They can in the UK too. Although I've never known anybody that's ever been pulled over for it - maybe that's because people here aren't stupid enough to drive without a seatbelt on.
You can get waterproof bluetooth headsets for that, or if you're going a little deeper there are floating buoys available that connect wirelessly to the cellular network and through a wire to you down below.
Why would using such a device be a bad idea? Obviously the dangers of distraction down there are significant but the benefits of communication may be higher.
Far easier is to run XP with IE6 in a virtual container on the desktop PC, providing support for the legacy estate while permitting new systems to be introduced using modern browsers.
Although less elegant, less secure and less fun than your approach it does have the advantage of being already possible and easy to roll out by a corporate IT department.
It's the difference between ideal approach and pragmatic real-world approach.
Vendor A offers IE6 support only (back when it was IE6 or Netscape) and meets 90% of the requirements out of the box; Vendor B offers IE6 and Netscape support but only meets 60% of the requirements out of the box. Since nobody has Netscape installed it's a complete no-brainer to buy from Vendor A, even though you get browser lock-in as a result.
The entire point of web apps in a business environment isn't the ease of replacing the browser, it's the ease of replacing the version of the software being rendered by the browser, and not having to install a separate client for each system - you install one browser once and everything uses it.
The knee-jerk overreaction was merely highlighting that people don't make bad decisions on purpose. They make complex decisions with a lot of compromises and browser support is merely another compromise.
Even if you do mandate multi-browser support, the IE6 based system requires IE6, Netscape or Lynx (as its chosen browsers). You still haven't got IE8, Firefox or iPhone/Safari support because they just didn't exist back then. It's pretty harsh calling someone an idiot for buying a system that doesn't support technology that doesn't exist.
The main reason for IE6 is the combination of idiotic managers/developers that have locked a lot of applications into IE6 only.
Would you: - pay 38 vendors between £20k and £3m each to migrate your old versions of their software to a new browser, or - manually rewrite the UI of 60 systems, or - keep the web browser that continues to work with 60 systems from 38 vendors, requires no new testing, no new hardware, no new licences and saves you a massive change overhead you just don't need
Having made that decision in a manner that achieves the best outcome for the customers, the owners of the business and the staff (in that order), would you when writing new software: - build in support for the browser deployed to 20,000 staff desktops, or - add 30% to your project budget to build in support for a browser deployed to 7 staff desktops (and they shouldn't bloody have it either)
Blaming managers/developers for being idiots disregards a lot of very sensible, rational and conscious decision making.
Obviously there are strategies, approaches and options that enable a move away from a given web browser, but as most organisations have more business and IT change identified than they have the capacity to fund or implement, it's seldom high on the priority list. After all, crap or otherwise, it works.
Do I want the scumbags to all go out of business, and stop sucking so much IT budget into their black hole of incompetence, giving the people that can actually do the work the chance to get paid more and deliver things?
Or do I want them to continue fucking it up, as my next career move could well be independent consultancy addressing exactly this type of scenario?
I'm confused. You work 80 hour weeks trying to implement the impossible solution your fuckwit sales team promised to the client, fail because it really genuinely is impossible, and then get fucked over by the new owner of your company.
How exactly are you responsible for the £200m lawsuit? Other than increasing its costs by not refusing to work on the bloody thing in the first place (i.e. quitting or getting sacked).
EDS had a terrible reputation and I pretty much hated the company, but that doesn't mean its staff were all screwing up.
It'll hurt clients too; I usually ask salespeople for indicative costs, stating (honestly) that I'm not going to treat them as a promise, a commitment or something I can hold them to.
I just need an order of magnitude understanding of how much of my company's money I'm going to have to spend to implement their product. If I have a business need then there's a massive difference between mobilising a whole procurement process for a product because it meets the need superbly, and initiating internal development because we can't afford it.
Hell, senior management want to know about risk, timescales, and (oddly enough) cost. I can assess the risk, but I need the vendors to help me understand timescales and costs to even get the funding for a procurement process.
Obviously that procurement process includes a significant amount of further discussion, discussion of commercial terms, contacting reference implementations, all the necessary due diligence and a bevy of experience negotiators and lawyers. But that expense is why I need to know up front whether there's even a viable solution.
Great software with a £5m licence fee and a 2 year implementation timescale is never going to be easily implemented quicker or cheaper, even going elsewhere, but at least I can let the business decide whether they're willing to spend that sort of money (i.e. you're hitting 9 digits by the time you've included hardware, business change costs, training, procurement, let alone the implementation, integration and testing) to meet their needs before they commit any real resources (me, I'm cheap).
