Re: see attachment
On Sun, May 13, 2001 at 12:42:56AM +0100, Chris Ball wrote: Totally. I mean, if they can make Antitrust.. :) :still laughs at: I've fixed our bottleneck! What, you realised that you've been writing Java?.. Hmm. Now, am I really sad enough to sit down and do a complete bastardisation...? Er... Um... No. ...but if y'all help... :-) Martin
Re: Monitors
* Dominic Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED] [010512 18:21]: How many things do you have on top of your monitor? Laptop with a hologram(ish) postcard and an icecream sticker that says $1.80. I was inspired by a high ranking Andersen Consulting type who had skate boarding stickers on his laptop. -- Brad Bowman
Re: see attachment
On Sun, May 13, 2001 at 12:37:43AM +0100, Simon Cozens wrote: On Sat, May 12, 2001 at 08:06:48PM +0100, Martin Ling wrote: Snow Crash, essentially. I was thinking recently about how well it would work as a film. You're obviously not the only one: http://www.corona.bc.ca/films/details/snowcrash.html Ooh, I did see that page once, but before the last update picture. While we're at it, http://www.corona.bc.ca/films/details/neuromancer.html seems equally dud. Martin
Re: see attachment
Martin Ling [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Sun, May 13, 2001 at 12:37:43AM +0100, Simon Cozens wrote: On Sat, May 12, 2001 at 08:06:48PM +0100, Martin Ling wrote: Snow Crash, essentially. I was thinking recently about how well it would work as a film. You're obviously not the only one: http://www.corona.bc.ca/films/details/snowcrash.html Ooh, I did see that page once, but before the last update picture. I like: Project phase: development hell -- Dave Hodgkinson, http://www.hodgkinson.org Editor-in-chief, The Highway Star http://www.deep-purple.com Interim CTO, web server farms, technical strategy
Re: putting escape characters in files
* David H. Adler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Fri, May 11, 2001 at 11:55:46AM +0100, Jonathan Peterson wrote: I see a topic far in the distance and rapidly dwindling... Topic? What's a topic? A London.pm thread topic is like a non-alchoholic ingredient in a cocktail, its only there so you can pretend not to be an inebriated addict. -- Greg McCarroll http://www.mccarroll.uklinux.net
Re: BOFHs requiring license
Paul Makepeace [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] quoth: *``BOFHs will legally need licence to work'' * *http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/7/18866.html * *Absurd, laughable and bizarre. What *is* wrong with the UK? I interviewed for a firewall admin job at a big bank whereupon they took a microscope to the last 10+ years of my life and stopped just short of the anal probe. Had I taken the position I would have been bonded as well for insurance. I don't know how well this would apply to the rest of the rather rampantly variable systems security market but banks have already been doing it for years...no big deal there. As a wise Rabbi once said, Trust is knowing exactly what someone will do and, with a 10+ year background check, you've got a pretty good idea or at least better than a resume that could be all inflated or exaggerated truths. It boils down to insurance probably. e.
Re: BOFHs requiring license
On Sat, May 12, 2001 at 03:30:31AM -0700, Paul Makepeace wrote: http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/7/18866.html Absurd, laughable and bizarre. What *is* wrong with the UK? Don't ask me, you elected 'em. And it looks like you're all stupid enough to do it *again*. -- Pray to God, but keep rowing to shore. -- Russian Proverb
Re: BOFHs requiring license
At 15:27 13/05/2001, Simon Cozens wrote: On Sat, May 12, 2001 at 03:30:31AM -0700, Paul Makepeace wrote: http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/7/18866.html Absurd, laughable and bizarre. What *is* wrong with the UK? Don't ask me, you elected 'em. And it looks like you're all stupid enough to do it *again*. troll type=politics I know, I know. Blair doesn't have a socialist bone in his body - it's been a _most_ disappointing four years, all i all. But given that the Socialist Alliance are only standing in ~100 constituencies, there doesn't seem to be any credible alternative. /troll Dave... -- http://www.dave.org.uk SMS: [EMAIL PROTECTED] plugData Munging with Perl http://www.manning.com/cross//plug
Re: BOFHs requiring license
* Dave Cross ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: At 15:27 13/05/2001, Simon Cozens wrote: On Sat, May 12, 2001 at 03:30:31AM -0700, Paul Makepeace wrote: http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/7/18866.html Absurd, laughable and bizarre. What *is* wrong with the UK? Don't ask me, you elected 'em. And it looks like you're all stupid enough to do it *again*. troll type=politics I know, I know. Blair doesn't have a socialist bone in his body - it's been a _most_ disappointing four years, all i all. But given that the Socialist Alliance are only standing in ~100 constituencies, there doesn't seem to be any credible alternative. /troll if only the SNP covered the whole of the UK -- Greg McCarroll http://www.mccarroll.uklinux.net
Re: BOFHs requiring license
On Sun, May 13, 2001 at 03:45:21PM +0100, Dave Cross wrote: But given that the Socialist Alliance are only standing in ~100 constituencies, there doesn't seem to be any credible alternative. http://www.socialistalliance.net/constituencies/constitlist.htm for the complete list. -- David Cantrell | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david/ Rip, Mix, Burn, unless you're using our most advanced operating system in the world which we decided to release incomplete just for a laugh
Re: BOFHs requiring license
