I guess we can shut down all the schools of theology, monasteries, and the philosophers who study religion can find new pursuits.
An idea I can get behind. Ending the wasting of time, money and lives studying things that don't exist or matter would really make the world a better place.
So you're in favour of freedom of speech and expression unless it's speech or expression you don't like? Perhaps you could explain how your attitude is any different from that of the Muslims who've got you up in arms.
What about, say, the kids who would be oppressed if your lack of censorship meant the distribution of child pornography was not a criminal offence because of your Free Speech?
No kids are 'oppressed' by the distribution or possession of child pornography. The reason that child pornography is banned is ostensibly because kids are harmed in the making of child pornography. Allowing a legal market for such materials promotes their creation, so distribution and possession of child pornography are also banned, even though neither of those activities actually harm children directly.
This is why I think that the UK's ban on cartoons depicting child sex abuse is pretty much unacceptable; no children are harmed in its creation. Though the subject matter utterly disgusts me, I nevertheless think that banning it is a disturbing restriction of free speech.
Something is so very, very wrong with your reasoning. If NASA couldn't fix the problem we wouldn't just have a bit of space junk spewing out garbage transmissions, we'd have a bit NUCLEAR space junk spewing out garbage transmissions.
Oh no! What a terrible thing! There's nothing like that in space at the moment, how could we possibly manage?
The Van Allen belts contain high enough concentrations of radiation that they make Chernobyl's fallout look like spilt milk. The sun regularly pumps out solar flares that would kill unshielded humans in seconds. Compared to that, I find it very very difficult to be at all concerned by a tiny spacecraft literally billions of kilometres away.
That is a very bad idea for two reasons (assuming you're referring to project Orion and not completely off your tree). 1. Nuclear bombs are very heavy and very destructive, not only do you have the cost of getting them up there but you also have the very real possibility of them being detonated at slightly the wrong angle or slightly the wrong distance vaporising the craft (we are talking about NUCLEAR fucking bombs people) or any of the myriad of other unpredicted problems you will encounter in deep space. 2. Once out in space, you do not need continual propulsion, deploying an explosive drive means sending up two propulsion systems rather then just putting more fuel into the first.
Oh dear, where do I start? Firstly, no, nuclear explosives (they're only bombs if you're dropping them on someone) are not necessarily "very heavy". They can be easily built small and light enough to fit into an artillery shell; if a serious Orion development programme was resumed, you'd be looking at 5-10 kg per charge, possibly less. In the Orion model, the pusher plate and damping structure are by far the most massive components. Secondly, nuclear explosions behave very differently in a vacuum than in air; most of the destructive power of a nuclear detonation on Earth is due to the way that the massive energy release affects the atmosphere. Thirdly, it's bloody hard to get a nuclear explosive to detonate. They can only detonate successfully if a very long and complex chain of events occur in precisely the right way. I think you overestimate the risk massively. Honestly, mining with conventional explosives is far more risky than propulsion using nuclear explosives will ever be. Finally, one of the biggest advantages of the proposed Orion propulsion system is that the mass efficiency is very high, meaning that it's possible to continue thrusting for a long period of time, so the whole point is that you want to use it "out in space."
I recommend reading 'Project Orion' by George Dyson if you want to know more about the practicalities of the Orion propulsion system.
Two massive hurdles prevent the use of nuclear reactors in space, weight and the ability to operate them safely from remote. First, nuclear reactors are very very heavy with all that radiation shielding.
Which you don't need in space; you design the reactor so the majority of the radiation produced is directed away from the spacecraft. Look up NASA's SP-100 design.
Secondly we can not guarantee that remote systems will operate, it's hard enough to keep a well maintained reactor on the ground operating without constant human intervention (which is why they have constant human intervention) let alone one that will be completely unmaintained and far far from any human help.
