They govt. also lost 25 million Child benefit records. Though it's possible/likely that there were some duplicates in all this - given that the UK population is "only" 61 million, that's still nearly half the people who live in the UK have had some personal data lost by the government
Any language can produce source that's difficult to follow - if the author is not experienced (and I don't just mean capable of producing working product, when I say experienced).
If that's really your main problem, then it's very simply solved: just get a formatting tool, there are plenty out there - some are even quite good.
However, all they'll do is give you pretty-printable files. The underlying structure of the code and the writer's thought process can still be messy and no language will solve that problem.
My distinct impression of dealing with "consultancy" firms and 3rd party software suppliers is that they frequently disparage langauges when they have an ulterior motive.
This can be one or more of the following:
- They don't have anyone with those skills
- They want you to pay them to learn a different language, for their own reasons
- being free, they can't add on huge charges for compilers/tools
- the competition is hot on that language
- it would be too easy (if they get paid by the day
- they are reflecting the biases of your decision maker - in the hope of getting some work
None of these mean any particular language is bad, just that they have political reasons for bad-mouthing it. Now, if you want a true legacy language try basic and all it's MS "visual" variants"
Since switching to a 64-bit version of Ubuntu, I've been getting flashbacks to Win 3.1 and the trials and tribulations of installing printers and other drivers.
far from the now mature process of download/click/wait/enjoy, the process involved getting just the right software version, installing it manually in the correct location, maybe hacking around with.INI files and then crossing your fingers that the mean-time-between-crashes was longer than the time it took to print your document.
So it is with installing flash on FF3/U_x64. The process basically sucks and as said, provides a sufficiently bad user experience to turn normal people off Linux for years.
Since it's possible to doctor a photograph to the point where it's impossible for the untrained (i.e. vast majority) individual to tell a fake from reality, anyone can now find their head on someone else's body - in whatever state of dress, or pose, the photoshopper chooses. Stick this on the internet and that person is tarred for life.
Of course, it's an excruciating vanity coupled with an immature ego and complete naivety to think that a photographer would be interested in you - or would spend any time making you the subject of a fake. However, people nowadays are unable to distinguish the possible from the probable - so they erroneously assume that if something bad *can* be done to them, it will be.
>most terrorists won't be stupid enough to be running around with a $20,000 camera
perceptions. it's not what terrorists actually do. it's what people think they do. All it needs are some unsubstantiated and undenied stories about baddies taking photos as reconnaisance, or for this to be done in fictional TV programmes and it enters the public awareness: I've seen it on TV (so it must be true), therefore people who take photos are terrorists.
But it still doesn't stop you being detained for several hours (as punishment) at their whim. While that detention is not strictly illegal, it is an obvious deterrent and is used as such
The UK is rapidly labelling photographers as either perverts or terrorists.
There are numerous documented cases of photographers being hassled as either child-molesters (if children appear in the frame - even if they are their own kids) or terrorists - even if photographing in a public space.
The police (well, PCSO's - lite police, with no training worth a dam' or any police powers) regularly harass photographers. Even if you are in the right, there's nothing to prevent them detaining you for several hours without charge.
For whatever reason, the powers that be have remained remarkably silent on the issue. When pressed, they avoid saying that taking photos in a public place is legal. Instead they put caveats around it, such as mentioning public order offences and invasion of privacy (although the number of CCTV cameras makes a mokery of this).
As it is, countries like North Korea or Iran have fewer restrictions on what law-abiding citizens or tourists may do in a public place.
The point is that these "dangerous" sports already set the benchmark for what society accepts. So why not allow drugs/implants/enhancements that would raise the performance of athletes up to this, already defined, level of danger.
So what about sports like cycling? Here the advantages of better technology lets some teams use lighter and stiffer cycles. This gives them an advantage that other participants - who train just as much, and are just as dedicated, simply can't compete against?
Also, be aware that sports isn't fair. The most dedicated athlete doesn't always win. Some people have natural advantages: height, weight, build, musculature. Ultimately how dedicated you are, or how much you train is irrelevant if you just don't have the genes or upbringing (or leisure time) to make the most of it.
some sports, like boxing, football etc. already have the possibility to impose horrendous injuries and death on participants. As an audience we are prepared to put up with that, so why not any injuries (or death) caused by drugs.
