Where on the server side have you looked? certainly for server side web application development C#/ASP.NET is gaining ground - you only have to look at job listings where there's rarely a Java job in sight, but hundreds of ASP.NET jobs. I think Java is still important, and still my preferred option on some projects, but it's definitely been losing ground quite rapidly on both server and client side for quite some time now.
I agree people aren't hosting on Linux with mono though. It's all Windows/IIS.
People just aren't recruiting Java devs anymore, but neither are they recruiting Objective-C devs either to be honest, which highlights why TIOBEs method is completely and utterly flawed and it's results meaningless. If you go pick a bunch of random places in the world and do job searches for developer you get results on the order of C#, PHP, Java/C++/Ruby/Objective-C in a ratio of something like 20:6:2 respectively nowadays, so unless this growth in Objective-C is being led by one or two single places in the world who are hiring hundreds of thousands of Objective-C devs to make the stats work then we can once again do our annual ignore of TIOBE.
Really, if you want a rough idea of what the fastest growing languages are in your area then job sites are far and away the best option. Looking at multiple job sites in multiple places across the world gives you the best overview of global demand. TIOBE is completely meaningless for this because if for example we have two new languages, one of which has picked up 10,000 users in a day, and has really good docs so they're all sat using it locally quite happy, or they're discussing it on USENET or something like that, then another language comes along backed by a big firm, has no actual users but a massive PR drive giving it thousands of news stories across the globe, then of course, the latter will be deemed more popular, and seeing faster growth, even if no one's actually even using it at all. Obviously that's dumb, but this illustrates how TIOBE goes wrong - from languages that are common amongst teaching having more newbie questions, even if the language is only being used for assignments, to languages that are backed by regular PR, to languages that people say on forums because there's a proud history behind said language - "Oh yeah, I know C++" because they think it makes them look smart. A language with excellent docs, and even an IDE that offers intellisense is going to lead to far fewer questions than one that has no documentation and no IDE also. There's just so many things to go wrong in TIOBE's methodology that TIOBE basically tells us only one thing - how many times a language has been mentioned on the internet, which has absolutely no bearing to how much it is actually used in the real world.
"Well this is strange, because the ruling made no mention of this case, which seems to directly apply, but instead talked about a "Rock & Overton" case."
Which tells us one thing, the judge is either corrupt or incompetent:)
Really the Oink case is 100% identical, so if the judge didn't refer to that something is very very wrong.
"What's even funnier is that actually you're responded to me more often than I have to you. Because for every reply of mine on this thread, you've then replied again. But you've missed me so much you've also sought me out on a completely different story - the Irish e-voting one. If my replies are tragic, your more numerous ones are clearly you're more tragic still."
That's exactly right, I'm stalking you because you're so special.
Or maybe when you're one of the most active users on Slashdot, who, judging by your post history would appear to post multiple comments on just about every news story because you apparently have nothing better to do, the chance of me stumbling across your posts is just that high. Hint: I've also responded to a number of other people today too.
"And there you go again. As I already said, I admitted an error on another story earlier today."
Yet you can't admit where you were clearly and demonstrably wrong here. I guess it's just that much harder when you've dug yourself into such a deep hole, and when your life is so empty that telling yourself you were right on Slashdot is really all you have.
But anyhow, it's the weekend now and I really do have things to do. So have fun sat getting yourself in a little stir here, I'm sure you'll find someone else demonstrating something you say is wrong, who you'll get all upset over and be unable to stop responding to until you've made sure you have the final say. If you're lucky and Monday is a quiet day, and I get bored, I'll pop back and see if you've dug as far as the centre of the Earth yet.
"If that is actually the case, then there's no cause to extradite the defendant, because if it's not a crime in both places you can't be extradited for it."
Well, America thinks it is. When this guy was first arrested, the British authorities decided they had no reason to charge him, presumably as a result of the epic failure and waste of time which was the Oink case, where the police got their arse handed to them by the judge. This is apparently (according to the evening news) why the Americans decided to pursue the case, precisely because we decided not too, and, according to the news, they believe America is using him as a guinea pig test case to see if it can a) be deemed illegal in the US, and b) become a viable extraditable offence.
It's funny, because you've failed to realise the fact that the only person who felt the need to use personal attacks from the outset is you. It's interesting because it's like you think people who point out why you are wrong are trolls, without realising that a troll would be much more closely defined as someone who insults people from the outset and continues insulting them even though they are wrong and have been demonstrated as such.
You can also suggest I'm not getting any reaction out of you all you want, but here you are, still biting without fail, just like the pet dog I mentioned last time. It'd be funny if it wasn't so tragic. Actually no, scrap that, it really is actually pretty fucking funny.
To think, it would've been so much easier to just accept that you'd got a few things wrong, just like I'd gladly have accepted that yes, my 20 minute saving comment was indeed an over-exageration if you'd shown yourself to be a mature rational person many posts ago, but as you decided to act an ass from the outset, well, why would I not continue to treat you like one, watching how you keep coming back to be toyed with like a heroin addict unable to keep away from going for his next fix?
Here's a thought - try it when engaging with people next time, try adding a bit of rationality to the discussion, try accepting that you're not always right, and that people you disagree with or even dislike are not always wrong, you'll find the discussion much more constructive, you might even learn something.
Well this sort of thing happens a lot - look at the WTO, the US is a signatory but has completely refused to acknowledge some rulings against it, whilst pushing for more and more countries to sign up to it so that they're bound by it's laws (i.e. it wants Russia signed up, but only so that it's forced to strengthen protection for US IP).
The issue is that "technically" it's reciprocal, a judge examining the treaty recently acknowledged this.
The problem arises that in practice (and the judge just looked at theory, not practice, which is where he went wrong), when the US thinks a UK extradition request stinks they tell us to fuck off and we say "Oh, alright then", but when the US send us a request that stinks we're like "Oh, please do, take him!"
