Britain has moved on from frontline-cold-warrior status, it looks like the old British view is changing.
Just a guess (I'm not the OP) but a workers' cooperative? Here in the UK they're not that rare - my bank is owned by one; one of the major supermarkets is the Cooperative Wholesale Society (which owns the Cooperative Bank/Smile), etc.
Incidentally, the Coop movement in the UK have their own political party, imaginatively called "The Cooperative Party" - in practice the only candidates they stand at elections are joint Labour Party/Cooperative candidates. They tend to be "right wingers" (in a UK Social Democratic sense) - Fabian rather than revolutionary.
Oops, sorry. "Scheme" = housing estate, sink estate, housing "project". Typically run-down, in Scotland usually council-owned or owned by a Housing Association. Light on amenities: local ATMs are likely to be (a) private and (b) vandalised;-)
Same thing's been reported in the UK - I now run my hand over the "ceiling" of the machine, and do a quick visual check. Interesting you mention the "non-branded" ATMs - as far as I know the scam in the UK is to hit "proper" ATMs, install a camera and card-reader, etc. The non-branded machines tend to charge (~GBP1.50 for a GBP10 transaction), so people tend to avoid them unless they're desperate (at the bookies, living on a scheme miles from a bank, etc). I suppose you could argue that the private ATMs are a scam in their own right...
So what did you think when the SCOTUS cited "foreign laws" when stiking down death sentences for juvenile offenders?
Not being a US citizen I gave it very little thought! However, I'm not saying that politcians (I was talking about the legislative, not the judicial, branch, by the way) should ignore foreign interests - just that they should put the interests of their constituents above all other interests.
Like the UN and how famously well that group agrees and gets things done efficiently? To whom, exactly, is a theoretical "pan-national" body accountable?
Leaving aside the discussion on how hard it must be to achieve agreement when any one member of the Security Council can veto anything, the UN is accountable to its members - eg. the USA. If you feel that the UN is not best serving your interests, take it up with your elected representative(s). If you feel that achieves little or nothing, seek new repesentatives.
Do you expect something like the UN to mess with the servers more, or less?
Well, the US is a major member of the UN (veto on the security council, etc), so I'd expect the US to raise merry hell if "the UN" tried to mess with the 'net.
As for racism I seriously doubt the UN, being a disparate body representing numerous interests, could agree a definition on racism that satisfied everyone. Following on from my point above, I would imagine - I'd hope - that the US would complain vigorously if some numpty[1] country decided to mandate against free speech on the 'net.
I agree that it is a bad idea to have a country without a strong right to free speech to have control over root DNS servers.
But the arguement isn't to transfer control from the US to another country; rather, it's to transfer control from one country to all countries (or, strictly, an agency representing all/most countries).
I don't trust any country to act in anything other than their own self-interest. Hell, I'd personally lynch a politician if I thought they'd rather represent foreign interests above their own constituents. It's for that reason that I believe control should pass to a pan-national body - so the Internet is governed by consensus rather than hope (that the US won't pull the plug on, say, Venezeula).
Might this only result in the Linux desktop becoming more like Windows?
Maybe... but...
There was a brief comment in an article in, I think, last month's Linux Format (UK magazine) (I'm at work, so can't get at the article, sorry). Usability testing had been done on Evolution, and it was observed that one volunteer repeatedly used the "send/receive email" when they wanted to create a new email. The testers realised that the traditional "send/receive" button was not particularly intuitive. To my mind, that's the kind of useful information we might well get from this kind of testing - not assistance in turning Linux into Windows 2.
I mention this only because I believe there's still hope;-)
Actually, I believe the portion in italics should read:...
I suspect you're quite right. But that's really the point, isn't it, that the UK caution isn't clear, is intimidating, and does turn otherwise sane people into gibbering idiots. Yes, everyone should keep mum until they've spoken to a solicitor. No, very few people actually do this.
It's OK to say _nothing_. It's NOT OK to give false statements. If Martha Stewart kept her trap shut, she wouldn't have ended up in jail.
