If the UK wants to cancel the trade relationship they have with the United States, they can.
If they wanted to make that contingent on the behavior of individual US persons, or US companies, "byeeeeeeee!" The US Government doesn't have the powers to even try to do that, they won't even agree to negotiate on the subject, so no need for the threat; you'll have to just do it if you want it.
They might want to cancel Brexit first, before taking such rash action.;)
Your idea that an American "lost rights" is pathetic, but slightly cute. No, UK laws do not say that the UK is under US jurisdiction, so no, clearly they don't think that doing business with UK companies has anything to do with appearing before the British Parliament.
He doesn't "want to" be a billionaire. He is a billionaire. No, he doesn't have his billions at your whim. He has them at his own whim. You're not his king-maker.
If the US was a Commonwealth nation, (we're not) then they could try to force the US Government to force Zuckerberg to testify, but then they'd find out that the US Government has no power to order him to, and so they'd just have to kick us out. Kicking members out of the Commonwealth is 100% of the power that the Commonwealth has over members. 100%.
Under US law, the British Parliament is outside US jurisdiction. If you wanted to the US Government to have the power to order US Persons to testify there, you would, at a minimum and before US courts would even think about saying yes, have to get the British to place their Parliament entirely under US jurisdiction! And if they did that, then there would no longer be any pressing need to have a person testify over there, they could just testify to the US Congress and the British would then have to accept those answers. So even turning their whole country over to us wouldn't make it likely that they could force testimony.
Not really though, because they're only agreeing on the long list of titles that are normally omitted.:)
I don't think they've ever claimed a different order of succession than was determined by the British. They wouldn't try, if a country disagreed they'd just leave the Commonwealth instead. I mean, how would they ever win that argument? "No, sorry, Britain doesn't know what their succession is." That would be silly.
They don't collectively legislate the order of succession, they collectively show continuing agreement with the things that underpin their alliance.
The weirdest part is the idea that Queen Elizabeth II is some sort of political figure who would get involved in this stuff! My goodness.
It doesn't matter what powers she still is granted, attempting to wield political powers is not going to happen. The British Royal Family understands very well their role in society, which is why they still have that roll, and are in fact well loves around the world for the grace and dignity with which they play it.
Don't be a dumb-ass, other people's ideas come out of their mind, not yours. Didn't you know that?!?!
We are talking about it because I decided to say it, and then you, knowing I had said it, replied to it. If it isn't what you wanted to talk about, why did you reply?
You really didn't know that other people think for themselves? You thought other people hear your thoughts, and that's what they talk about? Wtf
You didn't know that activities people synchronize to the sunrise or sunset are relevant when talking about daylight saving time?! How would you even know the subject existed if you were born that recently?
Why would something you describe as an illustration be relevant, or something I would look at?
All you did is wave your hands and say "yer rong," and then do some scribbles? What?
How the fuck does "Unix" even know when somebody will decide to add the shit? Obviously, what you're saying may or may not apply to some sort of *nix system that exists, (not that you established or claimed even that much!) but it clearly isn't something universal.
If the year is =1970 and the value is non-negative, the value is related to a Coordinated Universal Time name according to the C-language expression, where tm_sec, tm_min, tm_hour, tm_yday, and tm_year are all integer types:
The relationship between the actual time of day and the current value for seconds since the Epoch is unspecified.
How any changes to the value of seconds since the Epoch are made to align to a desired relationship with the current actual time is implementation-defined. As represented in seconds since the Epoch, each and every day shall be accounted for by exactly 86400 seconds.
—The Open Group, Single Unix Specification, Base definitions (4: General concepts)
This is why others, who are really obsessed with having the computers know about leap seconds, say that unix support for them is broken. Often it seems that the people promoting it simply think that adding leap seconds is the only correct answer, and that prevents them from even understanding the technical issues involved. It isn't clear that there is even a use case for having the computers know about it, because counting actually elapsed seconds is a major import thing that you do in software, and fixing the wall clocks that humans use to better match the rotation of heavenly bodies is a rare use case that is different than the things that computers are already using the system clock for. So it makes more sense to use another system to account for it, like a network time daemon that is already necessary to compensate for drift.
Instead of making a strong claim where you don't actually know the answer, you could have just asked me instead.
And in fact, that is an exceptionally stupid thing to burp up on your shirt. That law is about lying to federal agents, like the FBI. It doesn't cover things you said to the public! LMFAO
From your link:
It applies to criminal investigations, such as false statements made in response to an inquiry by an FBI or other Federal agent, or made voluntarily to an agent.