Provided the athletes know what they are letting themselves in for, why not?
in these disciplines athletes use devices or advanced swimsuits to gain an advantage. The bikes that one team use are not available to other teams - unless they can afford them. Likewise the advanced materials of swimsuits. So we already have an unfair competition, with the richest teams able to afford advantages that possibly better athletes from less well-off teams can't have.
So far as drug assisted sports goes - the same applies. The teams with the best chemists will win. The "Tour de France" has long been full of drug abuse: some detect, the more advanced ones not.
A sample of a few hundred, using a self-assessment method, with an average age in the teens? Come on, this isn't science - it's a party game.
Given the infinitesimally small size of the sample, the researchers have effectively one, single datum, except it isn't even that. The completely casual method of assessment (filling in a questionnaire about yourself - self-image, much?) gives utterly irreproducible results. The complete lack of any numerical or quantifiable data makes drawing conclusions impossible.
Here's a quick assessment of personality of a group with an average age of 16. They're all immature. Some are more mature than others, some will grow more mature with age - others won't. The link with emails addresses is random, as most won't have been able to get their first-choice addresses anyway (the grown-ups will have those).
Human brains are bigger than other animals. That's why they use more energy.
From the article:
Today, humans have relatively small digestive systems and allocate around 20% of their total energy to the brain, compared to approximately 13% for non-human primates and 2-8% for other vertebrates.
That's why humans expend more energy in their brains - because they have bigger brains, not to grow bigger brains. Even before they "discovered" cooking, they still had proportionately larger brains than other animals. I think this article has it's cause and effect the wrong way round
If the magazine published an article that was wrong (for whatever reason), don't tell us - we already know[1] the reasons for this action. Instead write to the editor, telling him/her/them to buck their ideas up in future. If enough people complain, maybe they'll publish a retraction, apoogy or a proper analysis.
[1] choose your conspiracy, there are plenty to go around - you're probably closer to the truth than this article, but you already knew that.
What, you mean Apple have patented taking money from rich, gullible people?
Hmmm, explains a lot - though I can see a lot of infringement cases come up. Including one against patent infringement lawyers. I wonder who'll represent Apple there?
No need. Just keep your sensitive data on a micro-sd card (the size of a fingernail) in your checked luggage. It's too small to see on any scanner and they are focussed on people's carry-on.
This ruling basically means that they can take anything they like, for as long as they like and you have no expectation of ever getting it back.
So far, they have stopped short of cutting off people's heads, to examine the contents of their brain. No doubt when the technology to dothis gets developed, not even your thoughts will be safe.
So we're left with either holding sensitive date online (just wait until that gets eavesdropped, scanned and impounded - I'm counting the days) or keeping it in your head.
> If something is broken, it's much cheaper to simply launch a new one
It might make economic sense to launch a $100M unmanned mission to "in-flight" refuel a $1B spy satellite, than to launch a new one. It would also mean they could be deployed lower for longer, and the extended fuel budget would allow more changes in orbits to cover different areas.
Slashdot Mirror
They govt. also lost 25 million Child benefit records. Though it's possible/likely that there were some duplicates in all this - given that the UK population is "only" 61 million, that's still nearly half the people who live in the UK have had some personal data lost by the government
If that's really your main problem, then it's very simply solved: just get a formatting tool, there are plenty out there - some are even quite good. However, all they'll do is give you pretty-printable files. The underlying structure of the code and the writer's thought process can still be messy and no language will solve that problem.
This can be one or more of the following:
- They don't have anyone with those skills
- They want you to pay them to learn a different language, for their own reasons
- being free, they can't add on huge charges for compilers/tools
- the competition is hot on that language
- it would be too easy (if they get paid by the day
- they are reflecting the biases of your decision maker - in the hope of getting some work
None of these mean any particular language is bad, just that they have political reasons for bad-mouthing it. Now, if you want a true legacy language try basic and all it's MS "visual" variants"
That's precisely the setup I have - and described above. It's vergin' on the unusable and is certainly not close to a solid solution.
far from the now mature process of download/click/wait/enjoy, the process involved getting just the right software version, installing it manually in the correct location, maybe hacking around with .INI files and then crossing your fingers that the mean-time-between-crashes was longer than the time it took to print your document.
So it is with installing flash on FF3/U_x64. The process basically sucks and as said, provides a sufficiently bad user experience to turn normal people off Linux for years.
