Yes the conservatives by nature do want to cut spending. However, they are also the most 'liberal' (small l) party in parliament By this I mean they are against an Orwellian state. This is fundamentally different to the stance taken by Labour. Hence, scrapping ID cards, the introduction of the great repeals bill where they are asking the public which legislation they want scrapped, and scrapping crazy data bases.
The Conservatives were pretty keen on id cards at one stage. The more keen Labour became towards them, the less keen the Tories were - go figure. The Tories have always had a strong authoritarian streak; this will re-emerge pretty soon.
Yes defiantly, they seem to be making sensible decisions most of the time. I think it will stay together for the full term, firstly because they are going to change the rules so that 55% of the MPs need to vote to for a dissolution. However no party can muster 55% of the votes in this parliament and secondly because Nick and Dave _believe_ they are doing the best thing for the country.
I believe they've abandoned this on the grounds that (as many people pointed out immediately it was proposed) that it is both unconstitutional and unworkable - consider the situation where the house of commons votes for a 55% majority and then subsequently votes to remove that requirement - one of the most widely accepted parts of the UK's unwritten constitution is that the house of commons *cannot* bind its own future hands.
The real test of the coalition will be a) When the cuts start to really bite b) The conduct and result of the AV referendum
All governments run at this level of efficiency, or worse. If the private sector can do something for a $1,000,000 then government can do the same thing for $10,000,000+.
FWIW, The UK government pays about twice as much in subsidies to various private rail companies as it paid to the single state owned, centralized British Rail before the miracle of efficiency called privatisation.
You as an individual can pursue civil litigation, but the decision of whether to pursue criminal prosecution belongs to the authorities.
In some jurisdictions (such as the UK) individuals can bring private prosecutions, although the UK case the CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) can take it over and discontinue it.
While I utterly despise Windows, why the f*ck was Dell shipping the piece of crap that is Ubuntu Netbook Remix or whatever the hell it's called.
It is a piece of utter crap. The first thin I did with her netbook was wipe it out and install a real copy of Ubuntu.
Personally I quite like UNR on a small screen, but anyhow you should understand that UNR is, in fact, also 'real Ubuntu' and you can just switch to the normal interface without reinstalling.
That said, it was a PITA to learn that, and it would be *way* easier if the editor either had a "save as root" option, or the user-level file browser had a right click "open as root" option.
I had this same issue and it took me all of 2 minutes to find and install the 'open as admin' addon for Nautilus.
Most ISPs have download limits, due to the monopolistic business practices of BT (essentially they charge ISPs by the byte), and then the wonderful "market" meaning anyone who does install their own kit in exchanges will probably just charge and/or do what BT does.
Unless you have a premium ISP package, listening to the radio 8 hours a day over the internet will probably put you over your limits! There is no chance the radio will be usable in the same way to what people are used to if using a mobile internet service.
The UK's second largest ISP, Virgin, doesn't have a total download based cap. If you're on the minimum 10Mb package you could listen to internet radio all the time and all that might happen is that sometimes you would get your speed reduced to 2.5Mb/s max for a few hours in peak times, so most people wouldn't even notice (given this is as good a speed as many ADSL users get as a maximum at any time).
(Note that I'm talking about Virgin's cable package - its ADSL packages which are a fairly minor part of its business probably have the same sort of limits as BT etc)
Obviously this isn't an option unless you're in a cabled area (about 50% of UK?).
Unfortunately the big negative with Virgin is that they are very much in bed with the record companies etc. and apparently intend to spy on their customers and/or block 'infringing' web sites etc. *even when not required to do so by the law*. But most of that's currently in the unknown future at the moment so this may or may not turn out to be a real issue.
I think it's ironic that we're reading an article about MS releasing source code and the/. community is busting their balls. Just sayin'.
Maybe you should think some more and consider that 1/ MS are releasing the source code to potentially hostile foreign governments (China, Russia), but *not* to (say) security researchers etc. who might get something useful out of it for the benefit of Windows users in general. 2/ MS are not releasing buildable or complete source, there is no way to tell if the source accurately reflects the actual distributed binaries. 3/ MS has been doing this for years and it is clearly not in any way a path, stepping stone or partial move towards open source or anything like it.
So maybe you'd be able to explain why it's 'ironic' that they are being criticised in the light of the above?
So it's good enough for relative time or within a system that agreed to use GPS time instead of UTC. Any other setup would require constant manual intervention.