The problem isn't so much legal, or technical, it's that US courts tend to be far more patriotic, in protecting US citizens and interests - they ignore the fact the treaty is stupidly unfair for the average joe who can get extradited at will, and protect American interests- they ignore the terms of the agreement.
The issue in the UK, and many European courts in general is that we're too honourable for our own good, our judges stick to the letter of the agreement, when the Americans don't. This can sometimes be a good thing- look at the Oink case for example, and the fact even this guy wasn't charged in the UK - because under British law, such linking isn't actually illegal, but in other cases like this, where adhering to the letter of the law means following a stupid extradition treaty, it's obviously terrible. I'd argue the fundamental problem is that the treaty makes it too easy to extradite from either side of the Atlantic, but that the US has fixed this by simply ignoring the exact lettering of the treaty when it suits.
One final point of course is that in the UK we're not stupid enough to waste time extraditing someone like Gary McKinnon or this guy in the first place, we could probably try the same, hence another reason why the extradition treaty looks so one way, is because the US wants to extradite people for more trivial things where we wouldn't bother precisely because we do think it's disproportionate. Again though, the fundamental problem here is that the treaty is too lax in general, not that it's inherently weighted in favour of one country or the other.
So effectively we're left two choices - pull out of the treaty or rewrite it putting a limit on the seriousness of the crimes (i.e. only murders, rapes, that sort of thing), or start being as lame as America, extraditing people for the silliest little things, like creating file sharing link sites, and then hold them to the treaty when they try and ignore it. I think pulling out is the best option regardless.
"According to Windows consultant and author Don Jones, this is a big hint to Windows admins that they better get used to not having a GUI in future releases."
Is it? or is that theory just completely made up?
Just because the server doesn't locally have a GUI doesn't mean it wont allow RDP connections, and doesn't mean you wont just be able to use the likes of event viewer, IIS manager, or whatever, installed on your local system, to connect to and manage a remote server.
I don't think most people manage Windows servers locally anyway nowadays, most IT staff are too busy enjoying the fact they no longer have to get off their arse to go to the server room because they can do everything they need with a GUI from their desk. I don't see anything to indicate that side of things is changing - just that Windows Server will no longer by default sit their handling a locked GUI for local users no one ever fucking uses anyway whilst continuing to offer the console based management option that was introduced in what, Windows 2008 Server? even then I suspect, being Microsoft, the Windows GUI will only be a quick click or command away but will simply be initialised on demand, rather than always there.
Depending on your constituency, because if you elect a parish council, or a mayor, then these are often on the same ballot slip as your city/town councillors.
That's what I'd expect someone who couldn't admit they were wrong to say.
I like the way you so predictably respond too, it's kind of cute, like having a pet dog that you can tease in a playful way because you know it'll respond exactly how you expect it too.
Out of interest, have you ever stopped to ask yourself when the last time you actually admitted to being wrong was? or has that never happened to you, and you're just always right?
Where did you get your spade too btw, I'm amazed it hasn't broken yet with all the digging you've been doing.
"Or don't you get to vote for who is the mayor of your town/city?"
Yes, he does, he's just trolling. Ireland doesn't use a single option system for general elections, it uses STV where you rank candidates in order, you certainly don't just tick one box. Here in the UK we elect our parliamentary representative, we elect our European parliament representatives, and depending on where you live you will elect some combination of your Mayor, your local councillors, your parish council, and probably some other things I've forgotten.
In the UK there's been some frustration at our electoral system for some time, though when we finally had a referendum on it though the population through it out, for a number of reasons, from Murdoch abusing his meida influence, to a shit choice of only one new less than perfect system, but one argument used by those wanting to hold onto the status quo where they can hold power in the face of the majority of people not wanting them in power at all (because that's what FPTP largely caters to) was that a system like AV, where you rank candidates in order, was too confusing.
So you'll have to excuse my fellow countryman, for making the implication that it's far too confusing to do anything other than put a tick in a box, for him it probably is, unfortunately there's too many people in our country that really are actually this stupid.
Actually I have no problem with that, god only knows we could do with a bunch of Javascript and HTML lackeys. Where I have a problem with it is when they expect to be paid as much as the talented developers putting together the massively more complicated backend system behind it and the like.
The other problem is that if these people blag their way into a job as the first man in on the dev team then you get a situation where these people through nothing other than being in the right place at the right time not only get paid too much, but are then responsible for hiring other devs, often turning away great people for people like them, because they don't know any better. That's not too big a problem for talented devs, as not every company is like that, and the companies who know what the hell they're doing will quickly pick up those devs because there is a shortage of such skills, but it is why there's so much bad code in the world, why massive security breaches are so common.
It turns out you're not that unique as it happens. I lived on the outskirts of Wakefield myself for some time.
You're right and the GP is wrong for most cases. Trains are most certainly faster if your journey is merely station to station, but who lives at a train station and works at a train station? The issue is what happens at each end, the speed advantage of trains is rapidly lost when you factor in the time taken to get from your start point to the station, and the station to your end point.
This isn't to say trains are always bad, I catch them every day into Sheffield or Leeds. Whilst I agree long haul journeys can be expensive unless you pre-book months in advance and go off-peak, for me it's actually cheaper for the daily commute - I save about £50 (or a tank of petrol basically) across each month by driving to my local station and catching the train from there. I do use the train long-haul Sheffield to London or Leeds to London and back, but that's because I'm already in these cities without my car, because the company pays the ticket, and because I can work on the train. To take the train in it takes around 1hr 15mins end to end, to drive it'd take about 50mins, so as you can see my reasons for taking the train most definitely aren't speed- they're entirely about cost and the fact I can do stuff whilst on the train.