Martha Stewart was arrested and presumably "Miranda-ed" - in a country where it is, indeed, OK to say nothing.
Daniel Cuthbert was arrested and advised that if he kept quiet his defense in court might be compromised - the UK "Miranda" is very different to the warning given in other countries.
The best advice I can give if you're arrested in the UK is state that you will cooperate fully - when, and only when, you've spoken to a lawyer. The police will most likely still try and browbeat you. (YMMV - some forces are better than others).
Perjury is a crime committed in court, not in an interview room. To put this in context, in the USA and many other countries, it's perfectly acceptable to say nothing when questioned by the police. Indeed, I believe the Constitution or an amendment (I'm neither a US citizen nor resident) grant citizens the right not to incriminate themselves. I'm not aware of any such right in Britain, and in Britain when you're arrested you are advised that:
You have the right to remain silent, but if you do not mention, when questioned, something you later rely on in court, it may be held against you. [My emphasis]
In other words, you're strongly "encouraged" not to remain silent.
I'm neither condoning nor condemning Mr. Cuthbert's statements to the police, merely suggesting that we don't know why Cuthbert chose to (allegedly) lie.
Yeah, I'm a regular FF v1.0.7 user - do I "upgrade" or not?
No. Well, it depends. You might want to test 1.5 to support development, or because it's got features (eg. SVG) which 1.0.7 doesn't have. But if none of these appeal - stick with what you've got.
Incidentally, I'm using 1.5b1, and it seems to work well. But I'm a serial upgrader;-)
It's a British-ism meaning about the same as "bloke", only it can apply to men or women.
I've mostly heard it used/used it myself to describe "customers", particularly gamblers. As in "I had a punt on that nag but lost my shirt". I believe politicians use it to describe their electorate, but I couldn't possibly comment.
Disclaimer: I've only heard the term used in Scotland; it's usage elsewhere in Britain may be more/less general.
EU VAT's wouldn't be that out of line if your politicans had follwoed up on their promises to reduce/eliminate income taxes.
There weren't serious promises (in the UK) to cut taxes - Labour in 1997 promised to keep to Conservative *spending* plans, which implied not raising tax (much), the Conservatives *always* promise to lower taxes (and sometimes do) and the Lib Dems *always* promise to raise taxes (and then don't get elected). And anyway - then we'd be replacing a predominantly *pro*gressive tax system (income tax) with a flat-rate or regressive system (sales tax). I'd prefer to pay more tax when I can afford it, rather than every time I go to the shops - assuming I buy roughly the same whether I'm rich or poor.
I'll be more than happy to trade my federal payroll/income taxes for a 30% rate
Really? From a personal point of view maybe, but wouldn't that depress spending (and hence the economy in general)? And result in the poor paying a far higher percentage of their income compared to the well off? These might not necessarily be bad things per se, but for now I'll settle for (progressive) income tax over sales tax anyday - it's just a pity the UK currently has both (and Council Tax, but that's another story altogether!)
(Also, and I'm slightly ashamed to admit this, I rather enjoy feeling I've contributed towards the society I live in by paying income tax, and that I'm contributing more by earning more. I guess I could learn to love spending to support society, though!)
it's no wonder the poor need so much assistance over there with a regressive tax that massive.
In VAT's defence, at least for the UK, when it was set up it was intended to be a luxery tax - a tax on cars, perfumes, colour teevees, etc. Even today certain things, like children's clothing, is VAT-exempt, and other things, like electricity (don't know about gas, etc) is VAT-rated at only 5%.
But basically you're absolutely right - VAT's a regressive tax these days. Maybe we could argue that there's a case for standardising EU VAT downward, in line with US Sales Tax?!
I've played wiht Linux on 500MHZ cpus, Linux crawls on this.
