It's weird, but in order to attract the kind of people who know what they are talking about to universities you have to let them do research for most of their time, because they didn't become teachers for a reason.
Thinking about it, if we cannot attract enough secondary school teachers with even the slightest clue about their profession, and we make universities like schools, we'll have exactly the same problem there. Oh, and all the best researchers will leave (because there are many universities in other countries that will take the best researchers, not everyone, but the best) and we end up with universities like those of Italy.
Also, research grants subsidize teaching. Change this and you will find that some big universities stop teaching altogether as a resource-intensive, unprofitable exercise. And if Oxbridge go research-only, the Tory-boys' children will have to go to Hull!
"Kind of inevitable, £1k fine, non custodial? punishment probably as light as they could be without being seen to let him get away with it, but if deterrent was the point, would you think twice now?"
Yes. And that's the point. If the government wants to change our behaviour so that we become humourless drones who can only function for the good of the state, then this ruling makes sense. Otherwise, not so much.
"The only freedom being quashed here is the right to be paid fairly for producing creative work that's quite popular. Thanks to spoiled brats."
Remind me: would that be the Beatles or Roy Orbison? Both of which should be well out of copyright by now if the law (as in original law) was followed. Orbison's been dead for years, and I don't see why his dependants, fifty years later, should be given more money because of what he did in the sixties.
I agree with copyright. As an author (in a couple of months) myself, I agree that I should be compensated for my work. However (and this is a big however), the essentially perpetual copyright (as it will be extended again next time Elvis comes close to being out of copyright) is not fair on consumers, and does not benefit society either. Elvis wrote his work believing it would be protected for 28 years (or thereabouts -- I can't be bothered to look up the exact number), and not the 90+ years it now is. The time-limited monopoly in exchange for the eventual release into the public domain of the work is the cornerstone of copyrgiht law.
Because of this I believe absolutely of the ignoring of copyright on anything more than 28 years old, and the application of copyright (except where the author says otherwise) to works less than 28 years old. Keep the Statute of Anne!
"Did Apple add code to iPhone/iPad Safari that says "don't let Flash run"? No, obviously not. Was Flash already running on the iPhone and Apple did something to bugger it up? Again, no."
I remember a while back Apple explicitly changing the terms and conditions on using their SDK to ban (essentially) Flash, under the guise of cross-platform languages or something or other. And I think Adobe were developing the product as Apple yanked the rug from underneath them. I cannot be bothered to look up the details to prove you wrong. And then didn't Jobs say that he did this in order to stop flash because he thought it was crap?
These sound like ACTIONs. They are something Apple DID.
Do try to keep up.
(I have no opinions either way on this particular spat, it's just that something factually wrong needs to be corrected.)
Presumably making mobile operators into bit pipes, and removing the way they make money will result in lower competition and higher prices. Just saying.
...(although I haven't tried deriving it myself) that the complex conjugate means you need to shift by exp(pi i) in the standard way. Try separating real and imaginary parts and equating them if you can't shift things using standard expressions...
"That and the fact that only the young were made to wait, with residents fast-tracked, isn't people (apart from those in charge) being idiots."
I've heard that from someone else, although I don't know for sure. If that is really true, isn't that electoral fraud, and should result in jail for the people responsible and a re-run for that constituency?
I can see the US, UK, France, Germany maybe. Possibly Japan? Anywhere else with enough people (i.e., enough money) to make it worthwhile? The premiere takes place a week or two before it actually comes out (unless I'm being an idiot, which is quite common), so plenty of time.
Also, I agree with the other poster about it being a media circle-jerk that nobody apart from Hello! cares about.
Both of my posts got rejected. Since I apparently cannot post anything critical of the journalist, I will just mention that fluffy kittens are nice, and isn't that Mr Orlowski wonderful.
are kind of screwed up because they adjust for your real age, which skews things massively. Your adult IQ is the only one that matters, and even then it doesn't really.
People seem to be moaning/stating that if only Virgin would dig up lots more of the country, they would sign up. Did they fail to read the bit of the story where it says that Virgin is saddled with massive amounts of debt, wiping out their profits, due to...digging up lots of the country.
But the owner was contacted, and Apple said they didn't want it. If someone leaves a laptop in a bar, I hand it them and they say "no, don't want it any more", I'm pretty sure I can do what I want with it...
"Of course we do not get everything 100 per cent right..."
