> Welsh is actually quite different from the other two. It uses lots of ll and ff and it uses w as a vowel (e.g., cwm).

Welsh also uses a circumflex accent to extend any of the vowels, and since both 'w' and 'y' are vowels in Welsh (leading to many jokes by English speakers about words with no vowels) they can have the circumflex accent too. I've had problems in the past finding the alt-codes to generate w or y with a circumflex accent - so those may be unique to Welsh.

From http://symbolcodes.tlt.psu.edu/bylanguage/welsh.html : > Because of the writing system, Welsh places accents on the letters w (phonetic /u/) and y (phonetic /ɨ/ or /i/), which is very unique in languages of the world. These symbols require Unicode support apart from that of other Western European languages.

What does this bring to the discussion, other than your apparent delight in anti-Welsh bigotry?

The author's hardly a novice when it comes to software design though: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Software-Engineering-Ian-Sommerville...

I realize that, but he's still wrong on those points I addressed.

The anaemic way would turn that 10,000 line file into something closer to 10,000 one-line files. To me, that is the very definition of spaghetti code.

My biggest problem with the enterprise Java way of doing things is the fact that you have to open 18 files just to figure out how the hell one small bit of functionality works.

It's all very pretty, but having looked at the source code for the page it's not really very semantic. If you're creating buttons and using DIVs and not one BUTTON, you've completely missed the point of semantic HTML. Menus are lists of links - why DIV > DIV > A instead of UL > LI > A? The latter provides meaning to the structure whilst the former does not.

The current 'living wage' in the UK is 7.85 outside of London and 9.15 in London. So no, 7.20 isn't a living wage - especially in London.

How do you link the browser to the session, if not with cookies?

You create a session identifiers as part of the protocol but that then breaks the semantics being compatible with HTTP/1.x

I think it will come and I think PHK's ideas a really interesting just that it's a step too far right now.

> Sir Alan Duncan said the "meaningless missives" led to "forests' worth of paper" being wasted when emails are printed out.

Well stop printing out your sodding emails then, you clown.

To be honest, its a pretty useful practice for common management tasks involving face to face meetings.

As much as I love technology, its amazing how much bringing out a laptop or tablet reduces the quality of person-to-person interaction. A printout of the email relevant to the meeting lets you refer to the key points and make notes while still giving full attention to other participants. Sensitive situations just don't let you make compromises about that.

Is it better for the planet if I buy a tablet which lasts three years and bring that to the meeting instead?

Why would a tablet only last three years?

In any case, you can simply buy a laptop/tablet hybrid nowadays, instead of the laptop you'd buy anyway (exceptions made for people who need desktops or non-hybrid laptops for some reason, but they're an exception).

OS updates either aren't available or refuse to run on it, so it's still usable but not safe to connect to the internet.

The Surface comes with a guarantee of four years of updates (minimum).

I'm not sure what you intend with your post. I assure you I'm not responsible for laptop purchasing decisions in the UK civil service.

I didn't think you were. My point was that if they can quickly fix this issue with a simple law banning government entities from putting disclaimers at the bottom of an email I'd rather that than spending millions on new hardware to prevent printing. Considering most of these people will use Word + Internet Explorer all day money doesn't need to be unnecessarily spent on new hardware.

My idea was simply, when buying new laptops that are needed anyway, to choose hybrids instead of "regular" laptops.

1) British!=English.

2) David Cameron is in no way representative of the British or the English.

Please stop painting us all with the same brush.

>David Cameron is in no way representative of the British or the English.

Right, because you don't have a representative government. At all.

David Cameron is leader of the Conservative party, which received 36.1% percent of the popular vote at the last general election. In order to form a government, he had to enter a coalition with the third party, the Liberal Democrats, who received 23% of the popular vote. (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_electio...).

Based on these numbers, it seems difficult to claim that the leader of any political party represents the views of Britain as a whole.

I wish I could upvote this more than once. A lot of comments here are positive about the idea of a single global language when it's their language that wins out. I strongly suspect that if it were Mandarin, Arabic or Russian instead of English that was being suggested, their enthusiasm for the idea might be more muted.