* David Cantrell ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Sun, May 13, 2001 at 03:45:21PM +0100, Dave Cross wrote: But given that the Socialist Alliance are only standing in ~100 constituencies, there doesn't seem to be any credible alternative. http://www.socialistalliance.net/constituencies/constitlist.htm for the complete list. ok i reserve the right to quit this thread at any time, however But hasn't `new' labour's example shown that there is no place for socialism in modern government? Hasn't their move to capitalism been really a well spun admission of defeat? How can any socialist not feel that when it came to the crunch socialism was rejected by intelligent people who understood its principals and benefits intimitadly because they could see it would not work for modern Britain? -- Greg McCarroll http://www.mccarroll.uklinux.net
Re: BOFHs requiring license
On Sun, May 13, 2001 at 05:22:49PM +0100, Greg McCarroll wrote: ok i reserve the right to quit this thread at any time, however But hasn't `new' labour's example shown that there is no place for socialism in modern government? Hasn't their move to capitalism been really a well spun admission of defeat? How can any socialist not feel that when it came to the crunch socialism was rejected by intelligent people who understood its principals and benefits intimitadly because they could see it would not work for modern Britain? Alternatively ... the Labour Party is not and never has been socialist, but they at least used to embrace some of the same policies as socialists do. Being in reality just another form of Social Democratic party, they decided that it was in their best interests to pander to the dribbling morons who believe what they read in the tabloid press, and so ditched any remaining hints of socialism and became just another Tory party*. Although without such a witless and ineffectual leader. I have no intention of voting for Bliar or for Vague. If there were a party standing here on a platform of devolution/independence (such as an alliance of the SNP, Plaid Cymru, and some (currently non-existent) English equivalent, they'd get my vote. Do the Lib Dems think along these lines? No-one knows cos the LDs have never seemed to have any policies ever. * - although clearly not quite as evil as the real thing. -- David Cantrell | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david/ Rip, Mix, Burn, unless you're using our most advanced operating system in the world which we decided to release incomplete just for a laugh
Re: BOFHs requiring license
On Sun, May 13, 2001 at 05:22:49PM +0100, Greg McCarroll wrote: How can any socialist not feel that when it came to the crunch socialism was rejected by intelligent people who understood its principals and benefits intimitadly because they could see it would not work for modern Britain? Which intelligent people who understood it would that be, then? -- Hi, this is Ken. What's the root password?
Re: BOFHs requiring license
On Sun, May 13, 2001 at 05:35:24PM +0100, David Cantrell wrote: Do the Lib Dems think along these lines? No-one knows cos the LDs have never seemed to have any policies ever. Actually, I like the idea of parties which don't have any policies. They're supposed to represent what we tell them to support, remember, not the other way around. -- Some people claim that the UNIX learning curve is steep, but at least you only have to climb it once.
Re: BOFHs requiring license
At 17:22 13/05/2001, Greg McCarroll wrote: * David Cantrell ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Sun, May 13, 2001 at 03:45:21PM +0100, Dave Cross wrote: But given that the Socialist Alliance are only standing in ~100 constituencies, there doesn't seem to be any credible alternative. http://www.socialistalliance.net/constituencies/constitlist.htm for the complete list. ok i reserve the right to quit this thread at any time, however But hasn't `new' labour's example shown that there is no place for socialism in modern government? Hasn't their move to capitalism been really a well spun admission of defeat? How can any socialist not feel that when it came to the crunch socialism was rejected by intelligent people who understood its principals and benefits intimitadly because they could see it would not work for modern Britain? I'm sure you understand that New Labour has _nothing_ to so with socialism in any form. What happened is that after 18 years of Tory government the politics of the country _had_ moved to the right and therefore to stand any chance of winning the last election, the Labour party thought they had to do the same. What they failed to realise, however, was the size of the country's disillusionment with the Tories. There really was no need to throw out all of the Party's principles. A smaller move to the right would have been all that was needed. They'd still have won, albeit with a smaller majority. The problem is, of course, that they are now tied to these 'mini-Tory' principles and will find it very hard to go back on them. My hope is that either this time or in four/five years' time, the Tories will be almost completely wiped out or forced to split into two smaller parties. This will leave the Lib Dems as the only credible opposition party and, as they're currently more left wing than the Labour Party, British politics will rejoin much of Europe on the left of the political spectrum. I only hope it's not too late. Dave... -- http://www.dave.org.uk SMS: [EMAIL PROTECTED] plugData Munging with Perl http://www.manning.com/cross//plug
Re: BOFHs requiring license
