Someone, somewhere, is going to wake up one night and the last thing they'll see is a black-camo clad SAS member standing over their bed
As a Londoner, I'd prefer to think they'll see a policeman, who'll arrest them, and they'll find themselves in a criminal court, where they'll be tried by a jury, who'll decide whether they're guilty or not. And if they are, they'll be imprisoned.
We're quite keen on the rule of law in most of Europe.
Which documents are illegal to hold in Europe? And what antiquities are confiscated by governments if they are found in private possession? I'm somewhat confused...
and was anyone checking to see if he got it all right? not one mistake over however many hours? and the jury didn't fall asleep for even one minute? hardly....
No, there's the Nokia 1100. Endless battery life (almost a week), small but very clear b&w screen, great reception, small and light and even a built in LED flashlight (which is not a gimmick, but actually very useful). Two hours' charging has you going for days. It even looks good (classy shades of grey). A design classic.
In what way is it similar to Mars? It has a breathable, oxygen atmosphere, there is water vapour in that atmosphere, even if not much, the gravity is almost twice as strong. There's some vegetation and at least bacterial life there (as there is even in the driest of deserts). The temperature is conservatively 400 degrees higher in the desert than on Mars.
Whereas none of the above applies to Mars. So they are, in fact, completely different. Who is it who "is thought" to believe it to be like Mars?
He's not the failed prime minister of Portugal. He was prime minister of Portugal until he was offered the job of President of the European Commission. He accepted it. He thought it was a better job. By all accounts his term as PM was quite successful. Would you regard yourself as a failure if you were poached away from your small web design company with a job offer from IBM?
Oh shut up. People work in Brussels for all kinds of reasons. They're well paid, certainly, but that might be because they're meant to look after the interests of a continent of 400m people.
People I know who work there do so because they believe in European unity. Some of the oldest people at the European Commission actually remember the destruction of the WWII and the ruins of Europe, and resolved back then to work to prevent it from ever happening again.
Others do it because it's an interesting job. The European Commission is the Civil Service that deals with areas where the European Union has competence. If you're interested in competition law, environmental regulation, consumer protection or international trade, then there's no more interesting place to work in the world.
As to whether the European Commission is corrupt... well, I suspect that it's less corrupt than many national governments. Firstly because the people are concerned are well paid - they don't need to accept bribes. Secondly, because their bosses (the European Commissioners) are appointed for five year terms and are thus free from the vagiaries of national politics. European officials can make decisions on the basis of technical expertise - they don't have to act to please their political masters' short-term ambitions.
And they're not "villains, hypocrites and scoundrels" in Brussels. They're selected by an extremely competitive exam (several thousand applicants per place) open to all the citizens of the European Union. Many, many people want to work there, those that succeed are some of the most talented, competent people the continent has to offer. Getting a job at Google or McKinsey is peanuts by comparison.
So before you start slagging of the European Commission, why don't you try and get a job there. Once you've failed, then you you'll at least have bitterness as an excuse for the crap you're talking.
Your interpretation is absolute nonsense. He describes the google initiative, praises it, and then makes the wholly valid point that they are digitising collections in English and American (the French say Anglo-Saxon) libraries.
The rub: works in English reflect a particular English-language discourse. English-language authors read other English-language authors, to some extent reflect each other's views, and thus there emerges a kind of 'standard' interpretation of events which differs from other equally arguable viewpoints held in other intellectual milieux. He makes the point that the French revolution was interpreted through an 'Anglo-Saxon' prism which dwelt exclusively on violence and the guillotine, neglecting its vast consequences in terms of constiutional theory and the development of the idea of the 'Rights of Man'.
All fair enough. A strong argument.
He then makes a concrete policy proposal. Here, he's addressing the French government and the European Union collectively: they should set up a similar, well-resourced initiative focussing on the other languages of the EU. This is a way of propogating and supporting discourses which might otherwise be drowned out in an overly English web. He's not saying that the world should be forced to read Bourdieu, just that Greek, Hungarian or Dutch scholars' works should be at least as easily accessible as English ones.
He doesn't miss the point that English is spoken in other parts of the world at all. He points out that the Bodleian, Oxford's university library, is also involved in the project. This is the point about his argument I would dissent from - and this is perhaps the real déformation scolaire that characterises French intellectuals.
There is no 'Anglo-Saxon' world. England, Scotland, Ireland, India, Jamaica, Kenya are very different in cultural attitudes from the United States. I'm English, and my 'intellectual milieu' is far closer to that of your typical French énarque or a denizen of the Max Planck institute than it is to the average American intellectuals'.