How about
"Honestly, officer, I wanted to steal many things in my past. I do not get everything 100 per cent right though, so I stole a few things, but not lots of things. Is that OK?"
Not always staying legal = sometimes breaking the law...
Here's a compromise, because I've thought a bit more. The most popular shows, the ones that 8mn+ watch each week, can be beamed at night over the airwaves, and then stored digitally at home, for the person to watch the next day if he or she wants to. News and live shows are broadcast as normal, and the stuff that's not particularly popular can either be streamed over the net as and when, or a request put in for it to be broadcast at 3:30am the next day, via your local aerial.
Actually, this is a great idea, thinking about it. Each aerial beams out what people have asked for. If you want it now, you can pay for a 'premium' version that is streamed over the net, and for all other people, it gets logged and then broadcast locally from the TV aerial. If we go digital we can broadcast dozens of programmes simultaneously, so this might actually work.
You can then pay to access the back catalogue on a per-show basis, or be able to request shows from the last week using the system outlined above (like on iPlayer). Since you aren't watching it, they could be burst transmitted anyway, saving even more bandwidth,
OK, so there are some kinks that need to be ironed out, etc. But this sounds like a much better plan than IPTV... For popular things broadcast makes sense.
I've heard of these wonderful things called airwaves. You can broadcast a TV signal, basically for free, and people can recieve it. Oh, if only there were a way for thse broadcast signals to be displayed on a TV without having to go through the Internet...
It's completely stupid to stream TV through the Internet until we have seriously new ways of delivering data. The cost is just horrendous. We can have broadcast towers and video recorders.
OK, I like iPlayer, but tell me it isn't really decadent, and there is some way that all TV watching can move to the Internet without a massive investment in infrastructure. If we are talking £50bn (I would say that's low-balling it) then per household that is £2500, assuming everyone has it. If it only goes to half of households, then we're talking £5000 *each household*. Do you have that money to get iPlayer rather than just a normal TV?
"Viewing the images was like watching "a little LMSD soap opera," one of them said, referring to the initials of the school district.
"I know, I love it!" technology coordinator Carol Cafiero replied."
I know we shouldn't get all frothy at the mouth over paedophile danger, but when we actually find one, we chop off their private bits, right? Even if it's a woman? Where are the pitchforks?
No, but those police, firemen, doctors, teachers and soldiers wouldn't be created by the market. (The fire service *was* created by the market originally, but it didn't really work very well. See America re. doctors and the market. Oh, and universities, where the average tuition per year is more than the total cost for our entire degree.) They don't create wealth directly, but they're pretty useful. Try running a country without them.
By all means cut the public sector: the only trouble with cutting the public sector is that if the private sector doesn't take up the slack then you get a massive deflationary and depressive spiral, where you end up further in a problem. See Ireland, where after a massive cost-cutting exercise they STILL lost exactly the same amount as a % of GDP this year as last, because their economy shrank by 20%. So now they have the same budget defecit, a larger debt mountain as a percentage because their economy shrank, and worse services. Yep, it's a great idea.
Don't forget the debt. Scotland can keep the shares in the Royal Wank of Shit and Halifax, but you can also have all of the debt we made bailing them out. That would make England's finances look a lot better.
...as though there is a difference between this and a standard DDOS attack. This is the Internet equivalent of a go-slow protest on roads, where lots of people individually (organized, of course) decide to drive really slowly through a city. You don't get arrested for that.
Here, lots of people individually (organized, of course) decide to slow down a website. The difference between this and a DDOS is that no computers were hacked/pwned/whatever the skiddies call it, and every computer that sent requests had a human being in front of it deliberately doing it. I don't know what this is, but to call it a DDOS makes the real DDOSs look less like the criminal acts they are.
I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned that if Wikileaks keeps pissing off large numbers of people, they might find themselves 'taken out'. Do they piss off Mossad often, I wonder?
"They give you the ability to easily opt-out. Use it if you dont like it."
Oh for the love of God. I suspect I am just one of many people explaining why this is a silly statement. How about if I say that I'm going to murder everyone on the 1st of April, but you can opt out by going to a website. It's very easy to do so, so why are you whining when you didn't know I was going to do it and I turn up on April Fools' Day with an axe and a Shining smile?
to cut off Russia/China/etc. from the Internet. Do we actually need them? Really? They can have their own internet...
I know that most spam originates from neither of those two, but taking out those two would make the Internet a much better place.