Until a year ago, my sole home PC was a 500MHz AMD K6-II. It ran Windows 2000 and whatever version of Mandrake was current (8.?), and it ran them well. I certainly wouldn't say either OS "crawled". Obviously YMMV, but I'd imagine that the indended recipients would be very happy with a laptop - when compared with the alternative (no laptop at all).
Spelling pedant: dude, you mis-spelled "the entire United Kingdom except maybe a bit of Shetland, oh wait, they've got that covered too." Happy to help!
As an aside, UK residents have the right, under the Data Protection Act, to request any video footage of themselves taken by a private body (cost £10). Anyone tried this?
Slashdot Mirror
By reading these comments it seems that an international body controlling the internet would consist of China, Iran, Cuba, the United States and noone else!
I find this very interesting.
I've found this whole debate depressing - full of jingoism from "both" sides. On the one hand we have a concern that France/EU wants total control over the Internet to go to Syria/UN. On the other hand we have the view that while the UN sucks, at least Dubya's not involved. There seems to be a "check IT knowledge/common sense at door" policy throughout this debate.
(Any generalizations above are satirical. Though not $10000 Jack Thompson satire)
Galloway has decades of experience of thinking and debating on his feet.
(Off topic) George Galloway is the only politician I've ever seen actually on a soap-box, back when he was a Labour MP for Glasgow Hillhead. Interestingly, he wasn't campaigning for himself, but for an issue. He's got pretty out-there views, sometimes, but he is a very dedicated representative: he's fought my corner before, and I've a great deal of respect for him as a result.
Britain's right-wing Conservatives (capital "c") seem to be getting squeezed into UKIP; Britain's left-wing Labour MPs seem to be getting squeezed into Respect (and in Scotland the SSP, or forced to sit as independents). It's sad that the major parties are no longer the broad-churches they once were.
explain me just one thing: why http://www.whitehouse.gov/ points to something that should be http://www.whitehouse.gov.us/ ? If aliens would like to see webpage of WHOLE earth's goverment, where would they go?
In fairness (to the US) the whole thing's a mess: the EU uses eu.int, the UN uses un.org, the UK uses .gov.uk. Outside politics, it's much the same: the US and Australia, say, use "edu" for schools and universities; the UK and New Zealand use "ac".
I'm happy to let the US keep using the ".gov" and ".edu" domains, though - so long as "France gets control of teh intarweb bwahahaha" ;-)
they banned it because they couldn't think of a scientific reason to go to space??
No, they banned funding astronauts because they couldn't think of a reason that justified the expense to the British tax-payer. More wealthy nations may well belive that they can justify it, given their relative wealth. As scientific focus has shifted, and Britain has moved on from frontline-cold-warrior status, it looks like the old British view is changing.
And what is a "socialist" company?
Just a guess (I'm not the OP) but a workers' cooperative? Here in the UK they're not that rare - my bank is owned by one; one of the major supermarkets is the Cooperative Wholesale Society (which owns the Cooperative Bank/Smile), etc.
Incidentally, the Coop movement in the UK have their own political party, imaginatively called "The Cooperative Party" - in practice the only candidates they stand at elections are joint Labour Party/Cooperative candidates. They tend to be "right wingers" (in a UK Social Democratic sense) - Fabian rather than revolutionary.
I'm curious what "living on a scheme" is
Oops, sorry. "Scheme" = housing estate, sink estate, housing "project". Typically run-down, in Scotland usually council-owned or owned by a Housing Association. Light on amenities: local ATMs are likely to be (a) private and (b) vandalised ;-)
a camera being used to steal someones PIN
Same thing's been reported in the UK - I now run my hand over the "ceiling" of the machine, and do a quick visual check. Interesting you mention the "non-branded" ATMs - as far as I know the scam in the UK is to hit "proper" ATMs, install a camera and card-reader, etc. The non-branded machines tend to charge (~GBP1.50 for a GBP10 transaction), so people tend to avoid them unless they're desperate (at the bookies, living on a scheme miles from a bank, etc). I suppose you could argue that the private ATMs are a scam in their own right...
