But then who's going to move you to open floor layouts to "improve collaboration"?
I don't understand why open-floor layouts get a bad rap. I work in one now, and it's great. I never want to see the inside of another cube.
I don't think cubes (as seen in American films) ever made it to the UK, but we do have open plan offices. I used to work on one. I heard every phone call, all the printers, the conversations, the jokes, the groups of people walking past -- so many distractions.
I much prefer my current office: six developers in a room, a door to the other two rooms with four and five developers in each. Four is a good number. I think I'd be more productive with just two (or alone), but wouldn't hear enough from colleagues.
Funny thing is many US cards are blocked by default outside the US due to extensive fraud. You have to call the bank and let them know where you are going so they can white list you in those countries.
That's because they have no security.
My card might still be blocked from suspicious transactions that don't use the chip (e.g. a purchase from Russian website), but in-person transactions using the chip are OK.
The UK has seen a 66% drop in retail (point of sale) fraud since C+P was introduced in 2004. Lost and stolen fraud is at the lowest level in 20 years. Is that a compelling reason? I have to telephone my bank in advance if I want to use my cards in the USA -- they're blocked by default there, as the systems are insecure. I can use my card in Poland, Romania etc with no problems.
The PIN transaction doesn't take longer. I put the card into the machine (it doesn't leave my possession), read the display to confirm the amount I'm being charged, type my PIN, press OK, wait 1-2s, remove card. That's about the same time as handing the card over, waiting for the transaction to complete, being handed the receipt, signing it, the cashier checking the signature, handing the card back.
Contactless payment is almost instant. Two years ago the terminals weren't very widespread, but I've seen lots of "we now accept contactless payments" in the last six months or so in places with low-value transactions (coffee shops, convenience stores, bars etc). Paying this way is faster than cash.
I don't know where people get this idea that you have to have a chip-and-pin CC to get by in Europe. It's just not true.
I live in the UK, so examples of things you wouldn't be able to buy with a card include: - train tickets (you'll need cash, or else a long queue if there's a human option) - car parking (sometimes cash won't be an option, though that's rare) - occasional smaller businesses (shops, restaurants) who will want cash instead due to the fraud risk - any other ticket machine (e.g. cinema)
OK, it's more of an inconvenience than a necessity. It's ridiculous that the US has barely started to use the system though -- it's almost 10 years old.
This style of card is becoming more common in Europe right now, and a lot of automated terminals won't take a card that only has a magnetic stripe, apparently.
It is almost universal in Europe (95% of terminals, 85% of cards, two years ago), and plenty of other countries. A card with a chip is almost essential if you travel to Europe -- I can't remember the last time I saw a ticket machine (or similar) accept a magstripe.
http://www.creditcards.com/credit-card-news/american-travelers-guide-emv-chip-cards-1271.php is informative. I'm not convinced by '"In fact, as a late adopter of EMV, there's a great upside for the industry in the U.S. because we can avoid much of the cost and complexity involved in deploying older-generation chip cards, while still reaping all of the benefits of reduced counterfeit fraud,"' -- the US industry has had 10 extra years of fraud! (I have to phone my bank before using my card in the US, and give them the dates I will be travelling. Numbers are stolen in Europe, and used on fake cards in the US.)
Some networks do allow free international roaming where they are part of a multinational. My network allows me to use my UK plan in Italy, Australia, Japan and a few other places.
I just hope that there are more ways to charge your stuff. I have seen advertisers already making the possibility to charge your stuff available at airports.
The last time I went on a nice, new plane (one of BA's Airbuses, I think) there were USB ports in the entertainment thing. The idea was apparently to look at your holiday snaps, but it charged my phone just fine:)
(This was about a year ago, so it's probably a bit more widespread -- I haven't taken a flight over ~3 hours on a quality airline since then.)
What about terminal server access? I'm looking at semi-retiring to Peru, to do some part-time work from there on contract basis.
To a city, or somewhere remote? In a city I expect the mobile broadband is fine, if you can't get a wired connection. You might be OK for somewhere rural too.
(I've not been to Peru, but don't underestimate Internet availability in developing countries. e.g. Vietnam had free wifi everywhere, and £3 gave me unlimited 3G internet for a month, which worked everywhere except a remote mountain valley. Peru seems a bit expensive ($40-50 for ADSL) but not totally crazy.)