As it happened, I started out being fairly un-xenophobic, but every time I read a story about foreigners pulling shit like this... Grr. (I guess that's what the rest of the world feels like when the US goes and invades countries because they feel like it...)
Register
572 posts • joined Monday 19th November 2007 23:11 GMT
Page:
As opposed to the Milibands...
...who went to Corpus. Or Lord Adonis, who did a DPhil (PhD) over the road at Christ Church in 19th century British aristocracy. Your point is?
Pimp my tricorder
Optional extra.
Damn those pesky educated people
It's weird, but in order to attract the kind of people who know what they are talking about to universities you have to let them do research for most of their time, because they didn't become teachers for a reason.
Thinking about it, if we cannot attract enough secondary school teachers with even the slightest clue about their profession, and we make universities like schools, we'll have exactly the same problem there. Oh, and all the best researchers will leave (because there are many universities in other countries that will take the best researchers, not everyone, but the best) and we end up with universities like those of Italy.
Also, research grants subsidize teaching. Change this and you will find that some big universities stop teaching altogether as a resource-intensive, unprofitable exercise. And if Oxbridge go research-only, the Tory-boys' children will have to go to Hull!
Because it's totally unenforceable?
OK, vindictive it might not be, but hopelessly expensive and ludicrously impossible to enforce it is. That's why it should be dropped completely.
Would think twice
"Kind of inevitable, £1k fine, non custodial? punishment probably as light as they could be without being seen to let him get away with it, but if deterrent was the point, would you think twice now?"
Yes. And that's the point. If the government wants to change our behaviour so that we become humourless drones who can only function for the good of the state, then this ruling makes sense. Otherwise, not so much.
Contrafibularities
I hate to bring you up on your spelling of a non-existent word, but...
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=contrafibularities
Choice FM
or, judging by it's position in the table, No Choice FM?
Original.
The original had Eric Idle, Orson Welles and Leonard Nimoy in it. This new thing had Jon Voight and some kids in it. No contest really.
Public domain
"The only freedom being quashed here is the right to be paid fairly for producing creative work that's quite popular. Thanks to spoiled brats."
Remind me: would that be the Beatles or Roy Orbison? Both of which should be well out of copyright by now if the law (as in original law) was followed. Orbison's been dead for years, and I don't see why his dependants, fifty years later, should be given more money because of what he did in the sixties.
I agree with copyright. As an author (in a couple of months) myself, I agree that I should be compensated for my work. However (and this is a big however), the essentially perpetual copyright (as it will be extended again next time Elvis comes close to being out of copyright) is not fair on consumers, and does not benefit society either. Elvis wrote his work believing it would be protected for 28 years (or thereabouts -- I can't be bothered to look up the exact number), and not the 90+ years it now is. The time-limited monopoly in exchange for the eventual release into the public domain of the work is the cornerstone of copyrgiht law.
Because of this I believe absolutely of the ignoring of copyright on anything more than 28 years old, and the application of copyright (except where the author says otherwise) to works less than 28 years old. Keep the Statute of Anne!
Why do I get downvoted...
...and you don't, when we said the same thing? Boo, I question the consistency of people who downvote!
Also, if your total downvotes exceed your upvotes, do you get shouted at by the Moderatrix or something?
Silly question...
...but isn't atmospheric pressure due to gravity in the first place?
Think you missed something.
"Did Apple add code to iPhone/iPad Safari that says "don't let Flash run"? No, obviously not. Was Flash already running on the iPhone and Apple did something to bugger it up? Again, no."
I remember a while back Apple explicitly changing the terms and conditions on using their SDK to ban (essentially) Flash, under the guise of cross-platform languages or something or other. And I think Adobe were developing the product as Apple yanked the rug from underneath them. I cannot be bothered to look up the details to prove you wrong. And then didn't Jobs say that he did this in order to stop flash because he thought it was crap?
These sound like ACTIONs. They are something Apple DID.
Do try to keep up.
(I have no opinions either way on this particular spat, it's just that something factually wrong needs to be corrected.)
Consolidation and higher charges
Presumably making mobile operators into bit pipes, and removing the way they make money will result in lower competition and higher prices. Just saying.
It is a trendsetter
"But if Russia could become a trendsetter in the field of IT technologies, it would be good."
It already is. Well, at cybercrime, anyway.
My guess is...