The GP's assertions about reliability are complete bollocks too, our train is rarely ever on time, it's late around 95% of the time at a rough guess, usually this is only by a few minutes, but in some cases, as it was on Tuesday, it can be much more and on Tuesday my end to end commute took 1hr 50mins - I wish I'd driven. The frequency and duration of these delays is roughly equivalent to those experienced when driving, with one caveat, driving on average is slightly slower in the few weeks running up to Christmas I'd say though even the train isn't immune to this - the christmas rush still greatly effects the journey to/from the train station so you're not even insulated from it there.
So the car isn't always my preferred choice, circumstancially trains can be cheaper, but I'd say for full journey they're rarely ever actually faster, and they're most definitely no more reliable in terms of delays except maybe on the handful of long haul journeys, but they're the ones that cost more anyway.
Or too sum up, I've commuted for years entirely by car prior to this job, and commute primarily by train currently. Both are pretty shit really. There's no such thing as the magical wonder transport the GP is parroting and the new line wont be any different. As I've said elsewhere, I'd rather a pittance was spent on speeding up the likes of the East Coast mainline by increasing capacity in bottlenecks, and creating more express trains (i.e. Leeds to London with no stops) as that would give you 90% of the benefits of the new line anyway for less than 10% of the cost. The remaining cash could then be used to fund a national FTTH network that benefits everyone in the UK, not just the 9million or so out of 60million people nationally living in Manchester/London/Leeds/Birmingham.
"Now you're trying to accuse ME of changing the argument? What you actually said was "Ãfã33bn ($50bn USD), for a new train line between only two cities, that wont be ready for 12 years, and when it does, shaves only a mere 20minutes or so off the journey." Which is completely wrong, Dickhead."
So your next step is to desperately pull a quote from a completely different thread? You're really not good at using this internet thing at all are you? First you fail to use a basic search function on a website, then you fail to link it, now you demonstrate a complete inability to even follow a single discussion thread properly?
"You don't know that, and indeed it's obviously not the case for a 225mph locomotive."
Actually it kind of is, because via Birmingham means the route will be around 225 - 240 miles, the headline speed of a train can't be maintained anywhere near consistently throughout the entire journey as they require perfect conditions, and, running at maximum speed also drastically increases wear and maintenance costs. Also, believe it or not we certainly haven't yet got the ability to make trains instantly accelerate to and decelerate from maximum speed anyway - for passenger comfort alone it takes some time to ramp up and ramp down such speeds. To understand this though you'd have to have a basic grasp of math and when you can't even perform show an ability to use basic internet sites I wouldn't expect you to be able to handle primary school level maths.
Life must be really hard for you, being so dumb, so angry, with clearly such a high blood pressure. I think you need to step back from the internet, it's going to kill you if you keep digging like this. All my key points in this thread are backed up by facts, your comments are merely backed up by insults, and demonstrably incorrect based on the sources I have provided. Have fun pushing yourself over the top with your apparent anger management issues and inability to stop digging, sucks to be you I guess, spending your life angry at the internet because you're incapable of following a basic discussions and recognising the facts of it.
No I'm not, I do understand that increased demand is a valid argument. But fundamentally do we have any evidence that rail demand is going to increase so drastically that it's worth spending such a massive sum of money on it versus all the other things such as improved broadband and road networks which can be done for far less money?
Have alternatives been considered? There are some great suggestions that go completely ignored, that for example non-time sensitive travel of materials (i.e. building goods, not scheduled to be used for a month) could be transported in a much greener, cheaper, manner, taking strain off of road and rail by utilising our country's extensive canal system. Others have pointed out that for much less money we could have a national FTTH network also, increasing ability to work from home or remotely, greatly reducing strain on public transport and for that money it would benefit everyone not just 9 out of 60 million people living in the UK and we'd still have billions in change left over to modernise and improve the rail network to a reasonable degree to boot (i.e. adding more lines to existing future bottleneck regions, new trains, extending platforms). There's so many better ways this amount of money could be spent.
It's not that I don't recognise that this will have some benefit, I do, obviously though I'm not impressed by the time savings, they're still savings, my problem with it is that it's probably the biggest UK spending commitment for a single project when the benefits just aren't big enough to justify that to be the case. For the amount of money being spent here we should be expecting far, far more out of this new link, and if we aren't going to get anymore out of it we should consider spending the money elsewhere instead because those companies putting forward the project proposals to which this figure is tied are screwing the tax payer to the tune of billions of pounds.
"That isn't "trains", it's "train". There is precisely one train that does it in under two hours, and that's that 7am train. And it takes 1 hour 59 minutes, not 1 hour 50 minutes as you claimed."
Ah yes, the age old "change the argument, to try and cover up your fail" way of doing things. I suggest you go back and read what I actually said, as your comments make no sense in the context of that. You know, trying to completely change the discussion to disguise where you went wrong in your previous post doesn't somehow also make you corect on your previous post, you're still wrong at the end of the day. I stated:
- The current system supports sub-2hr journeys already, the fact a train does this is an example of that, hence it is clearly possible with the existing technology
- Even though the advertised duration of travel is, what I thought was 1hr 55mins (big deal, I was 4 minutes out) in reality, it can be done in 1hr 50mins, because I personally have taken that journey and been there what I thought was 5, but actually appears to be 9 minutes early despite departing on time, hence with the existing tech, it can actually be done in 1hr 50mins
- Further, the existing journey has more stops than the new journey will have, so, the existing journey time can actually be decreased yet further again, slimming even further the gap between the new and existing system
The speeds being put forward for the new system are best case headline speeds too, so you can guarantee that in practice there will be similar variations as with the current system, so comparing the fastest speeds on both technologies would seem to make sense, which is what I did. More sense at least than doing what you attempted - comparing the slowest speeds on the existing system, to the fastest on the new.