Expat or backpacking forums are probably good sources of information.
While I have been an atheist since age 11, I did grow up Catholic and had to go to CCD (Catholic version of "sunday school")
Atheism was never really a choice for me, it was just the default. When I was very young religion was something boring some adults did, which my parents tolerated but never encouraged. It was never discussed at home, and at primary school there was probably more about Roman gods than the Christian one. The country's traditions have lots of Christian influences, but also pagan ones, and others from immigrants -- the vicar came to school sometimes, but we'd go to see the Diwali lights in the city, my school had a May festival with a maypole, and we'd celebrate Christmas and eat chocolate at Easter without mentioning Christ once.
Some teachers at secondary school tried to be much more religious, but taking part in any religious service was about the least cool thing possible -- even though it meant occasionally skipping lessons. I chose it because the science looked better, it had more computers, and -- most importantly -- it didn't have sports pitches (it was in the middle of a city, so we had to "waste" time walking or getting a bus).
The chapter title in some video game he was talking about was "Fratricide" and he was shocked I knew the word; and I was shocked he didn't know the story of Caine and Able, afterall, its only one of the most referenced stories in western litterature
I could have worked out what fratricide meant when I was 11 or 12, but until just now I wouldn't have been able to recall the story of Cain and Abel. I think I've read it before, and could recall some of it with your prompt, but I don't know the motive or any detail.
I think that's at least average, if not better, for someone who grew up in England. There are very few Bible stories most people are aware of: Adam and Eve, Noah's Ark, Nativity, Death of Jesus. Looking up "10 well known Bible stories" suggests David and Goliath, but I couldn't tell you more than that David is smaller than the giant Goliath, but kills him through skill rather than force (a slingshot?). I don't know where I picked that up from -- probably through understanding the situation the phrase was used to describe, and inferring the meaning of the metaphor.
I have a bible on my shelf of books to read (also a quran), since I think it should be interesting, but it's been about 10 years and I've not started it yet...
(And I went to what was technically a religious school! But that's "religious" meaning "stick a sign outside and only let in the posh/rich kids".)
In Europe, most houses are built of brick (concrete, stone,...) and a fire is unlikely to spread. (Do fires spread with wooden American houses? I wouldn't know, I assume the wood is usually treated.)
I rarely say this, but this time it is right to do so: fuck you. Who the hell are you to tell other people that they cannot park where they work because "they need the exercise"?
Some guy on the Internet. Ignore me, if it makes you too angry. We are unlikely ever to meet.
If car parking is in such demand that losing a few spaces causes all these problems, perhaps they should find some way to ensure those people who need a car, due to disability or necessity, can always park. Otherwise, it's not really fair on those who can't plan their day to arrive before the car park is full. (What happens if there's construction and some spaces are lost?)
The disabled drivers probably already get special spaces. Those with a decent reason can be given permits, those wanting the convenience could pay to reduce demand.
Re:It would be safer if cyclists followed traffic
on
How Safe Is Cycling?
·
· Score: 1
Remember, when measuring how many red lights people run, that - all cyclists have the opportunity to run the light (they can go to the front of the queue) - after a single car driver stops, no more car drivers (in that lane) can run the light.
If you measure the number of people who run the light, out of all those that have the opportunity to, you might be surprised.
It's safe if you find an appropriate route, which is usually possible but requires planning beforehand. I've done that for any journey I expect to do more than every couple of months.
My options to work - Along two A roads. This might be fastest, I've never tried. It's congested, and it stinks. - Along quiet roads near the Thames, crossing the two A roads at junctions with traffic lights. Also a level crossing, which discourages drivers. I go this way if it's raining. - Along quiet roads to the Thames, then the Thames Path. I go this way if it's not raining or dark.
Sometimes I count the cars that overtake me if I go by the second route. It's rarely more than 2. For the third route, I'm unlikely to see more than one car.
(This is in zones 2 and 3. Central London is busier, but there are still lots of quiet, not-too-wiggly roads, and routes along canals etc. OpenCycleMap.org has some marked, otherwise the free cycling maps you can get from TfL and some bike shops.)
