Re: Are we heading toward a converged Unix?
it is important to check these things
https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/019/396/original.jpg
386 publicly visible posts • joined 24 Jun 2010
going back just a short while, one place I was at used NT Workstation because of C2 security. (No-one ever read the bit that said "if you unplug it", but still). Will this be a system where the worker controls what it does? So, as you say, easy to disable telemetry, autoupdates, etc?
Andrew Dow's "Pegasus - The Heart of the Harrier" has some very interesting stuff about other aircraft that were designed, and even prototyped, around the Pegasus engine - some of those were multi-engine.
"AC because - well you're all a bunch of drone haters :-)"
not fair ... i just hate idiots. Like the guy who thinks it's fine to fly his camera drone over other people's property then actually gets upset when someone "modifies" the drone so it can no longer take pictures.
Maybe the method of modification was a little extreme (from a UK perspective), but the principle seems just fine. As you've shown, talking to the neighbours and getting consent before doing this would possibly have been a far more productive course than reaching for the lawyers after the event.
well, yes, but it's not really a true / false is it? It's more like "true" or "false for now but we may change our mind later without telling anyone, without asking for a parliamentary vote, and without consulting those who will be affected rather than only consulting politicians, journalists, and lobbyists" ...
@Dan 55 - no, no-one voted to give the government a mandate to take us out of all of that, but they are doing it anyway. The Leave campaigners won by a margin of just 2.7% of the electorate, so if even 4% of Leave voters don't want the Adamantium Brexit that May is going for, there's no mandate at all for the course the government is pursuing.
Yet anyone according to the Leave mouthpieces, anyone saying that is going against the Will of the People. Ain't democracy great?
"To be fair they didn't.
That is simply the motivation of those who hold the key to the marginals at the next election, hence May's hard brexit and Corbyn enabling it."
@Jess - Corbyn did more than enable it, he has practically ensured the Opposition is doing nothing to oppose it in any effective way.
"their lives reduces to bargaining chips"
Serial idiot John Redwood was on Daily Politics yesterday (iPlayer if anyone hates themselves enough) saying he doesn't understand anything at all and refuses to listen to people who do why the EU countries won't issue guarantees to UK citizens as Mrs "May has already said the UK will". Firstly "will", is future tense - not present - so why should the EU offer in advance of a formal UK commitment, when it's the UK making the change, not the EU? Secondly, what about EU citizens who live in and work in the UK now, who choose to go & visit family post-Brexit - will they definitely be allowed back to their jobs, their lives here, without any unnecessary issues? What about small companies that rely on cross-border business, are they going to get meaningful help, or is that only to be offered to people the size of Nissan, Crapita, and so on? [Capita and it's ilk are already being given more than enough subsidies by IR35 changes, maybe they'll be honourable and refuse any additional help? haha]
Until all of those questions are answered, and set in law, we do not know what is going to happen, and anyone who says "it will all be great or even just OK" seems as believable as the average political manifesto: they don't know what will happen. I don't know that our politicians will claim they have got a good deal simply because the Daily Fail says they did, just as I don't know that Mr Trump is blocking huge parts of the media from press conferences because he doesn't like being questioned: it's just a small suspicion.
"my co-workers and I were handing out flyers to other passengers that detailed their rights under international law and how rights under the US Constitution apply to everyone, regardless of citizenship status"
Good for you - and colleagues. Don't suppose it's available for download is it?
"set a precedent."
There's a bit from Yes Minister, can't remember which one: Sir Humphrey warns the Minister that something could "create a dangerous precedent". Hacker "You mean, if we do the right thing this time, we might have to do the right thing next time?"
"It was definitely not as clear cut as May suggests. Prominent people on the Remain side said that leaving the EU would mean leaving the Single Market. Prominent people on the Leave side said that leaving the EU would not mean leaving the Single Market."
(Thanks Len, put it far better / more succinctly than I would have done!)
Headline version: during campaign, neither of the campaigns suggested the paeticular course Mrs May is now taking, so no-one voted for or against this particular course.