Thus your argument about what the current maximum or average is is completely irrelevant, my point was simply that the expenditure on the new line is silly when the gains are so pointless relative to the cost that the existing system can get close enough with a bit of effort for an absolute tiny portion of the price. There are simply more important things where that money could go to provide a much better benefit/cost ratio. As others have pointed out a nationwide FTTH rollout would cost far less, could still benefit the entire country, and could be done much sooner, with change left over to simply fix inefficiencies in the current rail network to boot.
"You're a liar and a troll."
If it was true, then judging by your inability to correctly interpret a discuss, correctly use a basic internet site to check facts, and completely fail to have a discussion without instantly resorting to attacks then, well, I think whatever I am is most certainly preferably to being wrong, and unable to engage in basic discussion whilst continuing to follow the facts, which are the traits that describe your current predicament.
Again, might I suggest you actually properly take in precisely what is being said, and properly interpret the facts before flying off the handle and launching personal attacks? As I say, it'll make you look far less of a 'tard. Or are you just going to keep digging instead?
"I've just checked the timetable and the shortest Leeds to London journey today is 2 hours 12 minutes."
It doesn't take much effort to find that there are in fact trains that come in under 2hrs from Leeds to London. (Hint: there's one every single fucking morning at 7am).
Further to this, regarding your comment about your BBC link in your other response, let's ignore the fact the BBC has managed to get their numbers wrong, and go straight to the source shall we? -
The official materials clearly state "around" 80 minutes for Leeds - London, that's 1hr 20mins, or 30mins less than the current line is capable of. Feel free to search HS2 news releases for the 80 minutes figure, it's quoted left right and centre in plenty of places.
So taking these facts into account - my previous comment was clearly correct in pointing out that at best this new line is going to offer about 30mins saving on what is currently possible with existing lines.
Try checking the facts a bit better before flying off the handle and launching personal attacks next time, it'll make you look like much less of a 'tard.
But it's not capacity in terms of too many trains on the lines - on the contrary, local trains tend to be pretty frequent, it's capacity in terms of the amount of carriages - they're cramming 4 carriages worth of people onto 2 carriages because they claim they can't afford enough carriages.
I was however about to source this, but it seems in some examples they're not finally actually solving this, in the last few weeks it seems Northern Rail has finally started putting new carriages on for example:
These are the sorts of problems with the rail that need solving.
Why do you feel there's an issue with crowding in terms of too many trains on the track when we're not even filling the trains we have, yet trains run pretty frequently? If we had a capacity issue with too many trains on the tracks then it'd mean that we'd both need more trains because the current ones are full (we don't, we just need more carriages on smaller trains), or that trains aren't frequent enough. There's certainly no need to increase the number of trains right now, only extend capacity on smaller trains with extra carriages, because having 2 carriage trains serving routes such as Leeds - Wakefield - Barnsley - Sheffield (i.e. 4 decent sized cities, 2 of which are dual university towns too) is just ridiculous, then in contrast if you take a train Leeds - London, or Sheffield - London then there's tens of empty seats every time. This new line only increases capacity in the latter case, where there is no problem, without dealing with the actual problem with rail capacity demonstrated in the former case.
To be fair, I think BT are actually quite competent at large scale network projects- their FTTC rollout has been done pretty fast, they just also know how to artificially inflate the price to make it look more inefficient than it really is, then pocket the difference between what they claim it will require, and what it actually requires, as profit. They also know how to cut corners that save them money - i.e. ignoring cabinets that aren't very profitable when they do do FTTC upgrades, so it's not about incompetence, it's about the fact they're just never held to account and forced to do things fairly and sensibly, they're more than capable of doing it if they have to. Again, as I say, FTTC is a perfect example - where it's profitable for them they've been incredibly effective at getting it rolled out.
In contrast, I think rail operators really are actually incompetent, part of it is cutting corners to increase profit too, but most of it is still just ineptitude. The reason I say this is because the rail network always has fucking work overruns, and delays caused by terrible planning and so forth - those sorts of issues don't boost profit so profit can't be the driving force for them.
I agree local rail networks are crowded, but long distance trains are far from near capacity. Leeds to London trains as is currently always have tons of empty seats whatever time you travel.
They'd be better off just investing in more carriages for shorter haul local journeys if they're after solving capacity problems, they could do that for a tiny portion of the same price. The capacity issues are entirely at local level, not at national level.
The full thing, at £33bn represents an improvement of 40mins for the full Leeds to London section, although I'm skeptical because they say the Leeds journey would take 1hr 20mins on the new line, yet there are already trains that do it in 1hr 50mins (though iirc the official schedule is about 1hr 55mins, some do it quicker demonstrating that it's physically possible to do it on existing lines in less time easily) so if 1hr 20mins is their target it's really only a 30min saving on Leeds to London, which really just isn't all that much to justify the phenomenal cost.
On the national news it said the new link would be 40mins off the journey to Leeds, not to Birmingham, so I assumed the half way house of Birmingham would be half of it.
"Essentially, the estimate for 100% FTTH coverage of the UK was about £29billion - a lot of money for sure."
Keep in mind that was BT's "Hey look, FTTH is far too expensive to roll out, well, unless you give us lots of cash Mr Prime Minister" estimate too.
In reality it will cost far, far less than that, the real figure is likely well under £20bn. That was a grossly inflated figure to try and push the government into giving BT as much money as possible to go ahead with the rollout. Some independent investigations into it have put the figure as low as £5bn if existing infrastructure, or specific road cutting tools for fibre were used instead of the current dig a massive fucking hole a few hundred metres down the road way of doing things.
Realistically, if it was done right, for the cost of this train link shaving a mere 20minutes or so off the journey between two cities, we could've had 1gbps FTTH to every address in the country, even the most isolated rural and island based ones.
Slashdot Mirror
Where on the server side have you looked? certainly for server side web application development C#/ASP.NET is gaining ground - you only have to look at job listings where there's rarely a Java job in sight, but hundreds of ASP.NET jobs. I think Java is still important, and still my preferred option on some projects, but it's definitely been losing ground quite rapidly on both server and client side for quite some time now.