So his concerns about Google are valid. If they want to respond to it seriously and don't want immediately to start with other languages then they should do so by making a commitment to digitising libraries elsewhere in the 'Anglo-Saxon' (really English-speaking) world. A commitment to digitising the production of India's, Singapores's or Ireland's vastly productive academia would be a good start.
It's hyperpuissance not 'hyper-pouvoir', by the way. And domination écrasante doesn't really mean 'crushing dominance' - that's just an artifact of French literary style. French writing tends to opt for a somewhat baroque style of self-expression, and here he's saying simply that English is, overwhelmingly, the language of the web and academic discourse. You wouldn't contest this, I assume? And it hardly seems underhand of the French to want to promote works in their own language!
...except there are dozens of legitimate domains which have bad certificates, presumably because they're badly configured. what am i to do then? If it's my bank i'll probably reject a falsely set up certificate, but what do I do if it's less critical, but still important? I'd love it if every certificate worked as it should, but sometimes they don't.
(And stop the macho strutting about the 'users', for god's sake...some people on Slashdot seem to regard themselves as Übermenschen to the serf-like users down below...You're all users too!)
* Al Qaeda is replaced by decentralized terror groups which are equally deadly.
and when was al qaeda every anything other than a 'decentralised terror group'?
this is just the cia trying to sneak in a truism: al qaeda is, and will remain a label for lots of different individuals and groups of individuals, some of whom have real political aims, and some of whom are probably just nutters.
It's a bit like those generic 'marxist terrorists' you used to see in 80s hollywood films. there wasn't a specific model in mind: marxist just meant 'nasty'.
Agricultural subsidies account for about half of the EU's budget, unfortunately. Of course, the scale of the subsidies are comparable to what you might find in the US, it's just that the European Commission's budget is far smaller than the US Federal Government's, so as a percentage of total expenditure, the EU's agriculture framework looks inordinately expensive. It's not expensive, though - it's just a waste of time. Agree with you so far. (Crop production is no longer directly subsidised, however: CAP money is increasingly focussed towards rural development - things like improving transport links, providing high-speed internet access in very remote regions, stuff that/. should like).
But the structural funds are very different: they really are spent on building up infrastructure. Drive around Ireland or Spain: notice that motorways often have a sign bearing the EU flag: they were co-financed by the EU. Airports, schools, libraries, university research labs - all kinds of things, things that are essential to a modern economy, but which Ireland in 1973 or Spain or Portugual in 1986 could never have afforded on their own.
I think this money - the structural funds, the cohesion funds - is *very* well spent,
Oh shut up you fucking miepes! (or ar you just fideszes) how many billions in structural funds is 'nothing' in your language? and what about the thousands of Hungarians who are now making use of the four freedoms to live and work in London, to name just the city where I live? Jeez...I like Hungary, I'm glad it's joined the EU, I'm proud of the EU, an organisation which has invested billions of euros in raising Ireland, Spain, Portugal, Greece from relative poverty into rich, dynamic economies. And now the same will happen to Hungary. It's already happened to Slovenia (which is now richer than Greece), and Hungary's economy has been *booming* since it became clear that the country would join the EU. As have the economies of all the other new member states.
Just think of that: without the EU, can you imagine the same kind of solidarity from the member states on your own? Can you imagine that the UK or Germany or France would have spontaneously decided to invest billions in the development of deprived regions of Ireland or Hungary? No, they only do it because we have this umbrella organisation which imposes certain moral obligations and rights on all its members. It's unique in the history of the world, it is a benefit for everyone living on this continent, and all you can do is whinge about it.
Jacques Barrot didn't mean 'preventing' floods - his first language isn't English, but I'm sure his English is better than your French. He meant dealing with natural disasters. This doesn't seem like a bad idea to me.
yes, every single time there's a story about cameras we get the same set of comments: "it's the optics, stupid." this is obvious, and probably news to noone.
Much more interesting, however, would be to know if there's any combination of manufacturing or processing technologies which could compensate for this wee little lens... Is there anyway a DSP could compensate for the the small aperture? Would it be possible to create some kind of concave CCD to share some of the focussing burden of the lens? Would an extremely sensitive CCD with 32- or even 64-bit colour depth be able to extract a better picture from a small-aperture lens? Or would all that extra colour depth just produce more noise? could you produce a small lens which would be exceptionally transparent, letting through lots of light, which would also have very high refractivity? a diamond lens, perhaps?
that seems to me the crucial question... if there is no way of doing this, then clearly camera phones will always be something of a gimmick...