You should probably completely ignore Boris' blue shit on the roads; there's none anywhere near me but I've yet to hear anything positive about it.
My safety rules: - Don't pass a lorry or bus unless it's stationary, and you are certain it will remain stationary until you are at least two car-lengths ahead of it. - Don't trust the cars to stop just because it's red for them and green for you!
I don't know about lockers (not very common round here), but you can fit 8 bikes comfortably in a single parking space. It sounds like they added almost 50% more parking, and minimised the average distance from vehicle to building entrance. The car drivers probably need the exercise;-)
That sounds like a nice place to live. Slow, careful car drivers everywhere, people not hemmed in by dangerous roads.
(I'm not joking. Unpredictable pedestrians and cyclists are expected in much of Europe -- often children -- and a community where it's safe for them to have some independence is desirable.)
That doesn't sound so bad. Various groups have tried to brand bits of the UK as Silicon Fen (Cambridge), Silicon Glen (somewhere in Scotland), and Silicon Roundabout (London).
(And, apparently, Cwm Silicon. Presumably in Wales...)
Motorbikes are four times as dangerous (fatalities per km) in the UK than bicycles. I'd be surprised if this wasn't the case in the US. (Unless, perhaps, cycling is significantly more dangerous compared to here.)
But the fact is, two hours of walking is still more dangerous than a two hour airline flight. The question is, what's more dangerous -- walking to work, biking to work, or driving to work? The answer is obvious; walking is safest, driving almost as safe, biking... well...
Obvious? These statistics are rarely obvious.
The statistics for the UK from the Department for Transport: Train (all numbers relative to this) Bus (5x as dangerous as the train) Car (31x) Cycle (480x) Walking (573x) Motorbike (1602x)
Walking and cycling have other health benefits, particularly if the person does no other exercise, which aren't considered in these figures. (Also, I think I've seen research that showed children who walked or cycled to school were more attentive in class.)
But a place like Copenhagen probably now has four different, mutually incompatible land transportation schemes, pedestrians, bicyclers, autos/trucks, and trains that all use land. How in the world, do they get that all to work out?
Because they haven't allocated all available space to cars and car parking, unlike most cities in the US, and most in my country (the UK).
Where you or I might see a road with two lanes in each direction, or a line of parked cars, Copenhageners see a bike lane in each direction and narrow car lanes to reduce traffic speeds. Or, they see only a bike lane, and cars must use a different road.
Actually, the solution is even simpler. Cut all regulation altogether,
What I don't understand is why the US government is involved at all in this.
The British government didn't have to do anything for ISPs to offer tiered services. They advertise super-cheap service for £10/month (or less, the cheapest is £2.50 plus the phone line rental). That's unlimited, I suppose the networks have been upgraded to offer FTTC/FTTH so there is no longer the choice to get a super-cheap limited ADSL service -- it's all cheap.
There is an option for capped FTTC, which is a few pounds cheaper per month than unlimited (for my ISP, unlimited FTTC is £20/mth, 40GB/mth is £16/mth).
The government regulation in this: 1) false advertising isn't allowed 2) ISPs have to set out how they do traffic shaping in a standard way, the £2.50 deal's terms are here. 3) They required the ex-nationalised company to rent out the last-mile cables, then their telephone exchange space, at the same rate to everyone (including that company's own broadband service).
I avoid creating electronic waste, so I don't own a printer.
I print things at work -- probably 2 pages per month, at most. When that's not an option, £0.20 at the local internet café / print shop will take a long, long, long time to reach the cost of even the cheapest printer.
Slashdot Mirror
But then who's going to move you to open floor layouts to "improve collaboration"?
I don't understand why open-floor layouts get a bad rap. I work in one now, and it's great. I never want to see the inside of another cube.
I don't think cubes (as seen in American films) ever made it to the UK, but we do have open plan offices. I used to work on one. I heard every phone call, all the printers, the conversations, the jokes, the groups of people walking past -- so many distractions.
I much prefer my current office: six developers in a room, a door to the other two rooms with four and five developers in each. Four is a good number. I think I'd be more productive with just two (or alone), but wouldn't hear enough from colleagues.
