The article says ".....that all activities will be conducted for peaceful purposes, per the tenants of the Outer Space Treaty."
Does the agreement really say "tenants"?
27 posts • joined 1 Apr 2010
I see the Swedish prosecutors are (again) having to cover their ar$e$ after not being able to come up with a case against Assange. He's been in only place for 7 years, they knew exactly where he was. So they've had years and years to get every possible piece of information and evidence prepared for the day hecame out but have totally failed..
Just as well Assange managed to avoid whatever faked case they would have put up against him, as once they had him in jail he'd never have been given any chance of having any form of retrial. Once the original charge was dropped and then reopened by a prosecutor with an axe to grind the whole thing has been politically motivated.
From my very far distant schooldays, isn't Iron the element with the lowest energy per nucleon (ie total number of protons + neutrons) which is why fusing lower mass elements together releases energy and fission of heavier elements into smaller ones also releases energy? Iron is at the bottom of the U shaped curve of energy per nucleon.
Trying to go in the opposite direction needs energy to be added to the final nucleus hence supernova, neutron star collisions etc.
That's basically what happens inside every human skull.
We can all recognise that a new born child has become an intelligent adult but we have no idea what went on inside the "black box" (aka skull) over the years while the change took place. Not sure replicating the problem inside another "black box" advances things a great deal.
After the year long anti Facebook (and all other social media platforms) rant by Damian Collins from his perch as head of the HoC DCMS committee, it was only a matter of time before, in response, the DCMS organisation morphed into the Department of Censorship, Manipulation and Silencing.
As the government keeps deciding it doesn't like more and more things people want to say, watch or do, it was only a matter of time before they moved yet further down the road of trying to stop people doing them.
Around 1980 I was the site engineer for a large 24x7 data centre in the midlands which was full of IBM and Amdahl CPUs and rows and rows of IBM and StorageTek disk and tape running all the usual mission critical work. It was a new, purpose build data centre, wide corridors everywhere, double doors into the dc itself one of which was usually kept locked and the other side was opened with a card key for staff to enter.
Everything was running fine, all the kit was up and running, lots of sounds of spinning things, until some new kit was being delivered during one busy day and the other half of the double doors was opened to allow it in. Yup - the (very new, recently installed) shiny red EPO button was not quite far enough along the wall and the second door hit it...cue sound of lots of spinning things slowing down.
So do you trust the government (not just today but for the long term future), through its totally impartial and independent (cough) regulator, to control what you see, who shows you and what the permitted news sources say about the government itself?
It's already quite clear if you regularly sample a few news sources from across Europe or the USA that what goes on in their countries and how it's reported here are two hugely different things as our broadcasters and other media all have quite strong agendas that they always push...and that's without a new totally impartial and independent (cough) regulator sitting above them to ensure the state approves of what we can see.
I'd rather we made sure that no media group, be it the BBC, Sky Facebook, Google or something not yet created, is allowed to dominate/control/edit/censor news sources and that no external news sources are blocked.
We'd be better off putting a "First Amendment" into law than tinkering with who we can access.
What utter drivel.
The company pays all the tax it is required to pay. Why on earth would they pay any more?
Wwen you go shopping do you decide that the VAT rate isn't high enough and send a few extra pounds to the Chancellor? Of course not. So why should Amazon?
If you want corporations top pay more tax get the House of Conmen to change the tax laws. It's realy that simple.
Looking from the British side of the pond I (mostly) agree with you.
I find it amazing that anyone is surprised by the fact that Russian spies....spy. It's what they do, it's what they always do and they've been doing it to everyone for years. You only have to look back through British history and you'll find names like Philby, Burgess and McClean who were senior British intelligence agents...spying for the Russians (USSR in those days). From time to time we still see Russia "diplomats" expelled for various activities "incompatible with their status" i.e. they've been caught spying.
Its still going on in the US, look up the "Illegals Program" which caught a group of Russian sleepers/spies in the US and resulted in a prisoner exchange with Russia in July 2010
To spend umpteen millions on a total time wasting witch hunt run by a Democrat with a team of bitter Democrat lawyers to find out, gasp!, that spies spy is ridiculous. They spy on everyone all the time....especially if the targets run a server with zero security.
We don't want a war.You don't want a war. Russia doesn't want a war. The only person that does appears to be the defeated, bitter Clinton. Time to move on.
Well you got the one you least wanted. No surprise was it?
One thing I disliked about the article was the casual way you let your anti Pres Trump bias cloud your judgement. In the second last paragraph you wrote "....because she's a woman and it's fair to say Trump seems to have a big problem with women in positions of power." Which is b******t.
