I stopped clicking through the tests one-by-one when I came across one that would have been fixed by a simple “if (x1 == x2 && y1 == y2) return;”. I went ahead and scrolled down the list, though... for some reason a lot of the tests near the bottom read “No Result” for many/most browsers, and clicking a test at random (canvas(2d.transformation.scale..zero.html)) that said “No Result” in every column except Safari gave me a 404 error.
My congresscritter felt so secure of his seat that he voted for the Obamacare health package despite the fact that something like 80% of his constituency are/were opposed to it, and I really wouldn’t want to say anything to him unless I was capturing it on tape to prove that I wasn’t spitting on him or calling him any racial epitaphs. I did, however, vote for his opponent this morning, and in 2008, and in 2006...
The only thing that’ll be meaningful is if I’m able to wake up tomorrow and discover that 100% of precincts are in and he was defeated, but even that’s a rather long shot. If there’s a year to get rid of him, though, this is the year.
I can tell you what would happen: your “one” vote can be either one vote (for the candidate you like) or many votes (effectively a vote for all of the opponents of a candidate you dislike).
Since you have the most influence by choosing the latter, it would quickly devolve into the degenerate case where everyone votes against the candidate they least want to win. Furthermore if you think politics are nasty right now, just think how nasty things would become if people were permitted to vote against the most-hated candidate.
I’m pretty sure what you’re trying to say is a (rather bitter) whoosh*, but I had to re-read both this and the original post before I was able to finally convince myself of that.
*What’s it called again when someone misses sarcasm that wasn’t really supposed to be funny?
Eh, it sounded to me like you were taking some random Romanian guy to task on “taking responsibility” for his country’s murder of its former dictator. But maybe I misinterpreted that...
It was the Romanians who killed Ceausescu and his wife without any trial.
It was authorized by the Extraordinary Military Tribunal, established by Ion Iliescu, head of the Council of the Front of National Salvation, and the execution was carried out by three elite paratroopers in the Romanian military, Captain Ionel Boeru, Sergant-Major Georghin Octavian and Dorin-Marian Cirlan.
If you’re going to make the accusation that he and his wife were tried in a kangaroo court and murdered, at least put the blame on the people who actually did it instead of impugning the entire country of Romania.
I'd kind of rather the trojan be slipped on someone else's phone
Oh, is that how you keep the iPhone antenna from shorting out? I knew they were giving away some kind of rubber phone covers but that wasn’t quite how I imagined it.
There are some programs which NEED to be invisible to the user for them to work such as theft recovery apps which report the current location of the phone or its IP address and a snapshot from the camera. Such an App may well be preferable to be hidden from the user.
Is this one of them?
I don’t think it is. If you’re reading someone else’s text messages, you shouldn’t be doing so without their knowledge. No matter who they are.
I’ve just always assumed it was meant in a sarcastic sense. I.e. “I could care less” but delivered in such a way that it’s obvious that I mean the opposite (I really couldn’t care less). Or perhaps I could care less, but I’d really have to try (and that would defeat the purpose of not caring anyway).
It's not an RFQ if it states that only one party can fulfill the requirements. It's a public rubberstamp.
It doesn’t. It just specifies that whoever builds the system needs to use Microsoft’s software. Microsoft is mainly in the business of selling software, not necessarily building complete systems... it’s quite possible that they’d price themselves out of the bidding for this and let some other contractor purchase their software licenses and actually do the hard work of building the system from the ground up.
it may be more cost effective to switch everything over to AMD $hypothetical_CPU
That’s not how governments operate, though. You can’t roll a decision like that into an unrelated contract. You have to hire an expensive consultant and pay millions of dollars to even consider switching everything over to AMD $hypothetical_CPU, and at that point it’s hardly cost-effective any more.
They aren’t restricting the bidding to only Microsoft... third-party contractors could bid on it as long as they were going to use Microsoft’s products.
Basically, they’re trying to avoid taking the low bid and then at the end of the contract finding out that all of the workstations are running some free flavour of Linux that isn’t supported and none of their employees know how to use. It’s reasonable from that perspective, although cutting Google out of the mix probably still wasn’t really the smartest move.
Slashdot Mirror
UnanimousCoward (9841):
Can't someone make a comment in half-seriousness, half-jest without being lectured? Sheesh...
Boy, Slashdot sure must’ve been different in your time.
I stopped clicking through the tests one-by-one when I came across one that would have been fixed by a simple “if (x1 == x2 && y1 == y2) return;”. I went ahead and scrolled down the list, though... for some reason a lot of the tests near the bottom read “No Result” for many/most browsers, and clicking a test at random (canvas(2d.transformation.scale..zero.html)) that said “No Result” in every column except Safari gave me a 404 error.
I’m not terribly impressed.
My congresscritter felt so secure of his seat that he voted for the Obamacare health package despite the fact that something like 80% of his constituency are/were opposed to it, and I really wouldn’t want to say anything to him unless I was capturing it on tape to prove that I wasn’t spitting on him or calling him any racial epitaphs. I did, however, vote for his opponent this morning, and in 2008, and in 2006...
