Britain has certainly tried to, but its experience over the entire Modern Era (roughly from the rise of the Tudors onward) has shown that no matter how much Britain tries to plow its own row, it inevitably has been dragged into European conflicts. From the attempted invasion of the Spanish Armada to the Second World War, Britain may have fancied itself apart from the Continent, but has inevitably been dragged into the chaos. In fact, one of the chief reasons there is a EU is because no less than Winston Churchill himself came to firmly believe that the only way to stave off another European general war was to create a pan-European political and economic union. Even earlier, Churchill, in the dying days of France's resistance to Germany, had tried to convince the French government to create an Anglo-French Union, a merging of the two states, so that France would not have to surrender and capitulate to the Germans, even if French territory was overrun.
The whole point of this is that Britain, whether it has liked it or not, has long played the part of a broker between the warring poles of Europe; which have, in one formulation or another, been Germany versus France. In the early modern era Germany was represented by the vast holdings of the Hapsburgs, but later, with the collapse of the Napoleonic Empire, a unified Germany. Britain may not be of the Continent, but there's no way the Continent will not be Britain's primary trading partner and chief political concern. It has been so since William the Conqueror invaded.
The one thing that is going to happen is action against tax shelters. This is a big deal in Britain, because some of the most often used tax shelters are British overseas dependencies (colonies). Britain has long resisted forcing reforms because for these dependencies, their financial status is a significant part of their economy. But now, I think, reform will become inevitable. Probably not enough to completely eliminate tax shelters, but, as with Swiss bank reforms, it is steadily narrowing the means by which people can hide their cash.
Another area that is now being looked at is the use of property to hide or wash cash. Vancouver, Toronto and London are three cities where oligarchs and various wealthy and powerful people from places like Russia and China are sinking their cash, which, apart from major Western cities become money laundering factories, also has raised housing prices sky high. Vancouver, for instance, is in the bizarre situation of seeing condos being purchased and remaining empty as locals struggle to find affordable accommodations, with the suspicion that Asian buyers looking to plant their money in a stable market by buying real estate now slowly being confirmed as a leading reason for the seemingly endless property bubble. Similar observations are being made in London, where wealthy Russian oligarchs, trying to insulate themselves from Russia's eroding economy, not to mention safely stashing their own loot, buy property in what they view as a stable market.
And this isn't talking about the other major issue being raised; that along with the uber-rich using tax shelters to hide their money from the taxman, these shelters are being used by regimes like North Korea as a means to get past economic sanctions, and the likelihood that international criminal elements are using these shelters in the same way. Even if you think tax shelters are perfectly fine and tax avoidance (even if legal) is a laudable thing, if you're allowing these shelters to stash rich peoples' money, they are also inevitably going to be used by criminals and rogue regimes to stash their own money and to use as conduits to gain access to "reputable" investment schemes. In other words, these tax shelters can act as money launderers.
No, I'm angry because an AC is inventing a lie to try to discredit a branch of science that doesn't tell him what he wants to hear.
The universe doesn't owe us a fucking thing. It doesn't modify the effects of CO2 to protect your stock portfolio or keep the price of gas cheap. It doesn't give one flying fuck about any economic system. CO2 has the effects it has because that's the way it fucking is, and it is irrelevant how it makes you are the moron who made the original post feel. The universe does not care about cheap energy.
Canadian French has a number of peculiarities and anachronisms compared to Parisian French, but the two dialects are as intelligible to the other as Australian English is to North American English.
No, it's best understood as a authoritarian absolute monarchy in which the king's subject need to be continually remined of how great and undefeatable he is (the latter is very very very important). This has precious little to do with anything outside NK's borders.
Windows 10 Remote Administration tools don't even have a DHCP management console yet. It's absolutely bizarre. I actually have to log on to one of our Servers to manage DHCP servers. I should feel lucky, as it was like November before MS had any kind of RSAT toolkit available for Win10.