No, modern reactors run on almost completely automated systems, even down to choosing which rods should optimally be replaced next. Human intervention is only required when modifying output to match grid loads (and even then, that's largely automated too). Even if something goes wrong, modern reactor safety systems have so much redundancy and fail-safe assumptions
As much money that goes through the oil industry, you'd think they would have installed a shut off valve. Of wait, they don't want to shut it off so why would they have installed a valve? (don't no body say they did, for it they really did, it'd been shut off by now) Instead they try to funnel it...
They did install a valve, but for some reason it didn't work (they went to quite a lot of effort to try and make it work, and to try and work out why it wasn't working). So either they didn't install it properly, or didn't maintain it properly.
Removing energy from the wind affects climate, migration, pollination, seeding, and probably other factors I haven't considered.
Worldwide, forests dissipate orders of magnitude more wind energy than wind farms would if we provided all of humanities power requirements using them.
Even solar energy isn't "safe" by your definition, because widespread use of solar cells would alter the Earth's albedo.
Just make sure you know not to vote for the other pirate party that's standing (ok, in Westminster, not Gorton) with the aptly named Mad Cap'n Tom
Indeed! Tom was quite apologetic once he realised that he'd be running against PPUK -- he apparently didn't intend to cause any confusion with our chap.
That's actually kind of ballsy. I would have to expect that if someone has physical access to the device, they own or are employed by the owners of said device. I don't see a lot of situations where this would be entirely useful....
Actually, I think this is a very useful feature. If you've got a city-wide network, it's likely that there will be at least one place where the physical security isn't perfect. In conjunction with securely-stored passwords and configuration backups (e.g. in a fire-proof safe in the city hall) using No Service Password-Recovery seems like a sensible way of partially plugging the "physical access == pwned" security flaw.
Especially considering the fact that it's likely that a lot of very valuable information would be travelling over a typical city's network (local tax records, emergency services data, names, addresses, SSNs, etc).
those people still had to get from point A to point B, likely using a method that created MORE CO2 per person
Likely not. The majority of people will have had to move to buses, trains or ships for their transport, which all pump out less CO2 per passenger mile than commercial aircraft do.
If they had all individually jumped into cars to drive the distance, then yes, your criticism would probably be fair.
I've seen this usage of the word government before, and find it awfully confusing. If the term government refers only to the executive and doesn't include Parliament, what word do you use to refer to the whole group in charge of running the country?
I agree; it's really bloody confusing, and there's no real differentiation between the two without context. I tend to use "parliament" when talking about the legislative branch, and "government" when talking about the executive branch. The terminology is the product of a few centuries of (mostly) gradual change in how things work, and we have to live with it. I quite like the distinction in the US, where the phrase "executive branch" is much more common (and better understood).
Even if we won all 10 seats we couldn't form a government.
So, you're committing fraud on the people. If you don't believe your party capable of governing, why are you running?
I think you misunderstand slightly.
By being elected to a seat in the government? Jesus fuck, you're a member of a political party, and don't even understand the basics of government?
You're confusing the Government (with a capital 'G', i.e. the departments and ministers) with Parliament. They're two distinct concepts in the UK. If you get elected to Parliament as an independent, you are very unlikely to be asked to help form the Government, even though you are technically part of the government (small 'g'). (I simplify slightly, of course, but that's the situation that the GP was trying to convey).
Actually, I'll expand on that: in the UK, after a General Election (the process by which Members of Parliament are elected to the House of Commons), the leader of the majority party is customarily invited by the Crown to become Prime Minister and form a Government. In the case of a hung parliament (i.e. no single party controls a simple majority of votes in the Commons), the Crown will try to choose the person who is most likely to successfully form a coalition. 10 MPs out of ~650 is not enough for a PPUK MP to be offered a ministerial appointment in a coalition Government (even assuming we win all 10 constituency elections), let alone be invited to form a Government. However, any PPUK MPs will be able to take part in Commons debates, committees and commissions, and to vote in parliament, and thus play a full and meaningful role in the process of governing the country.
The problem is that virtually nothing supports it except for KDE apps that start with "K".
