C# isn't the only.NET language though, so why assume when talking about.NET that they have to mention C#? It could've just as well have been any.NET language implementation.
Are you sure they weren't referring to.NET IL? It's possible that it's you or the students that didn't actually understand the question here.
If North Korea fired a cruise missile into rural America where it had no effect should the US just turn a blind eye?
If someone tries to destroy your country whatever the means, it shouldn't matter whether they succeeded or failed, it's the act of trying to destroy your country in itself that raises a serious need for a response, because next time, they might well succeed, only then it'll be too late.
"As a basic example, you keep telling me what May says and that I believe it. I don't give a fuck what May says and I don't agree with much of her approach or policy. Your entire base is a swamp of misunderstanding, false assumption and crackpot analysis."
And yet your entire argument is identical to her own, trivially disproved, fallacious argument. Funny that.
"So to close this off: a referendum on the proposed deal would be fucking insane because it would prevent us negotiating a good deal. Just fucking accept it or find an adult with the patience to teach you. Reply to This"
Except that's still not true, that's still just Theresa May's line, and you're still just parroting it without engaging in even basic thought processes that would allow you to trivially see it's complete nonsense.
Again, what you're saying is that you don't want a democratic vote, because you know Theresa May will fuck up the negotiations and get a terrible deal that everyone will vote down, cancelling Brexit. That's still about you being undemocratic in suggesting whatever fuckup May gives us we should swallow it unquestioningly.
Having a referendum on a final deal has absolutely no relevance to the quality of the deal. The quality of the deal is entirely about the competence of the negotiator, whether people accept that depends on how well they do - you're saying you know May will come back with such a shit deal that no one would support it, fine, but that's not an excuse to evade democracy.
"No I am not. It doesn't matter how good a negotiator you are, if the other side knows that they get everything they want (including humiliating you) by not negotiating then it's not a negotiation anyway."
But again, all you're doing here is highlighting your complete lack of understanding of effective negotiating - you've been fed one view by May, and that now forms your entire knowledge of the topic, so you're pretending that's all the knowledge there is on the topic.
It's patently false of course, there's no inherent reason the other side knowing what you want puts you at a disadvantage, because you can just as well have amicable discussions - an entirely novel concept for far right hardliners like Peter Bone and the rest of the EU xenophobia crew that have fed May her lines I know, but it is what it is. Not all negotiations have to be hostile, the EU has been quite clear in that it would like friendly succesful negotiations, but May has instead constantly tried to go to war with them, and has now failed.
"That has fuck all to do with democracy. Telling the EU "avoid agreeing a deal and we will have a referendum on whether to accept your imposed terms" gives them carte blanche to impose whatever the fuck they want."
But wait, once again you seem to be agreeing that the Brexiteers were lying their arses off, they need us more than we need them I thought, so how are they in a stronger position?
"That is why it's not a democratic approach. It's denying the British public a chance of a deal that's good for Britain and removes the option of just walking away and accepting wto terms."
Erm no, there's a wide gulf between an approach you don't like and a democratic approach. Giving the people a say is always more democratic than not giving the people a say whether you like it or not. Again, you're projecting your fears that Brexit might not happen into some twisted nonsensical argument that makes no sense. You need to accept that you're anti-democratic, if that's what you want, and you think you have good reasons for it (i.e. your view on negotiations) then fine, but don't be dishonest and claim it's something it's not.
"Shit, 85% of the general election votes went to parties promising a robust negotiation and no second referendum, is that democratic enough for you?"
Right, and in 2015 a similar amount went for pro-EU parties, does that mean the referendum should never have happened and Brexit shouldn't even be a thing? This is the point - people's views change, and by bringing up the current election you're shooting yourself in the foot, because with the current election 56% of the UK voted against hard Brexit, yet May is still trying to push it.
"I'd guess not, apparently democracy means you getting what you want and fuck the rest of us."
Er no, as I pointed out - I'm the one calling for more democracy. You're the one saying we shouldn't have it because you're scared shitless that you're now in a minority. Don't try and project your will to deny democracy onto me - the fact you're now firmly on the losing side of the argument is your problem, not mine - don't blame me if you can't accept that democracy has turned against you, and don't blame me because you want to block democracy because you can't accept that fact.
You're on the losing side of the argument, and the losing side of history, get the fuck over it and stop trying to use your unpopular view as an excuse to deny democracy. There's no longer a mandate for hard Brexit, and there's no democracy in denying the people a say, or refusing to listen to their view.
It's likely there never was a mandate for hard Brexit, ever. You're just parroting Theresa May's argument, but if you hadn't noticed, that argument has now well and truly failed in the eyes of the public, and that's democracy as much as you apparently detest it.
"A stance guaranteed to prevent any deal at all, as the EU would immediately refuse anything that might be acceptable as a deal."
So effectively you're saying that you dislike the idea of more democracy, because you don't have faith in Theresa May's ability to act as an effective negotiator? Your argument here is based entirely on the idea that whoever negotiates Brexit is entirely incapable of doing it in an amicable and competent manner. It's not an argument for denying further democracy though, it's an argument against our incompetent leader's abysmal way of handling things.
