Its a good job we have a strong left-wing party to oppose all this corporate welfare.
Oh, wait...
But at least there is a media that will take the government to task over issues that affect our daily lives, rather than running scare stories about immigrants and peadophiles, right?
Hang on a moment...
In that case we had better exercise our right to freely assemble and protest!
Oh dear...
There is nothing for it then, lacking democratic recourse, any means of protest or public debate, we should rise up and replace our government with one more favourbly disposed towards freedom. At least we still have our guns...
I am sorry to say, that I just stole your copyrighted material. You see, as the above post was (I assume) entirely your creation, and I have just made a copy of it on my computer using my web browser, I am a dirty thief who may as well be jacking cars.
As for your idea that their business model is fine, its just the consumers who are wrong - that to me seems like the classic last words of a failing industry right there.
Its worth noting at this point how the UK government botched the change from steam to diesel quite badly. Perhaps that is a precedent for how they are trying to handle the transition from physical to online media distribution.
That isn't a belief personal to you, its one shared by the UK public at large. Having had the BBC running alongside commercial stations for so long means that I doubt the UK public would be easily fooled by a government trying to blur the line and hand out taxpayer money to commercial media companies.
The UK government is getting daft with corporate welfare. Banks get billions of pounds, the recording industry is going to get hundreds of millions under this proposal, and BT is also likely to get a big wad of taxpayer money running broadband out to the most remote areas.
And yet, the government and media still come down hardest on the 'scroungers' receiving state benefit for unemployment. The News Of The World carried a front page story about 'the biggest scroungers in Britain' the same week Brown bailed out the banks for the first time. The government has maintained its advertising campaign trying to convince people on benefits can go to prison if they lie about their status (whereas in reality most of the people 'caught' doing this haven't done anything wrong and are let go).
The message seems clear: if you are a giant corporation and a bank that has got used to making ridiculous profits and can't anymore, the government will throw huge amounts of taxpayer money at you. But if you dare to try and diddle the government out of £40 a week they are going to FUCK you SO hard...
Don't make Google out to be some put upon victims; victims would be the people in China who can't access online material about Tienanmen Square. "Don't be evil" my arse.
I am no fan of Microsoft (haven't used windows in years), but neither am I a fan of the Chinese government nor those who collude with them against freedom.
It doesn't make sense. In an unpleasant, demoralising environment you will not get the best out of people. Their energies will be focused on survival and watching their backs rather than putting their best into their work.
I don't think bad management is all that prevalent. There is also no shortage of it either.
I think this is mostly in larger companies that can live with the inefficiency. If this happens in a small company, then that company will be dead in short order.
I've seen bad management throughout my career, both in my largest employer (the NHS) and my smallest (a family owned publishing business).
But who made the money? At the end of the day isn't that all that really matters?
If you say No, then you don't realize that who get's the money, get's to expand their business.
Money is not all that matters. There is both a social and technological utility to and enterprise that is not necessarily coupled to its profits. While (some) companies may still be making money, I doubt that the skills available across society are being utilised to their full extent, and I am certain that hardly anyone is happy at work.
If bad management is so prevalent, to the point of being near universal, maybe its time to revisit the concept of management itself.
Are systems that (despite superficial changes) originated in the mills of the 19th century and the simple production lines really suitable for modern, rapidly changing, information-heavy companies?
Its fine enough reading Dilbert and mocking the PHBs, but what are you going to do about it?
Why does 'nice' have to mean 'weasely and pathetic'? Conversely, cynically betrayal and ruthless ambition are not assertive qualities, they are antisocial qualities.
Not being a complete sociopath is actually an important, if undervalued, component in being a manager who doesn't make your haggard underlings want to throw themselves out of the office window.
I've been in enough horrific corporate and government hierarchies to know that actually nice people (rather than passive aggressive sorts who won't publicly stand up for themselves) end up being passed over for people who I swear would be murdering young girls and wearing their skins had they not a career ladder to climb.