Slashdot Mirror
We're quite keen on the rule of law in most of Europe.
Which documents are illegal to hold in Europe? And what antiquities are confiscated by governments if they are found in private possession? I'm somewhat confused...
and was anyone checking to see if he got it all right? not one mistake over however many hours? and the jury didn't fall asleep for even one minute? hardly....
No, there's the Nokia 1100. Endless battery life (almost a week), small but very clear b&w screen, great reception, small and light and even a built in LED flashlight (which is not a gimmick, but actually very useful). Two hours' charging has you going for days. It even looks good (classy shades of grey). A design classic.
In what way is it similar to Mars? It has a breathable, oxygen atmosphere, there is water vapour in that atmosphere, even if not much, the gravity is almost twice as strong. There's some vegetation and at least bacterial life there (as there is even in the driest of deserts). The temperature is conservatively 400 degrees higher in the desert than on Mars.
Whereas none of the above applies to Mars. So they are, in fact, completely different. Who is it who "is thought" to believe it to be like Mars?
He's not the failed prime minister of Portugal. He was prime minister of Portugal until he was offered the job of President of the European Commission. He accepted it. He thought it was a better job. By all accounts his term as PM was quite successful. Would you regard yourself as a failure if you were poached away from your small web design company with a job offer from IBM?
Oh shut up. People work in Brussels for all kinds of reasons. They're well paid, certainly, but that might be because they're meant to look after the interests of a continent of 400m people.
People I know who work there do so because they believe in European unity. Some of the oldest people at the European Commission actually remember the destruction of the WWII and the ruins of Europe, and resolved back then to work to prevent it from ever happening again.
Others do it because it's an interesting job. The European Commission is the Civil Service that deals with areas where the European Union has competence. If you're interested in competition law, environmental regulation, consumer protection or international trade, then there's no more interesting place to work in the world.
As to whether the European Commission is corrupt... well, I suspect that it's less corrupt than many national governments. Firstly because the people are concerned are well paid - they don't need to accept bribes. Secondly, because their bosses (the European Commissioners) are appointed for five year terms and are thus free from the vagiaries of national politics. European officials can make decisions on the basis of technical expertise - they don't have to act to please their political masters' short-term ambitions.
And they're not "villains, hypocrites and scoundrels" in Brussels. They're selected by an extremely competitive exam (several thousand applicants per place) open to all the citizens of the European Union. Many, many people want to work there, those that succeed are some of the most talented, competent people the continent has to offer. Getting a job at Google or McKinsey is peanuts by comparison.
So before you start slagging of the European Commission, why don't you try and get a job there. Once you've failed, then you you'll at least have bitterness as an excuse for the crap you're talking.
Best wishes,
"Alle Menschen werden Brüder"
Thomas
Your interpretation is absolute nonsense. He describes the google initiative, praises it, and then makes the wholly valid point that they are digitising collections in English and American (the French say Anglo-Saxon) libraries.
The rub: works in English reflect a particular English-language discourse. English-language authors read other English-language authors, to some extent reflect each other's views, and thus there emerges a kind of 'standard' interpretation of events which differs from other equally arguable viewpoints held in other intellectual milieux. He makes the point that the French revolution was interpreted through an 'Anglo-Saxon' prism which dwelt exclusively on violence and the guillotine, neglecting its vast consequences in terms of constiutional theory and the development of the idea of the 'Rights of Man'.
All fair enough. A strong argument.
He then makes a concrete policy proposal. Here, he's addressing the French government and the European Union collectively: they should set up a similar, well-resourced initiative focussing on the other languages of the EU. This is a way of propogating and supporting discourses which might otherwise be drowned out in an overly English web. He's not saying that the world should be forced to read Bourdieu, just that Greek, Hungarian or Dutch scholars' works should be at least as easily accessible as English ones.
He doesn't miss the point that English is spoken in other parts of the world at all. He points out that the Bodleian, Oxford's university library, is also involved in the project. This is the point about his argument I would dissent from - and this is perhaps the real déformation scolaire that characterises French intellectuals.
There is no 'Anglo-Saxon' world. England, Scotland, Ireland, India, Jamaica, Kenya are very different in cultural attitudes from the United States. I'm English, and my 'intellectual milieu' is far closer to that of your typical French énarque or a denizen of the Max Planck institute than it is to the average American intellectuals'.