"They will try anyway, which is why the ability to leave without a deal is essential; without that the UK has no negotiating position."
What happened to they need us more than we need them? I thought the far right hard Brexiteers told us that was sufficient, are you backtracking now?
"Allow me to clarify: I think a second referendum on leaving the EU would be a bigger vote out now than the one last year."
Sure, and at least that would mean there was a clear mandate for hard Brexit. Right now there's NO mandate for hard Brexit, because the mandate for Brexit was only 52% to 48%, and of the 52% that wanted out, a sizeable proportion only wanted soft Brexit. There's no majority mandate for hard Brexit and never has been.
"I think a referendum on the terms of a deal with the EU is a blatant and unsubtle attempt to prevent us leaving at all, and disrespectful to the views of both remain and leave voters."
Nonsense, you just said you believe it'd result in an even large vote for Brexit, that massively bolsters the argument and view of the majority. The only reason not to do it is if there is concern voters would change their mind, and the hard Brexiteers on the far right want to stop it. If you think it gives an even bigger mandate, what are you so scared of?
"I think you'll find that she just got humiliated in a general election."
Yet here she is, willing to side with the political wing of a terrorist organisation that is wholly anti gay rights, after spending an entire election trying to paint Corbyn as a terrorist sympathiser, and Farron as a raving homophobe. However humiliated she is from this, she's still being an anti-democratic authoritarian shit head. No one voted for a party that's anti-gay rights, denies global warming, against women's rights, and was born of and associated directly with terrorists - the closest thing to that was UKIP (minus the terrorists), and they got 1.8% of the vote, yet here we are with them being pulled into the centre of power. Where's the democracy or respect for voters in this? The whole reason she lost her majority is precisely because she's been going about things like Brexit in a way that DOESN'T respect the electorate, just as she's continuing to do now.
Yes, I think the moral of the story is that you can't win an election by trying to build a personality cult around someone with no personality.
I mean, the most naughty thing she's ever done, run through a corn field as a kid, really? How do you even begin to try and win an election around an individual so devoid of any relationship to the real world in which the rest of the population lives in?
Their biggest mistake was making it about her, that's why in 4 weeks they went from a 24% lead, to a 2% lead and lost MPs as a result.
How does their stance fail to respect the British people? Their stance is that people be allowed a second referendum once the terms of the deal is clear.
The only way you could think that is if you're pro-Brexit and worried about losing a second referendum because the majority decide that no, they don't want Brexit after all.
So what you're saying is that they're failing to respect the British people by denying the British people a further say on the issue. You realise how astoundingly stupid that argument is right?
The fact you're making it implies that you know deep down there's a real chance people could reject Brexit if given a second chance to decide the issue, and because of that what you're really saying is that YOU don't respect the British people, that you want to impose your will regardless of what everyone else thinks. That's not giving respect to people, that's being an anti-democratic authoritarian shit head.
If your population looks up to a president that spends his time engaging in Twitter flame wars then all hope is lost for your country.
Thankfully I think you're wrong, I think the majority of Americans also think it's a piss poor waste of the president's time and a piss poor failure at effective communication.
This is precisely why his approval rating is going down, not up.
Yep, engaging in an online flame war with the Mayor of London for trying to reassure Londoners right after a terrorist attack really won us Brits over too, top notch communicator you have there. When we'd heard about how 48 people had been butchered, 8 of which were killed the first thing we thought was "You know what? It'd be great to hear Donald Trump's view on this, especially if he blames the Mayor of London and start slagging him off", so we're glad that he focus on a multi-day flame war, rather than just shut the fuck up or offer something nice, but obviously his mother failed as a parent and never taught him the adage that if you have nothing nice to say, then don't say anything at all.
I'm engaging in British sarcasm here if you didn't get that. He's probably the worst communicator of any world leader I've ever seen because his comments are ill thought through, often barely literate, and usually just objectively wrong. He's basically on par with the rhetoric filled drivel that spills out of fat Kim's mouth over in North Korea.
All hail King Covfefe, king of the uncommunicators.
I'd be intrigued to know pray tell how the hell a translator working for a contractor is going to "create a throwaway account" anyway?
What is this Hollywood? I thought it was a tech site, but what utter drivel. It shows a distinct lack of knowledge of IT security and someone apparently thinks they're Mr Super hacker from teh hollywoodz! who has seen how they do it on TV!
The fact is in large organisations like the NSA even things like creating user accounts is audited, it's not just some throwaway thing you can do on a whim as an average user, and to edit the audit logs or disable the auditing is in itself going to require audited access.
There's a reason Snowden ran away before releasing anything, and why Manning got caught. You have to be really hot shit to get this stuff out without triggering audit entries, and that typically means doing something like technically exploiting system accounts to do your bidding for you, to embed malicious code at a lower level than auditing can take place, not creating made up accounts as doing that in itself means you're leaving a piece of information that can be used to try and track you. Even if you're a system administrator what you do will be tracked and audited, or will require multiple users to perform sensitive actions so it's not even as simple as just getting the right job.