The only thing that’ll be meaningful is if I’m able to wake up tomorrow and discover that 100% of precincts are in and he was defeated, but even that’s a rather long shot. If there’s a year to get rid of him, though, this is the year.
I can tell you what would happen: your “one” vote can be either one vote (for the candidate you like) or many votes (effectively a vote for all of the opponents of a candidate you dislike).
Since you have the most influence by choosing the latter, it would quickly devolve into the degenerate case where everyone votes against the candidate they least want to win. Furthermore if you think politics are nasty right now, just think how nasty things would become if people were permitted to vote against the most-hated candidate.
Except that the same guy seems to be in every store you visit...
I’m pretty sure what you’re trying to say is a (rather bitter) whoosh*, but I had to re-read both this and the original post before I was able to finally convince myself of that.
*What’s it called again when someone misses sarcasm that wasn’t really supposed to be funny?
have a 100% accurate set of polling data right here. Just give me a few more hours to tabulate the results, and I'll be right with you!
by SQL Error (16383) on 02.11.2010 13:24 (#34103762)
It’s 100% accurate, you say?
It still doesn’t need to be hidden.
Ooh, ooh, pick me...
would “hidden” be an app that installs itself into the Windows Fonts folder?
(Yes, I’ve seen a virus that did that.)
Eh, it sounded to me like you were taking some random Romanian guy to task on “taking responsibility” for his country’s murder of its former dictator. But maybe I misinterpreted that...
I did vote, but nobody still seemed to want to hear me complaining...
It was the Romanians who killed Ceausescu and his wife without any trial.
It was authorized by the Extraordinary Military Tribunal, established by Ion Iliescu, head of the Council of the Front of National Salvation, and the execution was carried out by three elite paratroopers in the Romanian military, Captain Ionel Boeru, Sergant-Major Georghin Octavian and Dorin-Marian Cirlan.
If you’re going to make the accusation that he and his wife were tried in a kangaroo court and murdered, at least put the blame on the people who actually did it instead of impugning the entire country of Romania.
I'd kind of rather the trojan be slipped on someone else's phone
Oh, is that how you keep the iPhone antenna from shorting out? I knew they were giving away some kind of rubber phone covers but that wasn’t quite how I imagined it.
I don't need to know what my computers are doing at all times in the background. To steal an infomercial catch phrase, I like to set it and forget it.
There’s a difference between “out of sight, out of mind” and “if I go looking for it, it tries to hide”.
He also said it should show up in the list of apps and clearly describe what it’s doing.
If it tries to hide, it’s malicious.
Heck, two parents could install it on each other's phones so they can see if a child texts one of them, without the child having to text both.
WHAM. Instant infinite recursion. Great idea...
How do you keep a blonde busy all afternoon?
(Click here for the answer.)
There are some programs which NEED to be invisible to the user for them to work such as theft recovery apps which report the current location of the phone or its IP address and a snapshot from the camera. Such an App may well be preferable to be hidden from the user.
Is this one of them?
I don’t think it is. If you’re reading someone else’s text messages, you shouldn’t be doing so without their knowledge. No matter who they are.
I’ve just always assumed it was meant in a sarcastic sense. I.e. “I could care less” but delivered in such a way that it’s obvious that I mean the opposite (I really couldn’t care less). Or perhaps I could care less, but I’d really have to try (and that would defeat the purpose of not caring anyway).
Am I supposed to be surprised that Microsoft is bidding? What I said was, they didn’t restrict the bidding to only Microsoft.
That sounds okay in theory but in practice it would be no different from just specifying which vendor to use.
No. It’s the government. The RFQ and bids all have to be made open to whomever wants to see them.
It's not an RFQ if it states that only one party can fulfill the requirements. It's a public rubberstamp.
It doesn’t. It just specifies that whoever builds the system needs to use Microsoft’s software. Microsoft is mainly in the business of selling software, not necessarily building complete systems... it’s quite possible that they’d price themselves out of the bidding for this and let some other contractor purchase their software licenses and actually do the hard work of building the system from the ground up.
it may be more cost effective to switch everything over to AMD $hypothetical_CPU
That’s not how governments operate, though. You can’t roll a decision like that into an unrelated contract. You have to hire an expensive consultant and pay millions of dollars to even consider switching everything over to AMD $hypothetical_CPU, and at that point it’s hardly cost-effective any more.
I say that with my tongue only halfway in cheek.
They aren’t restricting the bidding to only Microsoft... third-party contractors could bid on it as long as they were going to use Microsoft’s products.
Basically, they’re trying to avoid taking the low bid and then at the end of the contract finding out that all of the workstations are running some free flavour of Linux that isn’t supported and none of their employees know how to use. It’s reasonable from that perspective, although cutting Google out of the mix probably still wasn’t really the smartest move.