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 :) Yep... you can count me on that list... Andy (preparing for all the insults under the sun for being a tory!)
Re: BOFHs requiring license
At 16:41 13/05/01 +0100, you wrote: * Dave Cross ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: At 15:27 13/05/2001, Simon Cozens wrote: if only the SNP covered the whole of the UK Err, they do. Insert rant about the obvious injustice of having Scotland vote on the affairs of England and Westminster but not vice versa -- Greg McCarroll http://www.mccarroll.uklinux.net -- Jonathan Peterson Technical Manager, Unified Ltd, 020 7383 6092 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BOFHs requiring license
At 17:58 13/05/01 +0100, you wrote: At 17:38 13/05/2001, Simon Cozens wrote: 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]. Plenty of merchant banks full of very intelligent people who aren't very socialist. -- Jonathan Peterson Technical Manager, Unified Ltd, 020 7383 6092 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BOFHs requiring license
* at 13/05 16:41 +0100 Greg McCarroll said: * 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 my experience of the snp is that the average supporter is a lot more interested in 'getting rid of the english' rather than any of their more useful policies. of course that doesn't neccessarily go for those withing the party but given that independance is their whole reason for existing[1] there must be some element of that in there. struan [1] why does that sound so much more cumbersome than the french equivalent?
RE: BOFHs requiring license
From: Jonathan Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 14, 2001 9:41 AM At 17:58 13/05/01 +0100, you wrote: At 17:38 13/05/2001, Simon Cozens wrote: 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]. Plenty of merchant banks full of very intelligent people who aren't very socialist. Very true. But in my experience the IT groups of those hotbeds of capitalism still contain _far_ higher percentages of left-wingers that you'd expect. Dave... -- The information contained in this communication is confidential, is intended only for the use of the recipient named above, and may be legally privileged. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please re-send this communication to the sender and delete the original message or any copy of it from your computer system.
Re: BOFHs requiring license
At 18:50 13/05/01 +0100, you wrote: 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. Nah. I think meritocracies degenerate rapidly into self perpetuating oligarchies. The current ruling set starts to define 'merit' such that the friends and co-conspirators and like mindeds of the ruling set remain in power. Wasn't ICANN meant to be a meritocracy? Actually, a hereditary democratic chamber such as the (old) house of lords strikes me as being a pretty good system. Swapping 'randomly selected' for hereditary would be a small improvement, possibly. Swapping 'selected by Tony Blair after consultation with his own sycophantic smile' for hereditary strikes me as pretty stupid, corrupt and evil. Cough. -- Jonathan Peterson Technical Manager, Unified Ltd, 020 7383 6092 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BOFHs requiring license
On Sun, 13 May 2001, Greg McCarroll wrote: * 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 What the Sussex Nationalist Party - I dont think it will work somehow :) /J\
Re: BOFHs requiring license
On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 09:51:37AM +0100, Jonathan Peterson wrote: Actually, a hereditary democratic hereditary democratic - an oxymoron, surely. chamber such as the (old) house of lords strikes me as being a pretty good system. Swapping 'randomly selected' for hereditary would be a small improvement, possibly. Swapping 'selected by Tony Blair after consultation with his own sycophantic smile' for hereditary strikes me as pretty stupid, corrupt and evil. Cough. swapping any politician for Tony Blair likewise. Random selection for the upper house seems reasonable. Of course, just like with jury service, people would desperately try to get out of it. -- 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
Politics (was Re: BOFHs requiring license)
I just thought I'd remind you all that the last time talk here turned to politics it nearly ended in tears before bedtime. Please think before you post anything potentially inflamable as I think there are a wider variety of more strongly held views represented here than is apparent from the usual content of the messages :) /J\
RE: BOFHs requiring license
Swapping 'selected by Tony Blair after consultation with his own sycophantic smile' for hereditary strikes me as pretty stupid, corrupt and evil. Cough. It's called confirming and strengthening your own powerbase while undermining that of your opponent. If we're not careful we'll end up in the situation where the TB has such a strong powerbase that he'll be able to push through pretty much anything he wants, riding roughshod over the the views/opinions etc of those who elected him in the first place. Once it gets to that stage it's effectively a dictatorship. Rob (preparing to be chargrilled as a democratic heretic) --- New Labour! We're the friend of business!! We wont raise taxes!! We will reduce bureaucracy!! --- --- Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of IBNet Plc. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required please request a hard-copy version.
RE: BOFHs requiring license
On Mon, 14 May 2001, Robert Thompson wrote: If we're not careful we'll end up in the situation where the TB has such a strong powerbase that he'll be able to push through pretty much anything he wants, riding roughshod over the the views/opinions etc of those who elected him in the first place. Once it gets to that stage it's effectively a dictatorship. Umm.. why the implication that this *hasn't* happened yet? MBM -- Matthew Byng-Maddick [EMAIL PROTECTED] +44 20 8980 5714 (Home) http://colondot.net/ +44 7956 613942 (Mobile) All language designers are arrogant. Goes with the territory... -- Larry Wall
Re: BOFHs requiring license
From: Dave Cross [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 :) I've always been pretty right wing, and as I get older I'm getting worse :-) My prediction is that Labour will win again (a no-brainer I know), and that the Conservatives will elect a new leader. Over the next 4 years, Labour will fail to deliver their promises yet again, and the country will swing back to the party of low taxes, who will be re-elected in 2006. I've been on an NHS waiting list since before Christmas actually, Labour isn't working for me. Thinking about it though, most of LondonPM seem left-wing to me too, but I've put that down to the fact that most are quite young. I am reminded of: If a man is not a socialist by the time he is twenty, he has no heart. If he is not a conservative by the time he is 40, he has no brain. -Winston Churchill discuss :-) /Robert
Politics (was RE: BOFHs requiring license)
Robert Shiels: Over the next 4 years, Labour will fail to deliver their promises yet again, and the country will swing back to the party of low taxes, who will be re-elected in 2006. Part of the reason why they haven't delivered the promises that I think are important (decent public services) is because they've hamstrung themselves with this clueless tory low-tax approach. I genuinely believe that the public are sick of watching the NHS, education system etc wasting away on a starvation diet and would be willing to pay a bit of extra tax to make sure that their kids can get schooled and that their sick can be healed. As mentioned earlier in the thread by someone far more articulate than me, I think the Labour Party lurched to the right just when the country was moving back left again. Let's face it, it's possible to say Labour isn't working, but after the systematic dismantling of manufacturing industry, the fragmentation and decay of our rail infrastructure at the hands of private companies who sack thousands of track maintenance staff to increase profit margins, boom and bust economics leading to the worst recession in decades, deregulation of the cattle-feed industry leading directly to the BSE crisis that made British meat an international laughing-stock/pariah ... I could go on ... I'd say that conservative ideas worked a lot worse. You can't expect public services that have seen two decades of alternating neglect and red-tape frenzy, with a workforce that is completely demoralised after being scapegoated for twenty years (What do you mean we've screwed the education system - it's the fault of those loony-left teachers and their 'progressive' ideas!) to be turned round in four years, especially if the government doesn't have the guts to make a hard decision and actually raise the cash to do it. You want to reduce waiting lists and class sizes? It all costs, people. This election should be fought on exactly those lines: low taxes and ever-shittier public services versus increased tax and a national infrastructure that actually works. And do you know what? I think that people would choose the latter. I think that's what they chose in 1997 (not so much I'm sick of the tories as I'm sick of the state in which the tories have left the bnationspublic services) but Blair and chums thought it was down to their economic bandwaggoning. I have deeply unfashionable political views, though. I think tax and spend is a *good idea*. -- matt | I mean to make you move with my planet infallible
Re: Politics (was RE: BOFHs requiring license)
On or about Mon, May 14, 2001 at 10:45:45AM +0100, Matthew Jones typed: I genuinely believe that the public are sick of watching the NHS, education system etc wasting away on a starvation diet and would be willing to pay a bit of extra tax to make sure that their kids can get schooled and that their sick can be healed. When have they ever been asked? You want to reduce waiting lists and class sizes? It all costs, people. Money isn't enough. America spends more on education per pupil than anywhere else in the world - think that works? Government-run projects don't work, even when they're heavily funded. Roger
Re: Politics (was RE: BOFHs requiring license)
On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 10:45:45AM +0100, Matthew Jones wrote: Part of the reason why they haven't delivered the promises that I think are important (decent public services) is because they've hamstrung themselves with this clueless tory low-tax approach. I genuinely believe that the public are sick of watching the NHS, education system etc wasting away on a starvation diet and would be willing to pay a bit of extra tax to make sure that their kids can get schooled and that their sick can be healed. Unfortunately, you have to remember that most people are idiots. They want all these services and they might even be willing to have taxes put up to pay for them *but* they don't want to pay those higher taxes themselves. This is why we should abolish democracy. We need a benevolent dictator. Obviously we can't vote for our dictator (not only is democracy too flawed, but then it wouldn't be a dictator either) so I hereby appoint myself. I appoint Greg as my Culture Adviser and as head of the church. Any volunteers for my other minions? Even if you don't want a cabinet post, please feel free to volunteer as a Henchman. You'll get 25 days holiday a year, a nice uniform and a free Hench. -- 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 Mon, May 14, 2001 at 10:23:50AM +0100, Robert Shiels wrote: If a man is not a socialist by the time he is twenty, he has no heart. If he is not a conservative by the time he is 40, he has no brain. -Winston Churchill discuss:-) How does that explain Garry Bushell and Jim Davidson ;) jp
