You can submerge any electronic device in water as long as it has no power and completely dries out before it receives power again. The problem with a laptop is the motherboard battery which you can't remove without taking the case apart. But if you are taking the case apart, might as well just remove the keyboard parts and wash those.
It doesn't smell obnoxious - but people in the same room will still be breathing the same stuff...
No they won't. The guy smoking will be breathing in atomized nicotine and water vapor. Everyone else will be breathing in whatever you exhale after your lungs have absorbed the nicotine. Not exactly "the same stuff". You're not just saturating the air with nicotine, the point is to make sure that the person smoking absorbs the nicotine rather than exhaling it.
I wouldn't expect viewers, this sounds like just a file hosting service, with certain formats viewable online. It doesn't necessarily mean that any format you upload will be viewable online.
I don't know if you've been to Arizona, but land here isn't exactly a limited commodity. There are massive stretches of land that are unused, in part because they aren't very habitable (i.e., 120+ degrees, no water). It doesn't matter that you can put a nuke plant on the same site and get more energy, because we aren't interested in conserving space (it also turns out we've got the largest nuke plant in the country already). We're interested in generating power efficiently and in a way that isn't going to completely ruin the environment, not conserving the huge patches of desert that no one lives on.
Also, did I mention how much water a nuke plant requires? Did I mention we live in a desert?
Total number of first generation iPhones sold: 6.124 million
Number of iPhone 3G units sold in the first quarter alone: 6.89 million
So the second generation device outsold the first generation device in a single quarter, and now you think Apple is going all-out on a first generation device? Just to point out, the first-generation iPod solid far less than 500,000 units total. We're talking about first-generation products here, not the entire life cycle of the product. No manufacturer places orders for several generations before even announcing the first one. If Apple had a guaranteed production order of 10 million units of a device before they even announced the device to the public, they would literally be staking the future of their entire company on that one device. Many products fail to find a market, you don't want to be sitting in front of a warehouse with 10 million units of things that no one wants.
He then states, "you want to be the manufacturer who gets this contract, because we will eventually order 10 million. And you don't want to do try and produce 10 million at once anyways. So give me the 10 million rate, and in you're in the door for 100,000 today."
So, how do I pick the best one (or at least the "good enough" one) to use? The one that I can trust to be fully compliant, and that will be kept maintained and ported to new language/framework versions? Let's say, I need one for C++.
JSON is pretty simple, there aren't going to be a lot of major changes to it. This one gets good ratings, and you know it must be good because it's open source:
You misunderstand me. What I meant is that there are kinds of XML documents in which tags take up the minority of the content, and the majority is text. XHTML is a classic example;
I'm not suggesting JSON as a replacement for text markup, I'm suggesting it as a replacement for data exchange. For that matter, I also wouldn't suggest XML as a replacement for HTML 4, I don't see any problems that HTML 4 has which can be solved by using XML. I just used a SCORM example because that's been the majority of my experience using XML, that was the file I had handy. For representing any document structure I would still be inclined to target the current version of HTML, that's been working fine for years.
you need to quote all keys
Right, my mistake. I typically don't write JSON by hand, it usually gets generated automatically from a native data structure. But, when I write object literals in Javascript the property identifiers don't need to be quoted.
Do you seriously propose to use JSON for text markup
I propose to use JSON in all ajax-style applications instead of XML. It's superior in nearly every way. You'd be surprised how many ready-made parsers there are at json.org.
where, in XML, most of document is text, and tags are interspersed far between
That's not necessarily true... look at the content-to-metadata ratio here, for example:
Right. When the music execs were originally experimenting with DRM they tried to spin it to the public as a feature to help consumers manage their rights. As if it adds some sort of benefit to the consumer, or lets us do something that we previously could not do. They wouldn't just say it was an anti-piracy measure, they try to blow smoke up everyone's ass by claiming it was something that actually benefited consumers instead of restricting them. So not only do they assume that we're criminals, but they also assume we're borderline retarded.
They could have created something original and unique, but that would have cost more and would probably not be as marketable.
Not be as marketable? You think a fake Disney park is more marketable than either a real Disney park or a unique China park? Even a China-themed licensed Disney park, selling official Disney merchandise, would likely bring in more tourism than a fake park. Both would be blown away by a unique Chinese park. You'd even get American tourists including the park in their vacation, I don't think a lot of tourists are going to want to go to Beijing and spend their time visiting a fake Disney park.