I don't know what country you're from, but nothing Tesla puts into its filings could come afoul of that law. And certainly, nothing I say could be prosecuted under that! You're a complete idiot if you think Americans don't have freeze peach. We have freeze peach all day long dumb fuck.
Yeah, but is spending that much time on it worth worrying about off-by-one errors?
What if we both knew that it would always be off by one, and the specific number wasn't important, and it was over ten? Would it still be worth thinking about?
Using the class match with a single member is a nice technique, though.
You're saying that somebody impersonating a nazi and being confused for being a nazi is the same as a bare accusation of being a nazi. That's silly.
If you go to a political rally and impersonate a pedophile, I'm gonna say yes, you almost certainly are one. You would not otherwise have a desire to role-play it!
If I dress up with cat ears and watch Cat Planet Cuties, it is only because I'm a pervert who would totally go furry if anthropomorphic space-alien cat-people landed nearby.
If you dress up as a nazi for Halloween, I'm gonna think you're either a nazi or a total asshole, but if you dress up as a nazi for a political event, I really don't care how tragically naive you are, you're just a nazi and thank goodness for antifa!
And in any case, there won't be a simply way to convince a quartz resonator to be coupled to the rotation.:) So humans will have to admit that it is decided arbitrarily by humans, and then arrange to have the system updated at the designated times with the chosen values.
That's right, in unixtime, that second goes to the end, then does another second at the same value...
Unixtime doesn't do leapseconds. It doesn't work on all planets and in space as you describe. It's closely tied to UTC "but let's ignore that leapseconds exists".
The second part refutes the first part. It doesn't do another second at the same value, it merely ignores the silliness and is now 1 second "off" according to various humans, who probably also arranged for it to periodically be corrected anyways because it runs off an oscillator with a known non-zero error range.
or 3) accept that system time is not calendar time, and use a network time service to periodically update the clock. Being accurate to the second to wall time is not important in the way that having a consistent system clock is. The network time daemon can take of handling that in a way that is consistent with the technical needs of the particular system and use case.
we... have the power to do something... stop it from happening... turn off the DST feature and go to either UTC or just turn the damn feature off on servers and applications.
You may find that managers know how to solve that problem, and can achieve it rapidly and with minimal consultation.
UT1 has non-uniform seconds, though, as the length of a UT1 second is based on how fast the earth is spinning at any given time.
These purported technical details seem to be in direct conflict, and seem to ignore that UNIX knows it runs on computer hardware that has a fixed number of clock cycles per second, and that those clock cycles are constant within some small margin.
UNIX time doesn't actually measure seconds; seconds are merely the unit that is uses to record clock cycles. It is expected to be routinely normalized to some external time like UT1, but that happens outside of the UNIX time-keeping mechanism. So that is the answer; either a human will update the time directly using a utility, or the time will be set periodically set by some network resource. But 1 second of UNIX time should always equal the same number of cycles from whatever oscillator is driving that subsystem, unless the counter was altered by another process.
I remember in the late 90s when I tested it, PostgreSQL would screw up leap-years before 1900 and after ~2100. But other than that, it worked into prehistory.
If you used the timestamp alone as a key field, you're an idiot
Or perhaps an embedded systems programmer who doesn't have the luxury of wasting bits on every conceivable form of robustness possible.
In any case on a database, only idiots and people who just got out of a 20 year coma use data fields as keys. You need meta-data id fields for keys, because data changes, even data specified to never change might still be ordered to change by the powers that be.
Slashdot Mirror
That's what trade relationships between nations regulate. It isn't ad-hoc.
If the UK wants to cancel the trade relationship they have with the United States, they can.
If they wanted to make that contingent on the behavior of individual US persons, or US companies, "byeeeeeeee!" The US Government doesn't have the powers to even try to do that, they won't even agree to negotiate on the subject, so no need for the threat; you'll have to just do it if you want it.
They might want to cancel Brexit first, before taking such rash action. ;)
Your idea that an American "lost rights" is pathetic, but slightly cute. No, UK laws do not say that the UK is under US jurisdiction, so no, clearly they don't think that doing business with UK companies has anything to do with appearing before the British Parliament.
He doesn't "want to" be a billionaire. He is a billionaire. No, he doesn't have his billions at your whim. He has them at his own whim. You're not his king-maker.