Easy way round this if you can access ntp but need the accuracy of gps:
Assume ntp is accuracte to within 0.5s (oviously it's much more accurate). Take the difference between ntp and gps times and round to nearest second. This gives you the current number of leap seconds, and you can then adjust your gps time with no manual intervention.
Seven out of 12 steps speak of God. How is that not "recruiting for religion"? Or more to the point - why isn't this as bad as the Scientology thing you just talked about?
It's not as bad because the 'God bit' in AA is not recruiting for a specific religion and therefore does not have a financial interest in which, if any, church/cult you may end up attending (if the AA 'God bit' does end up having any influence on you). The basic underlying purpose of Narconon is to get more members, power and money for Scientology. AA does not have such an agenda.
That's *not* to say I approve of the non-optional God in AA, especially when people who may or may not be religious have (AFAIR) been ordered by courts to attend AA.
that's why they didn't make fun of you for pretending to know how to program in "assembler" instead of ***assembly***.
I've worked in an IBM mainframe environment for 25 years and, while *technically* incorrect, the term "programming in assembler" is so commonly used (even by experienced assembly language programmers) that it's hardly going to get you laughed at.
Really? You think putting a Linux distro on a USB stick is easier than burning a CD?
Neither easier or more difficult. I don't know what you use to put Linux on a USB stick but I use a utility which is essentially identical to a CD image burning utility - select source image, select destination drive, click on 'write'/'burn'.
Rsync still has to stat every single file on both the source and target before it knows what data to copy. On 3TB of average sized files that's a very large number of seeks, a lot of used memory, and a lot of time.
My experience of using rsync from an internal 1TB SATA drive to an external USB2 1TB drive is that it only takes about 30-60s max to cross-check the files when there are no changes. I can't imagine 3TB would take more than a few minutes in the same situation.
Hell, if the says 'don't worry about the servers, go mop the floor', then that is your job for the day.
No, that is the point where you ask very politely if this policy of getting very expensive employees to do probably pointless minimum wage work has the approval of *his* boss, and to ask your HR representative how this fits with company policy.
There is absolutely no point in being a spineless jellyfish in a case like this; clearly 'the boss' wants to get rid of you. In countries where there is any sort of decent employment protection, such a request would be considered totally unreasonable and illegal and the company's HR department etc. would know this and side with you against your boss; in countries with no real employment protection, presumably he's going to get rid of you one way or another anyhow.
This doesn't mean that I necessarily think it's unreasonable for your boss to tell you to get involved in employee monitoring; it's at least arguable that such a function might be part of your job.
But there are lines to be drawn, for example where you could have some personal civil and/or criminal liability if you screw up in a job you are not trained or certified for (electrical work, use of hazardous chemicals, coding an aircraft fly-by-wire system, whatever).
On commercial channels, the broadcast is about delivering viewers to the advertisers, not football to the viewers. That's why in England''s first match ITV cut to advertisements about 3 minutes into the match, meaning that English viewers didn't get to see England's first goal of the tournament.
In this particular case, you're wrong. I'm not disagreeing with your first sentence; it's just that the second one does not follow in this case. The reason the goal was missed (on HD only, not SD broadcast) was that someone pressed the wrong button. That's it. If it had been intentional (and ITV never *intentionally* show adverts during play) don't you think they would have put adverts on the SD broadcast (which had about 10x as many viewers) as well? ITV are just incompetent.
But ITV do their best to spoil the atmosphere in other ways by inserting adverts a few seconds before kickoff and twice during half time.
do you really need an announcer telling you everything that's going on during a sporting event? Player identification is the important bit. I can see x passed to y but despite names of shirts, numbers and appearance it's not always easy to tell who x and y are. That's the commentator's job.
AV is arguably even less proportional than FPTP and only exists so that the two main parties can claim that they've fulfilled the public's wishes for 'electoral reform' without actually losing any of the benefits the current twisted system provides them.
The figures I've seen estimate that in the recent election the Lib Dems would have got 20 more seats than they did under FPTP. To me that says that AV could put the Lib Dems in a position where they are more likely to hold the balance of power more often, and eventually will probably be able to engineer some form of proper PR (e.g. AV+ would only be a short jump from AV)
Even if they do violate the GPL and distribute the program, you do not have any right to release the code against your employer's wishes (only a judge has the ability to force the release of code).
Wrong. No judge has the ability to force the code release. The judge can order: a) Damages (for distributing a derived work of someone else's GPL code without permission - the 'permission' being dependant on following the GPL - i.e. the damages are for past copyright violation) b) Cease and desist (stop distributing the derived work, - i.e. you must stop current and future copyright violation in relation to the GPL code without permission to distribute).
