"A mistake has been made,
It's a fact they can't hide,
Though I'm partly to blame,
It cannot be denied,
There ain't no use defendin',
It seems I've been tendin',
The wrong grave for 23 years..."
33 posts • joined 7 Oct 2014
Lady Hale ignored the stated reason for the prorogation as it was not the question at hand.
Had it have been a five day prorogation, nobody would have blinked an eye, much less pursued the matter in every jurisdiction.
It wasn't a 5-day prorogation, though, it was a 5-week prorogation that encompassed the majority of remaining time (pardon the pun) before an irreversible constitutional change in which parliament had shown a particular appetite to have a say.
You *must* accept that prorogations cannot be arbitrarily long, surely? In which case, the Executive, when challenged, must surely be able to offer some reasonable explanation for the length of time specified. The Executive offered only the Queen's Speech as justification, which was clearly a nonsense.
What if a 5-month, or 5-year prorogation had been advised by the PM and Privy Council? Would a Queen's Speech have been sufficient justification then?
For what? To declare that a prorogation that ended 22 years ago is null and void? What purpose would it serve? How exactly would it change anything? Can I take my primary schoolmate to court for gaining 1st place in the sack race by foul methods? Cool - I'm on it!
I kind of see what you mean, but the very purpose of courts is to interpret the law.
In particular, the purpose of a constitutional court - as the SC is permitted to act - is to interpret the constitution. Having an unwritten constitution offers them considerable latitude limited only by prior precedent and custom.
If parliament wishes to strike down the precedent they merely have to pass legislation that invalidates it.
It's true that there were few parliamentary sessions planned, but prorogation (as opposed to recess) also prevents the sitting of committees, the submission of and response to verbal or written questions etc etc
The point being that it stops *all* parliamentary business, not just the sitting of the houses themselves.
My (different) bank did (2) to me. Except they wrote me two letters - one to my parents' and one to my termtime address - and charged me £25 for each.
I wrote acknowledgements to each letter (separately) and a further letter explaining their mistake and demanding they rescinded all charges. Finally, the following day, I invoiced them for £100 to cover each of my four missives.
To my amazement, they returned the erroneous charges within 3 working days. To my further amazement, I received a cheque for £100 the following week.
I've tried the same since, but with less success.
I see what you mean, but the researcher talks about the intensities being similar.
“The fact that the measured intensities of very high-energy neutrinos, ultrahigh-energy cosmic rays, and high-energy gamma rays are roughly comparable tempted us to wonder if these extremely energetic particles have some physical connections.”
Logically, the intensity of <generic_cosmic_radiation> can't be the same as intensity of <generic_cosmic_radiation> + intensity of gamma + intensity of neutrinos unless there's no flux of neutrinos and gamma at all*. Hence he *must* be using the specific context.
OTOH, it's a good old while since I was involved in CR research - maybe the distinction is always made nowadays... :-)
* for a given energy range
Cosmic rays are high energy radiation from space. It is often used purely for the massive particles (which includes neutrinos, btw), but not always and it's a relatively recent distinction in any case. The particles need not be fundamental either - nuclei up to and including iron are found in the flux (esp. for E < ~10^15eV)
It is virtually always used to mean particles with E>10^12eV, since below that energy, the flux of extra-solar particles is completely swamped by the solar wind.
8hrs = 45mins of video => 22hrs < 2h4mins of video... About normal for a non-kiddie film
Amusingly, I reckon that means you could fly to New Zealand, go for a tour of The Shire, pick up a copy of the LotR boxset from the gift shop and fly back quicker than downloading the films...
The idea is that handsets with Oreo ON RELEASE will not be certified for Google services if they can't run boot a minimal AOSP release (as defined - and kept secret from we plebs - by Google).
The upshot of that is that handset manufacturers will have to conform to a relatively strict HAL definition for *basic* functions, but be able to retain control of their USP features. You will, therefore be able to upgrade, but may have to choose between <feature_you_have_come_to_rely_on> and latest greatest android version.
This is definitely an improvement. Note, however, that it only affects handsets seeking to be certified by Google with Oreo; previous handsets upgraded to Oreo will not have to comply with this to *retain* certification.
My next handset will have Oreo at launch...
I can't believe you're accusing them of adding pointless gewgaws rather than paying attention to detail!
As it states quite clearly on the promo visible on the screenshot of multi-panel (p2), 'Samsung Electronics has taken care to create a memorable expreience'.