I understand the IP argument, but IP doesn't even enter into it for me, it's more about business sense. I look at that scenario with my western eyes and it looks like a counterfeit Disney park is at the bottom of the profitability ladder. I'm not even considering legal action, I doubt that would even enter into it. A unique Chinese park is a draw, a fake Disney park is "blah". The only advantage a fake park has is ease of construction. They hardly have to do any creative work, they just jump directly into manufacturing.
This park's existence represents China better than any collection of pagodas or whatever you would have them create.
You've got that right. I'm just not sure it's the image they want to represent.
I don't know what you see, but when I try to use that site in Opera, Firefox, or IE it just alternates between the search form and the disclaimer. Agree to the disclaimer and I get the search form, submit a search request and I see the disclaimer.
Slashdot Mirror
You can submerge any electronic device in water as long as it has no power and completely dries out before it receives power again. The problem with a laptop is the motherboard battery which you can't remove without taking the case apart. But if you are taking the case apart, might as well just remove the keyboard parts and wash those.
It doesn't smell obnoxious - but people in the same room will still be breathing the same stuff...
No they won't. The guy smoking will be breathing in atomized nicotine and water vapor. Everyone else will be breathing in whatever you exhale after your lungs have absorbed the nicotine. Not exactly "the same stuff". You're not just saturating the air with nicotine, the point is to make sure that the person smoking absorbs the nicotine rather than exhaling it.
How does a per-file limit of 250MB stop any of the mentioned things from happening?
I wouldn't expect viewers, this sounds like just a file hosting service, with certain formats viewable online. It doesn't necessarily mean that any format you upload will be viewable online.
"May our tongues be gentle, our e-mails be simple and our websites be accessible"
Maybe they could start with TFA..
I don't know if you've been to Arizona, but land here isn't exactly a limited commodity. There are massive stretches of land that are unused, in part because they aren't very habitable (i.e., 120+ degrees, no water). It doesn't matter that you can put a nuke plant on the same site and get more energy, because we aren't interested in conserving space (it also turns out we've got the largest nuke plant in the country already). We're interested in generating power efficiently and in a way that isn't going to completely ruin the environment, not conserving the huge patches of desert that no one lives on.
Also, did I mention how much water a nuke plant requires? Did I mention we live in a desert?
Lorena Bobbit had a penis.
No, Lorena Bobbit had his penis.
Whoops, that's obviously wrong.
That represents 10 quarters of sales (30 months), or an average of 700k per month, or 8.4 million per year.
Way to misread the graph.
Total number of first generation iPhones sold: 6.124 million
Number of iPhone 3G units sold in the first quarter alone: 6.89 million
So the second generation device outsold the first generation device in a single quarter, and now you think Apple is going all-out on a first generation device? Just to point out, the first-generation iPod solid far less than 500,000 units total. We're talking about first-generation products here, not the entire life cycle of the product. No manufacturer places orders for several generations before even announcing the first one. If Apple had a guaranteed production order of 10 million units of a device before they even announced the device to the public, they would literally be staking the future of their entire company on that one device. Many products fail to find a market, you don't want to be sitting in front of a warehouse with 10 million units of things that no one wants.
He then states, "you want to be the manufacturer who gets this contract, because we will eventually order 10 million. And you don't want to do try and produce 10 million at once anyways. So give me the 10 million rate, and in you're in the door for 100,000 today."
Someone should tell him that his grammar sucks.
So, how do I pick the best one (or at least the "good enough" one) to use? The one that I can trust to be fully compliant, and that will be kept maintained and ported to new language/framework versions? Let's say, I need one for C++.
JSON is pretty simple, there aren't going to be a lot of major changes to it. This one gets good ratings, and you know it must be good because it's open source:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/jsoncpp/
You misunderstand me. What I meant is that there are kinds of XML documents in which tags take up the minority of the content, and the majority is text. XHTML is a classic example;
I'm not suggesting JSON as a replacement for text markup, I'm suggesting it as a replacement for data exchange. For that matter, I also wouldn't suggest XML as a replacement for HTML 4, I don't see any problems that HTML 4 has which can be solved by using XML. I just used a SCORM example because that's been the majority of my experience using XML, that was the file I had handy. For representing any document structure I would still be inclined to target the current version of HTML, that's been working fine for years.
you need to quote all keys
Right, my mistake. I typically don't write JSON by hand, it usually gets generated automatically from a native data structure. But, when I write object literals in Javascript the property identifiers don't need to be quoted.