The employer/defendant can *volunteer* to the plaintiff to provide the relevant source of the entire derived work in order to persuade the plantiff to withdraw their case. The judge *cannot* (legally) force the employer to release any source code which they hold the copyright to.
Everything you've coded is your employer's property and although the GPL may supersede their ownership rights
As per above, the GPL never supercedes your ownership rights for code you hold the copyright for.
The GPL is really quite simple in respect of legal penalties. In the event of violation, standard copyright law applies.
No, they presumably mean one which does not *massively discriminate against* their or any other party, by giving it less than 10% of the seats for around 25% of the vote. See the difference?
But to switch to a system where minor parties get overrepresented in coalitions (like the Israeli system) and back room deals override the electorate (like right now) is a huge mistake.
Yes, it's much better to have the current system where one party with just over one third of the vote can completely override the wishes of two-thirds of the electorate, rather than have a coaltion which at least partially represents 59% of the electorate.
Are you seriously argueing that 'the electorate' really wanted an unrestrained Convservative government when only 36% of those who voted supported them?
First past the post works reaonably acceptably as a sort of tie-breaker when winning parties get around 40-50% of the vote and there are two main parties, the situation we pretty much had until 1983 in the UK. When you get toward a situation where there are three (or more) parties with substantial (say > 20%) support it's a democratic disaster. For example, you could have perpetual single party Labour government on the current system with just 35% of the vote.
If you're concerned about 'the wishes of the electorate' you should be particularly incensed by the FPTP 'safe seat' issue whereby the entire election campaign is effectively addressed to the one third or less of voters in seats which can possibly change hands. Under the current system two-thirds of the electorate are effectively irrelevant and are treated as such. Under some form of PR, all or most votes are important.
Slashdot Mirror
Currently they are claiming production environments in excess of 4Tb, and maximum rows is now unlimited.
http://www.postgresql.org/about/
Yes the conservatives by nature do want to cut spending. However, they are also the most 'liberal' (small l) party in parliament By this I mean they are against an Orwellian state. This is fundamentally different to the stance taken by Labour. Hence, scrapping ID cards, the introduction of the great repeals bill where they are asking the public which legislation they want scrapped, and scrapping crazy data bases.
The Conservatives were pretty keen on id cards at one stage. The more keen Labour became towards them, the less keen the Tories were - go figure. The Tories have always had a strong authoritarian streak; this will re-emerge pretty soon.
Yes defiantly, they seem to be making sensible decisions most of the time. I think it will stay together for the full term, firstly because they are going to change the rules so that 55% of the MPs need to vote to for a dissolution. However no party can muster 55% of the votes in this parliament and secondly because Nick and Dave _believe_ they are doing the best thing for the country.
I believe they've abandoned this on the grounds that (as many people pointed out immediately it was proposed) that it is both unconstitutional and unworkable - consider the situation where the house of commons votes for a 55% majority and then subsequently votes to remove that requirement - one of the most widely accepted parts of the UK's unwritten constitution is that the house of commons *cannot* bind its own future hands.
The real test of the coalition will be
a) When the cuts start to really bite
b) The conduct and result of the AV referendum
I'd give it 2 years max before it collapses.
All governments run at this level of efficiency, or worse. If the private sector can do something for a $1,000,000 then government can do the same thing for $10,000,000+.
FWIW, The UK government pays about twice as much in subsidies to various private rail companies as it paid to the single state owned, centralized British Rail before the miracle of efficiency called privatisation.
Exactly. Putting up thief deterrents in the form of monitoring systems only attract thieves.
Unless 90% of the houses on your street have monitoring systems etc. - in which case not having one makes you the target...
You as an individual can pursue civil litigation, but the decision of whether to pursue criminal prosecution belongs to the authorities.
In some jurisdictions (such as the UK) individuals can bring private prosecutions, although the UK case the CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) can take it over and discontinue it.
While I utterly despise Windows, why the f*ck was Dell shipping the piece of crap that is Ubuntu Netbook Remix or whatever the hell it's called.
It is a piece of utter crap. The first thin I did with her netbook was wipe it out and install a real copy of Ubuntu.
Personally I quite like UNR on a small screen, but anyhow you should understand that UNR is, in fact, also 'real Ubuntu' and you can just switch to the normal interface without reinstalling.
That said, it was a PITA to learn that, and it would be *way* easier if the editor either had a "save as root" option, or the user-level file browser had a right click "open as root" option.