Don't confuse the "nice guys finish last" complaint of a shy teenager with the "nice guys finish last" complaint of a demoralised office drone trying to maintain his humanity in an environment that actively tries to suck it out of you out of pure expediency.
Why stop at the Sun? There is the galaxy, the local group... but then again why start at the Sun? Its no more an absolute reference frame than the Earth is.
There is no absolute frame of reference in space or in time. By taking into account the motion of the Earth around the Sun and around its axis, he is arbitrarily picking implying the heliocentric-ecliptic coordinate system is the absolute frame of reference.
To be honest though, I can't suggest a better way of doing this. The DeLorean can simply pop out of existence in one spot in spacetime and pop into existence at another. If this ability is a given, I'm not sure its necessary to treat travelling through space separately.
Ok, cunt face, if that O2 tank isn't part of Apollo what is? Just the CM? Shut your arse and give your mouth a chance. Or even better, shut up completely, go back to school, and leave the discussion forum for the grownups.
You know nothing. You've done a little bit of googling and you think you've got some 'fact' to take me on in a debate but the reality is that you've no real knowledge of your own, whilst I have comparitaly vast knowledge of both the Apollo program and your mum, who by the way still owes me fuck money.
He announced 'space station freedom' in 1984, and it languished in redesigns and budget wrangling until it was merged with Mir 2 (and European and Japanese projects) to form the ISS.
The great shame is that they didn't save Buran/Energia in the same way. Want a Shuttle-Derived Launch Vehicle? Just remove the shuttle. Best of all, that configuration was already tested in 1987.
With a little foresight, there could've been an international Moon mission by 2000, and perhaps a Mars mission by now.
Apollo was, frankly, a pile of crap that killed 3 astronauts on the pad and would've killed another 3 in space if the LEM didn't have something to say about it.
Soyuz is better than Apollo. LOK was at least comparable in capability (if smaller) than the LEM. The critical factor in the moon race was Saturn V vs. N-1, and that was never really much of a contest considering that the N-1 was underfunded, started later, and wasn't provided with a proper test stand for its first stage cluster.
Its illustrative as an engineering koan, but untrue; the 'space' pen was just a commercial product developed before the need for pens in space became apparent. Also, pencils tend not to be used in space because graphite flakes can cause shorts when it floats around.
This is wrong. The early American rockets were far more based on German designs than Russian rockets were, because Americans got a lot more German rocket scientists.
The clustering and boosters of the R-7 design are radically different from anything von Braun envisioned. Korolev was a genius in his own right and I think its disrespectful to consider him merely a copier of German designs.
The reason Sputnik was such a shocker (along with other Soviet space firsts, all largely enabled by the immense power - for the time - of the R-7 derivatives) is because it was so far off the curve of rocket development at the time. With more and better German expertise, the US was baffled at how the Soviets had ended up with such a clear lead in the rocket race.
Yes, the US followed Soviet space firsts in short spaces of time - but in each case the satellite or capsule was a lot lighter. It was only a combination of superior computer technology in the west, and the inability of the Soviets to get the N-1 working, that kept them from claiming the moon. Both of these factors were simply policy mistakes by the Soviets; the leadership unlike their engineers lacked the insight to put good money into them early on.
Apollo 1 killed 3 people in a stupid pad accident, that has to be counted; and the survival of Apollo 13 has nothing to do with Apollo itself as they used the LEM to survive.
Three modules is also superior to 2; Soyuz is lighter than Apollo but with more interior space for the cosmonauts.
Shuttle has flown more than Soyuz, pretty much evening the risks of both individual death, and vehicle loss, at about 1-2%
Both are good systems, with their plus points and their minus points. Soyuz is perhaps more impressive because of the conditions under which it was developed.
If I went into space, I wouldn't choose either. Shuttle would, in fact, choose me - because like a considerable number of males I am too tall to ride the Soyuz
Slashdot Mirror
Posting one liners as an AC and calling people an idiot is trolling. Using an analogy to demonstrate the stupidity of someones position is not.
