I've pointed this out before and will probably have to point it out again in the future
And then, if the original author is editing, and the person wanting to reply clicks reply, they get a helpful message saying "author is editing, reply not allowed until editing is complete/times out".
Because that allows the poster to effectively prevent replies to the post in question. All they have to do is a while loop using wget to hit the "reply" link. Allowing editing while preventing revisionism introduces complex and subtle bugs, like your proposal above.
For every single method you can think of that allows non-revisionist editing, I'll give you a valid way to break it.
The current KISS method works the best, with orders of magnitude fewer complexities.
No one should be overreacting on this subject. On TFA, the researcher already stated that weight may not really be the cause (just a possibility and may need further research)
If there's a correlation it could be the other way around: perhaps people with those specific brain characteristics are prone to eating more.
Sure, but what you are citing isn't unpaid viewers, it's an internet poll. The voters are an unknown quantity and internet polls are notoriously easily gamed.
That may happen, but in this instance *all* the user-review sites are panning the movie, while the Majority of critics are not. In the case of imdb those reviews are from trusted users, and they panned it.
You are saying that an internet poll is more reliable than the critic's reviews? However many bribes the critics took, their opinions still can't be as worthless as an internet poll.
I'm saying that I trust the opinions of unpaid viewers rather than the opinions of critics.
Enforcing this would be a nightmare. If they did a cost/benefit analysis of this, I suspect the cost of implementation & maintenance would far outstrip the earnings they hope to "protect".
You're thinking of this wrong - the cost for implementation would fall to the OS vendor, who will then pass it on to the consumer. In effect, the consumer will pay extra to have their OS spy on them.
It's sort of like being shot at by cops, and then having them bill you for the bullets.
Protester fanbois protest site that aggregates reviews, screaming "Stop saying it's bad".
Net effect: An even larger audience reading articles about the petition realize it's a bad movie and don't go.
Way go to!/tumbsup
They're doing it wrong - they should be using shaming language: "The only people who don't like this movie are misogynist/sexist/racist/". Although, this method appeared to have mixed results for Ghostbusters...
Great movie. People were panning it though without having seen it or previews,.
Yes, but now actual viewers are panning it, while the "professional" critics are still scoring it high. It's very rare that critics try so hard to push a movie as good when viewers are panning it as hard as they are.
The problem was that people were claiming it sucks the moment the movie was announced. They knew nothing about it whatsoever, except for who the leads were. People were not keeping an open mind on it, they declared it bad merely because it was a remake.
And you feel that *that* is a good reason to label reviewers misogynists? The majority of people who say it sucks, right now, are viewers.
Which brings us back to the SJW post a few posts back.... the only reason you wouldn't like the new Ghostbusters can only be misogyny, just like the only reason you wouldn't like Barack Obama can only be racism.
Actually, metacritic is the best place for reviews - imdb has a secret "algorithm" to ensure that the rating you see is not the average rating given to a movie, which pretty much makes the imdb score worthless.
Metacritic lets you at least see the average score, and it's pretty clear that the critics are pushing Ghostbusters purely on political points - the critic average is 60 while the user average is 2.7. Even Sharknado scored higher than that, IIRC.
I like my 2015 Mustang Ecoboost convertible... Fair price, great car, very good mileage, a hoot to drive.
IME Fords are generally quite reliable; I own a 2005 Ford Mondeo with 300000km on it with only 3 non-service repairs in its life. Also own a 1992 Ford Sierra with god only knows how many miles on it (I'm not the first owner). Both cars are used daily by my wife and myself, no problems.
Younger Millenials are fucked. They have less jobs, less stable jobs, less income, more debt, higher rents, etc, etc,... and most importantly less opportunity to buy a home. They cannot afford one, they will not be given a loan, they cannot hope to get the cash together to get on with their lives and pay for the dating scene. It's the economy stupid.
If they're all poor who is stealing all their dates? I doubt the young women are sleeping with 40yos just because they have money.
Actually 40 yo men do fine with 20yo women. The richer you are the more women you get. It's always been this way. The only thing is that now women at 20 are making the same as men at 20, so the women are dating ever older men.
