the BBC tried to make a compilation of all the shows.. MISSING over 1/2 of them to TIME and destruction of tapes. they SEARCHED the world for copies..
Actually the BBC wasn't being particularly careless here. At no time did anyone knowingly wipe a tape that they believed to be the only copy. The problem was that there were two subsections of the BBC involved and each one thought that the other one was keeping the reference copy.
Actually this is worse because it points out that even when rightsholders are trying to keep things they are still likely to fail.
and btw Dr WHo started in 1963 - not late 60's. In fact the first episode was broadcast on the day that John Kennedy was assassinated!
Nor is there any requirement that any copyright holder preserve a copy of those works it holds under copyright in pristine condition for the day it does enter public domain.
Of course there used to be - in the days when registration was required - a requirement to lodge a copy of any registered book with the so called "Copyright Libraries " ("Copyright in this case meaning that they had the right to a copy!). In the UK this mean the British (Museum) Library and the Libraries of certain universities. In the US I believe it meant the Library of Congress. That at least meant somebody responsible had a copy and could preserve it.
They show up in discount DVD bins, or more often today online, sometimes looking a little worse for the wear. A general pall of darkness might cloud the image; the dialogue might be a bit tinnier than you remembered.
Re: Re: Re: OMG, my trade deficit with Amazon.com never goes down!
You are flat out wrong about tariffs. Your duly handwaving nonsense about 'consumer is the producer' ignores completely that consumers is a massive group, orders of magnitude larger than producer in this or any other specific case. Tariffs and other forms of protectionism make them all worse off to enrich a tiny subset, not the group as a whole.
Unfortunately consumers have to get the wealth to consume from somewhere - and if competitive advantage drives all the jobs offshore then they don't have the money to buy stuff even if the price has gone down.
The reality is that both sides of the argument are mostly trying to further the interests of elite groups at the expense of the mass of the population. The so called free traders want to be able to buy cheap goods produced outside the influence of laws to protect workers' rights and then sell them at a bigger markup than would be possible for home-produced items.
True free trade would mean the following
1. Free movement of labour worldwide.
2. Uniform terms and conditions for workers worldwide.
Without these two (and a decent amount of time for the system to stabilise) the benefits of free trade will mostly go to an elite - albeit a different elite from those who benefit from protectinism.
Re: Re: Re: Re: OMG, my trade deficit with Amazon.com never goes down!
Well "National Security" as used by politicians - is a rather different thing from true national security.
Having said that I feel that most of the comment about US vs UK growth in the period in question are somewhat off beam.
The US could afford to be protectionist because it had a large amount of empty space to expand into and a rapidly growing population during that period. Thus the usual problems of protectionism did not arise. The UK could not have performed better by being protectionist itself because it had already finished most of its population growtn and did not have scope for geographic expansion.
The UK would have done best if it had hung on to the American colonies and been inside the US trade barrier.
However you look at it the relative performance of the US and the UK during that period is not simply explained by differences in trade policy.
They are not as bad as advertised. Here is the official response to the e-petition against them
"From the end of this year, when new customers set up a broadband account, they will be prompted to set up parental controls. If a customer repeatedly clicks ‘yes’ to get through the set-up quickly, filters will be automatically selected. Parental controls are easy for the account holder to change, so customers who do not want filters can simply switch them off."
In my workplace, very strong passwords are strictly enforced and have to be changed frequently. Nobody writes them on sticky notes on their monitors. In practice, once you've typed a new password all day long, you have it memorized regardless of how complex it it.
Works if you only have one or two passwords - however most people these days have many services that require a password (often for no good reason). Often we use these services quite infrequently so "once you've typed a new password all daylong" doesn't apply.
My 4 important passwords are all different and all reasonably strong - but the 15 or so other ones are all the same. Making them different and changing them every few weeks would be just about impossible - I would be constantly using password reset.
Can't I be free not to change my password every month?
Actually he has a point. At least some of the policies imposed by sysadmins are not just pointless- they are actually counterproductive.
Changing your password every month is one of them. (This pretty much guarantees that most people wil react by using simpler - related passwords).
Never writing them down is another. Again encouraging weaker passwords - contrary to the advice it is quite safe to write down passwords in most circumstances.
Not using the same password for multiple sites is another. Most sites are fairly non-critical (hacking my techdirt account would not be the end of the world) using a common password for large groups of similar non-financial sites is fine.
Always including a number or non-alphanumeric character is another. The amount of extra entropy associated with expanding the character set is modest compared to the extra effort required to memorise it. In addition most people make obvious substitutions (A->4 s->$ etc) which don't trouble the average password cracking program even a little. Increasing password length is a much better solution.
All of these things are eminently practical in an environment where you have just one or two sites to find passwords for and use them frequently.
However in the modern world where you may have >>10 passwords it is simply impossible.
My advice is this - use the same short easy password for all non-critical sites. Ignore suggestions not to do this from the site. Most site owners believe their site is way more important to you than it actually is.
Use separate long (multi-word) passwords for the sites that matter. If you will only (or mostly) use them when at home then by all means write them down (at home only - if a burglar is rifling through your thingss then you have bigger problems than a cracked password and you will know to change it).
You are probably left with just one or two sites that demand you remember a secure password - hopefully that is not too hard.
If they don't have enough evidence to build a case with, dropping a bomb on the guy, potentially killing innocent people in the process shouldn't even remotely be considered. Even if the DO have enough evidence to build a case with, dropping a bomb on the guy, potentially killing innocent people in the process shouldn't even remotely be considered.
What is it with the US? Frankly targeted killing of any kind especially bombing someone other than as part of a proper declared war is itself terrorist behaviour and should not be considered by a nation that wants to think of itself as civilised.