There's this thing you can do where you print the content of your email on a piece of paper and put it inside a thing called an envelope. If you then write the address in the parent's link on the outside of the envelope and give it to your local postal company, for a small fee they will have it transported to the address you have written on the envelope.
If this guy was serious, he'd have done that as well as writing the emails.
I notice there's also a published telephone number. He could also have tried that, but he'd probably need good French to make that work.
I agree that the impact of 3D in live action movies is much less, but it's still more interesting than plain old 2D movies.
Yeah right. Take a look at the IMDB top 20 rated films and check out how many of these interesting films are in 3D. That's right: none at all. Three of them aren't even in colour. What makes a film interesting has nothing to do with the techno-wizardry that went in to making it and everything to do with plot and characterisation.
How does that work given that no part of a movie scene is actually at infinity. Surely it must all be out of focus, particularly stuff in the foreground?
But 3D is also the normal way for us to see the world
That's a common but wrong thought. 3D is the way we experience the World but human stereoscopic vision only works out to a few metres. After that, the brain constructs its 3D model using things like parallax and the expected size of objects. We don't see most of the World in 3D, we reconstruct the 3D using all sorts of visual cues.
This is probably why my one and only 3 D viewing experience was somewhat disappointing. A friend of mine bought a 3D TV and he was keen to show it off to me. First we watched some Pixar like animated film, and that was awesome in the sense that the 3D worked really well. Then we watched a live England rugby match and it was a total disaster. The whole thing actually looked more two dimensional than in 2D. I think this was because the camera was high up in the stands and your brain doesn't expect stereoscopic vision to work at such distances so the effect was as if the players were only a few centimetres high and were actually inside the telly. Even worse, the spectators in the stands opposite the camera looked like they were painted on a flat vertical piece of cardboard.
You'll have to explain the relevance of that to me. The Congress referred to is the US legislature, is it not? Can you explain Facebook's affiliation to Congress? How has anybody's right to free speech been abridged by Facebook monitoring the said speech and reporting evidence of wrongdoing to the authorities?
I honestly don't know why anybody has any expectation of privacy on the Facebook site. It's a corporation whose only obligation is to its stockholders. It only has a privacy policy at all insofar as not having one will drive some people away from its site which will decrease its value in the eyes of its customers (the advertisers).
I can run vi or indeed any application installed on my computer from bash. How do I do that in the Google search box?
To argue that Google search is a command line interface is to argue that any text entry box in a web browser is a command line interface. This box I'm typing in now is a CLI to Slashdot.
However, to use that definition effectively robs the term "CLI" of any meaning. Bash is a CLI, Google Search is not.
Now I've typed in my command, I will execute it by pressing "preview" then "submit".
I've never understood how anybody thinks focus follow could possibly be a good idea. I like it to be me that chooses the window I am working in and I want it to stay that way until I make a positive decision to work in a different window. The idea that this should be done by positioning the mouse pointer in the window you are working in is totally brain dead.
Firstly, it means the mouse pointer has to be obscuring part of the window you are most probably looking at. Secondly, the last thing I want is for my keyboard events to accidentally be sent to the wrong window just because I - or somebody else - jogged the mouse.
There's a reason neither of the popular desk tops use focus follow: it's because most people don't want it.
Unfortunately, it hasn't really kept up with the improvements in modern instruction sets.
C has never had any direct support for the instructions of any particular machine architecture. In this, of course, it is in good company with virtually every other non assembly language because, not being assembler, you wouldn't expect it to have direct support for any particular machine instruction.
There really ought to be SIMD data types and functions built in to the language
Objective C, like Smalltalk, has an issue with construction and destruction: Overridden methods use the sub/derived version if called during the execution of the super/base class constructor.
There's no such thing as construction / destruction in Objective-C. Allocation and initialisation are separate processes, although invariably done together.
Anyway, although the problem you describe is there theoretically, it doesn't happen in practice. Initialisation tends to work with instance variables (Apple's guidelines recommend avoiding sending messages to self in initialisation). Also dynamic binding of methods makes inheritance much less common in Objective-C than the C++ alike languages.