...(although I haven't tried deriving it myself) that the complex conjugate means you need to shift by exp(pi i) in the standard way. Try separating real and imaginary parts and equating them if you can't shift things using standard expressions...
Except...
"Imagine a friend would lend you money at 0.5% and then borrow it back from you at 4% on an ongoing basis."
Imagine a friend who will lend you money for a day or two at 0.5%, and then borrows money from you for 10 years at 4%...
Well done
Now we have ended the suffering of digital animals, if we can just get reality to conform to PETAs demands everything would be great.
</sarcasm>
Fraud?
"That and the fact that only the young were made to wait, with residents fast-tracked, isn't people (apart from those in charge) being idiots."
I've heard that from someone else, although I don't know for sure. If that is really true, isn't that electoral fraud, and should result in jail for the people responsible and a re-run for that constituency?
Not that bad an assumption
Whereas your house is not representative of the country, taking the few constituencies that they stood in might well be...
Sampling: you've not heard of it.
No you wouldn't
"Like one previous commenter said: Not "our" backdoors, but "theirs" and frankly, seen from EU, I'd rather have Chinese backdoors than US."
American screws you over. China shoots you in the head. I know which I'd prefer.
How many red-carpet launches?
I can see the US, UK, France, Germany maybe. Possibly Japan? Anywhere else with enough people (i.e., enough money) to make it worthwhile? The premiere takes place a week or two before it actually comes out (unless I'm being an idiot, which is quite common), so plenty of time.
Also, I agree with the other poster about it being a media circle-jerk that nobody apart from Hello! cares about.
Carfeul now...
Even Jeremy Clarkson got in trouble for talking about lorry drivers and prostitutes.
Actually...
...that would be because of the banks. But carry on anyway.
Post censored
Both of my posts got rejected. Since I apparently cannot post anything critical of the journalist, I will just mention that fluffy kittens are nice, and isn't that Mr Orlowski wonderful.
Kids' IQs...
are kind of screwed up because they adjust for your real age, which skews things massively. Your adult IQ is the only one that matters, and even then it doesn't really.
As opposed to backstabbing everyone else?
Release it at the same time everywhere. Not that big of a deal.
Steve
Sent from my iPhone
This post has been deleted by a moderator
Nobody intelligent then?
"Who do you want to be Prime Minister, if it had to be someone from television?"
"Well, some bird from Corrie would be good."
People talking about non-availability of cable
People seem to be moaning/stating that if only Virgin would dig up lots more of the country, they would sign up. Did they fail to read the bit of the story where it says that Virgin is saddled with massive amounts of debt, wiping out their profits, due to...digging up lots of the country.
But...
But the owner was contacted, and Apple said they didn't want it. If someone leaves a laptop in a bar, I hand it them and they say "no, don't want it any more", I'm pretty sure I can do what I want with it...
Yes, there is a world cup
You know, rugby. But it's not until next year, so why are people shouting now?
Hmm...
"Of course we do not get everything 100 per cent right..."
How about
"Honestly, officer, I wanted to steal many things in my past. I do not get everything 100 per cent right though, so I stole a few things, but not lots of things. Is that OK?"
Not always staying legal = sometimes breaking the law...
Thought a bit more...
Here's a compromise, because I've thought a bit more. The most popular shows, the ones that 8mn+ watch each week, can be beamed at night over the airwaves, and then stored digitally at home, for the person to watch the next day if he or she wants to. News and live shows are broadcast as normal, and the stuff that's not particularly popular can either be streamed over the net as and when, or a request put in for it to be broadcast at 3:30am the next day, via your local aerial.
Actually, this is a great idea, thinking about it. Each aerial beams out what people have asked for. If you want it now, you can pay for a 'premium' version that is streamed over the net, and for all other people, it gets logged and then broadcast locally from the TV aerial. If we go digital we can broadcast dozens of programmes simultaneously, so this might actually work.
You can then pay to access the back catalogue on a per-show basis, or be able to request shows from the last week using the system outlined above (like on iPlayer). Since you aren't watching it, they could be burst transmitted anyway, saving even more bandwidth,
OK, so there are some kinks that need to be ironed out, etc. But this sounds like a much better plan than IPTV... For popular things broadcast makes sense.
Aerials
I've heard of these wonderful things called airwaves. You can broadcast a TV signal, basically for free, and people can recieve it. Oh, if only there were a way for thse broadcast signals to be displayed on a TV without having to go through the Internet...