Actually, that's not true. With the latest Fedora, for example, Firefox uses KDE notifications under KDE, and GNOME notifications under GNOME. The integration's spreading really, really quickly, now that the DBUS API has been fixed down for a release cycle.
Quick question if you are still reading responses to this topic - where is Luke Leighton's constituency? It says 'south west surrey' on your website. I live in Kingston, which is in south west surrey, but i'm not sure if that means he'll be on my ballot or not since it is usually referred to as it's own location.
Cheers.
To work out which constituency you're in and who the candidates are, the best thing at the moment seems to be to go to http://www.yournextmp.com/ and punch in your postcode. Hope that helps!
I don't advocate voting BNP or UKIP for one minute, they're the scum of the earth, but christ, I'm beginning to see now why so many people resort to them nowadays with the feeling of helplessness and lack of voice the British political system leaves people with.
On the ever so slightly bright side, there is still some question if the provisions to disconnect users purely on the basis of an accusation (which is essentially all that is required, given the poor standards of "evidence" required) would stand up to scrutiny in the European courts.
Slashdot Mirror
I guess we can shut down all the schools of theology, monasteries, and the philosophers who study religion can find new pursuits.
An idea I can get behind. Ending the wasting of time, money and lives studying things that don't exist or matter would really make the world a better place.
So you're in favour of freedom of speech and expression unless it's speech or expression you don't like? Perhaps you could explain how your attitude is any different from that of the Muslims who've got you up in arms.
What about, say, the kids who would be oppressed if your lack of censorship meant the distribution of child pornography was not a criminal offence because of your Free Speech?
No kids are 'oppressed' by the distribution or possession of child pornography. The reason that child pornography is banned is ostensibly because kids are harmed in the making of child pornography. Allowing a legal market for such materials promotes their creation, so distribution and possession of child pornography are also banned, even though neither of those activities actually harm children directly.
This is why I think that the UK's ban on cartoons depicting child sex abuse is pretty much unacceptable; no children are harmed in its creation. Though the subject matter utterly disgusts me, I nevertheless think that banning it is a disturbing restriction of free speech.
... it's ... possible to claim to be altruistic when you're really not, like Mother Theresa.
You what?
Something is so very, very wrong with your reasoning. If NASA couldn't fix the problem we wouldn't just have a bit of space junk spewing out garbage transmissions, we'd have a bit NUCLEAR space junk spewing out garbage transmissions.
Oh no! What a terrible thing! There's nothing like that in space at the moment, how could we possibly manage?
The Van Allen belts contain high enough concentrations of radiation that they make Chernobyl's fallout look like spilt milk. The sun regularly pumps out solar flares that would kill unshielded humans in seconds. Compared to that, I find it very very difficult to be at all concerned by a tiny spacecraft literally billions of kilometres away.
That is a very bad idea for two reasons (assuming you're referring to project Orion and not completely off your tree). 1. Nuclear bombs are very heavy and very destructive, not only do you have the cost of getting them up there but you also have the very real possibility of them being detonated at slightly the wrong angle or slightly the wrong distance vaporising the craft (we are talking about NUCLEAR fucking bombs people) or any of the myriad of other unpredicted problems you will encounter in deep space. 2. Once out in space, you do not need continual propulsion, deploying an explosive drive means sending up two propulsion systems rather then just putting more fuel into the first.
Oh dear, where do I start? Firstly, no, nuclear explosives (they're only bombs if you're dropping them on someone) are not necessarily "very heavy". They can be easily built small and light enough to fit into an artillery shell; if a serious Orion development programme was resumed, you'd be looking at 5-10 kg per charge, possibly less. In the Orion model, the pusher plate and damping structure are by far the most massive components. Secondly, nuclear explosions behave very differently in a vacuum than in air; most of the destructive power of a nuclear detonation on Earth is due to the way that the massive energy release affects the atmosphere. Thirdly, it's bloody hard to get a nuclear explosive to detonate. They can only detonate successfully if a very long and complex chain of events occur in precisely the right way. I think you overestimate the risk massively. Honestly, mining with conventional explosives is far more risky than propulsion using nuclear explosives will ever be. Finally, one of the biggest advantages of the proposed Orion propulsion system is that the mass efficiency is very high, meaning that it's possible to continue thrusting for a long period of time, so the whole point is that you want to use it "out in space."