So his concerns about Google are valid. If they want to respond to it seriously and don't want immediately to start with other languages then they should do so by making a commitment to digitising libraries elsewhere in the 'Anglo-Saxon' (really English-speaking) world. A commitment to digitising the production of India's, Singapores's or Ireland's vastly productive academia would be a good start.
It's hyperpuissance not 'hyper-pouvoir', by the way. And domination écrasante doesn't really mean 'crushing dominance' - that's just an artifact of French literary style. French writing tends to opt for a somewhat baroque style of self-expression, and here he's saying simply that English is, overwhelmingly, the language of the web and academic discourse. You wouldn't contest this, I assume? And it hardly seems underhand of the French to want to promote works in their own language!
...except there are dozens of legitimate domains which have bad certificates, presumably because they're badly configured. what am i to do then? If it's my bank i'll probably reject a falsely set up certificate, but what do I do if it's less critical, but still important? I'd love it if every certificate worked as it should, but sometimes they don't.
(And stop the macho strutting about the 'users', for god's sake...some people on Slashdot seem to regard themselves as Übermenschen to the serf-like users down below...You're all users too!)
* Al Qaeda is replaced by decentralized terror groups which are equally deadly.
and when was al qaeda every anything other than a 'decentralised terror group'?
this is just the cia trying to sneak in a truism: al qaeda is, and will remain a label for lots of different individuals and groups of individuals, some of whom have real political aims, and some of whom are probably just nutters.
It's a bit like those generic 'marxist terrorists' you used to see in 80s hollywood films. there wasn't a specific model in mind: marxist just meant 'nasty'.
Agricultural subsidies account for about half of the EU's budget, unfortunately. Of course, the scale of the subsidies are comparable to what you might find in the US, it's just that the European Commission's budget is far smaller than the US Federal Government's, so as a percentage of total expenditure, the EU's agriculture framework looks inordinately expensive. It's not expensive, though - it's just a waste of time. Agree with you so far. (Crop production is no longer directly subsidised, however: CAP money is increasingly focussed towards rural development - things like improving transport links, providing high-speed internet access in very remote regions, stuff that /. should like).
But the structural funds are very different: they really are spent on building up infrastructure. Drive around Ireland or Spain: notice that motorways often have a sign bearing the EU flag: they were co-financed by the EU. Airports, schools, libraries, university research labs - all kinds of things, things that are essential to a modern economy, but which Ireland in 1973 or Spain or Portugual in 1986 could never have afforded on their own.
I think this money - the structural funds, the cohesion funds - is *very* well spent,
Oh shut up you fucking miepes! (or ar you just fideszes) how many billions in structural funds is 'nothing' in your language? and what about the thousands of Hungarians who are now making use of the four freedoms to live and work in London, to name just the city where I live? Jeez...I like Hungary, I'm glad it's joined the EU, I'm proud of the EU, an organisation which has invested billions of euros in raising Ireland, Spain, Portugal, Greece from relative poverty into rich, dynamic economies. And now the same will happen to Hungary. It's already happened to Slovenia (which is now richer than Greece), and Hungary's economy has been *booming* since it became clear that the country would join the EU. As have the economies of all the other new member states.
Just think of that: without the EU, can you imagine the same kind of solidarity from the member states on your own? Can you imagine that the UK or Germany or France would have spontaneously decided to invest billions in the development of deprived regions of Ireland or Hungary? No, they only do it because we have this umbrella organisation which imposes certain moral obligations and rights on all its members. It's unique in the history of the world, it is a benefit for everyone living on this continent, and all you can do is whinge about it.
Jacques Barrot didn't mean 'preventing' floods - his first language isn't English, but I'm sure his English is better than your French. He meant dealing with natural disasters. This doesn't seem like a bad idea to me.
So ebredj fol, almoskam.
yes, every single time there's a story about cameras we get the same set of comments: "it's the optics, stupid." this is obvious, and probably news to noone. Much more interesting, however, would be to know if there's any combination of manufacturing or processing technologies which could compensate for this wee little lens... Is there anyway a DSP could compensate for the the small aperture? Would it be possible to create some kind of concave CCD to share some of the focussing burden of the lens? Would an extremely sensitive CCD with 32- or even 64-bit colour depth be able to extract a better picture from a small-aperture lens? Or would all that extra colour depth just produce more noise? could you produce a small lens which would be exceptionally transparent, letting through lots of light, which would also have very high refractivity? a diamond lens, perhaps? that seems to me the crucial question... if there is no way of doing this, then clearly camera phones will always be something of a gimmick...