Re: Politics (was RE: BOFHs requiring license)
- Original Message - From: Matthew Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 14, 2001 4:45 AM Subject: Politics (was RE: BOFHs requiring license) Robert Shiels: Over the next 4 years, Labour will fail to deliver their promises yet again, and the country will swing back to the party of low taxes, who will be re-elected in 2006. Part of the reason why they haven't delivered the promises that I think are important (decent public services) is because they've hamstrung themselves with this clueless tory low-tax approach. I genuinely believe that the public are sick of watching the NHS, education system etc wasting away on a starvation diet and would be willing to pay a bit of extra tax to make sure that their kids can get schooled and that their sick can be healed. snip many words I have deeply unfashionable political views, though. I think tax and spend is a *good idea*. Quite, It does irritate me when you do the calculations and it turns out people are objecting to an extra £100 tax a year which could go towards things like recruiting more nurses, teachers and more resources for the public sector including areas like public transport. For a start, if you have more teachers and resources for schools then you have a better educated workforce which means more industrys wanting to use your contry and therefore less unemployment. This means less burden on the government in terms of welfare and more people to spread the tax over so you don't *need* higher tax. How do you suggest we train our workforce when schools (which are funded by tax) can't afford more than a couple of rooms full of archimedes?
RE: Politics (was RE: BOFHs requiring license)
This is why we should abolish democracy. We need a benevolent dictator. Obviously we can't vote for our dictator (not only is democracy too flawed, but then it wouldn't be a dictator either) so I hereby appoint myself. Why not? The Romans did. The title of Imperator and Dictator were bestowed by the Senate. I appoint Greg as my Culture Adviser and as head of the church. Any volunteers for my other minions? Even if you don't want a cabinet post, please feel free to volunteer as a Henchman. You'll get 25 days holiday a year, a nice uniform and a free Hench. Hmm, seen this somewhere before... http://www.ruthless-world-domination.com Rob - Pinky - So what are we doing today Brain? Brain - We're going to take over the world Pinky Pinky - Oh not again... - --- Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of IBNet Plc. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required please request a hard-copy version.
Re: Politics (was RE: BOFHs requiring license)
- Original Message - From: Matthew Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 14, 2001 5:05 AM Subject: RE: Politics (was RE: BOFHs requiring license) I appoint Greg as my Culture Adviser and as head of the church. Any volunteers for my other minions? Even if you don't want a cabinet post, please feel free to volunteer as a Henchman. You'll get 25 days holiday a year, a nice uniform and a free Hench. Minister for Perilous Boogiedowns, please. Can I be an overlord? Or at least something prefixed by Arch- would be good.
Re: Politics (was RE: BOFHs requiring license)
On or about Mon, May 14, 2001 at 11:04:52AM +0100, Matthew Jones typed: When have they ever been asked? During elections. Like I say, in 1997, the UK voted in a party that was (I reckon) seen as the guardian of the public services, the party that is traditionally associated In 1997 the UK voted against the Conservatives. The policies being offered by the parties were close to identical. Money isn't enough. America spends more on education per pupil than anywhere else in the world - think that works? Yeah, but doesn't most of that go on flak jackets for the teachers? Heh, seriously, though, money may not be enough, but that doesn't translate to the education system doesn't need any more money. How about stopping and thinking about it _before_ throwing money at it just for a change, then? Government-run projects don't work, even when they're heavily funded. That's an awfully sweeping statement to make. Yes. Governments never get value for money on anything they do. Discuss. R
Re: Politics (was RE: BOFHs requiring license)
At 10:45 14/05/01 +0100, you wrote: Part of the reason why they haven't delivered the promises that I think are important (decent public services) is because they've hamstrung themselves with this clueless tory low-tax approach. Yup. I genuinely believe that the public are sick of watching the NHS, education system etc wasting away on a starvation diet and would be willing to pay a bit of extra tax to make sure that their kids can get schooled and that their sick can be healed. For a very very unusual definition of 'bit'. Also, money is NOT the solution to schools (and prob. NHS). They don't suffer simply from under funding. Schools suffer from under funding, insane overegulation and bureaucracy, low public approval of teachers, increasingly stupid parents, and so on. These are deep problems with society that A penny on income tax will do nothing against on its own. For your amusement, here are some regulations that teachers have fun complying with, in addition to working long hours (standing up, mind) for bugger all money. 1. There is a law that specifies the minimum distance apart towel hooks must be in children's changing rooms. 2. A teacher can't be alone in a room with a pupil unless the door is open. 3. Teachers are responsible for children taking their medicine. If a child has a critical allergy to (bee stings, etc, etc) the teachers are responsible for administering intra-venous beta blockers etc. They don't get paid more for being nurses too. Let's face it, it's possible to say Labour isn't working, but after the systematic dismantling of manufacturing industry, the fragmentation and decay of our rail infrastructure at the hands of private companies who sack thousands of track maintenance staff to increase profit margins, boom and bust economics leading to the worst recession in decades, deregulation of the cattle-feed industry leading directly to the BSE crisis that made British meat an international laughing-stock/pariah ... I could go on ... I'd say that conservative ideas worked a lot worse. Yes, in these instances. As regards agriculture, EU legislation has done far more harm than anything ever passed by any UK government, mainly because there's 10 times as much of it. In other areas (education, foreign policy) I'd say the right had better ideas and a better track record. You can't expect public services that have seen two decades of alternating neglect and red-tape frenzy, with a workforce that is completely demoralised after being scapegoated for twenty years (What do you mean we've screwed the education system - it's the fault of those loony-left teachers and their 'progressive' ideas!) No, it's the fault of loony left legislators and their 'progressive' ideas :-) I have deeply unfashionable political views, though. I think tax and spend is a *good idea*. Tax and spend isn't an idea. It's _how_ you tax and _how_ you spend. I don't mind the left wing notion of high tax and high spending. I mind the dumb way in which they spend it and (to a lesser extend) the dumb way in which they tax. -- Jonathan Peterson Technical Manager, Unified Ltd, 020 7383 6092 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
UK programmers left-wing? was Re: BOFHs requiring license
Dave Cross [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 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]. I think you are being UK-centric here and falling for the old programmer myth that since its possible to program computers it is also possible to engineer people and the economy, although the experience of the last twenty years would suggest otherwise. Libertarianism seems more popular than socialism on the internet as as a whole, at least, with many American programmers. It's my distinct (and probably biased opinion) that the popularity of UK socialism has in long term decline since at least the late 70s and early 80s. There are certainly far fewer left-wing bookshops now than twenty years ago. Most of the young seem now more interested in single issues like animal rights, globalisation etc then traditional socialism. Blair will probably be elected next month of a platform which at least in some ways resembles Thatcherism more than traditional socialism. -- 1024/D9C69DF9 steve mynott [EMAIL PROTECTED] as far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality. --albert einstein
Re: Politics (was RE: BOFHs requiring license)
On Mon, 14 May 2001, Roger Burton West wrote: On or about Mon, May 14, 2001 at 11:04:52AM +0100, Matthew Jones typed: When have they ever been asked? During elections. Like I say, in 1997, the UK voted in a party that was (I reckon) seen as the guardian of the public services, the party that is traditionally associated In 1997 the UK voted against the Conservatives. The policies being offered by the parties were close to identical. This isn't true. The policies being offered were different. However, the Labour government then decided - having been elected with quite such a large victory - that it could do what it wanted, so it changed all the policies to the tory ones... MBM -- Matthew Byng-Maddick [EMAIL PROTECTED] +44 20 8980 5714 (Home) http://colondot.net/ +44 7956 613942 (Mobile) All language designers are arrogant. Goes with the territory... -- Larry Wall
RE: Politics (was RE: BOFHs requiring license)
In 1997 the UK voted against the Conservatives. The policies being offered by the parties were close to identical. For values of conservative that are low-tax/shitty services, IMHO. The policies may have been close, but the perception of the two parties still pointed at Labour as the party of decent public services How about stopping and thinking about it _before_ throwing money at it just for a change, then? There's an old saw you can't solve a problem just by throwing money at it. Well, sorry, but you can if it's a problem of underfunding. Try telling the headteacher whose school roof is collapsing that you have to go and have a good think about his problem before you throw money at it[0]. Perhaps he could sack another couple of his teaching staff or get them to take a further pay cut? There's the Conservative answer as I perceive it. The fact of the matter is that many state schools are dreadfully short on the following: a) textbooks b) computers c) teaching staff I don't think you have to spend an awfully long time thinking hard before you see where the money needs to be thrown. -- matt | I mean to make you move with my planet infallible [0] Of course, back in the day, his friendly neighbourhood Local Authority would have just fixed it, but now he's grant maintained he has to pay for everything himself.