I recommend reading 'Project Orion' by George Dyson if you want to know more about the practicalities of the Orion propulsion system.
Two massive hurdles prevent the use of nuclear reactors in space, weight and the ability to operate them safely from remote. First, nuclear reactors are very very heavy with all that radiation shielding.
Which you don't need in space; you design the reactor so the majority of the radiation produced is directed away from the spacecraft. Look up NASA's SP-100 design.
Secondly we can not guarantee that remote systems will operate, it's hard enough to keep a well maintained reactor on the ground operating without constant human intervention (which is why they have constant human intervention) let alone one that will be completely unmaintained and far far from any human help.
No, modern reactors run on almost completely automated systems, even down to choosing which rods should optimally be replaced next. Human intervention is only required when modifying output to match grid loads (and even then, that's largely automated too). Even if something goes wrong, modern reactor safety systems have so much redundancy and fail-safe assumptions
As much money that goes through the oil industry, you'd think they would have installed a shut off valve. Of wait, they don't want to shut it off so why would they have installed a valve? (don't no body say they did, for it they really did, it'd been shut off by now) Instead they try to funnel it...
They did install a valve, but for some reason it didn't work (they went to quite a lot of effort to try and make it work, and to try and work out why it wasn't working). So either they didn't install it properly, or didn't maintain it properly.
And no, some newly hired developer isn't in a position to have better perspective of the business' needs than the people who hired him.
Because the fact I don't have MS Office on my home computer somehow affects how well I will be able to do the job I'm hired to do?
I agree with the AC; I take being unable to handle my CV in PDF format as a good indication that it's not somewhere I want to work.
A story on the Supreme Court appointment that's actually News for Nerds rather than Republocrat propaganda!
Removing energy from the wind affects climate, migration, pollination, seeding, and probably other factors I haven't considered.
Worldwide, forests dissipate orders of magnitude more wind energy than wind farms would if we provided all of humanities power requirements using them.
Even solar energy isn't "safe" by your definition, because widespread use of solar cells would alter the Earth's albedo.
Okay lets put the next wind farm beside your house.
Sure, why not? It needs to go somewhere. Where do I sign up?
Just make sure you know not to vote for the other pirate party that's standing (ok, in Westminster, not Gorton) with the aptly named Mad Cap'n Tom
Indeed! Tom was quite apologetic once he realised that he'd be running against PPUK -- he apparently didn't intend to cause any confusion with our chap.
That's actually kind of ballsy. I would have to expect that if someone has physical access to the device, they own or are employed by the owners of said device. I don't see a lot of situations where this would be entirely useful....
Actually, I think this is a very useful feature. If you've got a city-wide network, it's likely that there will be at least one place where the physical security isn't perfect. In conjunction with securely-stored passwords and configuration backups (e.g. in a fire-proof safe in the city hall) using No Service Password-Recovery seems like a sensible way of partially plugging the "physical access == pwned" security flaw.
Especially considering the fact that it's likely that a lot of very valuable information would be travelling over a typical city's network (local tax records, emergency services data, names, addresses, SSNs, etc).
those people still had to get from point A to point B, likely using a method that created MORE CO2 per person
Likely not. The majority of people will have had to move to buses, trains or ships for their transport, which all pump out less CO2 per passenger mile than commercial aircraft do.
If they had all individually jumped into cars to drive the distance, then yes, your criticism would probably be fair.
I've seen this usage of the word government before, and find it awfully confusing. If the term government refers only to the executive and doesn't include Parliament, what word do you use to refer to the whole group in charge of running the country?