* Simon Cozens ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Sun, May 13, 2001 at 05:22:49PM +0100, Greg McCarroll wrote: How can any socialist not feel that when it came to the crunch socialism was rejected by intelligent people who understood its principals and benefits intimitadly because they could see it would not work for modern Britain? Which intelligent people who understood it would that be, then? its just a naive hope that the leaders of the Labour party understand the principals of socialism - i accept that this may not be the case -- Greg McCarroll http://www.mccarroll.uklinux.net
Re: BOFHs requiring license
At 17:38 13/05/2001, Simon Cozens wrote: On Sun, May 13, 2001 at 05:22:49PM +0100, Greg McCarroll wrote: How can any socialist not feel that when it came to the crunch socialism was rejected by intelligent people who understood its principals and benefits intimitadly because they could see it would not work for modern Britain? Which intelligent people who understood it would that be, then? Take a look around you. This list, being representative of the Perl community, tends towards the intelligent end of the spectrum. And from what I've gathered from the conversations I've had with people here, the vast majority of us tend towards the left[1]. Dave... [1] Cue indignant emails from the half-dozen of so right-wingers I know on the list :) -- http://www.dave.org.uk SMS: [EMAIL PROTECTED] plugData Munging with Perl http://www.manning.com/cross//plug
Re: BOFHs requiring license
* Dave Cross ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: I've gathered from the conversations I've had with people here, the vast majority of us tend towards the left[1]. I'm not sure i tend to either side, i don't really like the party system of being a named outlook on the world. But i don't have another way the elections could work effectively in the forseeable future. -- Greg McCarroll http://www.mccarroll.uklinux.net
Re: BOFHs requiring license
On Sun, May 13, 2001 at 05:42:00PM +0100, Simon Cozens wrote: On Sun, May 13, 2001 at 05:35:24PM +0100, David Cantrell wrote: Do the Lib Dems think along these lines? No-one knows cos the LDs have never seemed to have any policies ever. Actually, I like the idea of parties which don't have any policies. They're supposed to represent what we tell them to support, remember, not the other way around. Hey, what if we had a system where we just elected a *candidate* we liked, like one for each local area or something? Pretty crazy, huh? Just as a system of elected representatives removes a level of public control from a democracy, so the addition of party structures still further destroys the individual's voice. It's a final and short step to a single party and all the Orwell you can eat. But, since the two parties (Yes.) are exactly the same now, it's already happened anyway. I am Jack's total lack of surprise. Martin
Re: BOFHs requiring license
On Sun, May 13, 2001 at 06:30:44PM +0100, Martin Ling wrote: Hey, what if we had a system where we just elected a *candidate* we liked, like one for each local area or something? Pretty crazy, huh? Democracy? In this country? It wouldn't work. Democracy is overrated. I think a meritocracy is needed. Perhaps measured by Perl competence. -- User: In 1793 the french king was executed. MegaHAL: HA HA HA! CORRECT. ALTHOUGH, EXECUTED HAS MULTIPLE MEANINGS.
Re: BOFHs requiring license
* Martin Ling ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Sun, May 13, 2001 at 05:42:00PM +0100, Simon Cozens wrote: On Sun, May 13, 2001 at 05:35:24PM +0100, David Cantrell wrote: Do the Lib Dems think along these lines? No-one knows cos the LDs have never seemed to have any policies ever. Actually, I like the idea of parties which don't have any policies. They're supposed to represent what we tell them to support, remember, not the other way around. Hey, what if we had a system where we just elected a *candidate* we liked, like one for each local area or something? Pretty crazy, huh? It'll never work remember the people outside the M25 get a vote as well, and we don't want to have to suffer as a result of their irrelevant whims. *thoughtful pause*[1] No, there is only one thing left to do .. We, London.pm, must put up a candidate in a local election! Yes we will start as one but soon we shall be many. Greg [1] well really just enough time for a quick swig -- Greg McCarroll http://www.mccarroll.uklinux.net
Re: BOFHs requiring license
On Sun, May 13, 2001 at 06:38:45PM +0100, Simon Cozens wrote: Democracy is overrated. I think a meritocracy is needed. Perhaps measured by Perl competence. It's a fairly well-arguable stance that *any* form of meritocracy is a reasonable system - certainly an improvement on, for example, a hereditary (mon|poly)archy. We have one already, of course - it just happens to be based around PR. Programming prowess I'd probably agree with you on as a more appropriately directioned metric. Of course, I still call for a good game of Azad. In the US, the PR games have already long since made way for Nomic, after all. Martin
Re: BOFHs requiring license
On Sun, May 13, 2001 at 06:44:07PM +0100, Greg McCarroll wrote: Hey, what if we had a system where we just elected a *candidate* we liked, like one for each local area or something? Pretty crazy, huh? It'll never work remember the people outside the M25 get a vote as well, and we don't want to have to suffer as a result of their irrelevant whims. I said ages ago that London ought to declare independence. It's a similarly sized population to Scotland, after all. In fact, this very question got brought up beautifully prior to the mayoral elections; I recall some breakfast news interviewer saying But... but Scotland has a very distinct cultural identity, and London's just a grey blob, in a somewhat more verbose manner, and being told where to shove it. Martin