Funny thing is many US cards are blocked by default outside the US due to extensive fraud. You have to call the bank and let them know where you are going so they can white list you in those countries.
That's because they have no security.
My card might still be blocked from suspicious transactions that don't use the chip (e.g. a purchase from Russian website), but in-person transactions using the chip are OK.
The UK has seen a 66% drop in retail (point of sale) fraud since C+P was introduced in 2004. Lost and stolen fraud is at the lowest level in 20 years. Is that a compelling reason? I have to telephone my bank in advance if I want to use my cards in the USA -- they're blocked by default there, as the systems are insecure. I can use my card in Poland, Romania etc with no problems.
The PIN transaction doesn't take longer. I put the card into the machine (it doesn't leave my possession), read the display to confirm the amount I'm being charged, type my PIN, press OK, wait 1-2s, remove card. That's about the same time as handing the card over, waiting for the transaction to complete, being handed the receipt, signing it, the cashier checking the signature, handing the card back.
Contactless payment is almost instant. Two years ago the terminals weren't very widespread, but I've seen lots of "we now accept contactless payments" in the last six months or so in places with low-value transactions (coffee shops, convenience stores, bars etc). Paying this way is faster than cash.
I don't know where people get this idea that you have to have a chip-and-pin CC to get by in Europe. It's just not true.
I live in the UK, so examples of things you wouldn't be able to buy with a card include:
- train tickets (you'll need cash, or else a long queue if there's a human option)
- car parking (sometimes cash won't be an option, though that's rare)
- occasional smaller businesses (shops, restaurants) who will want cash instead due to the fraud risk
- any other ticket machine (e.g. cinema)
OK, it's more of an inconvenience than a necessity. It's ridiculous that the US has barely started to use the system though -- it's almost 10 years old.
(I don't think Brno is much to brag about...)
This style of card is becoming more common in Europe right now, and a lot of automated terminals won't take a card that only has a magnetic stripe, apparently.
It is almost universal in Europe (95% of terminals, 85% of cards, two years ago), and plenty of other countries. A card with a chip is almost essential if you travel to Europe -- I can't remember the last time I saw a ticket machine (or similar) accept a magstripe.
http://www.creditcards.com/credit-card-news/american-travelers-guide-emv-chip-cards-1271.php is informative. I'm not convinced by '"In fact, as a late adopter of EMV, there's a great upside for the industry in the U.S. because we can avoid much of the cost and complexity involved in deploying older-generation chip cards, while still reaping all of the benefits of reduced counterfeit fraud,"' -- the US industry has had 10 extra years of fraud! (I have to phone my bank before using my card in the US, and give them the dates I will be travelling. Numbers are stolen in Europe, and used on fake cards in the US.)
Why should you have roaming charges at all in the EU?
Because they can (different countries). Hence the need for legislation to force the phone companies.
The limits are here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_roaming_regulations#Common_limits -- they go down every few years. Next year they will introduce the ability to choose another provider for making calls while roaming, which should lead to decent competition and a big reduction in prices.
Some networks do allow free international roaming where they are part of a multinational. My network allows me to use my UK plan in Italy, Australia, Japan and a few other places.
I just hope that there are more ways to charge your stuff. I have seen advertisers already making the possibility to charge your stuff available at airports.
The last time I went on a nice, new plane (one of BA's Airbuses, I think) there were USB ports in the entertainment thing. The idea was apparently to look at your holiday snaps, but it charged my phone just fine :)
(This was about a year ago, so it's probably a bit more widespread -- I haven't taken a flight over ~3 hours on a quality airline since then.)
Dublin to Istanbul?
Saint Denis (Reunion) to Paris, just over 11 hours.
(But within the continent, I'd guess somewhere in Finland to somewhere in Portugal, or Cyprus to Scotland.)
What about terminal server access? I'm looking at semi-retiring to Peru, to do some part-time work from there on contract basis.
To a city, or somewhere remote? In a city I expect the mobile broadband is fine, if you can't get a wired connection. You might be OK for somewhere rural too.
(I've not been to Peru, but don't underestimate Internet availability in developing countries. e.g. Vietnam had free wifi everywhere, and £3 gave me unlimited 3G internet for a month, which worked everywhere except a remote mountain valley. Peru seems a bit expensive ($40-50 for ADSL) but not totally crazy.)