You can't learn how to exploit an organisation like the NSA from watching Hollywood movies and TV for crying out loud. It's a little more complex than that and "I'd set up a throwaway account" is just child like "Look at me I'm so cleverzzz!!!!1111" thinking that bears no resemblance to actually successfully exfiltrating information like this. People who think like that and believe that shit are exactly as stupid as this girl, and inevitably the people who get themselves caught because they think they're smarter than everyone else and know exactly what they're doing, but ultimately are just as stupid as the next guy, and just as easy to apprehend. Fortunately the media is dumb enough to not get it either, so even when Mr Stupid does get caught he'll still get his 5 minutes of fame as NSA Super hacker Mr Stupid plastered all over the front pages.
Nothing to stop something else being pulled from the product backlog into the current spring backlog. When you know your velocity in terms of the amount of story points you can tackle in a fixed period you should know what size story can be pulled forward for you to do in the remaining time for the sprint and still result in completion for that particular sprint.
That's probably one of the worst summaries in recent months, without context the whole first paragraph makes absolutely no sense. In fact, it sounds like NASA has launched a dog breeding programme where they're cross breeding an Alaskan Malamute with some kind of terrier, but that it doesn't like clouds so they're going to launch their new cross breed to the world another day.
It wasn't until I got past that paragraph that the rest of the summary began to impart any meaningful information as to what the actual topic is here.
Disagree by a long shot in the UK - TV news such as BBC, ITV, Channel 4 are far, far superior to print media here.
We were dependent on them to break the Jimmy Savile scandal where print media absolutely failed for example.
Print media in the UK is an absolute farce. There's barely a single publication that's worth the paper it's written on - even the more moderate papers like The Guardian and The Independent spout some incredible shit sometimes.
Sure, but therein lies the whole problem with the Brexit argument - it's based on blaming the EU for things that our government are at fault over, and given that leaving the EU doesn't mean leaving our government, why would anyone think leaving the EU would fix anything like this?
Case in point, government has been saying it wants migration down, but it's consistently been at the 300k+ mark for years, yet over half of those people come from outside the EU. As such, any government could at any point have more than halved migration to the UK by banning non-EU workers, but no government chose to even though it meant embarrassing themselves by breaking promises in their manifestos.
You see, the problem isn't the EU, the problem isn't that we can't tackle migration, the problem is that migrants make a useful scapegoat, yet aren't really the problem as migrants overall are net contributors to the UK. Thus, successive governments have bluffed to the people about how migrants are the cause of our problems, whilst refusing to reduce migration because the reality is they're a net benefit.
I don't disagree with what you're saying, but if you want things done about this sort of shit then look to the Conservatives and Labour for refusing to tackle it whatever line they've peddled you. Also approach it without an open mind and consider that there's a reason they haven't tackled it - you might be right about health tourism but consider how many Brits retire to France and Spain - how much do you think healthcare for our old retirees that emigrate is costing them? It doesn't come for free.
The only people that can be blamed for the UK's problems are successive UK governments, and the people that elect them repeatedly whilst failing to hold them to account. Yet here we are, seeing a return to two party politics this election over the two very parties that haven't ever listened to the people.
True story, somewhere I used to work had it's server room attached to a backup generator to take over in the case of power supply failure. This failover happened fine one night when the power went out.
Only some genius didn't think they may need the air con units to also be attached to the generator in the event of failure, so when the IT staff got in the next morning they found a myriad of fried hard disks, nigh on melted backup tapes, and burnt out processors.
Of course - I'm not saying this was justifiable, it wasn't, but it was public sector so not overly surprising. It took them 3 months to get e-mail back up and running for everyone and at least some of people's mailboxes restored. Then, being public sector, the IT team got an award for handling the issue well.
Yes it was retarded, but don't underestimate the ability of a power failure to completely and utterly fuck up a system that's run by retards, I've seen it happen, so it's perfectly possible that something that should be trivial to guard against can bring down an entire large organisation for an extended period.
Not to mention the IT ops side of devops usually have accounts nowadays because they often get involved in building and deploying such software even if they never write a single line of code, and with most large companies now going the devops route, you're probably looking at anything from hundreds of thousands to a few million users there alone.
I actually typically have 3 accounts for this sort of thing - day job account, personal account, and an account for the startup I'm helping in my spare time, so not everyone stops at 2 either for what it's worth.
I guess you're one of Mozilla's dumb fuck devs that trolls here and regularly shows their technical ineptitude.
I'll spell it out simply for you - Firefox used to have the largest marketshare because it was better than IE. Then it got shit, because it is, whatever you might tell yourself - memory leaks, slow, removal of much loved features, UI redesigns that no one liked and so forth, and so people conciously chose to move to Chrome.
There's no conspiracy theory here, Firefox is shit, Chrome is better - the choice wasn't hard for the hundreds of millions that willingly switched to it.
