I once tried the "is 'a little' one word?" answer to someone who asked me "is a lot one word?". Their answer was one, at which point I gave up on using that answer...
They're great fun - not worth it for credit card offers, but nothing is more fun than shredding some paper and having the three year old put your AMEX card into the card shredding slot...
Taking a non-reputable study and doing it afresh is perfectly valid science.
There is nothing unscientific about publishing without peer review. In fact it is done *all* the time. Technical Reports are not peer reviewed for example. Peer review is an import an important part of science, however the statement "science also requires that nothing be published without peer review and approval" is completely false.
In my experience the fraud protection has been really good. If your PIN or card details are stolen, any money lost is reimbursed by the bank. Moreover, when they detect that a retailer is stealing card numbers somehow (which they detect using a program to analyze log files and look for inconsistencies, etc.), they immediately cancel the cards of anyone who used that retailer, and contact the customers to let them know a new card is in the mail.
And you just hope you aren't on vacation on the other side of the country with very little cash on you when that happens?
It's pretty clear the phrase that was meant to be typed was "making shit up".
Because galaxies don't rotate the way our current theory of gravity says they should, because gravitational lensing isn't working the way our current theory of gravity says it should, because of a bynch of other thing I guess, the accepted solution it to declare that 95% of the universe is made of stuff we can't directly detect, can't do experiments on, doesn't exist locally, and is completely different from the universe we do observe and interact with.
If anyone believes a company should be restricted by the government from charging extra for a better level of service they are not libertarian.
Road owners should be allowed to charge fedex to use a faster route/lane to those whom the road services, and ISPs should be allowed to charge context providers for priority packets to the ISPs customers. Otherwise you have government meddling in what should be a market issue.
There are enough people for whom email is useless due to spam that they're willing to move to a different system and no longer have access to standard email. Sure not everyone can do that, not even most people are willing, but enough are that such a "do over" has a chance of getting a foothold now.
Seriously do you remember when email *never* went missing... Unreliable in theory was so much nicer than the current unreliable in practice version.
But yes might as well ditch SMTP at the same time, maybe ECMTP.
The moderate amounts they mention might be small enough to have liver, etc damage kick in late enough that it doesn't reduce your life expectancy. But the lower stress levels and better nights sleep gained due to a few drinks in the evening are large enough to have an affect?
That sounds great for little one-off scripts. However, if you are working on an application with any decent expected lifespan, well than that is just wrong. Say your average application will be in production use for 5 years (I'd think this is a pretty low estimate). In that case I'd guess your intial development costs would be a fraction of your support costs over the life of the product.
Sure an application might be 20% development, and 80% non-development costs. Then saving 90% on development costs only saves you 18% of total costs - but that's significant in most places. Of course in reality things interact and it's hard to split costs exactly (for example, crappy development results in more support costs - so saving development costs by employing monkeys can increase support costs and be a net negative).
By your logic whenever designing a database you should always just name tables as A, B, C, D, E,... and the columns within those tables as a, b, c, d, etc. Also, any comments in code are just a frivilous waste of money.
That's just being silly:
select a.c, b.b from a,b where a.b=b.a and a.d='blah';
if exactly the same (from a LOC/statements view point as):
select person.name, group.name from person, group where person.groupid=group.id and person.something='blah';
comments also don't count in any sane LOC/statements count. There's a reason I included the word statements, after all:
a+=2;b+=3;c+=4
if the same (by this metric) as
a+=2; b+=3; c+=4;
or
a = a + 2; b = b + 3; c = c + 4;
but better than (in some non-existent stack assembly language):
PUSH A PUSH 2 ADD POP A PUSH B PUSH 3 ADD POP B PUSH C PUSH 4 ADD POP C
Of course adding numbers isn't where it matters - but the principal remains. Of course the usual price for this is that the program runs slower (not always but that's the usual trade off). CPU is cheaper than developers in most cases (again not all cases) so that's often a good trade.