Expat or backpacking forums are probably good sources of information.
While I have been an atheist since age 11, I did grow up Catholic and had to go to CCD (Catholic version of "sunday school")
Atheism was never really a choice for me, it was just the default. When I was very young religion was something boring some adults did, which my parents tolerated but never encouraged. It was never discussed at home, and at primary school there was probably more about Roman gods than the Christian one. The country's traditions have lots of Christian influences, but also pagan ones, and others from immigrants -- the vicar came to school sometimes, but we'd go to see the Diwali lights in the city, my school had a May festival with a maypole, and we'd celebrate Christmas and eat chocolate at Easter without mentioning Christ once.
Some teachers at secondary school tried to be much more religious, but taking part in any religious service was about the least cool thing possible -- even though it meant occasionally skipping lessons. I chose it because the science looked better, it had more computers, and -- most importantly -- it didn't have sports pitches (it was in the middle of a city, so we had to "waste" time walking or getting a bus).
The chapter title in some video game he was talking about was "Fratricide" and he was shocked I knew the word; and I was shocked he didn't know the story of Caine and Able, afterall, its only one of the most referenced stories in western litterature
I could have worked out what fratricide meant when I was 11 or 12, but until just now I wouldn't have been able to recall the story of Cain and Abel. I think I've read it before, and could recall some of it with your prompt, but I don't know the motive or any detail.
I think that's at least average, if not better, for someone who grew up in England. There are very few Bible stories most people are aware of: Adam and Eve, Noah's Ark, Nativity, Death of Jesus. Looking up "10 well known Bible stories" suggests David and Goliath, but I couldn't tell you more than that David is smaller than the giant Goliath, but kills him through skill rather than force (a slingshot?). I don't know where I picked that up from -- probably through understanding the situation the phrase was used to describe, and inferring the meaning of the metaphor.
I have a bible on my shelf of books to read (also a quran), since I think it should be interesting, but it's been about 10 years and I've not started it yet...
(And I went to what was technically a religious school! But that's "religious" meaning "stick a sign outside and only let in the posh/rich kids".)
"Can't be mainstreamed" sounds like a euphemism.
Hollow-core slab, apparently: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollow-core_slab
I don't know if it's widely used here (UK), I don't see many houses being built.
In Europe, most houses are built of brick (concrete, stone, ...) and a fire is unlikely to spread. (Do fires spread with wooden American houses? I wouldn't know, I assume the wood is usually treated.)
Typical news articles with
I rarely say this, but this time it is right to do so: fuck you. Who the hell are you to tell other people that they cannot park where they work because "they need the exercise"?
Some guy on the Internet. Ignore me, if it makes you too angry. We are unlikely ever to meet.
If car parking is in such demand that losing a few spaces causes all these problems, perhaps they should find some way to ensure those people who need a car, due to disability or necessity, can always park. Otherwise, it's not really fair on those who can't plan their day to arrive before the car park is full. (What happens if there's construction and some spaces are lost?)
The disabled drivers probably already get special spaces. Those with a decent reason can be given permits, those wanting the convenience could pay to reduce demand.
NYC and London are roughly the same size (~8M people).
NYC has about 175 pedestrian deaths per year.
London had 77 in 2011, which was an unusually bad year (so the figures are in lots of newspapers). Paris is similar.
NYC is apparently the best in the US, but not so great compared to similar cities in Europe.
I also found this: http://newsfeed.time.com/2010/09/08/the-worlds-most-deadly-cities-for-pedestrians/ (surprised to see Copenhagen there).
Remember, when measuring how many red lights people run, that
- all cyclists have the opportunity to run the light (they can go to the front of the queue)
- after a single car driver stops, no more car drivers (in that lane) can run the light.
If you measure the number of people who run the light, out of all those that have the opportunity to, you might be surprised.
It's safe if you find an appropriate route, which is usually possible but requires planning beforehand. I've done that for any journey I expect to do more than every couple of months.
My options to work
- Along two A roads. This might be fastest, I've never tried. It's congested, and it stinks.
- Along quiet roads near the Thames, crossing the two A roads at junctions with traffic lights. Also a level crossing, which discourages drivers. I go this way if it's raining.