If we could move away from Exchange/Office we would. Licensing is absurdly expensive for enterprise licenses, and the only real argument beyond Exchange/Outlook is that OpenOffice/LibreOffice is still iffy on the newest OOXML versions.
But thus far, despite many claims, the real gravity well that keeps us in the Microsoft sphere is Exchange. We could probably even live without Active Directory and with compatibility issues with LibreOffice, but way too much corporate functionality is built on Exchange.
Windows 10 has its share of issues, at least in a AD environment with roaming profiles. We've had to kill profiles on a number of occasions due to the Start Menu and search functionality croaking. We've also forced through GPOs to ensure that Microsoft Edge is *not* the default browser because of issues a number of staff have had. So while BSODs are pretty damned uncommon these days, there are all sorts of other problems that I still consider to be stability issues. There are still plenty of issues that amount to "go into the registry" or "add a new user/delete profile".
Skeptics of AGW are blessed by God, who loves oil. God would never allow burning of carbon-based fuels to increase CO2 levels, and God would never allow CO2 to alter surface temperatures. Why are you upset? I'm just repeating what you believe, right? That fossil fuels have absolutely no downside, and it is impossible for CO2 to alter climate.
Oh I get it, it's because you think I'm a secret AGW supporter. I'm not. I'm a fucking idiot,. just like you.
Financial or other types of inducements that invite a person in a position of authority to abuse their lawful or fiduciary obligations in return for special treatment or favors.
If you're on trial and I give your lawyer $100,000 to deliberately undermine your case, I have committed bribery. If I go to a county or municipal building inspector and hand him the keys to a new Rolls Royce in return for him rubber stamping a building I'm constructing, that is a bribe. If I give a government procurement agent a million dollars to assure that I win the bidding on a government contract, that is a bribe.
You will notice that in all these cases the act involves the inducement an individual to compromise their legal or fiduciary duty, not to mention that others are directly harmed. In the first case, you, as the defendant, are very seriously harmed by your lawyer taking the bribe and screwing you over. In the second and third cases, it involves suborning a public official who has a legal duty to act only in the best interests of the state (and by extension, society as a whole).
You are certainly free to try to tell a judge that bribery has no real meaning, but I can assure you, it does, and your defense would amount to little more than standing up and going "DUHHHHHH..."
I'm not clear. What is your problem? Surely you don't think using sacred holy fossil fuels to create energy is bad, do you? You're not one of those evil disgusting Commie greenies are you? I'm sure you and I both agree that the AGW crowd should have a gun put to their heads and it politely explained to them that oil is just wonderful. Right?
Shut the fuck up! Oil is Jesus juice! God loves oil! Do not ever question oil. It is holy beyond all other things. God wants us to burn it. The mighty Koch Brothers have decreed it, and they are billionaires, which makes them better than everyone else. If I were in charge, I would outlaw alternative energies, execute all climatologists, and all skeptics would be given a million dollars and a dozen 19 year old hookers as reward for promoting the use of completely harmless hydrocarbons for energy production.
Oil is good, alternatives are evil and a sign of Satan. You wouldn't wan tot be on the side of Satan by questioning the righteousness of oil companies, would you?
The way this is being described, it really does sound like a mingw/cygwin compatibility layer. Maybe they're going to beef up the Posix subsystem (level 1 still lurks in the Windows 10 kernel, or so I gather). At the end of the day it's going to be some sort of plug-in subsystem that emulates/integrates some significant piece of the Linux kernel.
Slashdot Mirror
Britain has certainly tried to, but its experience over the entire Modern Era (roughly from the rise of the Tudors onward) has shown that no matter how much Britain tries to plow its own row, it inevitably has been dragged into European conflicts. From the attempted invasion of the Spanish Armada to the Second World War, Britain may have fancied itself apart from the Continent, but has inevitably been dragged into the chaos. In fact, one of the chief reasons there is a EU is because no less than Winston Churchill himself came to firmly believe that the only way to stave off another European general war was to create a pan-European political and economic union. Even earlier, Churchill, in the dying days of France's resistance to Germany, had tried to convince the French government to create an Anglo-French Union, a merging of the two states, so that France would not have to surrender and capitulate to the Germans, even if French territory was overrun.