Maybe, but the only reason the marketing is converging on Chrome is the only reason the market converged on IE, because like Netscape before it, Firefox is simply a shit browser nowadays.
If Mozilla has a problem with market domination, it'd do well to realise that the market isn't going Chrome for fringe Chrome only features that people have to Google for to find they even exist. No, it's going Chrome because it's simply a better browser.
When a browser vendor like Mozilla starts attacking Chrome over largely irrelevant things like this, it tells me they're out of ideas. Looks like we need a new upstart to replace Mozilla and do to Chrome what Mozilla did to IE in the early 00s, because Mozilla seems to have given up now that they're trying to play politics to increase market share, rather than, you know, simply producing a good product.
I'm not sure that would work, we've had plenty of cases of actual incompetence including involvement of the GMP as in this case itself but it still becomes public knowledge. The Rochford paedophile ring is one fine example - no matter how hard the higher ups tried to bury their fuck up, you still have low level case officers who aren't paid enough to give a shit about their bosses career who will lift the lid on it. It only takes on disgruntled member of staff who knew they could've stopped and attack but were blocked from doing so to make the point, and it's unlikely that member of staff would be the only one that knew about the situation, colleagues talk.
Besides, they can't even keep evidence photos and suspect names secret when they want to and when it's the right thing to do and everyone should be ethically and morally onboard with doing that, let alone keeping something secret when it's the wrong thing to do.
But you have no control over when that will be. What if it's in the next government, and when that government investigates how this happened they ask the Director and he says "The minister told me to stop investigating so hard"? Unless you can get a director that's a zealous fall guy, then it's a hard call. Again, you're going to really struggle to find people willing to put their life on the line for something that doesn't even benefit them personally, that's not typically the sort of person that makes it into a leadership position precisely because they're sheep, not leaders.
You only have to look at the current situation with Trump's administration - he's finding out how hard it actually is to keep secrets involving corruption related to national security.
Again, incompetence is a far more realistic explanation.
Because conspiracy theories like that are obviously nonsense. They'd require too many people to be involved, and someone would eventually leak it. When someone did eventually leak it there'd be riots in the streets trying to lynch the people responsible.
No one in politics is that suicidal.
As the saying goes, never attribute to malice what can more easily be attributed to incompetence. This is a fine example of that.
As a Canadian you may be interested to hear that the only time I experienced anything like this was at Ottawa airport by Canadian immigration and control.
I was held for 3 hours and questioned about literally everything from my job, my family, my financial status, my love life, my reasons for travel. I was threatened with jail if I was lying, told I could be shipped back on the next flight due in an hour, I was asked if I had a criminal record, told them no, warned me they could check, I said fine, then they didn't bother. I had my suitcase checked inside out, they forced me to log into my laptop then took it away to check, they asked if I had any beastiality or other illegal images on my camera.
Eventually they realised that I was a perfectly normal human being who just wanted to get the fuck on with his holiday and let me go.
This was in 2005, under Canada's Liberal Party.
Turns out, customs and immigration are pretty much just dicks wherever you go. Though to be fair, I've always travelled through Montreal and Toronto since and never had any issues. It may just be Ottawa airport in Canada that's specially staffed by dickheads.
I don't think many people have been using VSS for a long time. It was replaced by TFVC (Team Foundation Version Control) back in I think about 2005 as part of TFS (Team Foundation Server).
I don't think they ever used this for the Windows source code though. I think they were using Perforce or something.
His Dad was also a Libyan militant, in Libya, who he had just visited, days before the bombing.
This guy is a poster child for the type of person that should be picked up trivially if MI5 was even half way competent. There's literally no reason if MI5 were doing this job that this guy should've slipped through the net - just about every indicator for potential terrorist was ticked, and they failed to follow it up.
I agree with you - on it's own, you can't just pick people up based on reports. But I don't imagine there's too many people flying back from ISIS hotbeds with family that are linked to militant groups, and who have been reported for saying "suicide bombings are okay" repeatedly over a number of years, including by others in his extended family and local Imams.
I simply cannot comprehend what MI5 are doing to have managed to have missed this one. I've often written before that all the terrorists that slip through the net in the West whether it's in the US, France, or the UK all seem to be known to the security services, but this particular case shows an astoundingly exceptional level of incompetence compared to even those.
How can they ask for more access to data when they can't even work with intel handed to them on a plate?
"1. If the facility is flooded, the seeds will go above -18C which will ruin them."
This is very species specific. For example, I've been able to germinate with around 90% accuracy seeds of Lithops and certain species of Cactus that were over 20 years old, but I'm not disagreeing with you in general though that a good proportion will more quickly lose viability, though it really depends on how quickly those species do lose viability - if most seeds are viable for a year (which is fairly common, given the presence of seasons) and they can get the seeds out within days and refreeze them back down to -18c in short order then it shouldn't be too devastating. Though personally if it was my vault, I would then be looking to replace the seeds anyway, but it shouldn't mean immediate destruction of the seeds - odds are worst case you could just germinate them, grow the plants and get new seed, not that that's a quick process - some species take decades to reach reproductive age.