It's certainly true that I don't remember Gove, Johnson on the Leave side, or Cameron, Clegg on the Remain side (or indeed Corbyn sitting there on the fence), asking people to vote on leaving ECHR, ECJ or the single market; the question that was asked did not even mention them.
There is something that the Reg article does not make clear - and probably should. Ofcom senior management, right up to the level of Chair, knew he would be writing for those publications/organisations and approved that he continue to do so. He was not told to "he should steer clear of politics and public policy issues", they knew he would be writing on those areas - it was agreed he would not write directly on British politics or areas within his remit while in that role at Ofcom, but "broader public policy issues would not cause a problem." If there was a clear breach of policy or of his agreements with them, Ofcom's lawyers would not have reached a settlement for the minister to reject.
I'd quite like to know what broadcasting or journalistic experience Ofcom's Chief Exec had before taking that role, as that would help clarify whether her experience as an editor has covered this sort of thing before; I'd also quite like to know whose advice the Minister took before reaching a view - independent counsel, after talking to both Ofcom and Mr Emmott, or what?
As soon as Ofcom/DCMS publishes their version, I'll read with just as much interest as I read Bill Emmott's version today, or the articles that have appeared in Private Eye on a fairly regular basis over recent months. More than happy to be shown that I'm wrong, as I have this naive wish to be able to trust our regulatory bodies?
i agree with your "maybe he should never have been hired" - but they did hire him, knew who/what they were getting, and seemed to change their minds. It happens. There are proper processes for dealing with it. This story does not reflect those processes being followed - and if the Ofcom guys were smart, they could have made this a "process" story and no-one would be interested.
did you actually read the linked account? Chief Exec not involved in recruitment process decides they don't like the person they get; the Chair, who was involved in recruitment, says not his fault but then changed position with the political breeze. If the quote from the Code of Conduct is accurate (easy enough to check) then he did not breach that or the agreements / understandings.
For me, the most disturbing part seems that he was removed (for whatever reason) with no processes followed: no formal reasons given, no witnesses, and nothing in writing. A full and final settlement was agreed, with Ofcom saying it had to be agreed by DCMS but that was expected within days. That was not forthcoming and there appears to be no written explanation of why not.
Overall, it sounds like they recruited the wrong person, failed to explain to him that even though they had chosen to recruit a journalist/editor they expected him to cease those activities (having agreed he would not be expected to do so) - but then, worst of all, they failed to admit the issue and simply screwed up the process of him leaving. If that process had been handled properly (easy enough), then none of this would have been necessary and we would not be commenting on an article that wouldn't exist.
also bear in mind a lot of industrial systems still use serial interfaces, and often require optoisolation and/or unusual electrical interfaces so you probably need custom electronics for that - but if beyond that you can then read a 9.6k serial link, and decode some (seriously wacky) proprietary protocols, you've got quite a few areas in which the Compute may be of use ...
"The situation is a lot more complicated than "bring jobs back to the US", but the angry white working man that voted him into office probably doesn't realize that."
It's part of the same "we don't need experts" theme - the 'angry white working men' you refer to are "probably" not hearing the truth from the politicians, as it is far far easier to demonise others than explain a complicated set of circumstances (especially as some circumstances are the fault of the politicians doing the demonising). Both a recent election and a recent referendum could be used s Exhibit A for that ......
The Grand Design, Yes Prime Minister - series one, episode one - starts the beginning of the story, including a part about quarter of a million football hooligans peeling potatoes in Aldershot? The Ministerial Broadcast (YPM episode 2, i think) probably includes the quote, there's certainly a part where another Perm Sec (from Employment?) talks about releasing an army of trained killers onto the streets ...
"The true extent of blocking access to "obscenity" has hardly been touched on..."
True, after all, there's this:
http://www.scstatehouse.gov/billsearch.php?billnumbers=3003&session=122&summary=B
And of course, this:
https://www.snooperscharter.co.uk/
Both are certainly obscene.("repulsive by reason of crass disregard of moral or ethical principles", or "so excessive as to be offensive" - Merriam Webster)