I had this same issue and it took me all of 2 minutes to find and install the 'open as admin' addon for Nautilus.
The problem with diet soda is that people think they can supersize their fries because they got the diet coke.
I also read a claim (can't remember source/credibility rating) that some of the artificial sweetners in diet soda can act as appetite stimulants.
Most ISPs have download limits, due to the monopolistic business practices of BT (essentially they charge ISPs by the byte), and then the wonderful "market" meaning anyone who does install their own kit in exchanges will probably just charge and/or do what BT does.
Unless you have a premium ISP package, listening to the radio 8 hours a day over the internet will probably put you over your limits! There is no chance the radio will be usable in the same way to what people are used to if using a mobile internet service.
The UK's second largest ISP, Virgin, doesn't have a total download based cap. If you're on the minimum 10Mb package you could listen to internet radio all the time and all that might happen is that sometimes you would get your speed reduced to 2.5Mb/s max for a few hours in peak times, so most people wouldn't even notice (given this is as good a speed as many ADSL users get as a maximum at any time).
(Note that I'm talking about Virgin's cable package - its ADSL packages which are a fairly minor part of its business probably have the same sort of limits as BT etc)
Obviously this isn't an option unless you're in a cabled area (about 50% of UK?).
Unfortunately the big negative with Virgin is that they are very much in bed with the record companies etc. and apparently intend to spy on their customers and/or block 'infringing' web sites etc. *even when not required to do so by the law*. But most of that's currently in the unknown future at the moment so this may or may not turn out to be a real issue.
I think it's ironic that we're reading an article about MS releasing source code and the /. community is busting their balls. Just sayin'.
Maybe you should think some more and consider that
1/ MS are releasing the source code to potentially hostile foreign governments (China, Russia), but *not* to (say) security researchers etc. who might get something useful out of it for the benefit of Windows users in general.
2/ MS are not releasing buildable or complete source, there is no way to tell if the source accurately reflects the actual distributed binaries.
3/ MS has been doing this for years and it is clearly not in any way a path, stepping stone or partial move towards open source or anything like it.
So maybe you'd be able to explain why it's 'ironic' that they are being criticised in the light of the above?
Yes but it isn't considered funny for a man to deck a woman.
Except in 'Family Guy'.
So it's good enough for relative time or within a system that agreed to use GPS time instead of UTC. Any other setup would require constant manual intervention.
Easy way round this if you can access ntp but need the accuracy of gps:
Assume ntp is accuracte to within 0.5s (oviously it's much more accurate). Take the difference between ntp and gps times and round to nearest second. This gives you the current number of leap seconds, and you can then adjust your gps time with no manual intervention.
Seven out of 12 steps speak of God. How is that not "recruiting for religion"? Or more to the point - why isn't this as bad as the Scientology thing you just talked about?
It's not as bad because the 'God bit' in AA is not recruiting for a specific religion and therefore does not have a financial interest in which, if any, church/cult you may end up attending (if the AA 'God bit' does end up having any influence on you).
The basic underlying purpose of Narconon is to get more members, power and money for Scientology. AA does not have such an agenda.
That's *not* to say I approve of the non-optional God in AA, especially when people who may or may not be religious have (AFAIR) been ordered by courts to attend AA.
that's why they didn't make fun of you for pretending to know how to program in "assembler" instead of ***assembly***.
I've worked in an IBM mainframe environment for 25 years and, while *technically* incorrect, the term "programming in assembler" is so commonly used (even by experienced assembly language programmers) that it's hardly going to get you laughed at.
Really? You think putting a Linux distro on a USB stick is easier than burning a CD?
Neither easier or more difficult.
I don't know what you use to put Linux on a USB stick but I use a utility which is essentially identical to a CD image burning utility - select source image, select destination drive, click on 'write'/'burn'.
Rsync still has to stat every single file on both the source and target before it knows what data to copy. On 3TB of average sized files that's a very large number of seeks, a lot of used memory, and a lot of time.
My experience of using rsync from an internal 1TB SATA drive to an external USB2 1TB drive is that it only takes about 30-60s max to cross-check the files when there are no changes. I can't imagine 3TB would take more than a few minutes in the same situation.
Hell, if the says 'don't worry about the servers, go mop the floor', then that is your job for the day.
No, that is the point where you ask very politely if this policy of getting very expensive employees to do probably pointless minimum wage work has the approval of *his* boss, and to ask your HR representative how this fits with company policy.