I agree people aren't hosting on Linux with mono though. It's all Windows/IIS.
People just aren't recruiting Java devs anymore, but neither are they recruiting Objective-C devs either to be honest, which highlights why TIOBEs method is completely and utterly flawed and it's results meaningless. If you go pick a bunch of random places in the world and do job searches for developer you get results on the order of C#, PHP, Java/C++/Ruby/Objective-C in a ratio of something like 20:6:2 respectively nowadays, so unless this growth in Objective-C is being led by one or two single places in the world who are hiring hundreds of thousands of Objective-C devs to make the stats work then we can once again do our annual ignore of TIOBE.
Really, if you want a rough idea of what the fastest growing languages are in your area then job sites are far and away the best option. Looking at multiple job sites in multiple places across the world gives you the best overview of global demand. TIOBE is completely meaningless for this because if for example we have two new languages, one of which has picked up 10,000 users in a day, and has really good docs so they're all sat using it locally quite happy, or they're discussing it on USENET or something like that, then another language comes along backed by a big firm, has no actual users but a massive PR drive giving it thousands of news stories across the globe, then of course, the latter will be deemed more popular, and seeing faster growth, even if no one's actually even using it at all. Obviously that's dumb, but this illustrates how TIOBE goes wrong - from languages that are common amongst teaching having more newbie questions, even if the language is only being used for assignments, to languages that are backed by regular PR, to languages that people say on forums because there's a proud history behind said language - "Oh yeah, I know C++" because they think it makes them look smart. A language with excellent docs, and even an IDE that offers intellisense is going to lead to far fewer questions than one that has no documentation and no IDE also. There's just so many things to go wrong in TIOBE's methodology that TIOBE basically tells us only one thing - how many times a language has been mentioned on the internet, which has absolutely no bearing to how much it is actually used in the real world.
"Well this is strange, because the ruling made no mention of this case, which seems to directly apply, but instead talked about a "Rock & Overton" case."
Which tells us one thing, the judge is either corrupt or incompetent :)
Really the Oink case is 100% identical, so if the judge didn't refer to that something is very very wrong.
"What's even funnier is that actually you're responded to me more often than I have to you. Because for every reply of mine on this thread, you've then replied again. But you've missed me so much you've also sought me out on a completely different story - the Irish e-voting one. If my replies are tragic, your more numerous ones are clearly you're more tragic still."
That's exactly right, I'm stalking you because you're so special.
Or maybe when you're one of the most active users on Slashdot, who, judging by your post history would appear to post multiple comments on just about every news story because you apparently have nothing better to do, the chance of me stumbling across your posts is just that high. Hint: I've also responded to a number of other people today too.
"And there you go again. As I already said, I admitted an error on another story earlier today."
Yet you can't admit where you were clearly and demonstrably wrong here. I guess it's just that much harder when you've dug yourself into such a deep hole, and when your life is so empty that telling yourself you were right on Slashdot is really all you have.
But anyhow, it's the weekend now and I really do have things to do. So have fun sat getting yourself in a little stir here, I'm sure you'll find someone else demonstrating something you say is wrong, who you'll get all upset over and be unable to stop responding to until you've made sure you have the final say. If you're lucky and Monday is a quiet day, and I get bored, I'll pop back and see if you've dug as far as the centre of the Earth yet.
"If that is actually the case, then there's no cause to extradite the defendant, because if it's not a crime in both places you can't be extradited for it."
Well, America thinks it is. When this guy was first arrested, the British authorities decided they had no reason to charge him, presumably as a result of the epic failure and waste of time which was the Oink case, where the police got their arse handed to them by the judge. This is apparently (according to the evening news) why the Americans decided to pursue the case, precisely because we decided not too, and, according to the news, they believe America is using him as a guinea pig test case to see if it can a) be deemed illegal in the US, and b) become a viable extraditable offence.
It's funny, because you've failed to realise the fact that the only person who felt the need to use personal attacks from the outset is you. It's interesting because it's like you think people who point out why you are wrong are trolls, without realising that a troll would be much more closely defined as someone who insults people from the outset and continues insulting them even though they are wrong and have been demonstrated as such.
You can also suggest I'm not getting any reaction out of you all you want, but here you are, still biting without fail, just like the pet dog I mentioned last time. It'd be funny if it wasn't so tragic. Actually no, scrap that, it really is actually pretty fucking funny.
To think, it would've been so much easier to just accept that you'd got a few things wrong, just like I'd gladly have accepted that yes, my 20 minute saving comment was indeed an over-exageration if you'd shown yourself to be a mature rational person many posts ago, but as you decided to act an ass from the outset, well, why would I not continue to treat you like one, watching how you keep coming back to be toyed with like a heroin addict unable to keep away from going for his next fix?
Here's a thought - try it when engaging with people next time, try adding a bit of rationality to the discussion, try accepting that you're not always right, and that people you disagree with or even dislike are not always wrong, you'll find the discussion much more constructive, you might even learn something.
"But I thought IE *was* an integrated part of Windows and could NEVER be considered a stand alone product, nor ever extracted from Windows proper!"
It can but it seems you need to rip the whole GUI out of the operating system to achieve it ;)
Well this sort of thing happens a lot - look at the WTO, the US is a signatory but has completely refused to acknowledge some rulings against it, whilst pushing for more and more countries to sign up to it so that they're bound by it's laws (i.e. it wants Russia signed up, but only so that it's forced to strengthen protection for US IP).
The issue is that "technically" it's reciprocal, a judge examining the treaty recently acknowledged this.
The problem arises that in practice (and the judge just looked at theory, not practice, which is where he went wrong), when the US thinks a UK extradition request stinks they tell us to fuck off and we say "Oh, alright then", but when the US send us a request that stinks we're like "Oh, please do, take him!"