There have been studies that show that an assembler produces about the same LOC/statements output per day as a C programmer. If C is more expressive, which is what I interpreted "dense" to mean since it was said as a positive, then a single LOC/statement in C will do the equivalent of multiple statements in assembler and hence the C programmer is more productive.
Javascript is more expressive than Java (well I'm trusting the article on that), but it's far from the peak. Most functional languages, plus the perl/python/ruby crowd are "denser" still.
Since developers seem to code about the same number of lines of code/statement per unit time, regardless of language. 10 times as dense means the developers are 10 times as productive. Since programmers are reasonably expensive needing 1/10th as many is a good thing.
But Javascript is no where near 10x as "dense" as Java, http://www.theadvisors.com/langcomparison.htm while flawed in many many ways puts Perl at 2.5 times as "dense" as Java. There is no way in the world that Javascript is four times as "dense" Perl...
In many cases the "cat... | grep..." version is what you want. And I think it's pretty safe to assume that more people know the cat command than know the -h option to grep.
The "cat | grep" versions also works better when you change it to zcat or to something silly like: for i in *;do zcat "$i" 2>/dev/null || cat "$i";done | grep...
But that isn't what is stated. It isn't saying that graphical representations recently expanded into use in email, it's saying emoticons did which it defines as including the text versions.
Surely in a patent you are supposed to be accurate about wording?
Sure "graphical emoticons recently expanded into usage in email" might be reasonable, but that clearly isn't what the paragraph says.
[0002] Emoticons are graphical icons such as "", or textual representations of graphical icons such as ":-)". Emoticons have become very popular through instant messaging applications, and their use has recently expanded to inclusion in email messages. For example, a user may add a smiley face emoticon after a funny sentence in an email message. Emoticons are typically designed to represent an emotion or feeling.
Slashdot Mirror
No shit sherlock.
Do you think that might be why the post gave the "Convicted monopoly abuser" correction?
I once tried the "is 'a little' one word?" answer to someone who asked me "is a lot one word?". Their answer was one, at which point I gave up on using that answer...
They're great fun - not worth it for credit card offers, but nothing is more fun than shredding some paper and having the three year old put your AMEX card into the card shredding slot...
Shredders are more fun. Especially when the 3 year old "helps".
All those offers you get are supposed to have a section saying something like:
You can choose to stop receiving prescreened offers of credit from this and other companies by calling [insert toll-free number].
That toll-free number gets you the place behind that web site.
Because they consider there to be better things to "spend" $300 billion a year on?
Nope. You can build the math out of boolean logic.
You mean the model in which when you heat up water the solubility of CO2 decreases, so warmer temperatures would cause CO2 levels to increase?
Or the one in which CO2 increases cause a greenhouse effect so increasing CO2 levels cause warmer temperatures?
Science is neither of those two things.
Taking a non-reputable study and doing it afresh is perfectly valid science.
There is nothing unscientific about publishing without peer review. In fact it is done *all* the time. Technical Reports are not peer reviewed for example. Peer review is an import an important part of science, however the statement "science also requires that nothing be published without peer review and approval" is completely false.
And you just hope you aren't on vacation on the other side of the country with very little cash on you when that happens?
But the entire text of the GPL doesn't have to appear on every piece of advertising for the product, so that's completely irrelevant.
It's pretty clear the phrase that was meant to be typed was "making shit up".
Because galaxies don't rotate the way our current theory of gravity says they should, because gravitational lensing isn't working the way our current theory of gravity says it should, because of a bynch of other thing I guess, the accepted solution it to declare that 95% of the universe is made of stuff we can't directly detect, can't do experiments on, doesn't exist locally, and is completely different from the universe we do observe and interact with.
But it makes the numbers work, so it's all good.
Did you notice I didn't say I agreed with the idea.
Did you notice the post I was replying to - how it wasn't actually about net neutrality but about government meddling.
Yes there is no free market in this case, but that doesn't change the claim by the post I replied to.