There is absolutely no point in being a spineless jellyfish in a case like this; clearly 'the boss' wants to get rid of you. In countries where there is any sort of decent employment protection, such a request would be considered totally unreasonable and illegal and the company's HR department etc. would know this and side with you against your boss; in countries with no real employment protection, presumably he's going to get rid of you one way or another anyhow.
This doesn't mean that I necessarily think it's unreasonable for your boss to tell you to get involved in employee monitoring; it's at least arguable that such a function might be part of your job.
But there are lines to be drawn, for example where you could have some personal civil and/or criminal liability if you screw up in a job you are not trained or certified for (electrical work, use of hazardous chemicals, coding an aircraft fly-by-wire system, whatever).
On commercial channels, the broadcast is about delivering viewers to the advertisers, not football to the viewers. That's why in England''s first match ITV cut to advertisements about 3 minutes into the match, meaning that English viewers didn't get to see England's first goal of the tournament.
In this particular case, you're wrong. I'm not disagreeing with your first sentence; it's just that the second one does not follow in this case. The reason the goal was missed (on HD only, not SD broadcast) was that someone pressed the wrong button. That's it. If it had been intentional (and ITV never *intentionally* show adverts during play) don't you think they would have put adverts on the SD broadcast (which had about 10x as many viewers) as well?
ITV are just incompetent.
But ITV do their best to spoil the atmosphere in other ways by inserting adverts a few seconds before kickoff and twice during half time.
do you really need an announcer telling you everything that's going on during a sporting event?
Player identification is the important bit. I can see x passed to y but despite names of shirts, numbers and appearance it's not always easy to tell who x and y are. That's the commentator's job.
AV is arguably even less proportional than FPTP and only exists so that the two main parties can claim that they've fulfilled the public's wishes for 'electoral reform' without actually losing any of the benefits the current twisted system provides them.
The figures I've seen estimate that in the recent election the Lib Dems would have got 20 more seats than they did under FPTP. To me that says that AV could put the Lib Dems in a position where they are more likely to hold the balance of power more often, and eventually will probably be able to engineer some form of proper PR (e.g. AV+ would only be a short jump from AV)
"Let your yeah be yeah and your no be no"
http://www.stlyrics.com/lyrics/hardertheycome/letyouryeahbeyeah.htm
What's to say the GUI can't use rsync technology underneath?
http://www.opbyte.it/grsync/
Even if they do violate the GPL and distribute the program, you do not have any right to release the code against your employer's wishes (only a judge has the ability to force the release of code).
Wrong. No judge has the ability to force the code release. The judge can order:
a) Damages (for distributing a derived work of someone else's GPL code without permission - the 'permission' being dependant on following the GPL - i.e. the damages are for past copyright violation)
b) Cease and desist (stop distributing the derived work, - i.e. you must stop current and future copyright violation in relation to the GPL code without permission to distribute).
The employer/defendant can *volunteer* to the plaintiff to provide the relevant source of the entire derived work in order to persuade the plantiff to withdraw their case. The judge *cannot* (legally) force the employer to release any source code which they hold the copyright to.
Everything you've coded is your employer's property and although the GPL may supersede their ownership rights
As per above, the GPL never supercedes your ownership rights for code you hold the copyright for.
The GPL is really quite simple in respect of legal penalties. In the event of violation, standard copyright law applies.
By fair, you mean one that favours your party?
No, they presumably mean one which does not *massively discriminate against* their or any other party, by giving it less than 10% of the seats for around 25% of the vote. See the difference?
But to switch to a system where minor parties get overrepresented in coalitions (like the Israeli system) and back room deals override the electorate (like right now) is a huge mistake.
Yes, it's much better to have the current system where one party with just over one third of the vote can completely override the wishes of two-thirds of the electorate, rather than have a coaltion which at least partially represents 59% of the electorate.
Are you seriously argueing that 'the electorate' really wanted an unrestrained Convservative government when only 36% of those who voted supported them?
First past the post works reaonably acceptably as a sort of tie-breaker when winning parties get around 40-50% of the vote and there are two main parties, the situation we pretty much had until 1983 in the UK. When you get toward a situation where there are three (or more) parties with substantial (say > 20%) support it's a democratic disaster. For example, you could have perpetual single party Labour government on the current system with just 35% of the vote.
If you're concerned about 'the wishes of the electorate' you should be particularly incensed by the FPTP 'safe seat' issue whereby the entire election campaign is effectively addressed to the one third or less of voters in seats which can possibly change hands.
Under the current system two-thirds of the electorate are effectively irrelevant and are treated as such. Under some form of PR, all or most votes are important.