The British people are again deluded if they think they have America over a pit of spikes.
Stuff it up your Battle of New Orleans!
If the US was a Commonwealth nation, (we're not) then they could try to force the US Government to force Zuckerberg to testify, but then they'd find out that the US Government has no power to order him to, and so they'd just have to kick us out. Kicking members out of the Commonwealth is 100% of the power that the Commonwealth has over members. 100%.
Under US law, the British Parliament is outside US jurisdiction. If you wanted to the US Government to have the power to order US Persons to testify there, you would, at a minimum and before US courts would even think about saying yes, have to get the British to place their Parliament entirely under US jurisdiction! And if they did that, then there would no longer be any pressing need to have a person testify over there, they could just testify to the US Congress and the British would then have to accept those answers. So even turning their whole country over to us wouldn't make it likely that they could force testimony.
Not really though, because they're only agreeing on the long list of titles that are normally omitted. :)
I don't think they've ever claimed a different order of succession than was determined by the British. They wouldn't try, if a country disagreed they'd just leave the Commonwealth instead. I mean, how would they ever win that argument? "No, sorry, Britain doesn't know what their succession is." That would be silly.
They don't collectively legislate the order of succession, they collectively show continuing agreement with the things that underpin their alliance.
The weirdest part is the idea that Queen Elizabeth II is some sort of political figure who would get involved in this stuff! My goodness.
It doesn't matter what powers she still is granted, attempting to wield political powers is not going to happen. The British Royal Family understands very well their role in society, which is why they still have that roll, and are in fact well loves around the world for the grace and dignity with which they play it.
News flash: The United States is not a member of the Commonwealth.
For "historical reasons."
For those same historical reasons, Americans find it hilarious that the British Government would send a "summons" to an American.
I think the general response is going to be something along the lines of, "Shove it up your Battle of New Orleans!"
The job of a multinational CEO when shit publicly (and potentially criminally) hits the fan is pretty much to fly around and explain things.
To their company's business partners, not to foreign politicians in their local venues. Duh.
Don't be a dumb-ass, other people's ideas come out of their mind, not yours. Didn't you know that?!?!
We are talking about it because I decided to say it, and then you, knowing I had said it, replied to it. If it isn't what you wanted to talk about, why did you reply?
You really didn't know that other people think for themselves? You thought other people hear your thoughts, and that's what they talk about? Wtf
You didn't know that activities people synchronize to the sunrise or sunset are relevant when talking about daylight saving time?! How would you even know the subject existed if you were born that recently?
No it's not. The sun determines no one's schedule. The clock does.
They have these things called "farmers." True story.
Why would something you describe as an illustration be relevant, or something I would look at?
All you did is wave your hands and say "yer rong," and then do some scribbles? What?
How the fuck does "Unix" even know when somebody will decide to add the shit? Obviously, what you're saying may or may not apply to some sort of *nix system that exists, (not that you established or claimed even that much!) but it clearly isn't something universal.
Instead of drawing illustrations, here is a link that explains the details:
http://www.madore.org/~david/c...
Note this key part:
If the year is =1970 and the value is non-negative, the value is related to a Coordinated Universal Time name according to the C-language expression, where tm_sec, tm_min, tm_hour, tm_yday, and tm_year are all integer types:
tm_sec + tm_min*60 + tm_hour*3600 + tm_yday*86400 +
(tm_year-70)*31536000 + ((tm_year-69)/4)*86400 -
((tm_year-1)/100)*86400 + ((tm_year+299)/400)*86400
The relationship between the actual time of day and the current value for seconds since the Epoch is unspecified.
How any changes to the value of seconds since the Epoch are made to align to a desired relationship with the current actual time is implementation-defined. As represented in seconds since the Epoch, each and every day shall be accounted for by exactly 86400 seconds.
—The Open Group, Single Unix Specification, Base definitions (4: General concepts)
This is why others, who are really obsessed with having the computers know about leap seconds, say that unix support for them is broken. Often it seems that the people promoting it simply think that adding leap seconds is the only correct answer, and that prevents them from even understanding the technical issues involved. It isn't clear that there is even a use case for having the computers know about it, because counting actually elapsed seconds is a major import thing that you do in software, and fixing the wall clocks that humans use to better match the rotation of heavenly bodies is a rare use case that is different than the things that computers are already using the system clock for. So it makes more sense to use another system to account for it, like a network time daemon that is already necessary to compensate for drift.
No. No it would not.
Instead of making a strong claim where you don't actually know the answer, you could have just asked me instead.
And in fact, that is an exceptionally stupid thing to burp up on your shirt. That law is about lying to federal agents, like the FBI. It doesn't cover things you said to the public! LMFAO
From your link:
It applies to criminal investigations, such as false statements made in response to an inquiry by an FBI or other Federal agent, or made voluntarily to an agent.
I don't know what country you're from, but nothing Tesla puts into its filings could come afoul of that law. And certainly, nothing I say could be prosecuted under that! You're a complete idiot if you think Americans don't have freeze peach. We have freeze peach all day long dumb fuck.
Yeah, but is spending that much time on it worth worrying about off-by-one errors?
What if we both knew that it would always be off by one, and the specific number wasn't important, and it was over ten? Would it still be worth thinking about?
Using the class match with a single member is a nice technique, though.
You're saying that somebody impersonating a nazi and being confused for being a nazi is the same as a bare accusation of being a nazi. That's silly.
If you go to a political rally and impersonate a pedophile, I'm gonna say yes, you almost certainly are one. You would not otherwise have a desire to role-play it!
If I dress up with cat ears and watch Cat Planet Cuties, it is only because I'm a pervert who would totally go furry if anthropomorphic space-alien cat-people landed nearby.
If you dress up as a nazi for Halloween, I'm gonna think you're either a nazi or a total asshole, but if you dress up as a nazi for a political event, I really don't care how tragically naive you are, you're just a nazi and thank goodness for antifa!
Don't hurt yourself thinking about it.
I love the later sunsets at the evenings. ;)
DST absolutely sucks for that, you should be advocating a system referenced to sunset if sunset viewing is your use case.
And in any case, there won't be a simply way to convince a quartz resonator to be coupled to the rotation. :) So humans will have to admit that it is decided arbitrarily by humans, and then arrange to have the system updated at the designated times with the chosen values.
They'll probably even do it by committee!
That's right, in unixtime, that second goes to the end, then does another second at the same value...
Unixtime doesn't do leapseconds. It doesn't work on all planets and in space as you describe. It's closely tied to UTC "but let's ignore that leapseconds exists".
The second part refutes the first part. It doesn't do another second at the same value, it merely ignores the silliness and is now 1 second "off" according to various humans, who probably also arranged for it to periodically be corrected anyways because it runs off an oscillator with a known non-zero error range.
or 3) accept that system time is not calendar time, and use a network time service to periodically update the clock. Being accurate to the second to wall time is not important in the way that having a consistent system clock is. The network time daemon can take of handling that in a way that is consistent with the technical needs of the particular system and use case.
Give someone some LSD tonight and then change the clocks.
If you can read the clocks through the colors, you got bunked.
we... have the power to do something... stop it from happening... turn off the DST feature and go to either UTC or just turn the damn feature off on servers and applications.
You may find that managers know how to solve that problem, and can achieve it rapidly and with minimal consultation.
It tracks UT1 and not UTC.
...
UT1 has non-uniform seconds, though, as the length of a UT1 second is based on how fast the earth is spinning at any given time.
These purported technical details seem to be in direct conflict, and seem to ignore that UNIX knows it runs on computer hardware that has a fixed number of clock cycles per second, and that those clock cycles are constant within some small margin.
UNIX time doesn't actually measure seconds; seconds are merely the unit that is uses to record clock cycles. It is expected to be routinely normalized to some external time like UT1, but that happens outside of the UNIX time-keeping mechanism. So that is the answer; either a human will update the time directly using a utility, or the time will be set periodically set by some network resource. But 1 second of UNIX time should always equal the same number of cycles from whatever oscillator is driving that subsystem, unless the counter was altered by another process.
I remember in the late 90s when I tested it, PostgreSQL would screw up leap-years before 1900 and after ~2100. But other than that, it worked into prehistory.
UTC is certainly the right time zone to use where you, for some reason, need to store a human-readable string that represents a time.
For binary storage too. The representation doesn't even touch the need for a consistent reference.
If you used the timestamp alone as a key field, you're an idiot
Or perhaps an embedded systems programmer who doesn't have the luxury of wasting bits on every conceivable form of robustness possible.
In any case on a database, only idiots and people who just got out of a 20 year coma use data fields as keys. You need meta-data id fields for keys, because data changes, even data specified to never change might still be ordered to change by the powers that be.