Re: Politics (was RE: BOFHs requiring license)
On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 11:17:51AM +0100, Roger Burton West wrote: On or about Mon, May 14, 2001 at 11:04:52AM +0100, Matthew Jones typed: When have they ever been asked? During elections. Like I say, in 1997, the UK voted in a party that was (I reckon) seen as the guardian of the public services, the party that is traditionally associated In 1997 the UK voted against the Conservatives. The policies being offered by the parties were close to identical. Money isn't enough. America spends more on education per pupil than anywhere else in the world - think that works? Yeah, but doesn't most of that go on flak jackets for the teachers? Heh, seriously, though, money may not be enough, but that doesn't translate to the education system doesn't need any more money. How about stopping and thinking about it _before_ throwing money at it just for a change, then? Government-run projects don't work, even when they're heavily funded. That's an awfully sweeping statement to make. Yes. Governments never get value for money on anything they do. Discuss. R They certainly didn't get good value for money on the Immigration cock up, handed out to EDS (or was it Perot) and then Siemens (with an army of contractors in tow). Failures all down the line there, from the very juicy insider gossip I was told. jp
Re: BOFHs requiring license
From: James Powell [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 10:23:50AM +0100, Robert Shiels wrote: If a man is not a socialist by the time he is twenty, he has no heart. If he is not a conservative by the time he is 40, he has no brain. -Winston Churchill discuss:-) How does that explain Garry Bushell and Jim Davidson ;) point taken :-) /Robert
Re: Politics (was RE: BOFHs requiring license)
From: Matthew Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] I have deeply unfashionable political views, though. I think tax and spend is a *good idea*. I'm neither completely left, or completely right. I would be happy to pay more income tax to improve health and education. I actually voted LibDem last time as that is what they were pledging. I think eye tests and essential dental work should be on the NHS. I think every school should have a full-time IT expert instead of getting an already overworked teacher to do it in their non-existent spare time. On the other hand, I have very unfashionable views on some other subjects which I'll keep quiet about... /Robert
Re: UK programmers left-wing? was Re: BOFHs requiring license
On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 10:19:27AM +, Steve Mynott wrote: There are certainly far fewer left-wing bookshops now than twenty years ago. Most of the young seem now more interested in single issues like animal rights, globalisation etc then traditional socialism. Hey, that's just the young that get interested in anything other drugs and playstations. There's far fewer bookshops full stop. Except for the chain bookstore monsters. -Dom
Re: Politics (was RE: BOFHs requiring license)
On Mon, 14 May 2001, you wrote: Robert Shiels: Over the next 4 years, Labour will fail to deliver their promises yet again, and the country will swing back to the party of low taxes, who will be re-elected in 2006. Part of the reason why they haven't delivered the promises that I think are important (decent public services) is because they've hamstrung themselves with this clueless tory low-tax approach. Just because they can't deliver those promises for those costs doesn't mean no one else can. If they knew they couldn't deliver within those cost constraints why did they lie and say they could? .. and if they didn't reallise they couldn't deliver at those prices, then it doesn;t say much for their grasp of economics. and what about the various promises that didn't cost money? .. like fox hunting, proportional representation etc ... ?? does anyone happen to have one of those little plastic credit card things they were giving out before the last election with 10 things 'let us be judged on these:' .. -- Robin Szemeti The box said requires windows 95 or better So I installed Linux!
Re: Politics (was RE: BOFHs requiring license)
At 11:17 14/05/01 +0100, you wrote: Governments never get value for money on anything they do. Discuss. The Louisiana purchase was a pretty good deal. So was Alaska. So was the Suez canal. Government subsidy of scientific research has possibly been a very good deal, it's hard to quantify. Government funded defence research seems to work reasonably well. R -- Jonathan Peterson Technical Manager, Unified Ltd, 020 7383 6092 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Politics (was RE: BOFHs requiring license)
Just because they can't deliver those promises for those costs doesn't mean no one else can. If they knew they couldn't deliver within those cost constraints why did they lie and say they could? Because they are (right-wing) politicians. Just look at the absurd promisises Hague's lot are making now and they're also talking about doing it with even *less* money (UKP 8 billion, isn't it?) Besides, they have (more or less) kept most of the promises they made. I was talking about my disappointment that they didn't go further by raising tax revenue. The tories are going to have low tax and pay for improved public services through cracking down on benefit fraud, apparently. Gah, if only someone had thought of that before. 'Cos you can solve a long-term underfunding problem by skinting out a few dodgy crusties. .. and if they didn't reallise they couldn't deliver at those prices, then it doesn;t say much for their grasp of economics. See my point about Hague's promises above. What does that manifesto say about the conservative grasp of economics? For all their faults, New Labour do seem to be far better at running the economy than the Conservaticve party. does anyone happen to have one of those little plastic credit card things they were giving out before the last election with 10 things 'let us be judged on these:' .. Yeah, and I saw a breakdown along those very lines on Channel 4 news, which conluded that although some of it has slipped, the vast majority was achieved. However, later they ran a piece that I thought was familiar because it had been a Guardian editorial, so perhaps C4 news may have a certain slant going. -- matt | I mean to make you move with my planet infallible
Re: Politics (was RE: BOFHs requiring license)
Robin Szemeti [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: does anyone happen to have one of those little plastic credit card things they were giving out before the last election with 10 things 'let us be judged on these:' .. That was a Mark Thomas episode wasn't it? -- 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: UK programmers left-wing? was Re: BOFHs requiring license
Steve Mynott wrote: Libertarianism seems more popular than socialism on the internet as as a whole, at least, with many American programmers. To counter Dave's left wing views (trolllhave you ever noticed how left wingers tend to be less tolerant to the fact that their views may be wrong than right wing people?/troll) I'd argue that libertarianism/socialism is fine as a personal philosophy but doesn't work in the broader, govermental scheme of things. In a nutshell: people are bastards and will try and take advantage of a situation where they're in power. 'Tis the Hawks and the Hares scenario. The best form of government would be a benevolent dictator (c.f Piers Anthony's Bio of a Space Tyrant which can both back up and completely destroy my argument) . But they don't exist. 'Cos people suck. [me deletes the rest of this thread because I read it before on another mailing list and I said exactly the same thing then. And the time before that on an entirely different list altogther.]