- Along quiet roads to the Thames, then the Thames Path. I go this way if it's not raining or dark.
Sometimes I count the cars that overtake me if I go by the second route. It's rarely more than 2. For the third route, I'm unlikely to see more than one car.
(This is in zones 2 and 3. Central London is busier, but there are still lots of quiet, not-too-wiggly roads, and routes along canals etc. OpenCycleMap.org has some marked, otherwise the free cycling maps you can get from TfL and some bike shops.)
You should probably completely ignore Boris' blue shit on the roads; there's none anywhere near me but I've yet to hear anything positive about it.
My safety rules:
- Don't pass a lorry or bus unless it's stationary, and you are certain it will remain stationary until you are at least two car-lengths ahead of it.
- Don't trust the cars to stop just because it's red for them and green for you!
I don't know about lockers (not very common round here), but you can fit 8 bikes comfortably in a single parking space. It sounds like they added almost 50% more parking, and minimised the average distance from vehicle to building entrance. The car drivers probably need the exercise ;-)
http://bubikes.bostonbiker.org/files/2010/01/bikebuscarmuenster.jpg
That sounds like a nice place to live. Slow, careful car drivers everywhere, people not hemmed in by dangerous roads.
(I'm not joking. Unpredictable pedestrians and cyclists are expected in much of Europe -- often children -- and a community where it's safe for them to have some independence is desirable.)
Silicon alley?
That doesn't sound so bad. Various groups have tried to brand bits of the UK as Silicon Fen (Cambridge), Silicon Glen (somewhere in Scotland), and Silicon Roundabout (London).
(And, apparently, Cwm Silicon. Presumably in Wales...)
Motorbikes are four times as dangerous (fatalities per km) in the UK than bicycles. I'd be surprised if this wasn't the case in the US. (Unless, perhaps, cycling is significantly more dangerous compared to here.)
But the fact is, two hours of walking is still more dangerous than a two hour airline flight. The question is, what's more dangerous -- walking to work, biking to work, or driving to work? The answer is obvious; walking is safest, driving almost as safe, biking... well...
Obvious? These statistics are rarely obvious.
The statistics for the UK from the Department for Transport:
Train (all numbers relative to this)
Bus (5x as dangerous as the train)
Car (31x)
Cycle (480x)
Walking (573x)
Motorbike (1602x)
Walking and cycling have other health benefits, particularly if the person does no other exercise, which aren't considered in these figures. (Also, I think I've seen research that showed children who walked or cycled to school were more attentive in class.)
But a place like Copenhagen probably now has four different, mutually incompatible land transportation schemes, pedestrians, bicyclers, autos/trucks, and trains that all use land. How in the world, do they get that all to work out?
Because they haven't allocated all available space to cars and car parking, unlike most cities in the US, and most in my country (the UK).
Where you or I might see a road with two lanes in each direction, or a line of parked cars, Copenhageners see a bike lane in each direction and narrow car lanes to reduce traffic speeds. Or, they see only a bike lane, and cars must use a different road.
Actually, the solution is even simpler. Cut all regulation altogether,
What I don't understand is why the US government is involved at all in this.
The British government didn't have to do anything for ISPs to offer tiered services. They advertise super-cheap service for £10/month (or less, the cheapest is £2.50 plus the phone line rental). That's unlimited, I suppose the networks have been upgraded to offer FTTC/FTTH so there is no longer the choice to get a super-cheap limited ADSL service -- it's all cheap.
There is an option for capped FTTC, which is a few pounds cheaper per month than unlimited (for my ISP, unlimited FTTC is £20/mth, 40GB/mth is £16/mth).
The government regulation in this:
1) false advertising isn't allowed
2) ISPs have to set out how they do traffic shaping in a standard way, the £2.50 deal's terms are here.
3) They required the ex-nationalised company to rent out the last-mile cables, then their telephone exchange space, at the same rate to everyone (including that company's own broadband service).
Inkjets are disposable.
I avoid creating electronic waste, so I don't own a printer.
I print things at work -- probably 2 pages per month, at most. When that's not an option, £0.20 at the local internet café / print shop will take a long, long, long time to reach the cost of even the cheapest printer.