That's one theoretical issue with Objective-C. Another is that sending Objective-C messages is slower than calling C++ functions, even virtual ones. Compared to the horrible misdesigned "features" of C++ these are minor. The C++ designers have spent all their time adding more new features, resulting in a hugely bloated language with a syntax, that is too complex for a compiler instead of solving the basic problems like the fragile instance variable issue.
In the UK, a shop owner can refuse to sell a product to a potential customer for almost any reason (excepting discrimination on the grounds of gender, race etc.
When a retailer displays a product for sale, legally it is giving you 'an invitation to treat', which means it is inviting you to make an offer to buy. The retailer can refuse that offer if it decides that it doesn't want to sell you the goods. To have a legally-binding contract the retailer must have accepted your offer to buy. So your rights depend on where in the sale process you are.
Under British law it is entirely possible that they have committed an offence of Assisting or Encouraging a crime. Everybody knows it is a site designed to help people get free access to material that they would otherwise have to pay for. It's even called The Pirate Bay.
Blocking access to information is censorship in it's pure form. No democracy should allow any form of censorship.
This is bullshit on so many levels. Firstly, if The Pirate Bay is only hosting "a list of hashes.... that are useless on their own" how can it be considered censorship to block access to The Pirate Bay?
Secondly, there is no censorship if an information provider refuses to publish all of their information. Is it censorship for me to refuse to put my credit card number on my web site? No. Furthermore, there is no censorship if an information provider demands money for access to its information. If it were censorship then admission fees to cinemas would be censorship and they are not.
The vast majority of material that the "useless" hashes on The Pirate Bay allow you to access is available through legitimate means elsewhere. This whole thing is not about anything so virtuous as freedom of information, it is about money: whether you have to hand some over to somebody else or not if you want to watch your favourite TV show.
Windows 3.x, 95 and 98 used cooperative multitasking. Because Microsoft owned the market, people just accepted that that was the way computers were - prone to lagging and crashing.
Windows 95 and 98 had pre-emptive multitasking for 32 bit processes.
But pre-emptive multitasking had been around since the 1970s on mainframes, and the 1980s on home systems (CP/M, AmigaOS, and QDOS).
CP/M did not have multitasking at all. AmigaOS did but the lack of memory protection and / or virtual memory made it very flakey.
So why did Windows users suffer with cooperative multitasking until nearly 2000?
False premise: Windows users had pre-emptive multitasking in 1995 except that all 16 bit applications ran in a single virtual machine and were cooperatively multitasked amongst themselves.
Incidentally, it wasn't until 2001 that Windows' main competitor in the late 1990's went pre-emptive. All of those Macintosh users were stuck with cooperative multitasking for five years longer than Windows users.
But the fact that the system contains a human who designs it makes the fact that it is self organising not interesting. Self organisation amongst humans has been observed frequently in the last few millennia and should not be surprising.
I don't think I'd use my TS1000 to control a nuclear power plant, as Sinclair Research suggested in their advertisements.
When I was at school we went on a tour of what is now called Atomic Energy Research Establishment at Harwell. We had a tour around one of their fission reactors and there in the control room was a Commodore PET. This would have been in about 1983 or 84.
everyone who speaks english and its variations (i.e. American English etc) would have to pay a royalty to Britain.
Not sure that American English is a derivative of British English. I think it's more a case that both languages are derived from some common English that existed in the 17th or 18th centuries. Since the creators of the language are long dead, it would be hard to charge royalties to the Americans now.
And then we realised it was wrong and passed a law to make it illegal. Compare and contrast with the USA where some people couldn't be made to give it up without a war.
Slashdot Mirror
Quarter pounder
Because of the metric system?
There's this thing you can do where you print the content of your email on a piece of paper and put it inside a thing called an envelope. If you then write the address in the parent's link on the outside of the envelope and give it to your local postal company, for a small fee they will have it transported to the address you have written on the envelope.
If this guy was serious, he'd have done that as well as writing the emails.
I notice there's also a published telephone number. He could also have tried that, but he'd probably need good French to make that work.
I agree that the impact of 3D in live action movies is much less, but it's still more interesting than plain old 2D movies.
Yeah right. Take a look at the IMDB top 20 rated films and check out how many of these interesting films are in 3D. That's right: none at all. Three of them aren't even in colour. What makes a film interesting has nothing to do with the techno-wizardry that went in to making it and everything to do with plot and characterisation.
