Good luck with you IPv5 setup.
Good luck with you IPv5 setup.
If you want to know why PHP skipped 6, this is an interesting read: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/php6
But the key reason seems to be (selective c&p from the page):
- PHP 6 already existed and it was something completely different.
- PHP 6, the original PHP 6, has been discussed in detail in many PHP conferences.
- PHP 6 was widely known not only within the Internals community, but around the PHP community at large.
- There's lots of PHP 6 information, about the original PHP 6, that exists around the web. Books are the smallest part of the problem.
Thank you for posting this. From the article:
In Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974), the Supreme Court decided that there is "no constitutional value in false statements of fact". and Secondly, knowingly making a false statement of fact can almost always be punished..
With that in mind, Germany considers the existence of the Holocaust as a fact and hence their actions against denial would be in line with US law. Interesting.
The main point of the article is not about using open source, it is about HOW they created such a policy.
From the article:
First, it was published on the party's website so that everyone could read and comment on it by email. It's common practice for the party: publish, discuss, and acknowledge comments as accepted, rejected, or just as comments. In one year ORaH published more than 30 policies that way.
Mod parent up, this is about having the system locked-down so that the end user cannot configure the system as they would like to.
They complain about usability, incompatibility and that the system is locked down.
They then ask to install Windows, Office and increase the user privileges.
Note that these complaints are not from normal employees but elected city representatives (don't know the right translation for Stadträt). These are probably new users that have to get used to the new environment.
Those provisions in contracts are normally not valid when your contract is terminated my the employer.
In a previous position, I was not allowed to take any position at a direct competitor or at any of our suppliers (within a 1 year time-frame). When I was made redundant, I received a letter from my former company addressed to any potential new employer that there were no legal issues in case they wanted to offer me a job.
The letter itself was not required by law (the content was), but it made my life much easier.
From the article:
Companies, however, are experiencing a shortage of developers. "SEPE has undertaken recently an initiative to train 3,000 people, to fill this digital gap in Greece, and at the same time to certify another 3,000 Greek ICT professionals," the Federation's spokesperson told ZDNet.
IT jobs are the sixth hardest ones to fill in Greece, according to ManpowerGroup's 2015 Talent Shortage Survey, with senior developers' gross monthly salary varying between €2,600 and €3,200.
Please, do at least read the article before repeating popular misinformation.
So what is your point with this?
I never stated this should not be allowed. The OP presented moving abroad as a positive thing, I made this statement to show that it is not in the interest of Greece. Every comapny expects/hopes for a return on their investment, there is no difference for countries/governments.
Does that mean that those employees should be forced to pay back that education if they move to another company
That is not uncommon in Europe when such training is extensive and expensive. It is often provided with a clause that if the employee is leaving the company within a x number of years, an equivalent share shall be reimbursed. Often this is happily paid by the new company the person will work for.
A developer working in Greece will pay taxes in Greece and spend most of his/her income in Greece.
A developer leaving Greece will not pay income tax in Greece and IF he/she sends back any money it is nothing compared to what he/she would earn in Greece. Furthermore Greece paid the developers education in the expectation it would be a wise investment in the future (education == long term investment).
Note, in case this developer is doing work for a foreign company, this adds to Greece export and the differences are even larger.
Sorry, the helping out relatives story is not in the interest of Greece.
Hungary forced everybody to move their pension funds they had at banks into the government system. In other words, it changed saved money into a promise for the future which they have not planned for.
Hungary is politically isolating themselves more and more, shops have to be closed on Sundays and foreign business are taxed additionally.
Sorry, but the situation in Hungary is much more complex then just that.
Agree with all you said, should have indicate clearer my response was on the first line of your post in isolation.
The problem for Greece will be that their debt is mainly in Euro, not in their new currency.
Leaving the EU will be another problem for Greece. In 2013, they received 7.2 billion Euro from the EU (http://ec.europa.eu/budget/mycountry/EL/index_en.cfm) of which 59% went to 'Regional Policy' which is described as:
The largest share of the money that Greece received from the EU budget in 2013 went to its regions (59 %). EU regional policy aims to reduce the economic, social and territorial disparities between Europe’s regions and countries. Regional funds invest in projects supporting job creation, competitiveness, economic growth, improved quality of life and sustainable development. Transport infrastructure and the environment are top priorities for Greece.
(Note, Greece pays into the EU as well, so the balance is not 7.2 billion but nonetheless it will affect quite some ongoing projects funded by the EU)
You can only trade 'debt' for 'inflation' when your debt is in your own currency. If your debt is in any other currency then you will make things only worse.
They are 1.8% over 1980 levels, so no progress in principle.
>it's a hassle to set up, maintain, and access the separate XP test lab
A testlab should always be separated from the normal corporate network. Allowing them to be connected is a big no-no.
This feature allows authors to ask the user agent to transparently upgrade HTTP resources to HTTPS to ease the migration burden.
So it is the content provider which decides if this is being used.
It is not only a Google thing, check the Firefox bugzilla:
And the W3C Draft:
This is in my opinion a good thing, it leaves all control in the hands of the content provider and supports the move to encryption everywhere.
"Confound these ancestors.... They've stolen our best ideas!" - Ben Jonson