Because of the way an "e" looked at this point in German orthography
Interesting stuff, thanks for the explanation and the link.
I'm curious, however. On the Wikipedia page you link to, the "way an 'e' looked at this point in German orthography" seems to be "exactly like an 'n' looks". Am I missing some subtle difference? If not, how did they tell the difference between the two?:)
That looks awesome, thanks for the link! Just one question... I can't seem to get it running on my Sony Ericsson handset. Can you let me know what I'm doing wrong?
Alternatively, I'd be happy to purchase a G1 for $4.99.
Excuse me? Can we at least keep this civil? If you want to point out an inconsistency in my argument I'm happy to listen, but I don't come here to be pointlessly insulted (I go to/b/ for that).
Google's vision is a standardized "browser" running web apps
No, Google's vision is web apps that will run on any standards compliant browser. They'd like their own browser/OS to capture a good chunk of market, so they can use that leverage to push their vision of what the standards should be. By no means are they as naive as Microsoft were, believing they can take over the market by pushing proprietary technologies.
Your original post, to which GP replied, was some wierd accusation of how CRAZY it was that google complained they couldn't write a native app but had to write a webapp.
There's nothing weird about my accusation, and I certainly never used the word "crazy" (let alone shouted it like you did).
What's stupid about your original post is that Google must do this because Apples web app execution environment is limited and sucky.
Now we finally get to the meat of your "argument", and it's just plain wrong. Neither web apps nor native apps may run in the background on the iPhone, so writing Latitude as a native app would not have helped. The iPhone is simply incapable of running Latitude properly.
It's one thing for web apps to be fully functional on a desktop or a notebook, it's quite another on a handset.
No it isn't, it's precisely the same thing.
it's crippled because it can't run in the background, due to the iPhone's shitty implementation of multi-tasking, whereas as a native app they were hoping it could
Why would they be hoping that? I think they'd be aware of the fact that neither web apps nor native apps can run on the background on an iPhone.
This must be a tiny bit embarrassing for Google. They're staking their reputation on Chrome OS, an OS based on the principle that native apps have had their day, and that everything we want to do can be done perfectly well through web apps.
Yet everyone's describing Google's web app as "crippled" on the iPhone, solely because Apple wouldn't allow them to release the native version of it. Why did they even deem it necessary to write a native version in the first place?
Incidentally, is there something in the Slashdot terms and conditions which means the site has to get worse every day? I can't even interact with the comment box with my mouse any more, it just ignores all clicks as if there's another HTML element overlaying it. This is truly pathetic.
I can confirm this. I was seeing no options on this particular page (even though the rest of the pages displayed fine). After disabling AdBlock Plus, the page showed up properly.
it's 'like putting privacy glass on half your shower door.'
So, he's saying that the encryption is perfectly adequate for male users, whereas female users are less well protected, but at least it stops people seeing the really good bits?
How can this counter-intuitive fact be communicated effectively to people unschooled in statistics?
Screening for HIV with 99.9% accuracy? Switch it around. Think also about screening the millions of non-HIV people and being wrong about one person in every 1,000.
So that you never get users attempting to use an unsupported browser, and subsequently gaining a bad opinion of your software when it fails to run smoothly.
Not that I'm condoning any company refusing to support one of the major standards-compliant browsers - but if they're going to, this is probably the safest way to do it.
I can list many more reasons why a 1000 year disk is a waste of time, those are just a few off the top of my head.
Except that you've only actually listed a couple of reasons there. Reasons 1-4 plus reason 8 are all the same thing, whether our descendants have the knowledge to build the requisite technology. Good question.
Reasons 5-7 all concern whether they will have any desire to do so. All civilised societies have an interest in history, so I fail to see why our descendants should lack an interest in viewing a primary source from a millennia in the past, unless they have regressed into a fairly primitive state.
Slashdot Mirror
Had there been, I'd say, with many years experience as a composer, that this article would not be.
Thanks for the hardest sentence I've ever had to parse.
Because of the way an "e" looked at this point in German orthography
Interesting stuff, thanks for the explanation and the link.
I'm curious, however. On the Wikipedia page you link to, the "way an 'e' looked at this point in German orthography" seems to be "exactly like an 'n' looks". Am I missing some subtle difference? If not, how did they tell the difference between the two? :)
My aether is luminiferous, you insensitive clod!
How does it make you feel to not want to be replaced by a short perl script and a couple hundred gigs of prior probability distributions?
That looks awesome, thanks for the link! Just one question... I can't seem to get it running on my Sony Ericsson handset. Can you let me know what I'm doing wrong?