More politics (was Re: BOFHs requiring license)
On or about Mon, May 14, 2001 at 10:37:23AM +0100, Cross David - dcross typed: Here's a pretty fundamental issue. Why do so many people seem to think that low taxes are good? Because many people think that they are better judges of how their own money should be spent than the government (of whatever flavour) is. I suspect that if they were allowed to choose _how_ money was spent (and yes, I do know the arguments against this) they would be a lot more willing to pay it. Roger
Re: Politics (was RE: BOFHs requiring license)
At 11:58 14/05/01 +0100, you wrote: If you ignore all of those, I wonder how many of those 'stealth' taxes would really exist. IR35, for a start ? On the subject of idiocy and legislation, here's a good one A dairy farmer has some cows (might not anymore, actually, but anyway...), and he has slightly more cows than he has pasture. So, he rents a field from the neighbouring farmer. So far, so sensible. But this field is the other side of a road. And it's not his, he just rents it. And the milking parlour is on his land. Cows get milked twice a day. So, twice a day, the farmer takes his cows over the road to munch grass, and twice a day he takes them back to be milked. The EU (may they burn in hell) require this to be documented. It has to be documented because the cows are leaving his land. It has to be documented because the cows are crossing a road. No, I've no idea why, either. Each cow has a small book, like a large cheque book. Every day, the farmer takes four slips out of the cheque book, for each crossing of the road. He fills in when the cow crossed the road, and why, and some other details. He sends the slips to some office in the EU somewhere, where they will be pointlessly processed at our expense. He does this for each of the twenty odd cows involved. So, that's like writing 80 cheques. He does this EVERY DAY OF HIS LIFE (you have to milk cows on weekends, you know). And then people wonder why people hate the European integration so much. It's odd, isn't it? -- Jonathan Peterson Technical Manager, Unified Ltd, 020 7383 6092 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: BOFHs requiring license
The money has to be raised somehow. selling 3rd generation mobile phone licences for extortionate figures, thereby taxing the population once again? duncan
Re: Politics (was RE: BOFHs requiring license)
On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 11:44:11AM +0100, Matthew Jones wrote: The tories are going to have low tax and pay for improved public services through cracking down on benefit fraud, apparently. Gah, if only someone had thought of that before. 'Cos you can solve a long-term underfunding problem by skinting out a few dodgy crusties. You're forgetting that the Tories tried (and failed) to crack down on benefit fraud for ten years. That therefore makes them ideally suited to trying again. They learnt from their mistakes, right? Surely they're not s stupid as to *not* learn from their mistakes? And they do have proof that there really is that much 'benefit fraud' out there? There must be a good reason for them to have never shown this proof to anyone else, right? -- 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 Mon, May 14, 2001 at 10:37:23AM +0100, Cross David - dcross wrote: Here's a pretty fundamental issue. Why do so many people seem to think that low taxes are good? Rule one, man, rule one. -- TorgoX EFNet is like one big advertisement for lobotomies.
RE: Politics (was RE: BOFHs requiring license)
On Mon, 14 May 2001, you wrote: Just because they can't deliver those promises for those costs doesn't mean no one else can. If they knew they couldn't deliver within those cost constraints why did they lie and say they could? Because they are (right-wing) politicians. Just look at the absurd promisises Hague's lot are making now and they're also talking about doing it with even *less* money (UKP 8 billion, isn't it?) Besides, they have (more or less) kept most of the promises they made. I was talking about my disappointment that they didn't go further by raising tax revenue. umm .. I wasn't saying that Hagues lot would be any better. I was saying that this lot had failed to deliver what they said they would. Hospital waiting lists are up, so are class sizes in schools. My taxes have gone up. I didn't expect them to succeed, but I object to them telling me that they have. The tories are going to have low tax and pay for improved public services through cracking down on benefit fraud, apparently. Gah, if only someone had thought of that before. 'Cos you can solve a long-term underfunding problem by skinting out a few dodgy crusties. The problem isn't particularly underfunding. The teachers I know tell me how classes run riot and they are powerless to stop them. the teachers eventually leave for schools where you can actully teach without being assaulted. Parents simply don't care. The few that do care and manage to get their kids into the local grammar school are no doubt thrilled at the prospect of the pirates-charter introduced by this government which allows a bunch of 'activists' to cook up a petition of phoney names and get a grammar school turned into a comprehensive. Its simple jealousy 'we've wrecked our school and now we're going to wreck yours' .. its social decline. Hospitals are much the same. Theres enough cash, but it seldom ends up in the right place. Basically .. what we need is a change in government, not just a change in the people implementing (or failing to implement) the same policies. -- Robin Szemeti The box said requires windows 95 or better So I installed Linux!
RE: More politics (was Re: BOFHs requiring license)
Here's a pretty fundamental issue. Why do so many people seem to think that low taxes are good? Because many people think that they are better judges of how their own money should be spent than the government (of whatever flavour) is. This is something I've always wondered about. Given the economy of scale etc, how do people think that they could get a cheaper service individually? Hiring a few guys in a lorry to come to their house once a week and cart off their rubbish, security guards to make sure your house isn't robbed, paying for construction workers to fix holes in your road, private school and medicine and so on. Has anybody worked out how much it would cost to buy the same services as a private citizen compared to the cost that the state charges in tax? Also, how is a privately-run service more efficient if you have shareholders creaming money off the top. Enlighten me. -- matt | I mean to make you move with my planet infallible
Re: BOFHs requiring license
* at 14/05 12:13 +0100 duncan said: The money has to be raised somehow. selling 3rd generation mobile phone licences for extortionate figures, thereby taxing the population once again? wasn't it an auction? i like to look on this as some sort of crack induced madness on the side of tha various telcos involved in which thet actually belived the hype aboug 3G comming out of their marketing departments. struan
RE: Politics (was RE: BOFHs requiring license)
From: Simon Cozens [EMAIL PROTECTED]? Sent: Monday, May 14, 2001 12:08 PM There are some contractors here, I understand, who might have something to say about government policy on taxation. Heh. Can you be a contractor and hold on to your left-wing principles? Let's see... Whilst I'd seem to be happier (or, rather, 'richer') without IR35, I am very sympathetic to the point of view that most contractors have been abusing an obvious loophole for a very long time. I believe that people with more money should pay more tax and therefore am happy to pay my way. I am in the process of invesigating converting all of my income to PAYE. A preliminary report from my IFA shows that it's feasible for my company to increase my salary to a level whereby I get the same amount from salary alone as I do currently from a combination of salary and dividends. Unfortunately for the government. This means that my company will _never_ show a profit. And, therefore, that they will get no corporation tax from me. It looks like the increase in Income Tax/NIC will be almost exactly the same size as the decrease in Corp Tax. Therefore IR35 has almost zero effect on the money that either I or the government take from my company. Mind you, I've never been one of those contractors who pay themselves £2,500 pa so YMMV. Dave... -- The information contained in this communication is confidential, is intended only for the use of the recipient named above, and may be legally privileged. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please re-send this communication to the sender and delete the original message or any copy of it from your computer system.