Slashdot Mirror
C# isn't the only .NET language though, so why assume when talking about .NET that they have to mention C#? It could've just as well have been any .NET language implementation.
Are you sure they weren't referring to .NET IL? It's possible that it's you or the students that didn't actually understand the question here.
If North Korea fired a cruise missile into rural America where it had no effect should the US just turn a blind eye?
If someone tries to destroy your country whatever the means, it shouldn't matter whether they succeeded or failed, it's the act of trying to destroy your country in itself that raises a serious need for a response, because next time, they might well succeed, only then it'll be too late.
"As a basic example, you keep telling me what May says and that I believe it. I don't give a fuck what May says and I don't agree with much of her approach or policy. Your entire base is a swamp of misunderstanding, false assumption and crackpot analysis."
And yet your entire argument is identical to her own, trivially disproved, fallacious argument. Funny that.
"So to close this off: a referendum on the proposed deal would be fucking insane because it would prevent us negotiating a good deal. Just fucking accept it or find an adult with the patience to teach you.
Reply to This"
Except that's still not true, that's still just Theresa May's line, and you're still just parroting it without engaging in even basic thought processes that would allow you to trivially see it's complete nonsense.
Again, what you're saying is that you don't want a democratic vote, because you know Theresa May will fuck up the negotiations and get a terrible deal that everyone will vote down, cancelling Brexit. That's still about you being undemocratic in suggesting whatever fuckup May gives us we should swallow it unquestioningly.
Having a referendum on a final deal has absolutely no relevance to the quality of the deal. The quality of the deal is entirely about the competence of the negotiator, whether people accept that depends on how well they do - you're saying you know May will come back with such a shit deal that no one would support it, fine, but that's not an excuse to evade democracy.
"No I am not. It doesn't matter how good a negotiator you are, if the other side knows that they get everything they want (including humiliating you) by not negotiating then it's not a negotiation anyway."
But again, all you're doing here is highlighting your complete lack of understanding of effective negotiating - you've been fed one view by May, and that now forms your entire knowledge of the topic, so you're pretending that's all the knowledge there is on the topic.
It's patently false of course, there's no inherent reason the other side knowing what you want puts you at a disadvantage, because you can just as well have amicable discussions - an entirely novel concept for far right hardliners like Peter Bone and the rest of the EU xenophobia crew that have fed May her lines I know, but it is what it is. Not all negotiations have to be hostile, the EU has been quite clear in that it would like friendly succesful negotiations, but May has instead constantly tried to go to war with them, and has now failed.
"That has fuck all to do with democracy. Telling the EU "avoid agreeing a deal and we will have a referendum on whether to accept your imposed terms" gives them carte blanche to impose whatever the fuck they want."
But wait, once again you seem to be agreeing that the Brexiteers were lying their arses off, they need us more than we need them I thought, so how are they in a stronger position?
"That is why it's not a democratic approach. It's denying the British public a chance of a deal that's good for Britain and removes the option of just walking away and accepting wto terms."
Erm no, there's a wide gulf between an approach you don't like and a democratic approach. Giving the people a say is always more democratic than not giving the people a say whether you like it or not. Again, you're projecting your fears that Brexit might not happen into some twisted nonsensical argument that makes no sense. You need to accept that you're anti-democratic, if that's what you want, and you think you have good reasons for it (i.e. your view on negotiations) then fine, but don't be dishonest and claim it's something it's not.
"Shit, 85% of the general election votes went to parties promising a robust negotiation and no second referendum, is that democratic enough for you?"
Right, and in 2015 a similar amount went for pro-EU parties, does that mean the referendum should never have happened and Brexit shouldn't even be a thing? This is the point - people's views change, and by bringing up the current election you're shooting yourself in the foot, because with the current election 56% of the UK voted against hard Brexit, yet May is still trying to push it.
"I'd guess not, apparently democracy means you getting what you want and fuck the rest of us."
Er no, as I pointed out - I'm the one calling for more democracy. You're the one saying we shouldn't have it because you're scared shitless that you're now in a minority. Don't try and project your will to deny democracy onto me - the fact you're now firmly on the losing side of the argument is your problem, not mine - don't blame me if you can't accept that democracy has turned against you, and don't blame me because you want to block democracy because you can't accept that fact.
You're on the losing side of the argument, and the losing side of history, get the fuck over it and stop trying to use your unpopular view as an excuse to deny democracy. There's no longer a mandate for hard Brexit, and there's no democracy in denying the people a say, or refusing to listen to their view.
It's likely there never was a mandate for hard Brexit, ever. You're just parroting Theresa May's argument, but if you hadn't noticed, that argument has now well and truly failed in the eyes of the public, and that's democracy as much as you apparently detest it.
"A stance guaranteed to prevent any deal at all, as the EU would immediately refuse anything that might be acceptable as a deal."
So effectively you're saying that you dislike the idea of more democracy, because you don't have faith in Theresa May's ability to act as an effective negotiator? Your argument here is based entirely on the idea that whoever negotiates Brexit is entirely incapable of doing it in an amicable and competent manner. It's not an argument for denying further democracy though, it's an argument against our incompetent leader's abysmal way of handling things.