The problem isn't so much legal, or technical, it's that US courts tend to be far more patriotic, in protecting US citizens and interests - they ignore the fact the treaty is stupidly unfair for the average joe who can get extradited at will, and protect American interests- they ignore the terms of the agreement.
The issue in the UK, and many European courts in general is that we're too honourable for our own good, our judges stick to the letter of the agreement, when the Americans don't. This can sometimes be a good thing- look at the Oink case for example, and the fact even this guy wasn't charged in the UK - because under British law, such linking isn't actually illegal, but in other cases like this, where adhering to the letter of the law means following a stupid extradition treaty, it's obviously terrible. I'd argue the fundamental problem is that the treaty makes it too easy to extradite from either side of the Atlantic, but that the US has fixed this by simply ignoring the exact lettering of the treaty when it suits.
One final point of course is that in the UK we're not stupid enough to waste time extraditing someone like Gary McKinnon or this guy in the first place, we could probably try the same, hence another reason why the extradition treaty looks so one way, is because the US wants to extradite people for more trivial things where we wouldn't bother precisely because we do think it's disproportionate. Again though, the fundamental problem here is that the treaty is too lax in general, not that it's inherently weighted in favour of one country or the other.
So effectively we're left two choices - pull out of the treaty or rewrite it putting a limit on the seriousness of the crimes (i.e. only murders, rapes, that sort of thing), or start being as lame as America, extraditing people for the silliest little things, like creating file sharing link sites, and then hold them to the treaty when they try and ignore it. I think pulling out is the best option regardless.
"According to Windows consultant and author Don Jones, this is a big hint to Windows admins that they better get used to not having a GUI in future releases."
Is it? or is that theory just completely made up?
Just because the server doesn't locally have a GUI doesn't mean it wont allow RDP connections, and doesn't mean you wont just be able to use the likes of event viewer, IIS manager, or whatever, installed on your local system, to connect to and manage a remote server.
I don't think most people manage Windows servers locally anyway nowadays, most IT staff are too busy enjoying the fact they no longer have to get off their arse to go to the server room because they can do everything they need with a GUI from their desk. I don't see anything to indicate that side of things is changing - just that Windows Server will no longer by default sit their handling a locked GUI for local users no one ever fucking uses anyway whilst continuing to offer the console based management option that was introduced in what, Windows 2008 Server? even then I suspect, being Microsoft, the Windows GUI will only be a quick click or command away but will simply be initialised on demand, rather than always there.
Depending on your constituency, because if you elect a parish council, or a mayor, then these are often on the same ballot slip as your city/town councillors.
"The problem isn't with me, it's you."
That's what I'd expect someone who couldn't admit they were wrong to say.
I like the way you so predictably respond too, it's kind of cute, like having a pet dog that you can tease in a playful way because you know it'll respond exactly how you expect it too.
They even like digging too.
Out of interest, have you ever stopped to ask yourself when the last time you actually admitted to being wrong was? or has that never happened to you, and you're just always right?
Where did you get your spade too btw, I'm amazed it hasn't broken yet with all the digging you've been doing.
"Or don't you get to vote for who is the mayor of your town/city?"
Yes, he does, he's just trolling. Ireland doesn't use a single option system for general elections, it uses STV where you rank candidates in order, you certainly don't just tick one box. Here in the UK we elect our parliamentary representative, we elect our European parliament representatives, and depending on where you live you will elect some combination of your Mayor, your local councillors, your parish council, and probably some other things I've forgotten.
In the UK there's been some frustration at our electoral system for some time, though when we finally had a referendum on it though the population through it out, for a number of reasons, from Murdoch abusing his meida influence, to a shit choice of only one new less than perfect system, but one argument used by those wanting to hold onto the status quo where they can hold power in the face of the majority of people not wanting them in power at all (because that's what FPTP largely caters to) was that a system like AV, where you rank candidates in order, was too confusing.
So you'll have to excuse my fellow countryman, for making the implication that it's far too confusing to do anything other than put a tick in a box, for him it probably is, unfortunately there's too many people in our country that really are actually this stupid.
Are those tears I see?
Actually I have no problem with that, god only knows we could do with a bunch of Javascript and HTML lackeys. Where I have a problem with it is when they expect to be paid as much as the talented developers putting together the massively more complicated backend system behind it and the like.
The other problem is that if these people blag their way into a job as the first man in on the dev team then you get a situation where these people through nothing other than being in the right place at the right time not only get paid too much, but are then responsible for hiring other devs, often turning away great people for people like them, because they don't know any better. That's not too big a problem for talented devs, as not every company is like that, and the companies who know what the hell they're doing will quickly pick up those devs because there is a shortage of such skills, but it is why there's so much bad code in the world, why massive security breaches are so common.
It turns out you're not that unique as it happens. I lived on the outskirts of Wakefield myself for some time.
You're right and the GP is wrong for most cases. Trains are most certainly faster if your journey is merely station to station, but who lives at a train station and works at a train station? The issue is what happens at each end, the speed advantage of trains is rapidly lost when you factor in the time taken to get from your start point to the station, and the station to your end point.
This isn't to say trains are always bad, I catch them every day into Sheffield or Leeds. Whilst I agree long haul journeys can be expensive unless you pre-book months in advance and go off-peak, for me it's actually cheaper for the daily commute - I save about £50 (or a tank of petrol basically) across each month by driving to my local station and catching the train from there. I do use the train long-haul Sheffield to London or Leeds to London and back, but that's because I'm already in these cities without my car, because the company pays the ticket, and because I can work on the train. To take the train in it takes around 1hr 15mins end to end, to drive it'd take about 50mins, so as you can see my reasons for taking the train most definitely aren't speed- they're entirely about cost and the fact I can do stuff whilst on the train.