...when the best-case scenario is one where the individual get's all the reward and society gets nothing.
WTF???
Are you seriously thinking that all an individuals' actions should be for the betterment of the larger society?!?!
Way to go, snipping the context there... did you miss this bit?
the risk of contracting and passing on a particularly nasty disease, especially when the best-case scenario is
I never said that an individuals actions *should* be for the betterment of society, I said that an individuals actions should not harm society! There's a gulf between what I wrote and what you read (and quoted).
If an adult wants to take some risks to win an Olympic gold medal, that's their decision and they get to live with the consequences. It doesn't hurt you in the least so I'm not sure why you are bent out of shape over it.
I don't usually mind that adults go out and play games; this instance is a little different though - they are risking an infectious disease. Their "Me Me Me!" attitude actually carries with it harm that I cannot avoid. I'm all for a mandatory quarantine for everyone going to infectious areas, but that isn't what is being proposed, is it?
And spare me the entertainment argument - sure it's entertainment, but that doesn't mean I have to consider it any more important than other entertainment like keeping up with the Kardashians.
The fact that the athletes are still going there tells you everything you need to know about how much the athletes care about their own well-being.
A lot of them aren't going because of the sanitation problems. But let me ask you this. If you had worked and trained your whole life for something that you probably only had one shot to accomplish, would you give that up easily? Something that for many of them can literally change their life and that of their family for the better? If you say you would give it up easily then you don't adequately understand the question or the stakes involved. I was once an athlete that competed at a fairly high level and I still coach in my sport. I understand why the athletes are conflicted about giving up their chance at an Olympic medal.
For some of these athletes they are literally competing for their future financial well being. Winning an Olympic medal in some places can be life changing. It can make some of them national hero's and set them and their family up for years to come. Would you swim through a river of shit if it would drag your family out poverty? Because for some, that is the stakes on the table.
Even for those not attempting to drag themselves out of poverty, competing in the Olympics can be life changing. In my sport it's basically a job interview. Competing in the Olympics can result in a modest but solid income and career for those who want to coach in the sport. Win a gold medal and it can result in substantial economic benefit if you play your cards right. It's about a lot more than just a shiny piece of metal.
Lots of things can result in substantial economic benefit if you play your cards rights, that doesn't mean overlooking the risk of contracting and passing on a particularly nasty disease, especially when the best-case scenario is one where the individual get's all the reward and society gets nothing. This is a particularly selfish course of action.
The fact that the IOC hasn't stepped in to change the venue tells you everything you need to know about how much the IOC cares about the well being of the athletes.
This has been big news for quite some time, so a little FTFY is in order:
The fact that the athletes are still going there tells you everything you need to know about how much the athletes care about their own well-being.
That's a real Sophie's Choice trying to decide who to root for in this one. But in any case, you can't just post sex tapes online without consent from everyone in the actual tape. Remember that next time Kim Kardashian has a sex tape 'leaked' and somehow nobody gets sued over it.
Do you even know what Sophie's Choice is? There is no Sophie's Choice here:-
A person's sex life is as private as they say it is.
A courts order must be followed
Should we withhold justice from people because of a private opinion they hold?
C isn't some number of orders of magnitude larger than JS by almost any useful metric I can think of: number of different projects, number of project-users, number of lines of code written, number of lines of code executed, number of different architectures/platforms supported by the language, number of developer-hours, etc.
Most definitely not.
The amount of C programmers on the world is what? A million perhaps? I doubt it actually, probably less than half a million.
For you kids out there, consider this insane, but completely possible, project: Write a JavaScript compiler in JavaScript, implementing a few API's you'll want for some low-level stuff next. Write an OS in JavaScript, compile it with your compiler. Implement JavaScript in JavaScript, compile it with your JavaScript compiler. Compile your JavaScript compiler, on the OS you wrote in JavaScript, by running your JavaScript compiler in your JavaScript implementation. Now you can compile your OS, from your OS, using a compiler you compiled on your OS. Everything from top to bottom being written in Javascript. Bootstrappy!