So what did you think when the SCOTUS cited "foreign laws" when stiking down death sentences for juvenile offenders?
Not being a US citizen I gave it very little thought! However, I'm not saying that politcians (I was talking about the legislative, not the judicial, branch, by the way) should ignore foreign interests - just that they should put the interests of their constituents above all other interests.
Like the UN and how famously well that group agrees and gets things done efficiently? To whom, exactly, is a theoretical "pan-national" body accountable?
Leaving aside the discussion on how hard it must be to achieve agreement when any one member of the Security Council can veto anything, the UN is accountable to its members - eg. the USA. If you feel that the UN is not best serving your interests, take it up with your elected representative(s). If you feel that achieves little or nothing, seek new repesentatives.
Do you expect something like the UN to mess with the servers more, or less?
Well, the US is a major member of the UN (veto on the security council, etc), so I'd expect the US to raise merry hell if "the UN" tried to mess with the 'net.
As for racism I seriously doubt the UN, being a disparate body representing numerous interests, could agree a definition on racism that satisfied everyone. Following on from my point above, I would imagine - I'd hope - that the US would complain vigorously if some numpty[1] country decided to mandate against free speech on the 'net.
[1] Daft. See, eg. France j/k
I agree that it is a bad idea to have a country without a strong right to free speech to have control over root DNS servers.
But the arguement isn't to transfer control from the US to another country; rather, it's to transfer control from one country to all countries (or, strictly, an agency representing all/most countries).
I don't trust any country to act in anything other than their own self-interest. Hell, I'd personally lynch a politician if I thought they'd rather represent foreign interests above their own constituents. It's for that reason that I believe control should pass to a pan-national body - so the Internet is governed by consensus rather than hope (that the US won't pull the plug on, say, Venezeula).
Like hell am I going to recreate 2000 user accounts with no syncing of passwords!
If you've got 2000 user accounts, I'd seriously recommend not relying on version 0.2 of an application ;-)
Seriously, RoundCube is pretty immature - I'm sure additional features will come later.
that's why the lights dim in Wellington when the cluster is rendering
And there was me thinking it was the rats again!
Might this only result in the Linux desktop becoming more like Windows?
Maybe... but...
There was a brief comment in an article in, I think, last month's Linux Format (UK magazine) (I'm at work, so can't get at the article, sorry). Usability testing had been done on Evolution, and it was observed that one volunteer repeatedly used the "send/receive email" when they wanted to create a new email. The testers realised that the traditional "send/receive" button was not particularly intuitive. To my mind, that's the kind of useful information we might well get from this kind of testing - not assistance in turning Linux into Windows 2.
I mention this only because I believe there's still hope ;-)
why is it wrong for a suspect or other person being questioned (not under oath) to lie to the police?
Dude, don't shoot the messenger! Seriously, I don't know. I suspect they'd do you for "wasting police time", though.
Actually, I believe the portion in italics should read:...
I suspect you're quite right. But that's really the point, isn't it, that the UK caution isn't clear, is intimidating, and does turn otherwise sane people into gibbering idiots. Yes, everyone should keep mum until they've spoken to a solicitor. No, very few people actually do this.
It's OK to say _nothing_. It's NOT OK to give false statements. If Martha Stewart kept her trap shut, she wouldn't have ended up in jail.
Martha Stewart was arrested and presumably "Miranda-ed" - in a country where it is, indeed, OK to say nothing.
Daniel Cuthbert was arrested and advised that if he kept quiet his defense in court might be compromised - the UK "Miranda" is very different to the warning given in other countries.
The best advice I can give if you're arrested in the UK is state that you will cooperate fully - when, and only when, you've spoken to a lawyer. The police will most likely still try and browbeat you. (YMMV - some forces are better than others).
We live in a world where posession of electronics and printouts on the subway gets you hauled away by a full riot squad under suspicion of terrorism.
Dude, this is Britain we're talking about. Possession of a winter jacket and a Brazilian sun-tan gets you far, far worse than a hauling away.
