Nice idea, but it'll never happen. These kinds of projects are only ever successful when a government steps in and does them properly. The process of doing it with "private enterprise" or a "public-private partnership" always kills anything good that could come out of it. Compare the shinkansen in Japan and the TGV in France to the farce that is privatised railways in Australia for a good example.
Have you considered that it could be a conscious decision, because MDIs and dockable toolbars are ugly and annoying? OSX doesn't use either of those UI paradigms, and developers don't cry out for them. As a user, I find OSX's floating, contextual inspector palettes to be much nicer than the mess of toolbars and dockable crap in visual studio. I'm getting a Linux box this week, and if Gnome doesn't have MDIs, I think that's one more thing to push me in that direction. (I think I'm going to choose Fedora as my distro.)
The circuit in the patent conceptually identical to the analog inputs on the classic PC gameport. They shouldn't have been granted a patent, as the idea is obvious and there is prior art. I don't think the devices they're suing over even use the same technique to read the joystick position.
99.9% of the time, I don't need a video phone. However, there have been a few situations where it's been very useful, and a voice phone wouldn't do:
Reporting a crime while in progress (using the camera facing away from me). That's direct evidence that I'm not making shit up, and gives an image of the perpetrators.
Giving directions to someone. They set their phone to use the camera facing away from them so I can see what they see, and tell them which way to turn when.
"Honey, should I buy this shirt?" moments while shopping.
Video calling may be a feature I rarely use, but it doesn't hurt to have it there in case I want it.
So how do you explain.NET, Java, Windows CE, OSX, etc? They all do all their string manipulation and comparison in Unicode. String manipulation algorithms have become quite good lately.
Well that's what Unicode is for - you can map all* characters from all text encodings to it, do your processing in one universal character set, and convert to the required encoding for output. That's how Java,.NET, Cocoa, CoreFoundation and even Windows CE and NewtonOS do things.
*yes, I know there are a few characters from Big5-HKSCS that aren't in Unicode, and the Apple logo from legacy Macintosh text encodings isn't there, either. But for 99.999% of cases, Unicode contains the character.
Yeah, but all Cocoa and CoreFondation string encodings can be mapped to Unicode, it's possible to access any string object as Unicode characters, and all comparisons are effectively done in the Unicode character set. You never end up with two strings for which the comparison results are undefined, which I think was the GP's point. (The GP may or may not actually be correct - Ruby could be just as good as Cocoa/CF for all I know - I'm a C/C++/Objective-C guy and don't really know much about Ruby.)
That doesn't do the same thing at all, and won't do the same thing in the incompatible Python 3 as in Python 2. The Python equivalent to that Ruby would be: for i in range(1,11): print i
The Python is more readable, but the operation of Python's range(1,11) is a bit less obvious than Ruby's (1..10).each IMO.
Like JavaScript, Perl and Python (and Ruby, TCL and even PHP, for that matter) are interpreted, object-oriented languages that you can quickly build simple applications with. However, they're all a lot nicer and cleaner than JavaScript (with the possible exception of PHP). JavaScript desktop applications are trying to solve a problem that's already solved in a superior way.
Why give people another reason to use the awful monstrosity known as JavaScript/ECMAScript? You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig. Isn't it enough that you can write Perl and Python applications if you want quick, interpreted code? Then there's Java and.NET/Mono if you'd prefer it JIT compiled. Why take the worst of the web and bring it to the desktop?
I've used it for a few years now. In that time, it has caught tens of thousands of spam comments. It has missed about ten spam comments (i.e. allowed them through). It has misidentified two legitimate comments as spam. Yes, I realise I'm keeping an eye on it, and someone who doesn't may not notice that it's causing problems for them. But the stats are pretty good in my case. I'm aware of the allegations of corruption and using it to gag people, but that hasn't affected me yet.
Akismet is the best thing for blog spam prevention ever. I can't believe you've never stumbled across it before. It uses statistical analysis to identify spam, and the more people use it, the better it gets. If everyone used it, the blog spammers would just disappear because their attacks would be completely ineffective.
USB3 will make wire speeds faster, and devices more expensive, but it won't deliver the performance we need, because they haven't fixed the root issues. USB is a silly polling system where the host has to ask each device in the tree if it has anything to say, and then (if it's a "bulk" endpoint), allocate time and finally do the transfer (interrupt and iso endpoints have time allocated all the time). Unless they make fundamental changes (which they won't), USB will load up the host excessively and give disappointing performance. But at least with USB3, the price to add it to a device shouldn't be that much lower than FireWire, so we might see more people making the right choice for what to support.
KISS principle: just say the VPN should only be used as you'd use the connection at work. (Keep it work-related, no excessive personal utilisation. No pr0n or illegal material. Don't forward the connection in any way - including web proxies and Tor. Keep your security software up to date. Take reasonable measures to ensure private keys, passwords and other security devices are not lost. Report any potential breaches immediately.)
I don't remember an episode of the X-files featuring an oversize penis. Can you point tell me the series and episode number? It sounds intriguing. Or have you just been watching your XXX-files again?