Not if the bank is in a row of shops containing a toyshop and a lingerie store,
Since it's possible to doctor a photograph to the point where it's impossible for the untrained (i.e. vast majority) individual to tell a fake from reality, anyone can now find their head on someone else's body - in whatever state of dress, or pose, the photoshopper chooses. Stick this on the internet and that person is tarred for life.
Of course, it's an excruciating vanity coupled with an immature ego and complete naivety to think that a photographer would be interested in you - or would spend any time making you the subject of a fake. However, people nowadays are unable to distinguish the possible from the probable - so they erroneously assume that if something bad *can* be done to them, it will be.
perceptions. it's not what terrorists actually do. it's what people think they do. All it needs are some unsubstantiated and undenied stories about baddies taking photos as reconnaisance, or for this to be done in fictional TV programmes and it enters the public awareness: I've seen it on TV (so it must be true), therefore people who take photos are terrorists.
They can *always* come up with a reason, if they think hard enough
But it still doesn't stop you being detained for several hours (as punishment) at their whim. While that detention is not strictly illegal, it is an obvious deterrent and is used as such
There are numerous documented cases of photographers being hassled as either child-molesters (if children appear in the frame - even if they are their own kids) or terrorists - even if photographing in a public space.
The police (well, PCSO's - lite police, with no training worth a dam' or any police powers) regularly harass photographers. Even if you are in the right, there's nothing to prevent them detaining you for several hours without charge.
For whatever reason, the powers that be have remained remarkably silent on the issue. When pressed, they avoid saying that taking photos in a public place is legal. Instead they put caveats around it, such as mentioning public order offences and invasion of privacy (although the number of CCTV cameras makes a mokery of this).
As it is, countries like North Korea or Iran have fewer restrictions on what law-abiding citizens or tourists may do in a public place.
Spend your day looking at smut or crawling through log files for dodgy transactions?
The point is that these "dangerous" sports already set the benchmark for what society accepts. So why not allow drugs/implants/enhancements that would raise the performance of athletes up to this, already defined, level of danger.
Also, be aware that sports isn't fair. The most dedicated athlete doesn't always win. Some people have natural advantages: height, weight, build, musculature. Ultimately how dedicated you are, or how much you train is irrelevant if you just don't have the genes or upbringing (or leisure time) to make the most of it.
Provided the athletes know what they are letting themselves in for, why not?
So far as drug assisted sports goes - the same applies. The teams with the best chemists will win. The "Tour de France" has long been full of drug abuse: some detect, the more advanced ones not.
Given the infinitesimally small size of the sample, the researchers have effectively one, single datum, except it isn't even that. The completely casual method of assessment (filling in a questionnaire about yourself - self-image, much?) gives utterly irreproducible results. The complete lack of any numerical or quantifiable data makes drawing conclusions impossible.
Here's a quick assessment of personality of a group with an average age of 16. They're all immature. Some are more mature than others, some will grow more mature with age - others won't. The link with emails addresses is random, as most won't have been able to get their first-choice addresses anyway (the grown-ups will have those).
This is one for the ig-nobel awards.
From the article:
Today, humans have relatively small digestive systems and allocate around 20% of their total energy to the brain, compared to approximately 13% for non-human primates and 2-8% for other vertebrates.
That's why humans expend more energy in their brains - because they have bigger brains, not to grow bigger brains. Even before they "discovered" cooking, they still had proportionately larger brains than other animals. I think this article has it's cause and effect the wrong way round
[1] choose your conspiracy, there are plenty to go around - you're probably closer to the truth than this article, but you already knew that.
Hmmm, explains a lot - though I can see a lot of infringement cases come up. Including one against patent infringement lawyers. I wonder who'll represent Apple there?
How about keeping the well-known description, instead of inventing new ones?
is the list of people who bought it
No need. Just keep your sensitive data on a micro-sd card (the size of a fingernail) in your checked luggage. It's too small to see on any scanner and they are focussed on people's carry-on.
This ruling basically means that they can take anything they like, for as long as they like and you have no expectation of ever getting it back.
So far, they have stopped short of cutting off people's heads, to examine the contents of their brain. No doubt when the technology to dothis gets developed, not even your thoughts will be safe.
So we're left with either holding sensitive date online (just wait until that gets eavesdropped, scanned and impounded - I'm counting the days) or keeping it in your head.
It might make economic sense to launch a $100M unmanned mission to "in-flight" refuel a $1B spy satellite, than to launch a new one. It would also mean they could be deployed lower for longer, and the extended fuel budget would allow more changes in orbits to cover different areas.