Getting lawyers involved up front? I concur, that could start getting very nasty, very painful, and break the whole engagement model for the whole industry.
It's hard to allocate blame in these cases. The internal staff typically work excessively hard to make the original contract work.
Someone senior usually gets booted out halfway through that leaving someone new to pick up the pieces, but the person booted out tends to have been constrained by various factors and acting with the best intentions, but caught out by a mix of supplier incompetence (don't assume malice), internal incompetence, overcommitment, inappropriate priorities and sometimes just being in over their head.
The people left trying to rectify the situation can bump into all of the same issues, with the added pressure that they know it's going wrong, and the understanding that they'll never get properly rewarded for putting it right.
Big projects go wrong for a number of reasons, including politics, finances, skills, promises, misunderstandings and frankly because these things are bloody difficult.
Publicly taking the blame? Probably inappropriate, unconstructive, unfair and unnecessary.
lots of promises, no delivery, never saw the experts present during negotiations again, lots of low GPA recent college grads doing 'work' they are not qualified for.
This hardly differentiates EDS from their competitors.:(
I wish I did live somewhere I could buy a 3 bedroom house for £45k - even one needing £15k of work.
As it is £140k is below the national average, and I can't afford to move to where I work because a 3 bed house in a similar area to the one I live in costs £250k+
You could buy a house for £140k on my street. I know this, I'm living in it.
90% of the houses on my street cost £280k to £400k. I couldn't even get a mortgage on those houses, let alone afford to pay one.
Yet it would be perfectly reasonable to state that you could buy a house for £140k on my street. That it's not the median price, the mean price or indeed all that much above the lowest prices doesn't invalidate that, and does highlight just how much money £140k would be to someone in my area, even those living in the £400k houses.
So you may understand that statement to mean the typical price of an item, but I don't, and I'm guessing the person that originally made it doesn't.
Merely chatting to him would've highlighted to him how silly he was, and to them how harmless he was.
Instead they arrested him, took his DNA and created a criminal record that'll be accessed any time he tries to get a job. That's out of proportion and out of order.
It doesn't have to be kinky, just deemed 'violent'. It's quite hard to have consensual sex without holding your partner at some point, is moving their arm because it's making you uncomfortable an act of force? If so it's violent, and you just broke the law if you videod it. Hell, do you have consent to humiliate your partner by covering them in whipped cream, because if not that's assault in the eyes of the law.
It's pretty hard to overstate the stupidity of this law. Even though it's targeted at preventing serious abuse it's worded such that it criminalises many people for engaging in consensual and enjoyable activities (and video recording them), and the police have a very strong track record of abusing badly worded laws far beyond their stated intent.
the justification was to give the police/security services time to take action
No, the justification was that the police needed more time to investigate you, not to take action against others. And the justification was weak, and doesn't excuse holding somebody without charge for even 30 days, let alone 3 months.
I would rather the terrorists killed people; it'll happen less often than the police will abuse their powers.
Sorry, you're suggesting that the dozen species portrayed in the film would be the entirety of the fauna on that world?
They didn't show people gathering plants for food either, but I'd guess they weren't exclusively carnivorous.
They didn't show how alien reproduction occurred, or even whether they had genitalia, but I'd guess it's possible as there distinct sexes and there were children around.
You'll be telling me next that there's an issue in Blade Runner that the police spinners were never seen refuelling and asking whether the perpetual motion machine is accounted for elsewhere.
Hint: It's made up. Hint 2: It doesn't fucking matter.
Slashdot Mirror
They can in the UK too. Although I've never known anybody that's ever been pulled over for it - maybe that's because people here aren't stupid enough to drive without a seatbelt on.
All folks should not be diving while using phone.
You can get waterproof bluetooth headsets for that, or if you're going a little deeper there are floating buoys available that connect wirelessly to the cellular network and through a wire to you down below.
Why would using such a device be a bad idea? Obviously the dangers of distraction down there are significant but the benefits of communication may be higher.
What (for the benefit of those of us that have never heard the term) is 10-and-2, eyes sweeping?
Please tell me it's something more than driving with your eyes open?
Far easier is to run XP with IE6 in a virtual container on the desktop PC, providing support for the legacy estate while permitting new systems to be introduced using modern browsers.
Although less elegant, less secure and less fun than your approach it does have the advantage of being already possible and easy to roll out by a corporate IT department.