It's completely stupid to stream TV through the Internet until we have seriously new ways of delivering data. The cost is just horrendous. We can have broadcast towers and video recorders.
OK, I like iPlayer, but tell me it isn't really decadent, and there is some way that all TV watching can move to the Internet without a massive investment in infrastructure. If we are talking £50bn (I would say that's low-balling it) then per household that is £2500, assuming everyone has it. If it only goes to half of households, then we're talking £5000 *each household*. Do you have that money to get iPlayer rather than just a normal TV?
Paedophiles?
Quote from article:
"Viewing the images was like watching "a little LMSD soap opera," one of them said, referring to the initials of the school district.
"I know, I love it!" technology coordinator Carol Cafiero replied."
I know we shouldn't get all frothy at the mouth over paedophile danger, but when we actually find one, we chop off their private bits, right? Even if it's a woman? Where are the pitchforks?
"the Gazza strip"
Is that a Tottenham Hotspur/Newcastle Utd shirt?
Public sector doesn't create wealth
No, but those police, firemen, doctors, teachers and soldiers wouldn't be created by the market. (The fire service *was* created by the market originally, but it didn't really work very well. See America re. doctors and the market. Oh, and universities, where the average tuition per year is more than the total cost for our entire degree.) They don't create wealth directly, but they're pretty useful. Try running a country without them.
By all means cut the public sector: the only trouble with cutting the public sector is that if the private sector doesn't take up the slack then you get a massive deflationary and depressive spiral, where you end up further in a problem. See Ireland, where after a massive cost-cutting exercise they STILL lost exactly the same amount as a % of GDP this year as last, because their economy shrank by 20%. So now they have the same budget defecit, a larger debt mountain as a percentage because their economy shrank, and worse services. Yep, it's a great idea.
And the debt
Don't forget the debt. Scotland can keep the shares in the Royal Wank of Shit and Halifax, but you can also have all of the debt we made bailing them out. That would make England's finances look a lot better.
When will people learn?
Jobs is a git.
I actually thought Due South was OK.
Fine, I was a kid, and didn't have the finely tuned sense of taste I have now, blah blah blah.
It seems to me...
...as though there is a difference between this and a standard DDOS attack. This is the Internet equivalent of a go-slow protest on roads, where lots of people individually (organized, of course) decide to drive really slowly through a city. You don't get arrested for that.
Here, lots of people individually (organized, of course) decide to slow down a website. The difference between this and a DDOS is that no computers were hacked/pwned/whatever the skiddies call it, and every computer that sent requests had a human being in front of it deliberately doing it. I don't know what this is, but to call it a DDOS makes the real DDOSs look less like the criminal acts they are.
I think his point was...
...that IBM said they wouldn't do this to FOSS, but then turned around and did it. Big company in being-a-bastard shock...
Surprised...
I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned that if Wikileaks keeps pissing off large numbers of people, they might find themselves 'taken out'. Do they piss off Mossad often, I wonder?
Nope...
He's the president of St John's College, Oxford, actually.
Just a thought...
"Where does this guy have to go?" Romania? Don't mean to sound like a Daily Mail reader but...
What's new?
Labour government in "lying cheating manipulating cocksucker" shock?
This'll work...
No, really. Where do I put my credit card details in to pay £1? I wonder how much the processing fee is for it?
And don't even get me started on the Sun and the News of the World charging. That'll be the quickest epic fail ever.
It might actually be cheaper for the Sun website to just consist of the words "You want tits? Buy the paper." and nothing else.
@Nick Stallman
"They give you the ability to easily opt-out. Use it if you dont like it."
Oh for the love of God. I suspect I am just one of many people explaining why this is a silly statement. How about if I say that I'm going to murder everyone on the 1st of April, but you can opt out by going to a website. It's very easy to do so, so why are you whining when you didn't know I was going to do it and I turn up on April Fools' Day with an axe and a Shining smile?
Pay it back?
"OK, the custodial sentence has very long "work days", but who said crime doesn't pay...?"
Wouldn't they have to give the money back?
Another reason...
to cut off Russia/China/etc. from the Internet. Do we actually need them? Really? They can have their own internet...
I know that most spam originates from neither of those two, but taking out those two would make the Internet a much better place.
As it happened, I started out being fairly un-xenophobic, but every time I read a story about foreigners pulling shit like this... Grr. (I guess that's what the rest of the world feels like when the US goes and invades countries because they feel like it...)
Page: