Re: Dangerous?
They have toll roads in the US...
And in the UK, but they are the exception.
7402 publicly visible posts • joined 28 Oct 2011
Ticks the Egalité box though...
Hmm. I've always thought it strange that a country which supposedly prizes Egalité is happy to build a parallel toll road network so that people with money can speed past those who haven't, yet the free-market ones like the US & UK build motorways that are generally free to use by everyone.
has never undergone any testing
You don't need testing to qualify for a CE mark. Outside of some specific categories it is all based on self-certification: "To affix the CE marking to your product, you must put together a technical dossier proving that your product fulfils all the EU-wide requirements. As the product's manufacturer, you bear sole responsibility for declaring conformity with all requirements. Once your product bears the CE marking, you might have to provide your distributors and/or importers with all the supporting documentation" (my emphasis).
If you want a product backed by testing and assessment you should look for DIN, UL or a BSI Kitemark. They actually mean something, CE doesn't.
So the company that owns SPARC
Oracle does not own SPARC, SPARC International owns it.
Oracle, like Fujitsu, simply licenses and manufactures SPARC chips, which is much the same model ARM uses.
These appear, on the card, as four groups of four digits.
Not if it's an AmEx card.
It's like US-based websites that ask for a phone number and then try to force it into the 1 (123) 456-7890 format, or require a State for all addresses. Best not to make assumptions about formats.
But then, either should be accepted as a valid input, and either should be working and producing the same output.
No, that's what you would do if they said both ways are fine. Saying either way is fine would leave the developer the freedom to choose one or the other.
It's like those car park signs which say "use both exits". We know what they were trying to say, but what they actually asked for is likely to be difficult
Now doctors will be asked to prescribe a daily pint or two.
Unfortunately the Doc may prescribe the Old Firklestones at NHS price of £20/pint, but the pub will be allowed to replace it with a tasteless fizzy yellow generic and will still charge the NHS £10/pint for that.
a career change and take up dentistry.
I've never understood what drives normal, non-psycopathic, people to take up dentistry anyway, even if they were competent with power tools. Yet they do. Funny old world, sometimes.
My wife's at the dentist as I type. I'm contemplating a Friday icon ==> instead.
The first question is why a password is required. If it's so the user can log in remotely and control/access the device then giving them a random password is pointless. They'll get so fed up not being able to remember it that they'll change it to be Password1.
What they really need is some better password-less authentication system, perhaps a way to securely link an app & the device at install time. That, unfortunately, costs more money to develop, especially to make it both secure & sufficiently simple for a non-technical user to setup. If it's too complex we'll just see Amazon comments along the lines of "Too hard to set up, returned and bought XXX instead", where XXX is the model that allows you to enter "Password1".
It's cheap consumer tat, and very difficult to get past the "leave the key under the mat, no-one will look there" mindset.
The EU is going to be much less likely to admit such a fudge.
I wouldn't bet on that. The whole EU is built on fudge, from the Parliament with two homes, to the Eurozone convergence criteria. No way would 28 countries agree on anything without fudge and ambiguity, and I'm sure they'll find more to make this work.
Barniers role is to provide the best results for the EU
Precisely, and in this area what is good for the EU and good for the UK should be pretty closely aligned. We may argue a lot about politics & economics, but security is one area where things generally work well, with good co-operation between all the national agencies.
The EU is saying "this will hinge on the UK gaining a data adequacy deal." and "The UK government has committed to doing so,". All that is obvious, since the UK has been a strong defence ally for other EU nations for a long time. It's in no-one's interests to break that, so this is just Barnier posturing on a quiet news day, trying to keep Brexit on Page 1 of the tabloids ahead of the World Cup. Maybe his boss has set him a target of at least three blog entries a week?
Even his comment that "the EU would not be drawn into a 'blame game' about the effects of the EU's latest position statement." is a fairly clear admission that he expects his "position statement" to be seen as such, rather than as any useful negotiating information.
@Phil
Well, if you think you can do better, why not give it a go?
And of course that's the problem. Maybe I could do better, but to be completely honest it is a job that I would hate so much that I could never give it the effort it needs.
Most of the time I enjoy going to work, but the thought of having to get up in the morning and do that as a job, plus dealing with politicians on a daily basis, gives me nightmares. I'd probably go BOFH and end up in jail.
One can only hope that somewhere out there is someone both competent and willing, so we don't have to choose one or the other...
WTF has happened to government in the UK?
Same as is happening everywhere. It's being run by people who see it it as a business, not a service. Career politicians who put their own interests ahead of those who voted for them, and assume that normal rules & laws don't apply to them.
Then again, we voted for them.
I appreciate there are alternatives, I just can't be faffed to install them and switch.
And there is the likely insurmountable problem. Knowledgeable techie-types like ElReg readers may go for this, but for "Mom & Pop" this will be just like asking them to run Linux instead of Windows on their laptop. It might be "better", it might do less spying, but at the end of they day the average user wants something that just works, where they can run the same apps as their neighbour/son/mum/friend, and where problems can be fixed by a friend or a high street shop without needing to find a geek with arcane knowledge. Whether we like it or not, the problems that this will solve simply don't matter to the general public. If they did, no-one would use Facebook.
just rent an ICE/Hybrid for the once or twice a year you go away.
That works while ICE vehicles are still in a majority, but who's going to maintain a refuelling network for them if they are only used occasionally? How do you manage the economics of a fleet of ICE cars that lie idle for months, but everyone wants to rent one at Thanksgiving?
The tipping point in the US is further away because they pay nothing for petrol
Hardly nothing compared to, say, Venezuela, but that's even more true for EVs. Their "fuel" is cheap because it isn't taxed like petrol/diesel, but no government will abandon that revenue. If EVs take over from ICE vehicles you can be sure that they'll be taxed just as heavily, with no more subsidies.
Petrol stations seem to have managed it, so I don't agree that planning permission will be an obstacle.
Petrol station fires rarely reach the tanks, they tend to be on the surface where they can be dealt with relatively easily with conventional firefighing means. I wouldn't be so sanguine about dealing with, say, a Tesla battery pack catching fire in the middle of a warehouse full of others like it.
How many people, in reality, use their car for long 400-mile trips to random locations that are 'in the middle of nowhere' enough to not have an electric socket available. Maybe 5-10% of road users? The other 90-95% are covered by Raj's description of what the Tesla delivers.
You're confusing road users with journeys.
Maybe only 5-10% of my journeys are long drives to places where I can't conveniently recharge, but that still means that an electric car doesn't meet all my needs, and an IC one does. An electric car is therefore of no use to me, except as a second car. If I only have one car it needs to meet 100% of my needs, not 90%.
And before you suggest renting an IC one for that 5-10%, remember that for that to be possible requires someone to make those IC vehicles, and maintain a refuelling network for them, just like today. That is unlikely to be practical if it's only for 10% of journeys, many of which will be bank holidays and summer weekends, when everybody will be trying to hire at the same time.
EVs certainly have a niche market in pollution-conscious places like cities, although it will be interesting to see how popular they remain once they are taxed as heavily as all other vehicles instead of both them and their fuel being subsidised.
standardized interchangeable battery packs. The service station would charge them for hours
That just moves the problem, the service stations would need grid connections able to supply the energy for that, which might be feasible for motorway stations but not for ones in towns. Then you have the fire hazard issues of a warehouse full of on-charge aging Li-Ion cells in every service station, getting planning permission for those all over the country might be tricky.
Lastly, how do you cope with the fact that as they age the storage packs lose capacity? Will a garage charge less money for an older pack that doesn't hold as much? Will drivers insist that they only get a newish fully-charged pack?
On the plus side it would be easier for a government to tax, just add 60% fuel tax to each battery pack swap bill. Then it would be no cheaper than petrol/diesel, of course.
The UK does manufacture a lot of stuff
Yes, it's now the 8th largest manufacturing nation, just a shade behind France (and the UK is going up, while France is going down). Unsurprisingly the big nations are China, USA, Japan, S. Korea, India, but to claim the UK doesn't have a manufacturing industry is complete nonsense.
it seems highly unlikely that the USA would ever deprive the rest of the world access to the civil GPS service
How could they do that, without making all GNSS receivers (including US ones) useless? For that matter, how could the EU allow widespread use of Galileo, except to Brits?
Military-precision controls I can see, but the civililian service is surely beyond that level of control now.
In the early days of software distribution on CDROM we got a CD with a Fortran compiler distribution kit for a Microvax. At least, that's what it said on the label. It wouldn't load, claimed to be unreadable, but before returning it one bright spark dropped it into a CD "Workman" player to see what would happen. Turned out to be a Springsteen album.