"They will try anyway, which is why the ability to leave without a deal is essential; without that the UK has no negotiating position."
What happened to they need us more than we need them? I thought the far right hard Brexiteers told us that was sufficient, are you backtracking now?
"Allow me to clarify: I think a second referendum on leaving the EU would be a bigger vote out now than the one last year."
Sure, and at least that would mean there was a clear mandate for hard Brexit. Right now there's NO mandate for hard Brexit, because the mandate for Brexit was only 52% to 48%, and of the 52% that wanted out, a sizeable proportion only wanted soft Brexit. There's no majority mandate for hard Brexit and never has been.
"I think a referendum on the terms of a deal with the EU is a blatant and unsubtle attempt to prevent us leaving at all, and disrespectful to the views of both remain and leave voters."
Nonsense, you just said you believe it'd result in an even large vote for Brexit, that massively bolsters the argument and view of the majority. The only reason not to do it is if there is concern voters would change their mind, and the hard Brexiteers on the far right want to stop it. If you think it gives an even bigger mandate, what are you so scared of?
"I think you'll find that she just got humiliated in a general election."
Yet here she is, willing to side with the political wing of a terrorist organisation that is wholly anti gay rights, after spending an entire election trying to paint Corbyn as a terrorist sympathiser, and Farron as a raving homophobe. However humiliated she is from this, she's still being an anti-democratic authoritarian shit head. No one voted for a party that's anti-gay rights, denies global warming, against women's rights, and was born of and associated directly with terrorists - the closest thing to that was UKIP (minus the terrorists), and they got 1.8% of the vote, yet here we are with them being pulled into the centre of power. Where's the democracy or respect for voters in this? The whole reason she lost her majority is precisely because she's been going about things like Brexit in a way that DOESN'T respect the electorate, just as she's continuing to do now.
Yes, I think the moral of the story is that you can't win an election by trying to build a personality cult around someone with no personality.
I mean, the most naughty thing she's ever done, run through a corn field as a kid, really? How do you even begin to try and win an election around an individual so devoid of any relationship to the real world in which the rest of the population lives in?
Their biggest mistake was making it about her, that's why in 4 weeks they went from a 24% lead, to a 2% lead and lost MPs as a result.
How does their stance fail to respect the British people? Their stance is that people be allowed a second referendum once the terms of the deal is clear.
The only way you could think that is if you're pro-Brexit and worried about losing a second referendum because the majority decide that no, they don't want Brexit after all.
So what you're saying is that they're failing to respect the British people by denying the British people a further say on the issue. You realise how astoundingly stupid that argument is right?
The fact you're making it implies that you know deep down there's a real chance people could reject Brexit if given a second chance to decide the issue, and because of that what you're really saying is that YOU don't respect the British people, that you want to impose your will regardless of what everyone else thinks. That's not giving respect to people, that's being an anti-democratic authoritarian shit head.
If your population looks up to a president that spends his time engaging in Twitter flame wars then all hope is lost for your country.
Thankfully I think you're wrong, I think the majority of Americans also think it's a piss poor waste of the president's time and a piss poor failure at effective communication.
This is precisely why his approval rating is going down, not up.
Yep, engaging in an online flame war with the Mayor of London for trying to reassure Londoners right after a terrorist attack really won us Brits over too, top notch communicator you have there. When we'd heard about how 48 people had been butchered, 8 of which were killed the first thing we thought was "You know what? It'd be great to hear Donald Trump's view on this, especially if he blames the Mayor of London and start slagging him off", so we're glad that he focus on a multi-day flame war, rather than just shut the fuck up or offer something nice, but obviously his mother failed as a parent and never taught him the adage that if you have nothing nice to say, then don't say anything at all.
I'm engaging in British sarcasm here if you didn't get that. He's probably the worst communicator of any world leader I've ever seen because his comments are ill thought through, often barely literate, and usually just objectively wrong. He's basically on par with the rhetoric filled drivel that spills out of fat Kim's mouth over in North Korea.
All hail King Covfefe, king of the uncommunicators.
I'd be intrigued to know pray tell how the hell a translator working for a contractor is going to "create a throwaway account" anyway?
What is this Hollywood? I thought it was a tech site, but what utter drivel. It shows a distinct lack of knowledge of IT security and someone apparently thinks they're Mr Super hacker from teh hollywoodz! who has seen how they do it on TV!
The fact is in large organisations like the NSA even things like creating user accounts is audited, it's not just some throwaway thing you can do on a whim as an average user, and to edit the audit logs or disable the auditing is in itself going to require audited access.
There's a reason Snowden ran away before releasing anything, and why Manning got caught. You have to be really hot shit to get this stuff out without triggering audit entries, and that typically means doing something like technically exploiting system accounts to do your bidding for you, to embed malicious code at a lower level than auditing can take place, not creating made up accounts as doing that in itself means you're leaving a piece of information that can be used to try and track you. Even if you're a system administrator what you do will be tracked and audited, or will require multiple users to perform sensitive actions so it's not even as simple as just getting the right job.