How does that work given that no part of a movie scene is actually at infinity. Surely it must all be out of focus, particularly stuff in the foreground?
But 3D is also the normal way for us to see the world
That's a common but wrong thought. 3D is the way we experience the World but human stereoscopic vision only works out to a few metres. After that, the brain constructs its 3D model using things like parallax and the expected size of objects. We don't see most of the World in 3D, we reconstruct the 3D using all sorts of visual cues.
This is probably why my one and only 3 D viewing experience was somewhat disappointing. A friend of mine bought a 3D TV and he was keen to show it off to me. First we watched some Pixar like animated film, and that was awesome in the sense that the 3D worked really well. Then we watched a live England rugby match and it was a total disaster. The whole thing actually looked more two dimensional than in 2D. I think this was because the camera was high up in the stands and your brain doesn't expect stereoscopic vision to work at such distances so the effect was as if the players were only a few centimetres high and were actually inside the telly. Even worse, the spectators in the stands opposite the camera looked like they were painted on a flat vertical piece of cardboard.
You'll have to explain the relevance of that to me. The Congress referred to is the US legislature, is it not? Can you explain Facebook's affiliation to Congress? How has anybody's right to free speech been abridged by Facebook monitoring the said speech and reporting evidence of wrongdoing to the authorities?
I honestly don't know why anybody has any expectation of privacy on the Facebook site. It's a corporation whose only obligation is to its stockholders. It only has a privacy policy at all insofar as not having one will drive some people away from its site which will decrease its value in the eyes of its customers (the advertisers).
I can run vi or indeed any application installed on my computer from bash. How do I do that in the Google search box?
To argue that Google search is a command line interface is to argue that any text entry box in a web browser is a command line interface. This box I'm typing in now is a CLI to Slashdot.
However, to use that definition effectively robs the term "CLI" of any meaning. Bash is a CLI, Google Search is not.
Now I've typed in my command, I will execute it by pressing "preview" then "submit".
I've never understood how anybody thinks focus follow could possibly be a good idea. I like it to be me that chooses the window I am working in and I want it to stay that way until I make a positive decision to work in a different window. The idea that this should be done by positioning the mouse pointer in the window you are working in is totally brain dead.
Firstly, it means the mouse pointer has to be obscuring part of the window you are most probably looking at. Secondly, the last thing I want is for my keyboard events to accidentally be sent to the wrong window just because I - or somebody else - jogged the mouse.
There's a reason neither of the popular desk tops use focus follow: it's because most people don't want it.
At its core, C is designed to be a sort of portable assembly language.
No, it was designed as a replacement for assembly language. There's a difference.
Most of its original features were intended to map directly to PDP-11 opcodes
This is a myth. Most of C's original features are inherited or evolved from its predecessor languages.
http://cm.bell-labs.com/who/dmr/chist.html
Unfortunately, it hasn't really kept up with the improvements in modern instruction sets.
C has never had any direct support for the instructions of any particular machine architecture. In this, of course, it is in good company with virtually every other non assembly language because, not being assembler, you wouldn't expect it to have direct support for any particular machine instruction.
There really ought to be SIMD data types and functions built in to the language
How would you do that in a portable way?
Objective C, like Smalltalk, has an issue with construction and destruction: Overridden methods use the sub/derived version if called during the execution of the super/base class constructor.
There's no such thing as construction / destruction in Objective-C. Allocation and initialisation are separate processes, although invariably done together.
Anyway, although the problem you describe is there theoretically, it doesn't happen in practice. Initialisation tends to work with instance variables (Apple's guidelines recommend avoiding sending messages to self in initialisation). Also dynamic binding of methods makes inheritance much less common in Objective-C than the C++ alike languages.
That's one theoretical issue with Objective-C. Another is that sending Objective-C messages is slower than calling C++ functions, even virtual ones. Compared to the horrible misdesigned "features" of C++ these are minor. The C++ designers have spent all their time adding more new features, resulting in a hugely bloated language with a syntax, that is too complex for a compiler instead of solving the basic problems like the fragile instance variable issue.
nope, I just don't care how I write.
You don't give a fuck about your readers is how I read that sentence.
Great spelling and grammar is needed by authors and teachers
and is a goal to be aspired to by anybody who wants to communicate effectively.
programmers only care about getting working, optimized code outputted.