Presumably a mixup of masters in the CD pressing factory.
This code is not a no-op. It will change the value in the TOTAL_EXPOSURE variable each time it runs around the loop. Thus there is no need for lint to pick it up.
Fair enough, I suppose it depends on the scope of TOTAL_EXPOSURE. If it's local, or thread-local, storage then it can't be read by anything until after the loop exits, so the loop is effectively a no-op since it could be replaced by a single instruction to store the last value of POSITION.EXPOSURE in TOTAL_EXPOSURE.
If TOTAL_EXPOSURE is more globally accessible then I agree, other threads/processes could see the incremental changes during the loop.
Yes, C will read it and interpret it as a boolean because C will do anything you tell it, no matter how obvious it is that it won't help, but it's a type clash
C does not have boolean types, at least not before C99. Even there a boolean is just 0 or 1. A conditional expression is evaluated, and if non-zero is treated as true. To quote K&R (ANSI 2nd edition) "the conditional expression is indeed an expression, and can be used wherever any other expression can be.". When using a single '=' instead of '==' in that situation you may get a picky compiler issuing a warning about "possible unintended side-effect", but it is perfectly legal C.
You could argue that a loop that always sets x=[iterator] is incorrect, because the end value will always be the latest iterator, but you can't always know that.
The compiler is entitled to assume it, unless iterator has been declared with the volatile qualifier.
what is written is quite valid code, just not doing what was intended.
but so is "if (a = 3)" and lint will pick up on that.
A code analyzer like lint will recognize things like the argument or argument types being wrong, code that will never be run
In this case it is code that won't be run. The loop is meaningless since all but the last iteration will be ignored, which a good code analyzer should be able to spot. I'll try it later.
All that an IPv4-only device can do is barf when it receives an IPv6 packet.
Which is the problem. It would have been nice if the packet at least looked enough like an IPv4 one that an IPv4 device could have said something like "This is a weird packet, I'll pass it to weirdpacket.ietf.com and it can figure out where to send it".
I don't understand why these leavers expect the EU to show, what they put in so many words, is actually nothing more than charity. It makes no sense to disadvantage the whole EU bloc for this one country called UK.
While that is largely true, it also makes no sense for the UK to enter negotiatons with it's first bid being the minimum it will accept.
Most political negotiations, especially those held in the full public eye, start with posturing. Both sides make fairly outrageous demands, and use the reaction to gauge how much they should tone them down for the next round. In the meantime the real negotiators are in a back room working on something more reasonable. It's a game, the politicians are the players & we're the game tokens...
Having a minimum required turnout is most common, from small voting scenarios to large, in company/organisation board meetings and some government houses this is known as "having quorum"
True, and 72% turnout would certainly meet most such requirements.
Is the consent of 38% of the country's population sufficient to initiate massive legal and constitutional change?
If not then you've just invalidated almost every election over the past 100 years.
We went into the EU on the basis of a decision by Parliament at a time when John Major was PM. In the previous election the tories obtained 41.9% of the votes with a 77.7% turnout. That doesn't meet your criteria either, so was the massive legal and constitutional change of entering the EU valid?
Is it any different to brexitter/tory logic, which is that the union is bad, if it is European, but good, if it's the UK?
Not the same at all. Scotland wants to leave the union of the UK, because it thinks it will be better alone. That's exactly the Brexit leaver position in the EU, yet for Sturgeon Scotland is right to think that, and the UK is wrong. That's contradictory.
I mean, the UK actually has far more autonomy and power within the EU, than Scotland does within the UK, not least because unlike the EU, where no country is more than 20% of the population, England is 80% of the UK, so its voters can pretty much determine what happens
That makes little sense. Scotland actually has far more power in the UK because it's MPs may hold the balance of power in Westminister. The UK has no such similar power in the EU. You're quite correct that Scots dislike the way that English voters can pretty much determine what happens, which is the same argumen used by leavers as regards the UK within Europe, the EU gets to decide what happens & the UK has little say in it.
Like the ex-colleague who complained when I spoke French to the delegation from our Brussels head office over lunch.
Surely that depends on the circumstances? If your Brussels colleagues are comfortable in English and your ex-colleague doesn't speak French, then switching the conversation to French would be impolite and at best could be seen as an attempt to exclude him. On the other hand, if the Brussels folks have little English, trying to make them feel welcome would be appreciated and your ex-colleague should have accepted that.