Yes, it's a terrible idea. JavaScript is obviously wasn't designed for those sorts of tasks. The point, of course, is that it's possible to do such a thing. I should probably point out that you could do the same thing in just about every other language you dislike. This is CS 101 stuff, kids.
So, if that's how you discriminate between "programming languages" and "scripting languages" you'll find that very few (likely none) of the languages you currently believe to be "scripting languages" qualify as such under your own criteria.
Whew - what a lot of work! Why not just use Javascript to write a C compiler? Then use your C compiler to compile any existing kernel/system?
Do you have a suggestion for a different client? I originally chose Torrent, because it was lightweight and unobtrusive, but those qualities have been lost over time, but I just don't use it often enough to be assed to go do the research on a new client, myself.
I have a VPS that runs the transmission daemon with a web interface. Once stuff is downloaded there (a few minutes for a movie) I use a firefox download manager plugin to fully saturate my internet connection downloading to my home.
This allows me to us the cheapest internet plan which has a poorly performing and highly contended link - because the data is being downloaded on port 80, I attract no attention from my ISP, and because it's downloading in chunks a single timeout does not render the rest of the file useless. I just re-download that chunk.
It does mean that I have to plan in advance, though. If I want to see something tomorrow night I have to ensure that I start downloading before I go to bed. It's not too bad, though - in this way I normally download around 25G per month on an internet plan that costs the equivalent of $10/m (+ $5 for the VPS).
Slashdot Mirror
CALLING it "autopilot" may be feeding into that, t
From the summary, they're calling it "autosteer". Looks like the penny finally dropped.
And then, if the original author is editing, and the person wanting to reply clicks reply, they get a helpful message saying "author is editing, reply not allowed until editing is complete/times out".
Because that allows the poster to effectively prevent replies to the post in question. All they have to do is a while loop using wget to hit the "reply" link. Allowing editing while preventing revisionism introduces complex and subtle bugs, like your proposal above.
For every single method you can think of that allows non-revisionist editing, I'll give you a valid way to break it.
The current KISS method works the best, with orders of magnitude fewer complexities.
You have every right in the world to ditch facebook, but you will become a complete social pariah in 2016 doing that.
That's funny - I'm hardly a social pariah and I've not checked into my facebook page in ages - it hasn't been updated since 2008/2009.
I'm mad because I can't control the universe with them.
I'm not upset that they can't control the universe - I just think they stretch the truth too much in their advertising
It's a universal remote, not a universe remote. Those are different things :-)
No one should be overreacting on this subject. On TFA, the researcher already stated that weight may not really be the cause (just a possibility and may need further research)
If there's a correlation it could be the other way around: perhaps people with those specific brain characteristics are prone to eating more.
Sure, but what you are citing isn't unpaid viewers, it's an internet poll. The voters are an unknown quantity and internet polls are notoriously easily gamed.
That may happen, but in this instance *all* the user-review sites are panning the movie, while the Majority of critics are not. In the case of imdb those reviews are from trusted users, and they panned it.
You are saying that an internet poll is more reliable than the critic's reviews? However many bribes the critics took, their opinions still can't be as worthless as an internet poll.
I'm saying that I trust the opinions of unpaid viewers rather than the opinions of critics.
Enforcing this would be a nightmare. If they did a cost/benefit analysis of this, I suspect the cost of implementation & maintenance would far outstrip the earnings they hope to "protect".
You're thinking of this wrong - the cost for implementation would fall to the OS vendor, who will then pass it on to the consumer. In effect, the consumer will pay extra to have their OS spy on them.
It's sort of like being shot at by cops, and then having them bill you for the bullets.
Ghostbusters 2016 is still certified fresh?
Just because you didn't like the movie doesn't mean that other people can't like it.
Most viewersdidn't like it, most critics did. I'd trust the viewers on this one.
Protester fanbois protest site that aggregates reviews, screaming "Stop saying it's bad".
Net effect: An even larger audience reading articles about the petition realize it's a bad movie and don't go.