Re: Politics (was RE: BOFHs requiring license)
From: Jonathan Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] 3. Teachers are responsible for children taking their medicine. If a child has a critical allergy to (bee stings, etc, etc) the teachers are responsible for administering intra-venous beta blockers etc. They don't get paid more for being nurses too. I'm not trying to negate your point, which I agree with, but I'm not sure if this one is true. Teachers at my daughters school have refused to give medicine to her, and to other children, some of whom are on constant medication; their mother comes into the school to administer it. You seem to know a lot about teachers though... /Robert
Re: Politics (was RE: BOFHs requiring license)
On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 10:57:59AM +0100, David Cantrell wrote: I appoint Greg as my Culture Adviser and as head of the church. Any volunteers for my other minions? Even if you don't want a cabinet post, please feel free to volunteer as a Henchman. You'll get 25 days holiday a year, a nice uniform and a free Hench. Appears I'm out of a job too from the end of the month, so count me in. The mighty army of unemployed Perlers takes over the world... Martin
Re: Politics (was RE: BOFHs requiring license)
On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 12:16:27PM +0100, Matthew Jones wrote: It also irtritates me when the oil companies hike fuel prices and the dump the pump lobby respond by suggesting that the government drop tax. Why don't they ever have a go at BP or Shell? You don't elect BP or Shell. -- He was a modest, good-humored boy. It was Oxford that made him insufferable.
RE: Politics (was RE: BOFHs requiring license)
Hospital waiting lists are up, No, hospital waiting lists are down. The time spent waiting to get on the wiating list is up. :) so are class sizes in schools. No, class sizes are down in primary schools (were primaries specified on the pledge card?). Secondary school classes are level or *slightly* up, IIRC. -- matt | I mean to make you move with my planet infallible
Re: Politics (was RE: BOFHs requiring license)
* at 14/05 12:16 +0100 Matthew Jones said: Ah, yes. That's like we're listening, isn't it, in response to the fuel crisis? We're not going to do anything, but we're happy to listen. That narked me about the fuel protestors. They claimed the government aren't listening. Listen ne cave in to the selfish demands of a few protestors who happen to be holding the nation to ransom (unwittingly in cahoots, some say, with the oil companies). mmm, some of it was selfishness although for the rural (and when i say rural i don't mean the home counties) types the cose of fuel really is a big issue. if you live 30 miles from the nearest major shopping centre then the cost of fuel really is an issue. it's a tricky one as there are clearly any number of idiots who persist in driving to work in london who should be taxed to the hilts but you have to do it in a way that targets them and not people who _have_ to use a car. which more or less means congestion charges. You can listen and still say no. aka the first rule of dealing with marketing departments :) struan
RE: Politics (was RE: BOFHs requiring license)
the pump lobby respond by suggesting that the government drop tax. Why don't they ever have a go at BP or Shell? You don't elect BP or Shell. Well, precisely, they're companies, so you boycott them. Which is what I thought that dump the pump was originally about; boycotting oil companies in prrotest at their big markups (apparently). Somewhere along the way it seemed (to me) to be hijacked by a large chunk of the countryside alliance. The thing is, the petrol companies seem to be able to hike prices with impunity. It's not just a matter of the protestors not boycotting them, they're not even *criticised*. Shit, to hear some of these fuel protestors, you'd not think that the oil companies play any part at all in setting the price of fuel. I have an irrational and unconfirmed theory that the right wing have decided that they want a piece of this single-issue politics lark thankyou very much, and now have a group who can whine and bitch about the government for effects that are caused by someone else entirely. -- matt | I mean to make you move with my planet infallible
Re: BOFHs requiring license
On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 10:37:23AM +0100, Cross David - dcross wrote: Oh, and Churchill was an arsehole. As the population worked out in the 1945 General Election. Anyone responding with nonsense about him winning the second world war will be given a history lesson :) Isn't it interesting that Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, de Gaulle and Churchill were all 'charismatic' leaders. -- 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: Politics (was RE: BOFHs requiring license)
At 12:27 PM 5/14/01 +0100, you wrote: Hospital waiting lists are up, so are class sizes in schools. No, class sizes are down in primary schools (were primaries specified on the pledge card?). Secondary school classes are level or *slightly* up, IIRC. Are they in reality, or is it due to the current lot being in lower birth years than the lot 4 years ago, and hence the secondary school numbers being up now? Rob
RE: Politics (was RE: BOFHs requiring license)
Are they in reality, or is it due to the current lot being in lower birth years than the lot 4 years ago, and hence the secondary school numbers being up now? Heh, it's pre-election statistics, so god knows what possible conne4ction to reality they may have! :) -- matt | I mean to make you move with my planet infallible
Re: BOFHs requiring license
Struan Donald wrote: wasn't it an auction? i like to look on this as some sort of crack induced madness on the side of tha various telcos involved in which thet actually belived the hype aboug 3G comming out of their marketing departments. Basically it went like this: As a telco you ahve to bid for this because if you don't get a 3G licence then you're fucked. So everyone who bids as high as they can. So whoever gets it is fucked anyway because they've got no money. 3G is all bollocks anyway. Just like everything else in the Mobile Phone industry. /rant
Re: BOFHs requiring license
Struan Donald wrote: Basically it went like this: As a telco you ahve to bid for this because if you don't get a 3G licence then you're fucked. So everyone who bids as high as they can. So whoever gets it is fucked anyway because they've got no money. 3G is all bollocks anyway. Just like everything else in the Mobile Phone industry. /rant And didn't the sell off screw the police over a bit as the replacement system they got can only handle voice communication and not data?? (Something like that anyway) Andy (Still a tory :)
Re: Politics (was RE: BOFHs requiring license)
Matthew Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It also irtritates me when the oil companies hike fuel prices and the dump the pump lobby respond by suggesting that the government drop tax. Why don't they ever have a go at BP or Shell? Because the vast majority of the petrol pump price (something like 70-80%) is tax. UK has the _cheapest_ petrol in Europe before tax and the _most_ expensive afterwards. -- 1024/D9C69DF9 steve mynott [EMAIL PROTECTED] reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -- philip k. dick
Re: More politics (was Re: BOFHs requiring license)
Matthew Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: medicine and so on. Has anybody worked out how much it would cost to buy the same services as a private citizen compared to the cost that the state charges in tax? People have tried to do this and the figures I saw suggest the private sector can supply, on average, any service at half the price of the public. Of course I am sure it isn't difficult to get the figures to say other things as well. Also, how is a privately-run service more efficient if you have shareholders creaming money off the top. Enlighten me. Because it's easier to get rid of them and get someone else to supply the service if they are crap. -- 1024/D9C69DF9 steve mynott [EMAIL PROTECTED] abandon the search for truth; settle for a good fantasy.
Re: Politics (was RE: BOFHs requiring license)
From: Steve Mynott [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 14 May 2001 12:12 Subject: Re: Politics (was RE: BOFHs requiring license) Robert Shiels [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I'm neither completely left, or completely right. I would be happy to pay more income tax to improve health and education. I actually voted LibDem Why don't you simply pay more tax then? I am sure if you send a voluntary donation off to the Inland Revenue they will accept it. I somehow doubt they have procedures for dealing with voluntary tax payments, it's probably never happened... /Robert
Re: Politics (was RE: BOFHs requiring license)
On Mon, 14 May 2001, Martin Ling wrote: Appears I'm out of a job too from the end of the month, so count me in. The mighty army of unemployed Perlers takes over the world... Is this the point where I can try and recruit some of you compscis to the bioinformatics revolution? Hack around and cure cancer at the same time ;-) L. Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution.