It's the difference between ideal approach and pragmatic real-world approach.
Vendor A offers IE6 support only (back when it was IE6 or Netscape) and meets 90% of the requirements out of the box; Vendor B offers IE6 and Netscape support but only meets 60% of the requirements out of the box. Since nobody has Netscape installed it's a complete no-brainer to buy from Vendor A, even though you get browser lock-in as a result.
The entire point of web apps in a business environment isn't the ease of replacing the browser, it's the ease of replacing the version of the software being rendered by the browser, and not having to install a separate client for each system - you install one browser once and everything uses it.
The knee-jerk overreaction was merely highlighting that people don't make bad decisions on purpose. They make complex decisions with a lot of compromises and browser support is merely another compromise.
Even if you do mandate multi-browser support, the IE6 based system requires IE6, Netscape or Lynx (as its chosen browsers). You still haven't got IE8, Firefox or iPhone/Safari support because they just didn't exist back then. It's pretty harsh calling someone an idiot for buying a system that doesn't support technology that doesn't exist.
The main reason for IE6 is the combination of idiotic managers/developers that have locked a lot of applications into IE6 only.
Would you:
- pay 38 vendors between £20k and £3m each to migrate your old versions of their software to a new browser, or
- manually rewrite the UI of 60 systems, or
- keep the web browser that continues to work with 60 systems from 38 vendors, requires no new testing, no new hardware, no new licences and saves you a massive change overhead you just don't need
Having made that decision in a manner that achieves the best outcome for the customers, the owners of the business and the staff (in that order), would you when writing new software:
- build in support for the browser deployed to 20,000 staff desktops, or
- add 30% to your project budget to build in support for a browser deployed to 7 staff desktops (and they shouldn't bloody have it either)
Blaming managers/developers for being idiots disregards a lot of very sensible, rational and conscious decision making.
Obviously there are strategies, approaches and options that enable a move away from a given web browser, but as most organisations have more business and IT change identified than they have the capacity to fund or implement, it's seldom high on the priority list. After all, crap or otherwise, it works.
You do indeed, you've got a really screwed up system if 0 rolls back to 65536.
I'm kind of torn.
Do I want the scumbags to all go out of business, and stop sucking so much IT budget into their black hole of incompetence, giving the people that can actually do the work the chance to get paid more and deliver things?
Or do I want them to continue fucking it up, as my next career move could well be independent consultancy addressing exactly this type of scenario?
Time to read up on Game Theory..
I'm confused. You work 80 hour weeks trying to implement the impossible solution your fuckwit sales team promised to the client, fail because it really genuinely is impossible, and then get fucked over by the new owner of your company.
How exactly are you responsible for the £200m lawsuit? Other than increasing its costs by not refusing to work on the bloody thing in the first place (i.e. quitting or getting sacked).
EDS had a terrible reputation and I pretty much hated the company, but that doesn't mean its staff were all screwing up.
It'll hurt clients too; I usually ask salespeople for indicative costs, stating (honestly) that I'm not going to treat them as a promise, a commitment or something I can hold them to.
I just need an order of magnitude understanding of how much of my company's money I'm going to have to spend to implement their product. If I have a business need then there's a massive difference between mobilising a whole procurement process for a product because it meets the need superbly, and initiating internal development because we can't afford it.
Hell, senior management want to know about risk, timescales, and (oddly enough) cost. I can assess the risk, but I need the vendors to help me understand timescales and costs to even get the funding for a procurement process.
Obviously that procurement process includes a significant amount of further discussion, discussion of commercial terms, contacting reference implementations, all the necessary due diligence and a bevy of experience negotiators and lawyers. But that expense is why I need to know up front whether there's even a viable solution.
Great software with a £5m licence fee and a 2 year implementation timescale is never going to be easily implemented quicker or cheaper, even going elsewhere, but at least I can let the business decide whether they're willing to spend that sort of money (i.e. you're hitting 9 digits by the time you've included hardware, business change costs, training, procurement, let alone the implementation, integration and testing) to meet their needs before they commit any real resources (me, I'm cheap).
Getting lawyers involved up front? I concur, that could start getting very nasty, very painful, and break the whole engagement model for the whole industry.
It's hard to allocate blame in these cases. The internal staff typically work excessively hard to make the original contract work.