I agree; it's really bloody confusing, and there's no real differentiation between the two without context. I tend to use "parliament" when talking about the legislative branch, and "government" when talking about the executive branch. The terminology is the product of a few centuries of (mostly) gradual change in how things work, and we have to live with it. I quite like the distinction in the US, where the phrase "executive branch" is much more common (and better understood).
Even if we won all 10 seats we couldn't form a government.
So, you're committing fraud on the people. If you don't believe your party capable of governing, why are you running?
I think you misunderstand slightly.
By being elected to a seat in the government? Jesus fuck, you're a member of a political party, and don't even understand the basics of government?
You're confusing the Government (with a capital 'G', i.e. the departments and ministers) with Parliament. They're two distinct concepts in the UK. If you get elected to Parliament as an independent, you are very unlikely to be asked to help form the Government, even though you are technically part of the government (small 'g'). (I simplify slightly, of course, but that's the situation that the GP was trying to convey).
Actually, I'll expand on that: in the UK, after a General Election (the process by which Members of Parliament are elected to the House of Commons), the leader of the majority party is customarily invited by the Crown to become Prime Minister and form a Government. In the case of a hung parliament (i.e. no single party controls a simple majority of votes in the Commons), the Crown will try to choose the person who is most likely to successfully form a coalition. 10 MPs out of ~650 is not enough for a PPUK MP to be offered a ministerial appointment in a coalition Government (even assuming we win all 10 constituency elections), let alone be invited to form a Government. However, any PPUK MPs will be able to take part in Commons debates, committees and commissions, and to vote in parliament, and thus play a full and meaningful role in the process of governing the country.
I hope that makes things clearer for you.
Well, I hope that this centrally-dictated economic activity works better than the 20th century ones did.
The problem is that virtually nothing supports it except for KDE apps that start with "K".
Actually, that's not true. With the latest Fedora, for example, Firefox uses KDE notifications under KDE, and GNOME notifications under GNOME. The integration's spreading really, really quickly, now that the DBUS API has been fixed down for a release cycle.
Your Supreme Court already ruled that any finite duration of copyright is, in fact, constitutional.
Eldred v. Ashcroft
A return to the 28-year copyrights of the Statute of Anne would be in many ways arbitrary, but not unreasonable.
It has been reported that 14 years is closer to optimal.
Maybe reasonable would be 7 years, or two.
And of course these speaches on copyright make a good primer on what to expect when the copyright law is percieved to be unfair.
Maybe you should support the Pirate Party? When (ha) we come to power we'll cut the duration of copyright to 10 years.
Quick question if you are still reading responses to this topic - where is Luke Leighton's constituency? It says 'south west surrey' on your website. I live in Kingston, which is in south west surrey, but i'm not sure if that means he'll be on my ballot or not since it is usually referred to as it's own location. Cheers.
To work out which constituency you're in and who the candidates are, the best thing at the moment seems to be to go to http://www.yournextmp.com/ and punch in your postcode. Hope that helps!
I'm not going to publicly discuss the reasons for or lack thereof your personal level of extreme butthurt, Jez.
Sorry but your idea of turning me into your slave because I am a programmer doesn't exactly appeal to me.
Would you care to elaborate upon your ridiculous assertion?
I don't advocate voting BNP or UKIP for one minute, they're the scum of the earth, but christ, I'm beginning to see now why so many people resort to them nowadays with the feeling of helplessness and lack of voice the British political system leaves people with.
Have you considered voting Pirate?
On the ever so slightly bright side, there is still some question if the provisions to disconnect users purely on the basis of an accusation (which is essentially all that is required, given the poor standards of "evidence" required) would stand up to scrutiny in the European courts.
Of course, the UK government has a track record of completely ignoring the ECHR, so don't count your chickens.
You can also read our manifesto and see a list of our PPCs -- maybe we're running a candidate in your area?
All of them, yarr!