Re: Politics (was RE: BOFHs requiring license)
Jonathan Peterson wrote: 2. A teacher can't be alone in a room with a pupil unless the door is open. Things were obviously different back when I spent the occasional lunch break (or after school) in detention :) Cheers, Philip -- Philip Newton [EMAIL PROTECTED] All opinions are my own, not my employer's. If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
Re: Politics (was RE: BOFHs requiring license)
On Mon, 14 May 2001, Lucy McWilliam wrote: Is this the point where I can try and recruit some of you compscis to the bioinformatics revolution? Hack around and cure cancer at the same time ;-) L. Been there, done that at the Sanger Centre hacking around with genes though... Andy
Re: BOFHs requiring license
David Cantrell wrote: On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 10:37:23AM +0100, Cross David - dcross wrote: Oh, and Churchill was an arsehole. As the population worked out in the 1945 General Election. Anyone responding with nonsense about him winning the second world war will be given a history lesson :) Isn't it interesting that Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, de Gaulle and Churchill were all 'charismatic' leaders. Hmmm... As were Svein Forkbeard, Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Sitting Bull, Crazy Horse, Alfred the Great, Tokugawa, ... Hey - I know this is a bit wild, but maybe there's some kind of connection between 'charisma' and 'leadership'... -- Jonathan Peterson Technical Manager, Unified Ltd, 020 7383 6092 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Politics (was RE: BOFHs requiring license)
Matthew Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: the pump lobby respond by suggesting that the government drop tax. Why don't they ever have a go at BP or Shell? You don't elect BP or Shell. Well, precisely, they're companies, so you boycott them. Which is what I thought that dump the pump was originally about; boycotting oil companies in prrotest at their big markups (apparently). Somewhere along the way it seemed (to me) to be hijacked by a large chunk of the countryside alliance. Well one advantage of BP or Shell is if you don't like either company then you can simply choose not to purchase their products. Unfortunately you can't opt out of a government you don't like in the same way. The American media recognised what happened as a tax revolt. People aren't stupid they know the high petrol prices are the fault of UK taxation rather than BP or Shell. We have high petrol prices, high alchohol prices and high cigarette prices due to the greed of the current UK government (following in the footsteps of the Tories before). This is not to say BP or Shell don't try and make as money as possible. Sure they do this is how the market works. -- 1024/D9C69DF9 steve mynott [EMAIL PROTECTED] the basic fact about human existence is not that it is a tragedy, but that it is a bore. it is not so much a war as an endless standing in line. -- h. l. mencken
Re: Politics (was RE: BOFHs requiring license)
On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 01:06:42PM +0100, Lucy McWilliam wrote: Is this the point where I can try and recruit some of you compscis to the bioinformatics revolution? I've always thought it sounded like fun. How does one go about joining the bioinformatics revolution, then? .robin. -- It really depends on the architraves. --Harl
Re: Politics (was RE: BOFHs requiring license)
On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 01:06:42PM +0100, Lucy McWilliam wrote: Appears I'm out of a job too from the end of the month, so count me in. The mighty army of unemployed Perlers takes over the world... Is this the point where I can try and recruit some of you compscis to the bioinformatics revolution? Hack around and cure cancer at the same time ;-) I'd *love* some sort of job working on distributed computing applications that'd eventually be running massively parallel and testing interactions between proteins and molecules or somesuch. That's one of the jobs I can definitely imagine as harbouring the mythical `job satisfaction'. :o) But then, I'd love most jobs right now, given that I've only got two more days at work before most of us leave to go our redundant ways, and I'm still searching. Sigh. ~C. -- Chris Ball. [EMAIL PROTECTED] || http://printf.net/ finger: [EMAIL PROTECTED] jcm trj: I'm fat, bloated and lazy. // jcm I am a living mozilla.
Re: BOFHs requiring license
* Jonathan Peterson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: David Cantrell wrote: On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 10:37:23AM +0100, Cross David - dcross wrote: General Election. Anyone responding with nonsense about him winning the second world war will be given a history lesson :) No one won the 2nd world war, Germany just managed to lose it by attacking too many people. Isn't it interesting that Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, de Gaulle and Churchill were all 'charismatic' leaders. Hmmm... As were Svein Forkbeard, Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Sitting Bull, Crazy Horse, Alfred the Great, Tokugawa, ... Hey - I know this is a bit wild, but maybe there's some kind of connection between 'charisma' and 'leadership'... roflmao -- Greg McCarroll http://www.mccarroll.uklinux.net
Re: Politics (was RE: BOFHs requiring license)
I'm not trying to negate your point, which I agree with, but I'm not sure if this one is true. Teachers at my daughters school have refused to give medicine to her, and to other children, some of whom are on constant medication; their mother comes into the school to administer it. You seem to know a lot about teachers though... Good for them. It is actually, I think, the school's discretion, but if the parent insists that they can't do it, the only option is for the school to do it or to exclude the child. The sensible solution is to make the child responsible for taking their medicine, which a) they'll have to do sooner or later and b) they are in most cases well able to do. The problem is legal responsibilty. My mother has no problem telling some child to eat their pill. She has a big problem with being sued, if she forgets to remind the child, and the child forgets, too, and shit happens. But of course modern society can't cope with the idea that it's just plain old bad luck some kid has a condition like that, so they demand that teachers are responsible, or else they'll demand that all schools have a school nurse who's responsible. It's all crap, and it's all in the last 10 years. My mother is a primary school teacher, as was my aunt, as is my cousin and his wife etc etc. I also help out at my old scout troop, which brings me into contact with some of the more insane child-related legislation. /Robert -- Jonathan Peterson Technical Manager, Unified Ltd, 020 7383 6092 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bioinformatics jobs (was: Re: Politics (was RE: BOFHs requiring license))
On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 01:18:00PM +0100, Robin Houston wrote: On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 01:06:42PM +0100, Lucy McWilliam wrote: Is this the point where I can try and recruit some of you compscis to the bioinformatics revolution? I've always thought it sounded like fun. How does one go about joining the bioinformatics revolution, then? The new scientist jobs page usually lists a few. I think they're up on http://www.newscientistjobs.com/ Unfortunately, quite a few list MA in bioinformatics or similiar as requirements. You may still be able to bluff your way, though. I don't know, I've never tried. -Dom
RE: UK programmers left-wing? was Re: BOFHs requiring license
(trolllhave you ever noticed how left wingers tend to be less tolerant to the fact that their views may be wrong than right wing people?/troll) Ah, that's because we left-wingers *are* right, and also because secretly, silently, you right-wingers know it, too. :P -- matt The (void) is that which stands right in the middle of this and That.
Re: Politics (was RE: BOFHs requiring license)
Robin Houston wrote: On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 01:06:42PM +0100, Lucy McWilliam wrote: Is this the point where I can try and recruit some of you compscis to the bioinformatics revolution? I've always thought it sounded like fun. How does one go about joining the bioinformatics revolution, then? Ditto. How's the jobs board coming along Jo? I have a friend recently departed from the exciting world of software development in Reading and looking for a move to London.
RE: Politics (was RE: BOFHs requiring license)
On Mon 14 May, Matthew Jones wrote: No, class sizes are down in primary schools (were primaries specified on the pledge card?). Secondary school classes are level or *slightly* up, IIRC. Some spokesman on the radio this morning promised to reduce class sizes in primary schools and to recruit more secondary school teachers. How can they achieve the former without recruiting more teachers? Merge the Dept of Education and MAFF? Roger -- Roger Horne 11 New Square, Lincoln's Inn, London WC2A 3QB mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.hrothgar.co.uk/
RE: Politics (was RE: BOFHs requiring license)
Some spokesman on the radio this morning promised to reduce class sizes in primary schools and to recruit more secondary school teachers. How can they achieve the former without recruiting more teachers? I'd assume that they would recruit more Classroom Assistants. Sort of paradidacts who seem to me to be playing an increasingly large role in primary education. Not strictly reducing the size of the class but reducing the pupil/adult ration, I guess. -- matt The (void) is that which stands right in the middle of this and That.
RE: Politics (was RE: BOFHs requiring license)
class but reducing the pupil/adult ration, I guess. -^^ Heh. I bet it was the MAFF comment which planted that one. -- matt The (void) is that which stands right in the middle of this and That.