You can't learn how to exploit an organisation like the NSA from watching Hollywood movies and TV for crying out loud. It's a little more complex than that and "I'd set up a throwaway account" is just child like "Look at me I'm so cleverzzz!!!!1111" thinking that bears no resemblance to actually successfully exfiltrating information like this. People who think like that and believe that shit are exactly as stupid as this girl, and inevitably the people who get themselves caught because they think they're smarter than everyone else and know exactly what they're doing, but ultimately are just as stupid as the next guy, and just as easy to apprehend. Fortunately the media is dumb enough to not get it either, so even when Mr Stupid does get caught he'll still get his 5 minutes of fame as NSA Super hacker Mr Stupid plastered all over the front pages.
Nothing to stop something else being pulled from the product backlog into the current spring backlog. When you know your velocity in terms of the amount of story points you can tackle in a fixed period you should know what size story can be pulled forward for you to do in the remaining time for the sprint and still result in completion for that particular sprint.
That's probably one of the worst summaries in recent months, without context the whole first paragraph makes absolutely no sense. In fact, it sounds like NASA has launched a dog breeding programme where they're cross breeding an Alaskan Malamute with some kind of terrier, but that it doesn't like clouds so they're going to launch their new cross breed to the world another day.
It wasn't until I got past that paragraph that the rest of the summary began to impart any meaningful information as to what the actual topic is here.
Disagree by a long shot in the UK - TV news such as BBC, ITV, Channel 4 are far, far superior to print media here.
We were dependent on them to break the Jimmy Savile scandal where print media absolutely failed for example.
Print media in the UK is an absolute farce. There's barely a single publication that's worth the paper it's written on - even the more moderate papers like The Guardian and The Independent spout some incredible shit sometimes.
Sure, but therein lies the whole problem with the Brexit argument - it's based on blaming the EU for things that our government are at fault over, and given that leaving the EU doesn't mean leaving our government, why would anyone think leaving the EU would fix anything like this?
Case in point, government has been saying it wants migration down, but it's consistently been at the 300k+ mark for years, yet over half of those people come from outside the EU. As such, any government could at any point have more than halved migration to the UK by banning non-EU workers, but no government chose to even though it meant embarrassing themselves by breaking promises in their manifestos.
You see, the problem isn't the EU, the problem isn't that we can't tackle migration, the problem is that migrants make a useful scapegoat, yet aren't really the problem as migrants overall are net contributors to the UK. Thus, successive governments have bluffed to the people about how migrants are the cause of our problems, whilst refusing to reduce migration because the reality is they're a net benefit.
I don't disagree with what you're saying, but if you want things done about this sort of shit then look to the Conservatives and Labour for refusing to tackle it whatever line they've peddled you. Also approach it without an open mind and consider that there's a reason they haven't tackled it - you might be right about health tourism but consider how many Brits retire to France and Spain - how much do you think healthcare for our old retirees that emigrate is costing them? It doesn't come for free.
The only people that can be blamed for the UK's problems are successive UK governments, and the people that elect them repeatedly whilst failing to hold them to account. Yet here we are, seeing a return to two party politics this election over the two very parties that haven't ever listened to the people.
True story, somewhere I used to work had it's server room attached to a backup generator to take over in the case of power supply failure. This failover happened fine one night when the power went out.
Only some genius didn't think they may need the air con units to also be attached to the generator in the event of failure, so when the IT staff got in the next morning they found a myriad of fried hard disks, nigh on melted backup tapes, and burnt out processors.
Of course - I'm not saying this was justifiable, it wasn't, but it was public sector so not overly surprising. It took them 3 months to get e-mail back up and running for everyone and at least some of people's mailboxes restored. Then, being public sector, the IT team got an award for handling the issue well.
Yes it was retarded, but don't underestimate the ability of a power failure to completely and utterly fuck up a system that's run by retards, I've seen it happen, so it's perfectly possible that something that should be trivial to guard against can bring down an entire large organisation for an extended period.
Not to mention the IT ops side of devops usually have accounts nowadays because they often get involved in building and deploying such software even if they never write a single line of code, and with most large companies now going the devops route, you're probably looking at anything from hundreds of thousands to a few million users there alone.
I actually typically have 3 accounts for this sort of thing - day job account, personal account, and an account for the startup I'm helping in my spare time, so not everyone stops at 2 either for what it's worth.
I guess you're one of Mozilla's dumb fuck devs that trolls here and regularly shows their technical ineptitude.
I'll spell it out simply for you - Firefox used to have the largest marketshare because it was better than IE. Then it got shit, because it is, whatever you might tell yourself - memory leaks, slow, removal of much loved features, UI redesigns that no one liked and so forth, and so people conciously chose to move to Chrome.
There's no conspiracy theory here, Firefox is shit, Chrome is better - the choice wasn't hard for the hundreds of millions that willingly switched to it.