The GP's assertions about reliability are complete bollocks too, our train is rarely ever on time, it's late around 95% of the time at a rough guess, usually this is only by a few minutes, but in some cases, as it was on Tuesday, it can be much more and on Tuesday my end to end commute took 1hr 50mins - I wish I'd driven. The frequency and duration of these delays is roughly equivalent to those experienced when driving, with one caveat, driving on average is slightly slower in the few weeks running up to Christmas I'd say though even the train isn't immune to this - the christmas rush still greatly effects the journey to/from the train station so you're not even insulated from it there.
So the car isn't always my preferred choice, circumstancially trains can be cheaper, but I'd say for full journey they're rarely ever actually faster, and they're most definitely no more reliable in terms of delays except maybe on the handful of long haul journeys, but they're the ones that cost more anyway.
Or too sum up, I've commuted for years entirely by car prior to this job, and commute primarily by train currently. Both are pretty shit really. There's no such thing as the magical wonder transport the GP is parroting and the new line wont be any different. As I've said elsewhere, I'd rather a pittance was spent on speeding up the likes of the East Coast mainline by increasing capacity in bottlenecks, and creating more express trains (i.e. Leeds to London with no stops) as that would give you 90% of the benefits of the new line anyway for less than 10% of the cost. The remaining cash could then be used to fund a national FTTH network that benefits everyone in the UK, not just the 9million or so out of 60million people nationally living in Manchester/London/Leeds/Birmingham.
"Now you're trying to accuse ME of changing the argument? What you actually said was "Ãfã33bn ($50bn USD), for a new train line between only two cities, that wont be ready for 12 years, and when it does, shaves only a mere 20minutes or so off the journey." Which is completely wrong, Dickhead."
So your next step is to desperately pull a quote from a completely different thread? You're really not good at using this internet thing at all are you? First you fail to use a basic search function on a website, then you fail to link it, now you demonstrate a complete inability to even follow a single discussion thread properly?
"You don't know that, and indeed it's obviously not the case for a 225mph locomotive."
Actually it kind of is, because via Birmingham means the route will be around 225 - 240 miles, the headline speed of a train can't be maintained anywhere near consistently throughout the entire journey as they require perfect conditions, and, running at maximum speed also drastically increases wear and maintenance costs. Also, believe it or not we certainly haven't yet got the ability to make trains instantly accelerate to and decelerate from maximum speed anyway - for passenger comfort alone it takes some time to ramp up and ramp down such speeds. To understand this though you'd have to have a basic grasp of math and when you can't even perform show an ability to use basic internet sites I wouldn't expect you to be able to handle primary school level maths.
Life must be really hard for you, being so dumb, so angry, with clearly such a high blood pressure. I think you need to step back from the internet, it's going to kill you if you keep digging like this. All my key points in this thread are backed up by facts, your comments are merely backed up by insults, and demonstrably incorrect based on the sources I have provided. Have fun pushing yourself over the top with your apparent anger management issues and inability to stop digging, sucks to be you I guess, spending your life angry at the internet because you're incapable of following a basic discussions and recognising the facts of it.
No I'm not, I do understand that increased demand is a valid argument. But fundamentally do we have any evidence that rail demand is going to increase so drastically that it's worth spending such a massive sum of money on it versus all the other things such as improved broadband and road networks which can be done for far less money?
Have alternatives been considered? There are some great suggestions that go completely ignored, that for example non-time sensitive travel of materials (i.e. building goods, not scheduled to be used for a month) could be transported in a much greener, cheaper, manner, taking strain off of road and rail by utilising our country's extensive canal system. Others have pointed out that for much less money we could have a national FTTH network also, increasing ability to work from home or remotely, greatly reducing strain on public transport and for that money it would benefit everyone not just 9 out of 60 million people living in the UK and we'd still have billions in change left over to modernise and improve the rail network to a reasonable degree to boot (i.e. adding more lines to existing future bottleneck regions, new trains, extending platforms). There's so many better ways this amount of money could be spent.
It's not that I don't recognise that this will have some benefit, I do, obviously though I'm not impressed by the time savings, they're still savings, my problem with it is that it's probably the biggest UK spending commitment for a single project when the benefits just aren't big enough to justify that to be the case. For the amount of money being spent here we should be expecting far, far more out of this new link, and if we aren't going to get anymore out of it we should consider spending the money elsewhere instead because those companies putting forward the project proposals to which this figure is tied are screwing the tax payer to the tune of billions of pounds.
"That isn't "trains", it's "train". There is precisely one train that does it in under two hours, and that's that 7am train. And it takes 1 hour 59 minutes, not 1 hour 50 minutes as you claimed."
Ah yes, the age old "change the argument, to try and cover up your fail" way of doing things. I suggest you go back and read what I actually said, as your comments make no sense in the context of that. You know, trying to completely change the discussion to disguise where you went wrong in your previous post doesn't somehow also make you corect on your previous post, you're still wrong at the end of the day. I stated:
- The current system supports sub-2hr journeys already, the fact a train does this is an example of that, hence it is clearly possible with the existing technology
- Even though the advertised duration of travel is, what I thought was 1hr 55mins (big deal, I was 4 minutes out) in reality, it can be done in 1hr 50mins, because I personally have taken that journey and been there what I thought was 5, but actually appears to be 9 minutes early despite departing on time, hence with the existing tech, it can actually be done in 1hr 50mins
- Further, the existing journey has more stops than the new journey will have, so, the existing journey time can actually be decreased yet further again, slimming even further the gap between the new and existing system
The speeds being put forward for the new system are best case headline speeds too, so you can guarantee that in practice there will be similar variations as with the current system, so comparing the fastest speeds on both technologies would seem to make sense, which is what I did. More sense at least than doing what you attempted - comparing the slowest speeds on the existing system, to the fastest on the new.