If anyone believes a company should be restricted by the government from charging extra for a better level of service they are not libertarian.
Road owners should be allowed to charge fedex to use a faster route/lane to those whom the road services, and ISPs should be allowed to charge context providers for priority packets to the ISPs customers. Otherwise you have government meddling in what should be a market issue.
At least a libertarian would believe so.
I'm pretty sure religious fanatics make up far more than 1% of the population.
So how do you do so, not for your web browser, but for the random person's web browser who clicks a link?
There are enough people for whom email is useless due to spam that they're willing to move to a different system and no longer have access to standard email. Sure not everyone can do that, not even most people are willing, but enough are that such a "do over" has a chance of getting a foothold now.
Seriously do you remember when email *never* went missing... Unreliable in theory was so much nicer than the current unreliable in practice version.
But yes might as well ditch SMTP at the same time, maybe ECMTP.
The moderate amounts they mention might be small enough to have liver, etc damage kick in late enough that it doesn't reduce your life expectancy. But the lower stress levels and better nights sleep gained due to a few drinks in the evening are large enough to have an affect?
Nope, though the report I linked to puts it as between java and perl in the "denseness" stakes...
Sure an application might be 20% development, and 80% non-development costs. Then saving 90% on development costs only saves you 18% of total costs - but that's significant in most places. Of course in reality things interact and it's hard to split costs exactly (for example, crappy development results in more support costs - so saving development costs by employing monkeys can increase support costs and be a net negative).
That's just being silly:
select a.c, b.b from a,b where a.b=b.a and a.d='blah';
if exactly the same (from a LOC/statements view point as):
select person.name, group.name from person, group where person.groupid=group.id and person.something='blah';
comments also don't count in any sane LOC/statements count. There's a reason I included the word statements, after all:
a+=2;b+=3;c+=4
if the same (by this metric) as
a+=2;
b+=3;
c+=4;
or
a = a + 2;
b = b + 3;
c = c + 4;
but better than (in some non-existent stack assembly language):
PUSH A
PUSH 2
ADD
POP A
PUSH B
PUSH 3
ADD
POP B
PUSH C
PUSH 4
ADD
POP C
Of course adding numbers isn't where it matters - but the principal remains. Of course the usual price for this is that the program runs slower (not always but that's the usual trade off). CPU is cheaper than developers in most cases (again not all cases) so that's often a good trade.
There have been studies that show that an assembler produces about the same LOC/statements output per day as a C programmer. If C is more expressive, which is what I interpreted "dense" to mean since it was said as a positive, then a single LOC/statement in C will do the equivalent of multiple statements in assembler and hence the C programmer is more productive.
Javascript is more expressive than Java (well I'm trusting the article on that), but it's far from the peak. Most functional languages, plus the perl/python/ruby crowd are "denser" still.
Since developers seem to code about the same number of lines of code/statement per unit time, regardless of language. 10 times as dense means the developers are 10 times as productive. Since programmers are reasonably expensive needing 1/10th as many is a good thing.
But Javascript is no where near 10x as "dense" as Java, http://www.theadvisors.com/langcomparison.htm while flawed in many many ways puts Perl at 2.5 times as "dense" as Java. There is no way in the world that Javascript is four times as "dense" Perl...
They give different output.
... | grep ..." version is what you want. And I think it's pretty safe to assume that more people know the cat command than know the -h option to grep.
...
In many cases the "cat
The "cat | grep" versions also works better when you change it to zcat or to something silly like:
for i in *;do zcat "$i" 2>/dev/null || cat "$i";done | grep
But that isn't what is stated. It isn't saying that graphical representations recently expanded into use in email, it's saying emoticons did which it defines as including the text versions.
Surely in a patent you are supposed to be accurate about wording?
Sure "graphical emoticons recently expanded into usage in email" might be reasonable, but that clearly isn't what the paragraph says.
I specifically defines "emoticons" to include "textual representations" right there in that paragraph, so clearly not.
"recently", "expanded". I don't think so.