I don't get your attitude. If the UK as a whole hadn't pulled together for the last 300 years, and yes, that meant a lot of English capital going up north, Scotland would be nowhere right now. I mean just look at the immediate period following the Union. Huge upsurge, peace & more prosperity.
The fact is, all constituent countries (yes, even Ireland) have benefited from the Union. If some want to dissolve it, that's a simple matter of self-determination, but don't bring up ivory-tower historical what-ifs.
As a Hungarian, not invested in petty competitions of nations, perhaps I can chime in objectively. The UK's GDP, minimum wage, and similar indicators are about two and a half times higher than Portugal's. The GP's statement is merely fact.
On that note, I may completely misunderstand the issue, but woudln't the fact that humans have gotten the disease from cows indicate that it crossed the species barrier? Not kuru (that was inter-human), but the modern bovine form.
Perhaps you are just using the phrase carelessly, but "alliance of the US" is not quite right. The US was a major partner in the alliance, but did not in any way initiate, co-ordinate, or lead it. Of the major powers, the alliance was French and British, and for a time only British when France fell. Then America joined on.
It's not so much cause as symptom. This was introduced by a minority government -- those are never very stable in parliamentary democracies. Any single vote could cause the government to fail, so it treads lightly and in this case, tries to start again.
What else do you want to portray them as, then? I didn't call them a savage backwater, but they were a collection of warring factions, only nominally united by groups like the Mughals or the various dynasties. Neither China or India are a coherent whole, the various nations in them are as different from each other as the European nations from each other. And what you have to remember is that they didn't have the same values that the British and other Europeans built and which are cherished today: human rights, the rule of law, political liberty, etc.
As the late George Carlin said -- "I like to leave symbols to the symbol-minded", if you get the pun. It isn't about a ring or any other symbol. Life is about life, nothing less or more.
Fortunately enough, the BBC has an excellent website; RSS feeds; and if that wasn't enough and you don't mind missing out on video, a clean, content-filled, no-ads plain page: BBC News text version (despite the URL, it does have thumbnail images).
I think many people are interested in this topic, yes.:) I haven't looked at your algorithm in any detail yet, but when I do, I expect I'll find your contact info on the same site?
Please, like other nations were any better. I mean hell, the British were the main instigators of the slave trade in the first place.
Actually, no. The Africans were the ones who had a vibrant slave trade when the Europeans arrived. Remember all those stories about buying humans for beads and trinkets? Anyway, the British merely bought slaves, not enslaved free people. Incidentally, they also killed the slave trade and liberated slaves; devoting about a sixth of the Royal Navy's fleet (in 19th century terms, equivalent to perhaps half of the modern US Navy) to ending the slave trade by all Europeans and Americans.
Please don't forget that we have not really made progress; today the First World robs and rapes the Third World with its market policies and neoliberal globalisation and all the rest of it -- and gives far less in return than the colonisers; who built infrastructure, polity, law, etc.
It's not as if it was worse either. People tend to imagine that before the British built colonies, all the aboriginal people lived in a happy anarcho-capitalist harmony commune. The world is a much less violent place directly due to the efforts of the colonisers; for all their violent policies. The slave trade? Brits (unlike many Europeans) didn't actually take slaves by force; they/bought/ them, because Africa had a vibrant and active slave trade when they got there. The Brits actually/ended/ it and devoted a sixth of the Navy to ending the slave trade. So all this blaming of the Empire is morally vacuous. I personally think that what America is doing today is far worse than anything the British Empire ever did (and don't get me wrong -- I think both have been responsible for a lot of suffering too); but I will always excuse America for being the defender in arms of liberal democracy during the Cold War; just as any past or future sins of Britain ought to be weighed against her role in World War II.
Even for those, the algorithm shouldn't work. I pursued a similar avenue a few years back when I didn't know much about the theory at all, and found that I was just doing the same work as checking all numbers up to the square root, just in a different fashion. Even if the factors are the same size, the algorithm is too slow.
I think I could even dig up the old thread where I asked for comments about the method if you are really interested in the criticism.
This scepticism of government in America seems to date to the 80s. Government is us. If it isn't, it's our fault. And yes, please dig up those stories if you really recall them. I'm not saying governments are perfect. But there's nothing inherently evil or wrong about them. Large corporations now are completely undemocratic and make no pretence of being so...
Slashdot Mirror
And the Texans. Don't forget the Texans.
I don't get your attitude. If the UK as a whole hadn't pulled together for the last 300 years, and yes, that meant a lot of English capital going up north, Scotland would be nowhere right now. I mean just look at the immediate period following the Union. Huge upsurge, peace & more prosperity.
The fact is, all constituent countries (yes, even Ireland) have benefited from the Union. If some want to dissolve it, that's a simple matter of self-determination, but don't bring up ivory-tower historical what-ifs.