Re: UK programmers left-wing? was Re: BOFHs requiring license
Matthew Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: (trolllhave you ever noticed how left wingers tend to be less tolerant to the fact that their views may be wrong than right wing people?/troll) Ah, that's because we left-wingers *are* right, and also because secretly, silently, you right-wingers know it, too. :P It's more likely the right-wingers (not that I really like that term) have had phases of being left-wingers in the past and know _all_ about it. -- 1024/D9C69DF9 steve mynott [EMAIL PROTECTED] mary had a little key - she kept it in escrow, and every thing that mary said, the feds were sure to know. -- sam simpson
Re: Politics (was RE: BOFHs requiring license)
On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 12:11:13PM +, Steve Mynott wrote: Well one advantage of BP or Shell is if you don't like either company then you can simply choose not to purchase their products. So how, pray, do I opt out of the international oil companies' cartel? -- 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: Politics (was RE: BOFHs requiring license)
On Mon, 14 May 2001, David Cantrell wrote: On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 12:11:13PM +, Steve Mynott wrote: Well one advantage of BP or Shell is if you don't like either company then you can simply choose not to purchase their products. So how, pray, do I opt out of the international oil companies' cartel? use the tube and electric trains? Most power stations aren't oil fired AFAIK. MBM -- Matthew Byng-Maddick [EMAIL PROTECTED] +44 20 8980 5714 (Home) http://colondot.net/ +44 7956 613942 (Mobile) All language designers are arrogant. Goes with the territory... -- Larry Wall
Re: Politics (was RE: BOFHs requiring license)
On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 02:56:03PM +0100, David Cantrell wrote: So how, pray, do I opt out of the international oil companies' cartel? With a solar panel and some batteries. Martin
Re: BOFHs requiring license
Cross David - dcross [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Oh, and Churchill was an arsehole. As the population worked out in the 1945 General Election. Anyone responding with nonsense about him winning the second world war will be given a history lesson :) And the following Socialist government managed to keep the country on rations until well after Germany was back on its feet again. Don't forget also, Britiain was in black and white until well into the Sixties, while German was experimenting with red and the US was fully technicolour by the late fifties. -- 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: Politics (was RE: BOFHs requiring license)
On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 02:56:03PM +0100, David Cantrell wrote: So how, pray, do I opt out of the international oil companies' cartel? Adapt that gas-guzzling beast of yours to run on rape seed oil. Martin
RE: Politics (was RE: BOFHs requiring license)
So how, pray, do I opt out of the international oil companies' cartel? use the tube and electric trains? Most power stations aren't oil fired AFAIK. Not even then, I guess. Am I right in thinkming that many plastics are (by-)products of the refining process? So that's internal combustion engines, anything made from or out of plastics (whoa), some electricity ... -- matt The (void) is that which stands right in the middle of this and That.
Re: Politics (was RE: BOFHs requiring license)
On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 03:05:06PM +0100, Matthew Byng-Maddick wrote: On Mon, 14 May 2001, David Cantrell wrote: On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 12:11:13PM +, Steve Mynott wrote: Well one advantage of BP or Shell is if you don't like either company then you can simply choose not to purchase their products. So how, pray, do I opt out of the international oil companies' cartel? use the tube and electric trains? Most power stations aren't oil fired AFAIK. Right, and how do I eliminate plastics from my life? And drugs, and all the other million and one things which are made with their products? How do I get home after the trains have stopped? And how do I ensure that my privately run waste disposal service doesn't use them? Or my childrens' privately run school? In summary - libertarians' claims that customers can choose not to use $company's products if they dislike the company are patently absurd. -- 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: Politics (was RE: BOFHs requiring license)
I appoint Greg as my Culture Adviser and as head of the church. Any volunteers for my other minions? Even if you don't want a cabinet post, please feel free to volunteer as a Henchman. You'll get 25 days holiday a year, a nice uniform and a free Hench. ... Before I kill you, Mr Bond, I want you to sign this confession of your own incompetance using your ordinary looking pen. action type=strokes naked cat Alex Gough -- Guyfawkes made a very loyal plan to to blow up the King and the bishops and everybody else in Parliament, with gunpowder. Although he failed attempts are made every year on St Guyfawke's Day to remind the Parliament that it would have been a Good Thing had he succeeded.
Re: BOFHs requiring license
On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 01:11:30PM +0100, Jonathan Peterson wrote: Hey - I know this is a bit wild, but maybe there's some kind of connection between 'charisma' and 'leadership'... That's genius! I know, I'll call it.. Charismatic Leadership Theory. Wait. Someone already did, rather a long time ago now.. :) ~~C. -- Chris Ball. [EMAIL PROTECTED] || http://printf.net/ finger: [EMAIL PROTECTED] The world is complex; sendmail.cf reflects this.
Re: BOFHs requiring license
At 15:05 14/05/01 +0100, you wrote: On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 01:11:30PM +0100, Jonathan Peterson wrote: David Cantrell wrote: Isn't it interesting that Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, de Gaulle and Churchill were all 'charismatic' leaders. Hmmm... As were Svein Forkbeard, Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Sitting Bull, Crazy Horse, Alfred the Great, Tokugawa, ... Hey - I know this is a bit wild, but maybe there's some kind of connection between 'charisma' and 'leadership'... As I think you realised, I didn't meant the usual sort of charisma. I mean more along the lines of those 'charismatic' evangelist churches and other religious cults. :-) Too good an opportunity to miss. Perhaps the difference between your set of leaders and mine, is that the ones you mentioned all had personality cults to a degree, although in the case of Churchill I wouldn't have said so. However, in the case of Alexander the Great, certainly, I would say they had a personality cult similar to or greater than Hitler's (or to a sect leader, or whatever). Alexander inspired God like devotion in his men, and was as insanely ambitious as Hitler. And a much much much better general. Military leaders have quite often had significant personality cults within their own armies (right up to Montgomery and McArthur). We tend to condemn personality cults outright these days. However, I think for much of history they were the basis of social organisation to a greater or lesser degree. Certainly northern Europe before (and to some extend after (vikings, saxons etc)) the Romans was based around small king's whose leadership was determined mainly by personal loyalty. In some ways quite democratic, in other ways deeply unstable. Probably the single greatest reason the Vikings didn't conquer Europe. -- Jonathan Peterson Technical Manager, Unified Ltd, 020 7383 6092 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Politics (was RE: BOFHs requiring license)
On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 11:17:14AM +0100, Jonathan Peterson wrote: 2. A teacher can't be alone in a room with a pupil unless the door is open. I know it's one of those Zen koans, but I just can't work it out. -- Feed me on TOASTIES! There's no HALL for PHILOSOPHERS ON FRIDAYS. - Henry Braun is Oxford Zippy
Re: BOFHs requiring license
On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 01:30:42PM +0100, Chris Ball wrote: That's genius! I know, I'll call it.. Charismatic Leadership Theory. Wait. Someone already did, rather a long time ago now.. :) Don't start me on all the stating-the-obviousness in psychology. Martin
Re: Politics (was RE: BOFHs requiring license)
At 15:36 14/05/01 +0100, you wrote: On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 11:17:14AM +0100, Jonathan Peterson wrote: 2. A teacher can't be alone in a room with a pupil unless the door is open. I know it's one of those Zen koans, but I just can't work it out. ROFL Unless the door to the pupil's mind is open then there is no teacher. And he was enlightened. -- Jonathan Peterson Technical Manager, Unified Ltd, 020 7383 6092 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Politics (was RE: BOFHs requiring license)
On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 03:49:26PM +0100, Jonathan Peterson wrote: Unless the door to the pupil's mind is open then there is no teacher. And he was enlightened. http://simon-cozens.org/hacks/grok -- For detailed information on the info command, type man info. - plan9 has a bad day
RE: Politics (was RE: BOFHs requiring license)
On Mon, 14 May 2001, Roger Horne wrote: On Mon 14 May, Matthew Jones wrote: No, class sizes are down in primary schools (were primaries specified on the pledge card?). Secondary school classes are level or *slightly* up, IIRC. Some spokesman on the radio this morning promised to reduce class sizes in primary schools and to recruit more secondary school teachers. How can they achieve the former without recruiting more teachers? Merge the Dept of Education and MAFF? Culling Children ... now there's an idea. /J\
Re: Politics (was RE: BOFHs requiring license)
David Cantrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 12:11:13PM +, Steve Mynott wrote: Well one advantage of BP or Shell is if you don't like either company then you can simply choose not to purchase their products. So how, pray, do I opt out of the international oil companies' cartel? Private companies often try and fix prices and limit competition but this rarely works since usually one of the cartel members breaks the agreement in order to make more money. Thus OPEC agreements usually break down like they did last month when they produced 700,000 barrels per day more than they had agreed. http://cbs.marketwatch.com/news/story.asp?siteid=mktwdist=mktwmoreguid=%7B13984F78-CFC1-4F9A-A3BC-28A8E2FE2F53%7D My original point also stands which is there is a basic distinction between a state which forces people to do things like pay tax and a company (no matter how large or nasty) which can't (even although it still may supply a widely used product). And of course if a company runs or has direct influence on a state and laws are passed to favour it then we aren't talking about the market anymore but state power. It's a basic failing of socialism to believe that what they term economic power (selling things) is more of an evil than political power (putting people in prison or taking money from them). They naively believe force (jails, guns, theft etc) can be used responsibly to combat people's free choices of buying and selling things, which for some strange reason they think is wrong. Even if their ends were right their means are based on violence and ultimately self-defeating. When leading by the way of the Tao, abominate the use of force, for it causes resistance, and loss of strength, showing the Tao has not been followed well. Achieve results but not through violence, for it is against the natural way, and damages both others' and one's own true self. -- 1024/D9C69DF9 steve mynott [EMAIL PROTECTED] no man or group of men shall aggress upon the person or property of anyone else. -- murray n. rothbard
Re: BOFHs requiring license
* Martin Ling ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 01:30:42PM +0100, Chris Ball wrote: That's genius! I know, I'll call it.. Charismatic Leadership Theory. Wait. Someone already did, rather a long time ago now.. :) Don't start me on all the stating-the-obviousness in psychology. I have some obvious theories about psychology - such as why psychologists never get invited to parties. -- Greg McCarroll http://www.mccarroll.uklinux.net
Re: Politics (was RE: BOFHs requiring license)
* Alex Gough ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: I appoint Greg as my Culture Adviser and as head of the church. Any volunteers for my other minions? Even if you don't want a cabinet post, please feel free to volunteer as a Henchman. You'll get 25 days holiday a year, a nice uniform and a free Hench. ... Before I kill you, Mr Bond, I want you to sign this confession of your own incompetance using your ordinary looking pen. action type=strokes naked cat What do you mean `naked'? As in one of those freaky hairless ones? Or are you in the habit of dressing your cats up in little outfits? Do lots of people dress their cats up? Is there a GAP for cats? Complete with irritatingly happy cats dancing to 70s and 80s pop music? I need to know in my role as head of the church - after all to be a sucessful religion, before I come up with any principals I am going to have to choose a group to hate, and i have to say, people who dress their cats up sounds like a good choice. ;-) -- Greg McCarroll http://www.mccarroll.uklinux.net
Re: Politics (was RE: BOFHs requiring license)
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 02:56:03PM +0100, David Cantrell wrote: On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 12:11:13PM +, Steve Mynott wrote: Well one advantage of BP or Shell is if you don't like either company then you can simply choose not to purchase their products. So how, pray, do I opt out of the international oil companies' cartel? stop using cars, electricity and public transport. surely your not suggesting he hides in his flat with some spam and rice? ;-) -- Greg McCarroll http://www.mccarroll.uklinux.net
Re: Politics (was RE: BOFHs requiring license)
On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 05:14:21PM +0100, Greg McCarroll wrote: What do you mean `naked'? As in one of those freaky hairless ones? Or are you in the habit of dressing your cats up in little outfits? Do lots of people dress their cats up? Is there a GAP for cats? Complete with irritatingly happy cats dancing to 70s and 80s pop music? I'm not sure. Hang on, I'll ask a cat... http://pkl.net/~martin/catpaw.jpg I'll take that as a no. Martin
Re: BOFHs requiring license
From: Greg McCarroll [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Martin Ling ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 01:30:42PM +0100, Chris Ball wrote: That's genius! I know, I'll call it.. Charismatic Leadership Theory. Wait. Someone already did, rather a long time ago now.. :) Don't start me on all the stating-the-obviousness in psychology. I have some obvious theories about psychology - such as why psychologists never get invited to parties. ob Douglas Adams The principle of generating small amounts of finite improbability by simply hooking the logic circuits of a Bambleweeny 57 Sub- Meson Brain to an atomic vector plotter suspended in a strong Brownian Motion producer (say a nice hot cup of tea) were of course well understood - and such generators were often used to break the ice at parties by making all the molecules in the hostess's undergarments leap simultaneously one foot to the left, in accordance with the Theory of Indeterminacy. Many respectable physicists said that they weren't going to stand for this - partly because it was a debasement of science, but mostly because they didn't get invited to those sort of parties. /ob DA /Robert
Re: Politics (was RE: BOFHs requiring license)
On Mon, 14 May 2001, Martin Ling wrote: On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 05:14:21PM +0100, Greg McCarroll wrote: What do you mean `naked'? As in one of those freaky hairless ones? Or are you in the habit of dressing your cats up in little outfits? Do lots of people dress their cats up? Is there a GAP for cats? Complete with irritatingly happy cats dancing to 70s and 80s pop music? I'm not sure. Hang on, I'll ask a cat... http://pkl.net/~martin/catpaw.jpg I'll take that as a no. ROTFL. L.
Re: Politics (was RE: BOFHs requiring license)
Tony Bowden [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: With a sponge and a rusty spanner? she said: Eh, I know you, and you cannot sing. I said: that's nothing--you should hear me play piano. -- 1024/D9C69DF9 steve mynott [EMAIL PROTECTED] there are some politicians who, if their constituents were cannibals, would promise them missionaries for dinner. -- h.l. mencken
Re: BOFHs requiring license
Jonathan Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: At 16:41 13/05/01 +0100, you wrote: * Dave Cross ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: At 15:27 13/05/2001, Simon Cozens wrote: if only the SNP covered the whole of the UK Err, they do. Insert rant about the obvious injustice of having Scotland vote on the affairs of England and Westminster but not vice versa I thought the Scots Nats were vaguely good about not voting on stuff that didn't affect Scotland. -- Piers Cawley www.iterative-software.com
Re: BOFHs requiring license
Simon Cozens [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 10:37:23AM +0100, Cross David - dcross wrote: Here's a pretty fundamental issue. Why do so many people seem to think that low taxes are good? Rule one, man, rule one. What? Always be wary of smiling old men? -- Piers Cawley www.iterative-software.com
Re: Politics (was RE: BOFHs requiring license)
Piers Cawley [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Lucy McWilliam [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Mon, 14 May 2001, Martin Ling wrote: Appears I'm out of a job too from the end of the month, so count me in. The mighty army of unemployed Perlers takes over the world... Is this the point where I can try and recruit some of you compscis to the bioinformatics revolution? Hack around and cure cancer at the same time ;-) Hey, I tried, but I didn't get the contract. Job was looking pretty darned interesting too. And I didn't have to write CGI scripts. Doesn't knowing Lincoln Stein's email address count as expertise? -- 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: Politics (was RE: BOFHs requiring license)
will [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: How do you suggest we train our workforce when schools (which are funded by tax) can't afford more than a couple of rooms full of archimedes? I respectfully suggest that we don't train the little buggers in schools. We teach them stuff. Then, when the come out with (one hopes) a good general education tending towards a specialisation in the subjects they are interested in, their employers invest some money training them to do the specific job that they're employed to do. Wanders off muttering about the idiotic downgrading of 'academic' teaching in favour of generic vocational training... And while I'm about it, can I please kill anyone who complains that our universities are 'too elitist?'. Excuse me? I thought that was the whole point. Ahem. -- Piers Cawley www.iterative-software.com
Re: BOFHs requiring license
On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 01:58:41PM -0400, Piers Cawley wrote: Simon Cozens [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Rule one, man, rule one. What? Always be wary of smiling old men? lathos purl, rule one? purl it has been said that rule one is People Are Stupid -- They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. -- Carl Sagan