Way go to! /tumbsup
They're doing it wrong - they should be using shaming language: "The only people who don't like this movie are misogynist/sexist/racist/". Although, this method appeared to have mixed results for Ghostbusters...
Critics fail to understand a film. More news at 11.
Not surprised really. A lot of them lose their mind if they just see a blue naked guy.
I agree 100%, but really, it isn't okay to try to shut them up. Critics should never be silenced, only responded to.
It's ironic when people use their freedom of speech to demand silence from others.
Great movie. People were panning it though without having seen it or previews,.
Yes, but now actual viewers are panning it, while the "professional" critics are still scoring it high. It's very rare that critics try so hard to push a movie as good when viewers are panning it as hard as they are.
The problem was that people were claiming it sucks the moment the movie was announced. They knew nothing about it whatsoever, except for who the leads were. People were not keeping an open mind on it, they declared it bad merely because it was a remake.
And you feel that *that* is a good reason to label reviewers misogynists? The majority of people who say it sucks, right now, are viewers.
Which brings us back to the SJW post a few posts back.... the only reason you wouldn't like the new Ghostbusters can only be misogyny, just like the only reason you wouldn't like Barack Obama can only be racism.
Actually, metacritic is the best place for reviews - imdb has a secret "algorithm" to ensure that the rating you see is not the average rating given to a movie, which pretty much makes the imdb score worthless.
Metacritic lets you at least see the average score, and it's pretty clear that the critics are pushing Ghostbusters purely on political points - the critic average is 60 while the user average is 2.7. Even Sharknado scored higher than that, IIRC.
I like my 2015 Mustang Ecoboost convertible... Fair price, great car, very good mileage, a hoot to drive.
IME Fords are generally quite reliable; I own a 2005 Ford Mondeo with 300000km on it with only 3 non-service repairs in its life. Also own a 1992 Ford Sierra with god only knows how many miles on it (I'm not the first owner). Both cars are used daily by my wife and myself, no problems.
Younger Millenials are fucked. They have less jobs, less stable jobs, less income, more debt, higher rents, etc, etc,... and most importantly less opportunity to buy a home. They cannot afford one, they will not be given a loan, they cannot hope to get the cash together to get on with their lives and pay for the dating scene. It's the economy stupid.
If they're all poor who is stealing all their dates? I doubt the young women are sleeping with 40yos just because they have money.
Actually 40 yo men do fine with 20yo women. The richer you are the more women you get. It's always been this way. The only thing is that now women at 20 are making the same as men at 20, so the women are dating ever older men.
WTF???
Are you seriously thinking that all an individuals' actions should be for the betterment of the larger society?!?!
Way to go, snipping the context there... did you miss this bit?
the risk of contracting and passing on a particularly nasty disease, especially when the best-case scenario is
I never said that an individuals actions *should* be for the betterment of society, I said that an individuals actions should not harm society! There's a gulf between what I wrote and what you read (and quoted).
The water-sports athletes at Rio will be up shit creek.
Aren't they two different fetishes?
It's only different by a few inches. (Sorry, somebody had to go there).
They only went there if their aim was off (by a few inches).
If an adult wants to take some risks to win an Olympic gold medal, that's their decision and they get to live with the consequences. It doesn't hurt you in the least so I'm not sure why you are bent out of shape over it.
I don't usually mind that adults go out and play games; this instance is a little different though - they are risking an infectious disease. Their "Me Me Me!" attitude actually carries with it harm that I cannot avoid. I'm all for a mandatory quarantine for everyone going to infectious areas, but that isn't what is being proposed, is it?
And spare me the entertainment argument - sure it's entertainment, but that doesn't mean I have to consider it any more important than other entertainment like keeping up with the Kardashians.
The fact that the athletes are still going there tells you everything you need to know about how much the athletes care about their own well-being.
A lot of them aren't going because of the sanitation problems. But let me ask you this. If you had worked and trained your whole life for something that you probably only had one shot to accomplish, would you give that up easily? Something that for many of them can literally change their life and that of their family for the better? If you say you would give it up easily then you don't adequately understand the question or the stakes involved. I was once an athlete that competed at a fairly high level and I still coach in my sport. I understand why the athletes are conflicted about giving up their chance at an Olympic medal.