Thus your argument about what the current maximum or average is is completely irrelevant, my point was simply that the expenditure on the new line is silly when the gains are so pointless relative to the cost that the existing system can get close enough with a bit of effort for an absolute tiny portion of the price. There are simply more important things where that money could go to provide a much better benefit/cost ratio. As others have pointed out a nationwide FTTH rollout would cost far less, could still benefit the entire country, and could be done much sooner, with change left over to simply fix inefficiencies in the current rail network to boot.
"You're a liar and a troll."
If it was true, then judging by your inability to correctly interpret a discuss, correctly use a basic internet site to check facts, and completely fail to have a discussion without instantly resorting to attacks then, well, I think whatever I am is most certainly preferably to being wrong, and unable to engage in basic discussion whilst continuing to follow the facts, which are the traits that describe your current predicament.
Again, might I suggest you actually properly take in precisely what is being said, and properly interpret the facts before flying off the handle and launching personal attacks? As I say, it'll make you look far less of a 'tard. Or are you just going to keep digging instead?
"I've just checked the timetable and the shortest Leeds to London journey today is 2 hours 12 minutes."
It doesn't take much effort to find that there are in fact trains that come in under 2hrs from Leeds to London. (Hint: there's one every single fucking morning at 7am).
Further to this, regarding your comment about your BBC link in your other response, let's ignore the fact the BBC has managed to get their numbers wrong, and go straight to the source shall we? -
http://www.dft.gov.uk/news/press-releases/dft-press-20101220
The official materials clearly state "around" 80 minutes for Leeds - London, that's 1hr 20mins, or 30mins less than the current line is capable of. Feel free to search HS2 news releases for the 80 minutes figure, it's quoted left right and centre in plenty of places.
So taking these facts into account - my previous comment was clearly correct in pointing out that at best this new line is going to offer about 30mins saving on what is currently possible with existing lines.
Try checking the facts a bit better before flying off the handle and launching personal attacks next time, it'll make you look like much less of a 'tard.
But it's not capacity in terms of too many trains on the lines - on the contrary, local trains tend to be pretty frequent, it's capacity in terms of the amount of carriages - they're cramming 4 carriages worth of people onto 2 carriages because they claim they can't afford enough carriages.
I was however about to source this, but it seems in some examples they're not finally actually solving this, in the last few weeks it seems Northern Rail has finally started putting new carriages on for example:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-16136583
These are the sorts of problems with the rail that need solving.
Why do you feel there's an issue with crowding in terms of too many trains on the track when we're not even filling the trains we have, yet trains run pretty frequently? If we had a capacity issue with too many trains on the tracks then it'd mean that we'd both need more trains because the current ones are full (we don't, we just need more carriages on smaller trains), or that trains aren't frequent enough. There's certainly no need to increase the number of trains right now, only extend capacity on smaller trains with extra carriages, because having 2 carriage trains serving routes such as Leeds - Wakefield - Barnsley - Sheffield (i.e. 4 decent sized cities, 2 of which are dual university towns too) is just ridiculous, then in contrast if you take a train Leeds - London, or Sheffield - London then there's tens of empty seats every time. This new line only increases capacity in the latter case, where there is no problem, without dealing with the actual problem with rail capacity demonstrated in the former case.
To be fair, I think BT are actually quite competent at large scale network projects- their FTTC rollout has been done pretty fast, they just also know how to artificially inflate the price to make it look more inefficient than it really is, then pocket the difference between what they claim it will require, and what it actually requires, as profit. They also know how to cut corners that save them money - i.e. ignoring cabinets that aren't very profitable when they do do FTTC upgrades, so it's not about incompetence, it's about the fact they're just never held to account and forced to do things fairly and sensibly, they're more than capable of doing it if they have to. Again, as I say, FTTC is a perfect example - where it's profitable for them they've been incredibly effective at getting it rolled out.
In contrast, I think rail operators really are actually incompetent, part of it is cutting corners to increase profit too, but most of it is still just ineptitude. The reason I say this is because the rail network always has fucking work overruns, and delays caused by terrible planning and so forth - those sorts of issues don't boost profit so profit can't be the driving force for them.
I agree local rail networks are crowded, but long distance trains are far from near capacity. Leeds to London trains as is currently always have tons of empty seats whatever time you travel.
They'd be better off just investing in more carriages for shorter haul local journeys if they're after solving capacity problems, they could do that for a tiny portion of the same price. The capacity issues are entirely at local level, not at national level.
The full thing, at £33bn represents an improvement of 40mins for the full Leeds to London section, although I'm skeptical because they say the Leeds journey would take 1hr 20mins on the new line, yet there are already trains that do it in 1hr 50mins (though iirc the official schedule is about 1hr 55mins, some do it quicker demonstrating that it's physically possible to do it on existing lines in less time easily) so if 1hr 20mins is their target it's really only a 30min saving on Leeds to London, which really just isn't all that much to justify the phenomenal cost.
On the national news it said the new link would be 40mins off the journey to Leeds, not to Birmingham, so I assumed the half way house of Birmingham would be half of it.
"Essentially, the estimate for 100% FTTH coverage of the UK was about £29billion - a lot of money for sure."
Keep in mind that was BT's "Hey look, FTTH is far too expensive to roll out, well, unless you give us lots of cash Mr Prime Minister" estimate too.
In reality it will cost far, far less than that, the real figure is likely well under £20bn. That was a grossly inflated figure to try and push the government into giving BT as much money as possible to go ahead with the rollout. Some independent investigations into it have put the figure as low as £5bn if existing infrastructure, or specific road cutting tools for fibre were used instead of the current dig a massive fucking hole a few hundred metres down the road way of doing things.
Realistically, if it was done right, for the cost of this train link shaving a mere 20minutes or so off the journey between two cities, we could've had 1gbps FTTH to every address in the country, even the most isolated rural and island based ones.