So far he's appointed:
Nikki Haley - UN Ambassador
Ivanka Trump - Special Advisor to the President
KellyAnne Conway - Counselor to the President
Sarah Sanders - WH Press Secretary
Gina Hasel - CIA Director
Elaine Chao - Transportation Secretary
Betsy Davos - Education Secretary
Kirstjen Nielsen - Homeland and Security Secretary
Linda McMahon - Small Business Administrator
Mercedes Schalpp - WH Commuincation Director
For a guy that "doesn't like women in positions of power" he's not doing very well at keeping them out of positions of power is he?
Maybe you should think harder about your casual bias in future.
Don't forget that 66m Americans voted for Pres Trump and many more folk around the world think he's doing a pretty good job getting his country back on track. In contrast, be honest, we don't exactly have much to boast about here in the UK do we?
The BT Openreach decision has created all sorts of comment about what it will do to improve the independence of the company. Basically, it'll do nothing.
The key thing isn't where the lines on the corpration's org chart go and whether they're solid or dotted. After this proposed change BT Openreach will still be part of BT Group no matter how everyone tries to spin it. If its owned by BT it will still continue to favour BT no matter what internal rules are put in place. He who pays the piper will inevitably continue to call the tune.
The only way to get separation and independence is for the shares to be sold off so BT Group is no longer the owner (BTW, no other telco should be able to have a significant share either). It's got to be owned by shareholders who aren't part of the industry Openreach is providing services to otherwise nothing will change.
I'm amazed that it's taken so long for the BBC top brass to realise their strategy had failed.
As usual with civil servants making strategic decisons on technology, they got it totally wrong. Even 10 years ago DAB was a dead technology. The UK opted for it, but no-one else did...not even our European "partners".
So whether or not the BBC went ahead, the UK was always going to be number 1 on a list of 1 for DAB usage while the rest of the world sailed away, over the horizon on a completely different system. At least t'internet has reopened the door to the BBC to deliver global, standards based broadcasting - now all we have to hope is that they manage to stagger through it.
This move does not in any way "raise questions over the right to strike". All it means is that the unions need to make sure they obey the rules.
If they're incapable of managing to do that, despite the best efforts of very highly paid officials and legal teams, then the members should begin to wonder what use they are.
Having sold their souls to the media industry, the almost hysterical reaction of the current government when anyone even mentions P2P should lead to some interesting squirming from the Home Office when legitimate companies/products start to use P2P services on a widespread basis.
It will no longer be able to automatically demonise any and all users of the technology and may actually force them to think about what it is they are actually trying to achieve rather than just provide air cover for corporate copyright revenue streams.
I've been based at home now for around 15 years and have seen the equipment, facilities and support provided by my various (major corporate) employers change radically in that time. I started out with a dumb terminal on the end of a 32kbps dial up line and now have the same facilities as in an office. Essentially there is now no difference for me in working in an office or at home.
The company has provided me with some office furniture, home printer, external screen and keyboard and phone so I am properly equipped. Today I would be very, very reluctant to move to an employer that would expect me to go back to 9-5 office hours, the daily commute and a working style that is more last century than this.
I now have a laptop that is my only machine, it goes with me to any company office, external meeting etc. I also have a PDA which is synchronised with it so that I have access to all key information wherever I am or while I'm travelling whether or not the laptop is with me.
In our offices I log in identically wherever I am, there's no difference between being in the HQ building or any of the other buildings. Its the same at home, a VPN gives me access via my home broadband. I use WiFi whenever I need it, same access as everywhere else. So as an employee I am equally able to work in any environment......and, no, my employer doesnt mind when/where I do my work or what I'm wearing(!) just as long as I meet my targets. They measure output not activity!!
Many of the older apps I used to use have been upgraded in the last couple of years so much more of what I do is browser based, keeping support issues to aminimum for the IT group. If I have a problem there's a single number for all queries and phone support of everything from o/s to apps to comms is equally well dealt with. 95% of problems are fixed first time on the phone, occaisionally (hardware usually) either a home visit or office appointment is made for the following day.
Software updates, new software installs and patchesare controlled centrally to keep the laptop stable and stop folk causing too many self-inflicted problems. The laptop is locked down and update bundles are fed to me on a controlled basis. I can postpone these a maximum three times so they dont interrupt important work so no-one can get too far behind the standard build.
Consumables are ordered online from an outsourced corporate catalogue and couriered to home the following day. So replacing paper, printer, pens, cartridges etc is actually easier than in an office where you have to find the key or owner of the stationery store which never has what you want anyway.
My hardcopy post is delivered to a virtual mailbox on company premises so I dont have to hand out my home address. It's bagged up and sent to my once a week.
So assuming the type of work is suitable for this approach, if the employer is serious and provides the proper support there's now no reason for many people not to work at home/remotely most of the time.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020