Its called 'Anonymous Coward' for a reason you know...
Its a good job we have a strong left-wing party to oppose all this corporate welfare.
Oh, wait...
But at least there is a media that will take the government to task over issues that affect our daily lives, rather than running scare stories about immigrants and peadophiles, right?
Hang on a moment...
In that case we had better exercise our right to freely assemble and protest!
Oh dear...
There is nothing for it then, lacking democratic recourse, any means of protest or public debate, we should rise up and replace our government with one more favourbly disposed towards freedom. At least we still have our guns...
Shit.
I am sorry to say, that I just stole your copyrighted material. You see, as the above post was (I assume) entirely your creation, and I have just made a copy of it on my computer using my web browser, I am a dirty thief who may as well be jacking cars.
As for your idea that their business model is fine, its just the consumers who are wrong - that to me seems like the classic last words of a failing industry right there.
Its worth noting at this point how the UK government botched the change from steam to diesel quite badly. Perhaps that is a precedent for how they are trying to handle the transition from physical to online media distribution.
That isn't a belief personal to you, its one shared by the UK public at large. Having had the BBC running alongside commercial stations for so long means that I doubt the UK public would be easily fooled by a government trying to blur the line and hand out taxpayer money to commercial media companies.
You didn't. The buggars still live in Buckingham palace
That is the idea. Basically the same principle as curing Heroin addict by giving them lots of Heroin.
The UK government is getting daft with corporate welfare. Banks get billions of pounds, the recording industry is going to get hundreds of millions under this proposal, and BT is also likely to get a big wad of taxpayer money running broadband out to the most remote areas.
And yet, the government and media still come down hardest on the 'scroungers' receiving state benefit for unemployment. The News Of The World carried a front page story about 'the biggest scroungers in Britain' the same week Brown bailed out the banks for the first time. The government has maintained its advertising campaign trying to convince people on benefits can go to prison if they lie about their status (whereas in reality most of the people 'caught' doing this haven't done anything wrong and are let go).
The message seems clear: if you are a giant corporation and a bank that has got used to making ridiculous profits and can't anymore, the government will throw huge amounts of taxpayer money at you. But if you dare to try and diddle the government out of £40 a week they are going to FUCK you SO hard...
Don't make Google out to be some put upon victims; victims would be the people in China who can't access online material about Tienanmen Square. "Don't be evil" my arse.
I am no fan of Microsoft (haven't used windows in years), but neither am I a fan of the Chinese government nor those who collude with them against freedom.
It doesn't make sense. In an unpleasant, demoralising environment you will not get the best out of people. Their energies will be focused on survival and watching their backs rather than putting their best into their work.
I've seen bad management throughout my career, both in my largest employer (the NHS) and my smallest (a family owned publishing business).
Money is not all that matters. There is both a social and technological utility to and enterprise that is not necessarily coupled to its profits. While (some) companies may still be making money, I doubt that the skills available across society are being utilised to their full extent, and I am certain that hardly anyone is happy at work.
If bad management is so prevalent, to the point of being near universal, maybe its time to revisit the concept of management itself.
Are systems that (despite superficial changes) originated in the mills of the 19th century and the simple production lines really suitable for modern, rapidly changing, information-heavy companies?
Its fine enough reading Dilbert and mocking the PHBs, but what are you going to do about it?
Why does 'nice' have to mean 'weasely and pathetic'? Conversely, cynically betrayal and ruthless ambition are not assertive qualities, they are antisocial qualities.
Not being a complete sociopath is actually an important, if undervalued, component in being a manager who doesn't make your haggard underlings want to throw themselves out of the office window.
I've been in enough horrific corporate and government hierarchies to know that actually nice people (rather than passive aggressive sorts who won't publicly stand up for themselves) end up being passed over for people who I swear would be murdering young girls and wearing their skins had they not a career ladder to climb.
Don't confuse the "nice guys finish last" complaint of a shy teenager with the "nice guys finish last" complaint of a demoralised office drone trying to maintain his humanity in an environment that actively tries to suck it out of you out of pure expediency.