For some of these athletes they are literally competing for their future financial well being. Winning an Olympic medal in some places can be life changing. It can make some of them national hero's and set them and their family up for years to come. Would you swim through a river of shit if it would drag your family out poverty? Because for some, that is the stakes on the table.
Even for those not attempting to drag themselves out of poverty, competing in the Olympics can be life changing. In my sport it's basically a job interview. Competing in the Olympics can result in a modest but solid income and career for those who want to coach in the sport. Win a gold medal and it can result in substantial economic benefit if you play your cards right. It's about a lot more than just a shiny piece of metal.
Lots of things can result in substantial economic benefit if you play your cards rights, that doesn't mean overlooking the risk of contracting and passing on a particularly nasty disease, especially when the best-case scenario is one where the individual get's all the reward and society gets nothing. This is a particularly selfish course of action.
The fact that the IOC hasn't stepped in to change the venue tells you everything you need to know about how much the IOC cares about the well being of the athletes.
This has been big news for quite some time, so a little FTFY is in order:
The fact that the athletes are still going there tells you everything you need to know about how much the athletes care about their own well-being.
That's a real Sophie's Choice trying to decide who to root for in this one. But in any case, you can't just post sex tapes online without consent from everyone in the actual tape. Remember that next time Kim Kardashian has a sex tape 'leaked' and somehow nobody gets sued over it.
Do you even know what Sophie's Choice is? There is no Sophie's Choice here :-
A person's sex life is as private as they say it is.
A courts order must be followed
Should we withhold justice from people because of a private opinion they hold?
C isn't some number of orders of magnitude larger than JS by almost any useful metric I can think of: number of different projects, number of project-users, number of lines of code written, number of lines of code executed, number of different architectures/platforms supported by the language, number of developer-hours, etc. Most definitely not.
The amount of C programmers on the world is what? A million perhaps? I doubt it actually, probably less than half a million.
A single *country* has more than that.
Yes, obviously.
For you kids out there, consider this insane, but completely possible, project: Write a JavaScript compiler in JavaScript, implementing a few API's you'll want for some low-level stuff next. Write an OS in JavaScript, compile it with your compiler. Implement JavaScript in JavaScript, compile it with your JavaScript compiler. Compile your JavaScript compiler, on the OS you wrote in JavaScript, by running your JavaScript compiler in your JavaScript implementation. Now you can compile your OS, from your OS, using a compiler you compiled on your OS. Everything from top to bottom being written in Javascript. Bootstrappy!
Yes, it's a terrible idea. JavaScript is obviously wasn't designed for those sorts of tasks. The point, of course, is that it's possible to do such a thing. I should probably point out that you could do the same thing in just about every other language you dislike. This is CS 101 stuff, kids.
So, if that's how you discriminate between "programming languages" and "scripting languages" you'll find that very few (likely none) of the languages you currently believe to be "scripting languages" qualify as such under your own criteria.
Whew - what a lot of work! Why not just use Javascript to write a C compiler? Then use your C compiler to compile any existing kernel/system?
Do you have a suggestion for a different client? I originally chose Torrent, because it was lightweight and unobtrusive, but those qualities have been lost over time, but I just don't use it often enough to be assed to go do the research on a new client, myself.
I have a VPS that runs the transmission daemon with a web interface. Once stuff is downloaded there (a few minutes for a movie) I use a firefox download manager plugin to fully saturate my internet connection downloading to my home.
This allows me to us the cheapest internet plan which has a poorly performing and highly contended link - because the data is being downloaded on port 80, I attract no attention from my ISP, and because it's downloading in chunks a single timeout does not render the rest of the file useless. I just re-download that chunk.
It does mean that I have to plan in advance, though. If I want to see something tomorrow night I have to ensure that I start downloading before I go to bed. It's not too bad, though - in this way I normally download around 25G per month on an internet plan that costs the equivalent of $10/m (+ $5 for the VPS).