Which requires an almost anal attention to detail. I'm surprised it doesn't spill over into your English writing.
Whoosh!
Count the number of characters in the string "Hello World".
In the UK, a shop owner can refuse to sell a product to a potential customer for almost any reason (excepting discrimination on the grounds of gender, race etc.
When a retailer displays a product for sale, legally it is giving you 'an invitation to treat', which means it is inviting you to make an offer to buy. The retailer can refuse that offer if it decides that it doesn't want to sell you the goods. To have a legally-binding contract the retailer must have accepted your offer to buy. So your rights depend on where in the sale process you are.
http://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/sale-of-goods/your-rights-pricing-disputes/your-rights/
The fact is that:
1) The Pirate Bay does nothing criminal. .
Under British law it is entirely possible that they have committed an offence of Assisting or Encouraging a crime. Everybody knows it is a site designed to help people get free access to material that they would otherwise have to pay for. It's even called The Pirate Bay.
Blocking access to information is censorship in it's pure form. No democracy should allow any form of censorship.
This is bullshit on so many levels. Firstly, if The Pirate Bay is only hosting "a list of hashes .... that are useless on their own" how can it be considered censorship to block access to The Pirate Bay?
Secondly, there is no censorship if an information provider refuses to publish all of their information. Is it censorship for me to refuse to put my credit card number on my web site? No. Furthermore, there is no censorship if an information provider demands money for access to its information. If it were censorship then admission fees to cinemas would be censorship and they are not.
The vast majority of material that the "useless" hashes on The Pirate Bay allow you to access is available through legitimate means elsewhere. This whole thing is not about anything so virtuous as freedom of information, it is about money: whether you have to hand some over to somebody else or not if you want to watch your favourite TV show.
C is absolutely fairly and squarely a high level language.
What features do Pascal and Fortran and Cobol have that make them high level and C not?
Wrong meme.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Yorkshiremen_sketch
Windows 3.x, 95 and 98 used cooperative multitasking. Because Microsoft owned the market, people just accepted that that was the way computers were - prone to lagging and crashing.
Windows 95 and 98 had pre-emptive multitasking for 32 bit processes.
But pre-emptive multitasking had been around since the 1970s on mainframes, and the 1980s on home systems (CP/M, AmigaOS, and QDOS).
CP/M did not have multitasking at all. AmigaOS did but the lack of memory protection and / or virtual memory made it very flakey.
So why did Windows users suffer with cooperative multitasking until nearly 2000?
False premise: Windows users had pre-emptive multitasking in 1995 except that all 16 bit applications ran in a single virtual machine and were cooperatively multitasked amongst themselves.
Incidentally, it wasn't until 2001 that Windows' main competitor in the late 1990's went pre-emptive. All of those Macintosh users were stuck with cooperative multitasking for five years longer than Windows users.
But the fact that the system contains a human who designs it makes the fact that it is self organising not interesting. Self organisation amongst humans has been observed frequently in the last few millennia and should not be surprising.
Yes, but can you imagine the atmosphere in the office if it could easily be deduced from the email who it was who was really being fired?
Dear Fred Bloggs, you are being fired for persistent tardiness
Fred Bloggs walks in 10 minutes late and after the whole office has read the email....
I don't think I'd use my TS1000 to control a nuclear power plant, as Sinclair Research suggested in their advertisements.
When I was at school we went on a tour of what is now called Atomic Energy Research Establishment at Harwell. We had a tour around one of their fission reactors and there in the control room was a Commodore PET. This would have been in about 1983 or 84.
everyone who speaks english and its variations (i.e. American English etc) would have to pay a royalty to Britain.
Not sure that American English is a derivative of British English. I think it's more a case that both languages are derived from some common English that existed in the 17th or 18th centuries. Since the creators of the language are long dead, it would be hard to charge royalties to the Americans now.
And then we realised it was wrong and passed a law to make it illegal. Compare and contrast with the USA where some people couldn't be made to give it up without a war.
Not if you pull over and move across to the passenger seat while stationary.
I'm outraged. When I was 14 I was forced to read a book with explicit references to interracial sex by my English teacher. The sentence
An old black ram is tupping your white ewe
has stuck in my mind for no particular reason. Nobody get fired for reading Shakespeare to kids no matter how explicit it is.