Ah, just like real projects
What do you mean you weren't told you should have started on the 28th of June?
Is it also possible to request a language that is less noddy than Java, VB, Swift, C'Dent, Node, PHP, or Python?
15448 publicly visible posts • joined 13 Jun 2009
In other words, someone tried to write in some contract language that would have allowed a registry to go through a largely unnoticed technical process, decided by ICANN's staff, to pass something that several internet organizations, including the SSAC itself, the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) and the ICANN Board, have all decided poses a threat to the stability of the internet.
Why? Because then the owners of top-level domains such as "search" or "hotel" or "weather" could bypass search engines altogether and have people go direct to their websites from where they could direct them. In other words, millions of dollars worth of traffic annually.
And it could (will) screw up LANs everywhere.
So blockchains will allow food stamps 2.0 as well as utility stamps, but not Oddbins or Amazon stamps. Yet you could buy cheaper food from Amazon or markets (cash), only you won't be able to. And I suppose itemised shopping lists will plop out the computers at the DWP.
I can't see people opting into this, unless perhaps they do an advert similar to the one about smart meters for a while before telling everyone they're having them anyway. But society would have had to have gone practically cashless anyway for it to work otherwise people would be excluded.
That's addressed in the article. People could have more help available than they do at an election.
"Juries for criminal trials that are chosen by lot prove that people generally take their task extremely seriously. The fear of a chamber that behaves recklessly or irresponsibly is unfounded. If we agree that 12 people can decide in good faith about the freedom or imprisonment of a fellow citizen, then we can be confident that a number of them can and will serve the interests of the community in a responsible manner."
"The most common argument against sortition is the supposed incompetence of the those who have not been elected. A body of elected representatives undoubtedly has more technical competencies than a body chosen by lot. But what is the use of a parliament full of highly educated lawyers if few of them know the price of bread?
Besides, the elected do not know everything. They need staff and researchers to fill the gaps in their expertise. In much the same way, a representative body chosen by lot would not stand alone. It could invite experts, rely on professionals to moderate debates and put questions to citizens. Legislation could arise from the interaction between it and an elected chamber."
Leaving the clickbait headline aside, the disconnect between people and the political classes is getting too wide to paper over any more in both the UK and US. Here's something I read about a way of making democracy more democratic, which is involving people in decision making instead of making them elect a dictator every four or five years:
Why elections are bad for democracy (Yes, it's the Gruaniad.)
It's never been more obvious that those at the top have even less of a clue than we do, but they're happy to play political games while the country is rudderless.
If this goes completely to shit then there will be a strong case for a technocracy to try and get the country back on track (wherever that is now) which is not known to be particularly democratic.
What about balls? Has anybody tried sitting on them? Does it work for them?
Your honour, in this case we're going to hear that the accused should be released because she incited that the victim commit suicide while standing on the other side of the door frame, therefore she was not present in the room with the victim when it happened and was therefore not responsible.
Which is equally ridiculous.
She knew his mental state and incited him to carry on. It doesn't matter if she's there or she did it by post, by e-mail, by messenger, or by carrier pigeon.
We don't know that until it gets to court.
The new 2A doesn't really offer any protection for the casual infringer. 2A) a) and b) ii) can describe casual infringing perfectly.
The IPO can say what it likes, but if it ain't part of the act it doesn't count for anything.
Cameron's true plan was rather last-minute and he forgot to infom the electorate about it. Before the referendum date he was saying that he was best placed to negotiate the exit with the EU, indicating he had some and of contingency plan when he hadn't. Not the best way to keep the protest vote down (not that there is such a thing as a protest vote with a referendum}.
He has no more idea than Boris or Gove. Between those three, there should have been at least one exit plan. And Cameron should have had a contingency plan given that he called the referendum.
Is this the best education that public schooling can give us? Ye gods, the country's up shit creek.
Not that Britain is free from that nonsense. The passport office says it must take the name from the foreign birth certificate even though the naming rule used wouldn't make much sense if the child had been born Britain. If a child can have two nationalities then two names should also be allowed given that naming rules and nationality go hand in hand.
There is a list of exceptions, but you always come across the rule that proves the exception and it seems the passport office is not fully aware of the exceptions allowed by the general register office. If I didn't have the Brexit deadline I'd have probably made more enquires but as it is I just wanted the citizenship officially recognised and passport for my kid before an arbitrary date that could be used against him in the future.
It comes from the Independent BIOS Vendors which are contracted to write the BIOS software by OEMs. The IBVs just copy and paste Intel's reference code without reviewing it, it seems... And the OEMs release the IBVs' code without review either.
As it's in Intel's reference code it might even have found its way into Macs.
The Electoral Commission shouldn't have let it go through without a big huge book detailing what happens in the case of Brexit from someone. Or it should have phrased the question like this:
Vote only once:
Would you like the UK to remain a member of the EU? [ ]
Would you like a constitutional crisis with nobody having any idea what happens next, no effective government, a power vacuum, and politicians stabbing each other in the back for possibly weeks on end? [ ]
The European Parliament approves or disproves the whole of the commission with a qualified majority vote so there's a bit of pressure to not chuck them all out just because they don't like the look of a few of them. But as it's a QMV there's probably more in the Parliament that will approve than disapprove anyway. So given that the UK is one out of 28 member states which proposes commissioners and has only 10%-ish of the MEPs which approves, like Azure, it's not a system which scales up gracefully.
Once in, the Commission proposes law sometimes with the help of the Council but not always. Parliament can a) amend it and send it back or b) can only send it back saying if they like it or not (more often used now) or c) have no say at all (Canada trade deal).
So it's democratic... barely.
However I think I did suddenly wake up in a parallel universe last Friday or perhaps they're shooting Game of Thrones in the House of Commons. We'll know for sure when dragons circle overhead.
Nothing to do with them having so much trouble collecting that they're resorting to naming and shaming?
That's the second list of everyone who owes a million euros or more. The first one was published in December.