Why stop at the Sun? There is the galaxy, the local group... but then again why start at the Sun? Its no more an absolute reference frame than the Earth is.
There is no absolute frame of reference in space or in time. By taking into account the motion of the Earth around the Sun and around its axis, he is arbitrarily picking implying the heliocentric-ecliptic coordinate system is the absolute frame of reference.
To be honest though, I can't suggest a better way of doing this. The DeLorean can simply pop out of existence in one spot in spacetime and pop into existence at another. If this ability is a given, I'm not sure its necessary to treat travelling through space separately.
Ok, cunt face, if that O2 tank isn't part of Apollo what is? Just the CM? Shut your arse and give your mouth a chance. Or even better, shut up completely, go back to school, and leave the discussion forum for the grownups.
You know nothing. You've done a little bit of googling and you think you've got some 'fact' to take me on in a debate but the reality is that you've no real knowledge of your own, whilst I have comparitaly vast knowledge of both the Apollo program and your mum, who by the way still owes me fuck money.
Suck my dick,
damburger
Interesting. I always thought it was "say-us", based on how it is pronounced as the first word of the Soviet national anthem.
Its a manned capsule. Anything that can fry an LCD screen can fry your bone marrow pretty damn well too.
He announced 'space station freedom' in 1984, and it languished in redesigns and budget wrangling until it was merged with Mir 2 (and European and Japanese projects) to form the ISS.
The great shame is that they didn't save Buran/Energia in the same way. Want a Shuttle-Derived Launch Vehicle? Just remove the shuttle. Best of all, that configuration was already tested in 1987.
With a little foresight, there could've been an international Moon mission by 2000, and perhaps a Mars mission by now.
Apollo was, frankly, a pile of crap that killed 3 astronauts on the pad and would've killed another 3 in space if the LEM didn't have something to say about it.
Soyuz is better than Apollo. LOK was at least comparable in capability (if smaller) than the LEM. The critical factor in the moon race was Saturn V vs. N-1, and that was never really much of a contest considering that the N-1 was underfunded, started later, and wasn't provided with a proper test stand for its first stage cluster.
Its illustrative as an engineering koan, but untrue; the 'space' pen was just a commercial product developed before the need for pens in space became apparent. Also, pencils tend not to be used in space because graphite flakes can cause shorts when it floats around.
This is wrong. The early American rockets were far more based on German designs than Russian rockets were, because Americans got a lot more German rocket scientists.
The clustering and boosters of the R-7 design are radically different from anything von Braun envisioned. Korolev was a genius in his own right and I think its disrespectful to consider him merely a copier of German designs.
The reason Sputnik was such a shocker (along with other Soviet space firsts, all largely enabled by the immense power - for the time - of the R-7 derivatives) is because it was so far off the curve of rocket development at the time. With more and better German expertise, the US was baffled at how the Soviets had ended up with such a clear lead in the rocket race.
Yes, the US followed Soviet space firsts in short spaces of time - but in each case the satellite or capsule was a lot lighter. It was only a combination of superior computer technology in the west, and the inability of the Soviets to get the N-1 working, that kept them from claiming the moon. Both of these factors were simply policy mistakes by the Soviets; the leadership unlike their engineers lacked the insight to put good money into them early on.
Apollo 1 killed 3 people in a stupid pad accident, that has to be counted; and the survival of Apollo 13 has nothing to do with Apollo itself as they used the LEM to survive.
Three modules is also superior to 2; Soyuz is lighter than Apollo but with more interior space for the cosmonauts.
Shuttle has flown more than Soyuz, pretty much evening the risks of both individual death, and vehicle loss, at about 1-2%
Both are good systems, with their plus points and their minus points. Soyuz is perhaps more impressive because of the conditions under which it was developed.
If I went into space, I wouldn't choose either. Shuttle would, in fact, choose me - because like a considerable number of males I am too tall to ride the Soyuz