Do you seriously propose to use JSON for text markup
I propose to use JSON in all ajax-style applications instead of XML. It's superior in nearly every way. You'd be surprised how many ready-made parsers there are at json.org.
where, in XML, most of document is text, and tags are interspersed far between
That's not necessarily true... look at the content-to-metadata ratio here, for example:
<?xml version="1.0"?> /> ... versus this:
<manifest identifier="manifest1" version="1.2"
xmlns="http://www.imsproject.org/xsd/imscp_rootv1p1p2"
xmlns:adlcp="http://www.adlnet.org/xsd/adlcp_rootv1p2"
xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.imsproject.org/xsd/imscp_rootv1p1p2 imscp_rootv1p1p2.xsd
http://www.imsglobal.org/xsd/imsmd_rootv1p2p1 imsmd_rootv1p2p1.xsd
http://www.adlnet.org/xsd/adlcp_rootv1p2 adlcp_rootv1p2.xsd">
<organizations default="org1">
<organization identifier="org1">
<title>Course Title</title>
<item identifier="item1" identifierref="resource1" isvisible="true">
<title>Course Title</title>
</item>
<metadata>
<schema>ADL SCORM</schema>
<schemaversion>1.2</schemaversion>
</metadata>
</organization>
</organizations>
<resources>
<resource identifier="resource1" type="webcontent" href="launch.html" adlcp:scormtype="sco">
<file href="launch.html"
</resource>
</resources>
</manifest>
{
default_org:"org1",
organizations: [
{
identifier:"org1",
title:"Course Title",
items: [
identifier:"item1",
identifierref:"resource1",
isvisible:"true",
title:"Course Title"
],
metadata: {
schema:"ADL SCORM",
schemaversion:"1.2"
}
}
],
resources: [
{
identifier:"resource1",
type:"webcontent",
href:"launch.html",
adlcp_scormtype:"sco",
files: [
{
href:"launch.html"
}
]
}
]
}
The cute and fuzzy JSON. Smaller, faster, lighter.
I hate to be the one to break it to you, but XML is the dinosaur.
"The essence of XML is this: the problem it solves is not hard, and it does not solve the problem well." -- Phil Wadler, POPL 2003
I got the same education by listening to heavy metal.
I wonder if Home Depot will sell me some wireless pipe.
GNU rewritten Unix utilities tool set were invented by through the purity in effort of Richard Stallman
Why did the author feel the need to run his text through a Chinese translator then back to English?
I'm afraid you are being pedantic. Both are acceptable.
If both are correct, it's not really pedantic, is it?
That's pretty pedantic.
Right. When the music execs were originally experimenting with DRM they tried to spin it to the public as a feature to help consumers manage their rights. As if it adds some sort of benefit to the consumer, or lets us do something that we previously could not do. They wouldn't just say it was an anti-piracy measure, they try to blow smoke up everyone's ass by claiming it was something that actually benefited consumers instead of restricting them. So not only do they assume that we're criminals, but they also assume we're borderline retarded.
That's not a naked woman, that's Waldo.
It's a good thing that they allow us to manage our rights like this.
I'm impressed by the special effects and not impressed by his story telling ability.
Which may be why he was offered a deal to direct while they find another writer.
They could have created something original and unique, but that would have cost more and would probably not be as marketable.
Not be as marketable? You think a fake Disney park is more marketable than either a real Disney park or a unique China park? Even a China-themed licensed Disney park, selling official Disney merchandise, would likely bring in more tourism than a fake park. Both would be blown away by a unique Chinese park. You'd even get American tourists including the park in their vacation, I don't think a lot of tourists are going to want to go to Beijing and spend their time visiting a fake Disney park.
I understand the IP argument, but IP doesn't even enter into it for me, it's more about business sense. I look at that scenario with my western eyes and it looks like a counterfeit Disney park is at the bottom of the profitability ladder. I'm not even considering legal action, I doubt that would even enter into it. A unique Chinese park is a draw, a fake Disney park is "blah". The only advantage a fake park has is ease of construction. They hardly have to do any creative work, they just jump directly into manufacturing.
This park's existence represents China better than any collection of pagodas or whatever you would have them create.
You've got that right. I'm just not sure it's the image they want to represent.
I don't know what you see, but when I try to use that site in Opera, Firefox, or IE it just alternates between the search form and the disclaimer. Agree to the disclaimer and I get the search form, submit a search request and I see the disclaimer.