It's also a community based on the premise that you have a right to "fork" things. Given that, it's hardly surprising that people invent their own licenses.
Well, making sure you know exactly what your usage is at any particular moment could be seen as a service to customers, especially if you contrast it with Comcast who don't tell you until they've cut you off.
Australian ISPs give you a live display of how "download" you've used for the current month (via XMLRPC services, you you can see it in a Firefox add-on or a Dashboard widget). Also, they don't charge you when you exceed the cap - they just slow down you're Internet access until the end of the month or when you pay for more.
What? I didn't link the two things at all. I simply said that the thought process that causes people here to dismiss the idea of creationism is the same one that causes them to reject TFA in this case.
I agree in principle that people tend to not believe things that make them uncomfortable, but you have it backwards. I think people believe in god because they are uncomfortable standing up to peer pressure.
You're creating a false duality. It's entirely possible that some people don't believe in a God because the idea makes them uncomfortable, while others do believe in a God because the idea of no God makes them uncomfortable.
Not believing in god means going against what everyone else insists is true, and that is a much less comfortable route.
Depends on a lot of things. If you're in a church that would be the case. But even if everyone else is saying that there is a God, the idea that there is an absolute being still may make you uncomfortable.
It takes time for a species to do so and moreover, it has to respond to environmental conditions (changes in the environment, in predators or prey), not to pollution.
Sorry, but that just begs for a response: pollution is a change environmental conditions. New chemicals (aka "pollutants") are introduced to the environment, and this affects the biology living there. This is no different to the change in the environment caused by, say, a new volcano forming (a lot more sulphur, porous rocks forming, etc).
Just to play devil's advocate for a moment, shouldn't an evolutionist be less worried about climate change and pollution than a creationist? Life evolves to a changing environment. Sure, the may be a mass extinction, as there was when the dinosaurs were all wiped out (by a meteorite, or whatever), but in the end, life will go on. Why should we worry? We're just another link in the evolutionary chain (or possibly an evolutionary dead end, even). On the other hand, it should be worrying for a creationist, as animals and plants were created as they are and what we have will slowly be lost as we destroy its environment. For a creationist, things can only get worse. It sometimes makes me wonder whether people really believe in evolution at all.
For a website where I regularly see creationist science regularly and rightfully dismissed, I am confused how you have allowed yourselves to otherwise ignore modern science.
Simple: people here dismiss anything that makes them feel uncomfortable: the idea that there may be an omnipotent, omniscient God makes them uncomfortable, so they dismiss anything that relies on that idea (creationism, afterlife, absolute morality, etc.); likewise, the idea that a materialistic, consumerist lifestyle may be destroying the planet makes them feel uncomfortable, so they dismiss anything that relies on that idea (global warming caused by pollution, USA being the world's worst polluter, importance of biodiversity, etc).
Slashdot Mirror
Nice idea, but it'll never happen. These kinds of projects are only ever successful when a government steps in and does them properly. The process of doing it with "private enterprise" or a "public-private partnership" always kills anything good that could come out of it. Compare the shinkansen in Japan and the TGV in France to the farce that is privatised railways in Australia for a good example.
Have you considered that it could be a conscious decision, because MDIs and dockable toolbars are ugly and annoying? OSX doesn't use either of those UI paradigms, and developers don't cry out for them. As a user, I find OSX's floating, contextual inspector palettes to be much nicer than the mess of toolbars and dockable crap in visual studio. I'm getting a Linux box this week, and if Gnome doesn't have MDIs, I think that's one more thing to push me in that direction. (I think I'm going to choose Fedora as my distro.)
The circuit in the patent conceptually identical to the analog inputs on the classic PC gameport. They shouldn't have been granted a patent, as the idea is obvious and there is prior art. I don't think the devices they're suing over even use the same technique to read the joystick position.
So your plan is something like:
Once I work out step 3 I'll be raking in the millions that you think are coming to you!
99.9% of the time, I don't need a video phone. However, there have been a few situations where it's been very useful, and a voice phone wouldn't do:
Video calling may be a feature I rarely use, but it doesn't hurt to have it there in case I want it.
So how do you explain .NET, Java, Windows CE, OSX, etc? They all do all their string manipulation and comparison in Unicode. String manipulation algorithms have become quite good lately.
Well that's what Unicode is for - you can map all* characters from all text encodings to it, do your processing in one universal character set, and convert to the required encoding for output. That's how Java, .NET, Cocoa, CoreFoundation and even Windows CE and NewtonOS do things.
*yes, I know there are a few characters from Big5-HKSCS that aren't in Unicode, and the Apple logo from legacy Macintosh text encodings isn't there, either. But for 99.999% of cases, Unicode contains the character.
Yeah, but all Cocoa and CoreFondation string encodings can be mapped to Unicode, it's possible to access any string object as Unicode characters, and all comparisons are effectively done in the Unicode character set. You never end up with two strings for which the comparison results are undefined, which I think was the GP's point. (The GP may or may not actually be correct - Ruby could be just as good as Cocoa/CF for all I know - I'm a C/C++/Objective-C guy and don't really know much about Ruby.)