Perjury is a crime, you know.
Perjury is a crime committed in court, not in an interview room. To put this in context, in the USA and many other countries, it's perfectly acceptable to say nothing when questioned by the police. Indeed, I believe the Constitution or an amendment (I'm neither a US citizen nor resident) grant citizens the right not to incriminate themselves. I'm not aware of any such right in Britain, and in Britain when you're arrested you are advised that:
In other words, you're strongly "encouraged" not to remain silent.
I'm neither condoning nor condemning Mr. Cuthbert's statements to the police, merely suggesting that we don't know why Cuthbert chose to (allegedly) lie.
Yeah, I'm a regular FF v1.0.7 user - do I "upgrade" or not?
No. Well, it depends. You might want to test 1.5 to support development, or because it's got features (eg. SVG) which 1.0.7 doesn't have. But if none of these appeal - stick with what you've got.
Incidentally, I'm using 1.5b1, and it seems to work well. But I'm a serial upgrader ;-)
It's a British-ism meaning about the same as "bloke", only it can apply to men or women.
I've mostly heard it used/used it myself to describe "customers", particularly gamblers. As in "I had a punt on that nag but lost my shirt". I believe politicians use it to describe their electorate, but I couldn't possibly comment.
Disclaimer: I've only heard the term used in Scotland; it's usage elsewhere in Britain may be more/less general.
If this guy is good enough to win the Nobel, how come he isn't in Wikipedia?
He is! Though I also got confused by his namesake (sort of).
EU VAT's wouldn't be that out of line if your politicans had follwoed up on their promises to reduce/eliminate income taxes.
There weren't serious promises (in the UK) to cut taxes - Labour in 1997 promised to keep to Conservative *spending* plans, which implied not raising tax (much), the Conservatives *always* promise to lower taxes (and sometimes do) and the Lib Dems *always* promise to raise taxes (and then don't get elected). And anyway - then we'd be replacing a predominantly *pro*gressive tax system (income tax) with a flat-rate or regressive system (sales tax). I'd prefer to pay more tax when I can afford it, rather than every time I go to the shops - assuming I buy roughly the same whether I'm rich or poor.
I'll be more than happy to trade my federal payroll/income taxes for a 30% rate
Really? From a personal point of view maybe, but wouldn't that depress spending (and hence the economy in general)? And result in the poor paying a far higher percentage of their income compared to the well off? These might not necessarily be bad things per se, but for now I'll settle for (progressive) income tax over sales tax anyday - it's just a pity the UK currently has both (and Council Tax, but that's another story altogether!)
(Also, and I'm slightly ashamed to admit this, I rather enjoy feeling I've contributed towards the society I live in by paying income tax, and that I'm contributing more by earning more. I guess I could learn to love spending to support society, though!)
it's no wonder the poor need so much assistance over there with a regressive tax that massive.
In VAT's defence, at least for the UK, when it was set up it was intended to be a luxery tax - a tax on cars, perfumes, colour teevees, etc. Even today certain things, like children's clothing, is VAT-exempt, and other things, like electricity (don't know about gas, etc) is VAT-rated at only 5%.
But basically you're absolutely right - VAT's a regressive tax these days. Maybe we could argue that there's a case for standardising EU VAT downward, in line with US Sales Tax?!
I've played wiht Linux on 500MHZ cpus, Linux crawls on this.
Until a year ago, my sole home PC was a 500MHz AMD K6-II. It ran Windows 2000 and whatever version of Mandrake was current (8.?), and it ran them well. I certainly wouldn't say either OS "crawled". Obviously YMMV, but I'd imagine that the indended recipients would be very happy with a laptop - when compared with the alternative (no laptop at all).
Spelling pedant: dude, you mis-spelled "the entire United Kingdom except maybe a bit of Shetland, oh wait, they've got that covered too." Happy to help!
As an aside, UK residents have the right, under the Data Protection Act, to request any video footage of themselves taken by a private body (cost £10). Anyone tried this?