Maybe, but the only reason the marketing is converging on Chrome is the only reason the market converged on IE, because like Netscape before it, Firefox is simply a shit browser nowadays.
If Mozilla has a problem with market domination, it'd do well to realise that the market isn't going Chrome for fringe Chrome only features that people have to Google for to find they even exist. No, it's going Chrome because it's simply a better browser.
When a browser vendor like Mozilla starts attacking Chrome over largely irrelevant things like this, it tells me they're out of ideas. Looks like we need a new upstart to replace Mozilla and do to Chrome what Mozilla did to IE in the early 00s, because Mozilla seems to have given up now that they're trying to play politics to increase market share, rather than, you know, simply producing a good product.
I'm not sure that would work, we've had plenty of cases of actual incompetence including involvement of the GMP as in this case itself but it still becomes public knowledge. The Rochford paedophile ring is one fine example - no matter how hard the higher ups tried to bury their fuck up, you still have low level case officers who aren't paid enough to give a shit about their bosses career who will lift the lid on it. It only takes on disgruntled member of staff who knew they could've stopped and attack but were blocked from doing so to make the point, and it's unlikely that member of staff would be the only one that knew about the situation, colleagues talk.
Besides, they can't even keep evidence photos and suspect names secret when they want to and when it's the right thing to do and everyone should be ethically and morally onboard with doing that, let alone keeping something secret when it's the wrong thing to do.
But you have no control over when that will be. What if it's in the next government, and when that government investigates how this happened they ask the Director and he says "The minister told me to stop investigating so hard"? Unless you can get a director that's a zealous fall guy, then it's a hard call. Again, you're going to really struggle to find people willing to put their life on the line for something that doesn't even benefit them personally, that's not typically the sort of person that makes it into a leadership position precisely because they're sheep, not leaders.
You only have to look at the current situation with Trump's administration - he's finding out how hard it actually is to keep secrets involving corruption related to national security.
Again, incompetence is a far more realistic explanation.
Because conspiracy theories like that are obviously nonsense. They'd require too many people to be involved, and someone would eventually leak it. When someone did eventually leak it there'd be riots in the streets trying to lynch the people responsible.
No one in politics is that suicidal.
As the saying goes, never attribute to malice what can more easily be attributed to incompetence. This is a fine example of that.
As a Canadian you may be interested to hear that the only time I experienced anything like this was at Ottawa airport by Canadian immigration and control.
I was held for 3 hours and questioned about literally everything from my job, my family, my financial status, my love life, my reasons for travel. I was threatened with jail if I was lying, told I could be shipped back on the next flight due in an hour, I was asked if I had a criminal record, told them no, warned me they could check, I said fine, then they didn't bother. I had my suitcase checked inside out, they forced me to log into my laptop then took it away to check, they asked if I had any beastiality or other illegal images on my camera.
Eventually they realised that I was a perfectly normal human being who just wanted to get the fuck on with his holiday and let me go.
This was in 2005, under Canada's Liberal Party.
Turns out, customs and immigration are pretty much just dicks wherever you go. Though to be fair, I've always travelled through Montreal and Toronto since and never had any issues. It may just be Ottawa airport in Canada that's specially staffed by dickheads.
I don't think many people have been using VSS for a long time. It was replaced by TFVC (Team Foundation Version Control) back in I think about 2005 as part of TFS (Team Foundation Server).
I don't think they ever used this for the Windows source code though. I think they were using Perforce or something.
His Dad was also a Libyan militant, in Libya, who he had just visited, days before the bombing.
This guy is a poster child for the type of person that should be picked up trivially if MI5 was even half way competent. There's literally no reason if MI5 were doing this job that this guy should've slipped through the net - just about every indicator for potential terrorist was ticked, and they failed to follow it up.
I agree with you - on it's own, you can't just pick people up based on reports. But I don't imagine there's too many people flying back from ISIS hotbeds with family that are linked to militant groups, and who have been reported for saying "suicide bombings are okay" repeatedly over a number of years, including by others in his extended family and local Imams.
I simply cannot comprehend what MI5 are doing to have managed to have missed this one. I've often written before that all the terrorists that slip through the net in the West whether it's in the US, France, or the UK all seem to be known to the security services, but this particular case shows an astoundingly exceptional level of incompetence compared to even those.
How can they ask for more access to data when they can't even work with intel handed to them on a plate?
"1. If the facility is flooded, the seeds will go above -18C which will ruin them."
This is very species specific. For example, I've been able to germinate with around 90% accuracy seeds of Lithops and certain species of Cactus that were over 20 years old, but I'm not disagreeing with you in general though that a good proportion will more quickly lose viability, though it really depends on how quickly those species do lose viability - if most seeds are viable for a year (which is fairly common, given the presence of seasons) and they can get the seeds out within days and refreeze them back down to -18c in short order then it shouldn't be too devastating. Though personally if it was my vault, I would then be looking to replace the seeds anyway, but it shouldn't mean immediate destruction of the seeds - odds are worst case you could just germinate them, grow the plants and get new seed, not that that's a quick process - some species take decades to reach reproductive age.