The whole point of this is that Britain, whether it has liked it or not, has long played the part of a broker between the warring poles of Europe; which have, in one formulation or another, been Germany versus France. In the early modern era Germany was represented by the vast holdings of the Hapsburgs, but later, with the collapse of the Napoleonic Empire, a unified Germany. Britain may not be of the Continent, but there's no way the Continent will not be Britain's primary trading partner and chief political concern. It has been so since William the Conqueror invaded.
The one thing that is going to happen is action against tax shelters. This is a big deal in Britain, because some of the most often used tax shelters are British overseas dependencies (colonies). Britain has long resisted forcing reforms because for these dependencies, their financial status is a significant part of their economy. But now, I think, reform will become inevitable. Probably not enough to completely eliminate tax shelters, but, as with Swiss bank reforms, it is steadily narrowing the means by which people can hide their cash.
Another area that is now being looked at is the use of property to hide or wash cash. Vancouver, Toronto and London are three cities where oligarchs and various wealthy and powerful people from places like Russia and China are sinking their cash, which, apart from major Western cities become money laundering factories, also has raised housing prices sky high. Vancouver, for instance, is in the bizarre situation of seeing condos being purchased and remaining empty as locals struggle to find affordable accommodations, with the suspicion that Asian buyers looking to plant their money in a stable market by buying real estate now slowly being confirmed as a leading reason for the seemingly endless property bubble. Similar observations are being made in London, where wealthy Russian oligarchs, trying to insulate themselves from Russia's eroding economy, not to mention safely stashing their own loot, buy property in what they view as a stable market.
And this isn't talking about the other major issue being raised; that along with the uber-rich using tax shelters to hide their money from the taxman, these shelters are being used by regimes like North Korea as a means to get past economic sanctions, and the likelihood that international criminal elements are using these shelters in the same way. Even if you think tax shelters are perfectly fine and tax avoidance (even if legal) is a laudable thing, if you're allowing these shelters to stash rich peoples' money, they are also inevitably going to be used by criminals and rogue regimes to stash their own money and to use as conduits to gain access to "reputable" investment schemes. In other words, these tax shelters can act as money launderers.
My understanding is that the Americans will be released in a separate list.
Senior UK Tory donors and the British PM's own dad are people the US doesn't like?
No, I'm angry because an AC is inventing a lie to try to discredit a branch of science that doesn't tell him what he wants to hear.
The universe doesn't owe us a fucking thing. It doesn't modify the effects of CO2 to protect your stock portfolio or keep the price of gas cheap. It doesn't give one flying fuck about any economic system. CO2 has the effects it has because that's the way it fucking is, and it is irrelevant how it makes you are the moron who made the original post feel. The universe does not care about cheap energy.
No you don't. Fuck of you pathetic liar.
Malarial swamps will creep northward, along with a whole host of other tropical diseases.
That's the kind of thing that happens when the planet warms up.
For fuck's sake, weather is not fucking climate. Jesus fucking Christ, are all you climate deniers mental fucking retards?
How is nuclear a renewable? You still needed fissile materials, and those are pulled out of the ground just like fossil fuels.
I wonder how many ISPs would actually be willing to do this, however, and whether it would even be legal in the US.
Really> What percentage of those people receiving benefits are cheats? Go on, provide the statistics.
Canadian French has a number of peculiarities and anachronisms compared to Parisian French, but the two dialects are as intelligible to the other as Australian English is to North American English.
No, it's best understood as a authoritarian absolute monarchy in which the king's subject need to be continually remined of how great and undefeatable he is (the latter is very very very important). This has precious little to do with anything outside NK's borders.