Alternatively, I'd be happy to purchase a G1 for $4.99.
Bitch away, no objections here!
That's more than $5, so I guess that shows that bar codes aren't a replacement for bar codes. :)
The team developing these believe that they can eventually be made cheaply, utilising only a reflector instead of a complicated LED + battery setup.
Hi there. Could you direct me towards where I can buy a barcode scanner for $4.99? Cheers.
You're clueless.
Excuse me? Can we at least keep this civil? If you want to point out an inconsistency in my argument I'm happy to listen, but I don't come here to be pointlessly insulted (I go to /b/ for that).
Google's vision is a standardized "browser" running web apps
No, Google's vision is web apps that will run on any standards compliant browser. They'd like their own browser/OS to capture a good chunk of market, so they can use that leverage to push their vision of what the standards should be. By no means are they as naive as Microsoft were, believing they can take over the market by pushing proprietary technologies.
Your original post, to which GP replied, was some wierd accusation of how CRAZY it was that google complained they couldn't write a native app but had to write a webapp.
There's nothing weird about my accusation, and I certainly never used the word "crazy" (let alone shouted it like you did).
What's stupid about your original post is that Google must do this because Apples web app execution environment is limited and sucky.
Now we finally get to the meat of your "argument", and it's just plain wrong. Neither web apps nor native apps may run in the background on the iPhone, so writing Latitude as a native app would not have helped. The iPhone is simply incapable of running Latitude properly.
Did you even RTFA?
Yes.
It's one thing for web apps to be fully functional on a desktop or a notebook, it's quite another on a handset.
No it isn't, it's precisely the same thing.
it's crippled because it can't run in the background, due to the iPhone's shitty implementation of multi-tasking, whereas as a native app they were hoping it could
Why would they be hoping that? I think they'd be aware of the fact that neither web apps nor native apps can run on the background on an iPhone.
This must be a tiny bit embarrassing for Google. They're staking their reputation on Chrome OS, an OS based on the principle that native apps have had their day, and that everything we want to do can be done perfectly well through web apps.
Yet everyone's describing Google's web app as "crippled" on the iPhone, solely because Apple wouldn't allow them to release the native version of it. Why did they even deem it necessary to write a native version in the first place?
Incidentally, is there something in the Slashdot terms and conditions which means the site has to get worse every day? I can't even interact with the comment box with my mouse any more, it just ignores all clicks as if there's another HTML element overlaying it. This is truly pathetic.
I can confirm this. I was seeing no options on this particular page (even though the rest of the pages displayed fine). After disabling AdBlock Plus, the page showed up properly.
Keep talking... I've already narrowed your date of birth down to 120 possible days. Say, were you born on a weekend?
Thank heavens you posted as anonymous coward, that assuages any fears I may have had that you could be entirely making this shit up.
it's 'like putting privacy glass on half your shower door.'
So, he's saying that the encryption is perfectly adequate for male users, whereas female users are less well protected, but at least it stops people seeing the really good bits?
How can this counter-intuitive fact be communicated effectively to people unschooled in statistics?
Screening for HIV with 99.9% accuracy? Switch it around. Think also about screening the millions of non-HIV people and being wrong about one person in every 1,000.
Can central heating be far behind?
Actually, we tend to keep it underneath.
So that you never get users attempting to use an unsupported browser, and subsequently gaining a bad opinion of your software when it fails to run smoothly.
Not that I'm condoning any company refusing to support one of the major standards-compliant browsers - but if they're going to, this is probably the safest way to do it.
The OP says he's moved "overseas" so presumably some day he'll be travelling back to which ever country he came from
Not necessarily, he might have moved out of the U.K.
(No flames please, I'm British :)
... but without having to resort to larceny?
Larceny! Larceny! Everyone's got it lar... oh, wait.
From the same people who gave us Zed from Zardoz?
Or Zev from B3K.
Yeah, but in that case, they were both dicks.
Congress would *never* consider limiting the copyright term to 1000 years
Fixed that for ya.
I can list many more reasons why a 1000 year disk is a waste of time, those are just a few off the top of my head.
Except that you've only actually listed a couple of reasons there. Reasons 1-4 plus reason 8 are all the same thing, whether our descendants have the knowledge to build the requisite technology. Good question.
Reasons 5-7 all concern whether they will have any desire to do so. All civilised societies have an interest in history, so I fail to see why our descendants should lack an interest in viewing a primary source from a millennia in the past, unless they have regressed into a fairly primitive state.