Someone senior usually gets booted out halfway through that leaving someone new to pick up the pieces, but the person booted out tends to have been constrained by various factors and acting with the best intentions, but caught out by a mix of supplier incompetence (don't assume malice), internal incompetence, overcommitment, inappropriate priorities and sometimes just being in over their head.
The people left trying to rectify the situation can bump into all of the same issues, with the added pressure that they know it's going wrong, and the understanding that they'll never get properly rewarded for putting it right.
Big projects go wrong for a number of reasons, including politics, finances, skills, promises, misunderstandings and frankly because these things are bloody difficult.
Publicly taking the blame? Probably inappropriate, unconstructive, unfair and unnecessary.
lots of promises, no delivery, never saw the experts present during negotiations again, lots of low GPA recent college grads doing 'work' they are not qualified for.
This hardly differentiates EDS from their competitors. :(
nobody has seen a virgin birth
I am continually confused that people think a virgin birth is somehow miraculous.
Look, she gave him a handjob, faked her orgasm because he didn't know what he was doing, he rolled over to go to sleep and she finished herself off.
If she'd just washed her hand first, she wouldn't have become pregnant, and then this whole deity excuse wouldn't have been necessary.
Miracle? The only miracle is people thinking the only possible answer is divine intervention.
I wish I did live somewhere I could buy a 3 bedroom house for £45k - even one needing £15k of work.
As it is £140k is below the national average, and I can't afford to move to where I work because a 3 bed house in a similar area to the one I live in costs £250k+
Ah well.
You could buy a house for £140k on my street. I know this, I'm living in it.
90% of the houses on my street cost £280k to £400k. I couldn't even get a mortgage on those houses, let alone afford to pay one.
Yet it would be perfectly reasonable to state that you could buy a house for £140k on my street. That it's not the median price, the mean price or indeed all that much above the lowest prices doesn't invalidate that, and does highlight just how much money £140k would be to someone in my area, even those living in the £400k houses.
So you may understand that statement to mean the typical price of an item, but I don't, and I'm guessing the person that originally made it doesn't.
There is only Rugby Football. That league stuff is a poor imitation of the true game.
I thought it was 'freedom of expression' rather than freedom of speech.
I interpret that as meaning I'm allowed to stick two fingers up at the police. I'm kind of hoping that they agree ;)
In the UK verbal intimidation can be an assault. No physical interaction is required.
I wont comment on whether that's a good thing or not, and I can't be arsed to quote the case law that backs me up.
Actually true Rugby Football fans refer to Rugby as Football at times, and refer to Football as Association Football.
It can get complicated :)
What, this one?
http://www.robinhoodairport.com/
Disclaimer: I used to work for the company that used to own it.
Where the police went wrong was in arresting him.
Merely chatting to him would've highlighted to him how silly he was, and to them how harmless he was.
Instead they arrested him, took his DNA and created a criminal record that'll be accessed any time he tries to get a job. That's out of proportion and out of order.
It doesn't have to be kinky, just deemed 'violent'. It's quite hard to have consensual sex without holding your partner at some point, is moving their arm because it's making you uncomfortable an act of force? If so it's violent, and you just broke the law if you videod it. Hell, do you have consent to humiliate your partner by covering them in whipped cream, because if not that's assault in the eyes of the law.
It's pretty hard to overstate the stupidity of this law. Even though it's targeted at preventing serious abuse it's worded such that it criminalises many people for engaging in consensual and enjoyable activities (and video recording them), and the police have a very strong track record of abusing badly worded laws far beyond their stated intent.
the justification was to give the police/security services time to take action
No, the justification was that the police needed more time to investigate you, not to take action against others. And the justification was weak, and doesn't excuse holding somebody without charge for even 30 days, let alone 3 months.
I would rather the terrorists killed people; it'll happen less often than the police will abuse their powers.
In the UK, the Irish achieved a degree of autonomy in Northern Ireland through a campaign of terrorism.
(Funded largely by the US; go figure)
Sorry, you're suggesting that the dozen species portrayed in the film would be the entirety of the fauna on that world?
They didn't show people gathering plants for food either, but I'd guess they weren't exclusively carnivorous.
They didn't show how alien reproduction occurred, or even whether they had genitalia, but I'd guess it's possible as there distinct sexes and there were children around.
You'll be telling me next that there's an issue in Blade Runner that the police spinners were never seen refuelling and asking whether the perpetual motion machine is accounted for elsewhere.
Hint: It's made up.
Hint 2: It doesn't fucking matter.
All you need to do now is to hire better writers and you are done.
If only Cameron had thought of that for Avatar.