That doesn't do the same thing at all, and won't do the same thing in the incompatible Python 3 as in Python 2. The Python equivalent to that Ruby would be:
for i in range(1,11): print i
The Python is more readable, but the operation of Python's range(1,11) is a bit less obvious than Ruby's (1..10).each IMO.
Like JavaScript, Perl and Python (and Ruby, TCL and even PHP, for that matter) are interpreted, object-oriented languages that you can quickly build simple applications with. However, they're all a lot nicer and cleaner than JavaScript (with the possible exception of PHP). JavaScript desktop applications are trying to solve a problem that's already solved in a superior way.
Why give people another reason to use the awful monstrosity known as JavaScript/ECMAScript? You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig. Isn't it enough that you can write Perl and Python applications if you want quick, interpreted code? Then there's Java and .NET/Mono if you'd prefer it JIT compiled. Why take the worst of the web and bring it to the desktop?
Suits them - Vietnam is nominally communist.
I've used it for a few years now. In that time, it has caught tens of thousands of spam comments. It has missed about ten spam comments (i.e. allowed them through). It has misidentified two legitimate comments as spam. Yes, I realise I'm keeping an eye on it, and someone who doesn't may not notice that it's causing problems for them. But the stats are pretty good in my case. I'm aware of the allegations of corruption and using it to gag people, but that hasn't affected me yet.
Akismet is the best thing for blog spam prevention ever. I can't believe you've never stumbled across it before. It uses statistical analysis to identify spam, and the more people use it, the better it gets. If everyone used it, the blog spammers would just disappear because their attacks would be completely ineffective.
USB3 will make wire speeds faster, and devices more expensive, but it won't deliver the performance we need, because they haven't fixed the root issues. USB is a silly polling system where the host has to ask each device in the tree if it has anything to say, and then (if it's a "bulk" endpoint), allocate time and finally do the transfer (interrupt and iso endpoints have time allocated all the time). Unless they make fundamental changes (which they won't), USB will load up the host excessively and give disappointing performance. But at least with USB3, the price to add it to a device shouldn't be that much lower than FireWire, so we might see more people making the right choice for what to support.
KISS principle: just say the VPN should only be used as you'd use the connection at work. (Keep it work-related, no excessive personal utilisation. No pr0n or illegal material. Don't forward the connection in any way - including web proxies and Tor. Keep your security software up to date. Take reasonable measures to ensure private keys, passwords and other security devices are not lost. Report any potential breaches immediately.)
I just clicked that link at work! You could have warned me at least!
I don't remember an episode of the X-files featuring an oversize penis. Can you point tell me the series and episode number? It sounds intriguing. Or have you just been watching your XXX-files again?
It's also a community based on the premise that you have a right to "fork" things. Given that, it's hardly surprising that people invent their own licenses.
Well, making sure you know exactly what your usage is at any particular moment could be seen as a service to customers, especially if you contrast it with Comcast who don't tell you until they've cut you off.
Australian ISPs give you a live display of how "download" you've used for the current month (via XMLRPC services, you you can see it in a Firefox add-on or a Dashboard widget). Also, they don't charge you when you exceed the cap - they just slow down you're Internet access until the end of the month or when you pay for more.
What? I didn't link the two things at all. I simply said that the thought process that causes people here to dismiss the idea of creationism is the same one that causes them to reject TFA in this case.
You're creating a false duality. It's entirely possible that some people don't believe in a God because the idea makes them uncomfortable, while others do believe in a God because the idea of no God makes them uncomfortable.
Depends on a lot of things. If you're in a church that would be the case. But even if everyone else is saying that there is a God, the idea that there is an absolute being still may make you uncomfortable.
Sorry, but that just begs for a response: pollution is a change environmental conditions. New chemicals (aka "pollutants") are introduced to the environment, and this affects the biology living there. This is no different to the change in the environment caused by, say, a new volcano forming (a lot more sulphur, porous rocks forming, etc).
Just to play devil's advocate for a moment, shouldn't an evolutionist be less worried about climate change and pollution than a creationist? Life evolves to a changing environment. Sure, the may be a mass extinction, as there was when the dinosaurs were all wiped out (by a meteorite, or whatever), but in the end, life will go on. Why should we worry? We're just another link in the evolutionary chain (or possibly an evolutionary dead end, even). On the other hand, it should be worrying for a creationist, as animals and plants were created as they are and what we have will slowly be lost as we destroy its environment. For a creationist, things can only get worse. It sometimes makes me wonder whether people really believe in evolution at all.
Simple: people here dismiss anything that makes them feel uncomfortable: the idea that there may be an omnipotent, omniscient God makes them uncomfortable, so they dismiss anything that relies on that idea (creationism, afterlife, absolute morality, etc.); likewise, the idea that a materialistic, consumerist lifestyle may be destroying the planet makes them feel uncomfortable, so they dismiss anything that relies on that idea (global warming caused by pollution, USA being the world's worst polluter, importance of biodiversity, etc).