See? They've taken care! I don't know what an expreience is, but I'm sure it's memorable...
( ( Netflix || Amazon || NowTV ) && ( NAS && ( Pi(s) || Roku || Chromecast ) && ( ( Charity Shops && New disc seller ) || ( Charity Shops ) ) ) )
1) General stuff to watch, I stream, or pick up on a whim in a charity shop.
2) Stuff I know I, or one of my family, really like and will likely want to watch again, I keep an eye out for in charity shops.
3) Stuff I need to see at the first available opportunity, I buy new.
If I buy it, I rip it to my NAS, keep the disc (in large CD binder(s)) and sleeves (in shoeboxes) for defence against The Man and stream around the house / copy to a device for trips away.
Same with music ( 'cept with free Spotify/Deezer), similar with books.
Some management modules come with everything enabled, some require licenses for full functionality and others are basically crippleware to make you buy licenses when you realise they do nothing.
Also, some of them are a complete pain to install licenses on, so if you need advanced functionality, either pick a brand that includes all the functionality you need without licensing, or get the licenses pre-installed by the vendor.
No, it's more like setting a bale of straw on fire on a deserted lake island, rowing to the shore, going to the nearest straw hut shouting, "The straw is on fire!" then waiting for the island fire to die out, before claiming you've sorted it. And THEN accepting a medal for saving the hut.
....its fraudulent nature.
If they would have refunded the sum on accepting that it was fraudulent, then they might have been less willing to accept it. As they are unwilling to refund the sum in any case, why dispute the nature of the transaction?
Sony: "You need to pay us £50."
Punter: "But I didn't complete, or authorise the transaction"
Sony: "We're sure you didn't. We will, nonetheless, be needing that fifty quid."
As bad as the PR on this is, it'd be much worse if it went like this:
S: "You need to pay us £50."
P: "But I didn't complete, or authorise the transaction"
S: "Our records show you did."
S: "Oh you're right - you didn't! We will, nonetheless, be needng that fifty quid."
Actually, you're both mistaken.
Interstellar will be showing at IMAX cinemas, meaning cinemas with projectors capable of projecting the 1570 format (of which the UK has >30, usually a single screen in a multiplex). The reason it is being shown there is because it was partially shot (>60mins) in IMAX format, with IMAX cameras, on IMAX stock, by the director who seems to like doing IMAX-format films (Batman films). Films (or parts of films) not shot with IMAX cameras can be remastered to be shown on IMAX projectors, but the effect is somewhat reduced.
The other thing to 'get' is that showing a three-hour film to a packed theatre will generate cash that showing a twenty-minute film to one man and his dog will not. A blockbuster like Interstellar will get bums on seats, even at 2-3 times the price of viewing it on a regular screen.
Look in the top500 - there are two Windows-based systems in the list; one at the bottom, one below half way.
Windows is utterly unsuitable for this kind of system:
1) Poor-to-no support for high-performance interconnects
2) What's the gui for on a compute node? Sucking resources, that's what.
3) No possibility of vendor optimisations
4) Monolithic kernel
5) Ridiculously high licensing costs
6) Virtually no ability to monitor the internals to find and remove bottlenecks
Contrary to your assertion about 'open source student coders', much of Linux and its ecosystem are the work of highly-paid, highly-motivated and highly-trained developers working at IBM, HP, Cray, Intel, AMD, SGI, Samsung, Google, US and other national labs etc. Oh, and Microsoft too. The difference is that other highly-paid, highly-motivated and highly-trained coders from other organisations can see and critique the changes.
The Cray distribution (and kernel) will be pared down, tuned to their hardware and optimised for the specific application(s) at hand. Bespoke tweaks will be added during the installation phase, to ensure the acceptance criteria are met. During the lifetime of the cluster, there will be dedicated Cray engineers onsite constantly passing information and fixes back and forth to their developers, rather than passing data to Microsoft to (hopefully) get an update at some point in the future.
There are many valid criticisms of Linux (and the open source development model); you have produced none of them.
Well I'll tell you what, you just pop off and do all that whilst we wait here, because then you'll have counted all the lives sa.... Waaaaiiit a minute - you won't have counted them at all! You'll just have estimated the number, based on probabilities.
Oh well, never mind. At least you'll have shown up the article's claim that the numbers were 'inestimab...' Waaaaiiit a minute! They didn't claim that at all and the only thing you'll have proved is that you're none too hot at this pedantry lark.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020