Windows 10 Remote Administration tools don't even have a DHCP management console yet. It's absolutely bizarre. I actually have to log on to one of our Servers to manage DHCP servers. I should feel lucky, as it was like November before MS had any kind of RSAT toolkit available for Win10.
If we could move away from Exchange/Office we would. Licensing is absurdly expensive for enterprise licenses, and the only real argument beyond Exchange/Outlook is that OpenOffice/LibreOffice is still iffy on the newest OOXML versions.
But thus far, despite many claims, the real gravity well that keeps us in the Microsoft sphere is Exchange. We could probably even live without Active Directory and with compatibility issues with LibreOffice, but way too much corporate functionality is built on Exchange.
Windows 10 has its share of issues, at least in a AD environment with roaming profiles. We've had to kill profiles on a number of occasions due to the Start Menu and search functionality croaking. We've also forced through GPOs to ensure that Microsoft Edge is *not* the default browser because of issues a number of staff have had. So while BSODs are pretty damned uncommon these days, there are all sorts of other problems that I still consider to be stability issues. There are still plenty of issues that amount to "go into the registry" or "add a new user/delete profile".
Skeptics of AGW are blessed by God, who loves oil. God would never allow burning of carbon-based fuels to increase CO2 levels, and God would never allow CO2 to alter surface temperatures. Why are you upset? I'm just repeating what you believe, right? That fossil fuels have absolutely no downside, and it is impossible for CO2 to alter climate.
Oh I get it, it's because you think I'm a secret AGW supporter. I'm not. I'm a fucking idiot,. just like you.
Financial or other types of inducements that invite a person in a position of authority to abuse their lawful or fiduciary obligations in return for special treatment or favors.
If you're on trial and I give your lawyer $100,000 to deliberately undermine your case, I have committed bribery. If I go to a county or municipal building inspector and hand him the keys to a new Rolls Royce in return for him rubber stamping a building I'm constructing, that is a bribe. If I give a government procurement agent a million dollars to assure that I win the bidding on a government contract, that is a bribe.
You will notice that in all these cases the act involves the inducement an individual to compromise their legal or fiduciary duty, not to mention that others are directly harmed. In the first case, you, as the defendant, are very seriously harmed by your lawyer taking the bribe and screwing you over. In the second and third cases, it involves suborning a public official who has a legal duty to act only in the best interests of the state (and by extension, society as a whole).
You are certainly free to try to tell a judge that bribery has no real meaning, but I can assure you, it does, and your defense would amount to little more than standing up and going "DUHHHHHH..."
I'm not clear. What is your problem? Surely you don't think using sacred holy fossil fuels to create energy is bad, do you? You're not one of those evil disgusting Commie greenies are you? I'm sure you and I both agree that the AGW crowd should have a gun put to their heads and it politely explained to them that oil is just wonderful. Right?
Indeed, Just ask Frank Spencer
What exactly is your point?
Shut the fuck up! Oil is Jesus juice! God loves oil! Do not ever question oil. It is holy beyond all other things. God wants us to burn it. The mighty Koch Brothers have decreed it, and they are billionaires, which makes them better than everyone else. If I were in charge, I would outlaw alternative energies, execute all climatologists, and all skeptics would be given a million dollars and a dozen 19 year old hookers as reward for promoting the use of completely harmless hydrocarbons for energy production.
Oil is good, alternatives are evil and a sign of Satan. You wouldn't wan tot be on the side of Satan by questioning the righteousness of oil companies, would you?
Cygwin is a lot of things, but other than for rudimentary tasks, seamless it is not. It's slow, bloated and unstable.
That being said, I actually got a Radius server to compile under it many a long day ago. That was an interesting adventure.
We choose Linux for some servers simply because it does those jobs well, and we save a helluva lot on licensing.
The way this is being described, it really does sound like a mingw/cygwin compatibility layer. Maybe they're going to beef up the Posix subsystem (level 1 still lurks in the Windows 10 kernel, or so I gather). At the end of the day it's going to be some sort of plug-in subsystem that emulates/integrates some significant piece of the Linux kernel.