As a Hungarian, not invested in petty competitions of nations, perhaps I can chime in objectively. The UK's GDP, minimum wage, and similar indicators are about two and a half times higher than Portugal's. The GP's statement is merely fact.
YHBT. They spell better now.
On that note, I may completely misunderstand the issue, but woudln't the fact that humans have gotten the disease from cows indicate that it crossed the species barrier? Not kuru (that was inter-human), but the modern bovine form.
He meant "Murphy's Law", which is phrase similarly.
Cynicism is the perfect philosophy for a man without a soul, as Wilde said. A lot of marriages are quite different from favour exchanges.
Here megabit means that if you pay $50 for a service advertised as 10MBit/sec, it works out to $5 per MBit/sec you paid for.
Yes, or to put it more compactly, a hash is stored.
Well, I'm not Canadian, so please accept that as apology for my ignorance. Thanks for clarifying.
Perhaps you are just using the phrase carelessly, but "alliance of the US" is not quite right. The US was a major partner in the alliance, but did not in any way initiate, co-ordinate, or lead it. Of the major powers, the alliance was French and British, and for a time only British when France fell. Then America joined on.
It's not so much cause as symptom. This was introduced by a minority government -- those are never very stable in parliamentary democracies. Any single vote could cause the government to fail, so it treads lightly and in this case, tries to start again.
It's absolutely essential if you want to write a lot. Anything else tires your hands out like hell -- even the best biros.
Not to mention even the cheapest fountain pen will write thicker than the best biros, so you get more readable text to boot.
And finally the reduced effort in writing means your handwriting will often be better with a fountain pen.
What do you mean? That's exactly how it happened, at least from a high-level perspective.
Meanwhile some companies that they bought up still languish after months: GrandCentral for one has not been improved in perhaps a year or so.
I guess I'll be running it when it shows up in Debian testing...
What else do you want to portray them as, then? I didn't call them a savage backwater, but they were a collection of warring factions, only nominally united by groups like the Mughals or the various dynasties. Neither China or India are a coherent whole, the various nations in them are as different from each other as the European nations from each other. And what you have to remember is that they didn't have the same values that the British and other Europeans built and which are cherished today: human rights, the rule of law, political liberty, etc.
As the late George Carlin said -- "I like to leave symbols to the symbol-minded", if you get the pun. It isn't about a ring or any other symbol. Life is about life, nothing less or more.
Fortunately enough, the BBC has an excellent website; RSS feeds; and if that wasn't enough and you don't mind missing out on video, a clean, content-filled, no-ads plain page: BBC News text version (despite the URL, it does have thumbnail images).
I think many people are interested in this topic, yes. :) I haven't looked at your algorithm in any detail yet, but when I do, I expect I'll find your contact info on the same site?
Please, like other nations were any better. I mean hell, the British were the main instigators of the slave trade in the first place.
Actually, no. The Africans were the ones who had a vibrant slave trade when the Europeans arrived. Remember all those stories about buying humans for beads and trinkets? Anyway, the British merely bought slaves, not enslaved free people. Incidentally, they also killed the slave trade and liberated slaves; devoting about a sixth of the Royal Navy's fleet (in 19th century terms, equivalent to perhaps half of the modern US Navy) to ending the slave trade by all Europeans and Americans.
Please be accurate with history, thanks.
Please don't forget that we have not really made progress; today the First World robs and rapes the Third World with its market policies and neoliberal globalisation and all the rest of it -- and gives far less in return than the colonisers; who built infrastructure, polity, law, etc.
It's not as if it was worse either. People tend to imagine that before the British built colonies, all the aboriginal people lived in a happy anarcho-capitalist harmony commune. The world is a much less violent place directly due to the efforts of the colonisers; for all their violent policies. The slave trade? Brits (unlike many Europeans) didn't actually take slaves by force; they /bought/ them, because Africa had a vibrant and active slave trade when they got there. The Brits actually /ended/ it and devoted a sixth of the Navy to ending the slave trade. So all this blaming of the Empire is morally vacuous. I personally think that what America is doing today is far worse than anything the British Empire ever did (and don't get me wrong -- I think both have been responsible for a lot of suffering too); but I will always excuse America for being the defender in arms of liberal democracy during the Cold War; just as any past or future sins of Britain ought to be weighed against her role in World War II.
Even for those, the algorithm shouldn't work. I pursued a similar avenue a few years back when I didn't know much about the theory at all, and found that I was just doing the same work as checking all numbers up to the square root, just in a different fashion. Even if the factors are the same size, the algorithm is too slow. I think I could even dig up the old thread where I asked for comments about the method if you are really interested in the criticism.
This scepticism of government in America seems to date to the 80s. Government is us. If it isn't, it's our fault. And yes, please dig up those stories if you really recall them. I'm not saying governments are perfect. But there's nothing inherently evil or wrong about them. Large corporations now are completely undemocratic and make no pretence of being so...