I remember stating that originally, an indication of which network protocol to use was meant to go between the slashes.
I don't think so, since the double slashes only apply to Internet schemes anyway. RFC1738 says:
//<user>:<password>@<host>:<port>/<url-path>
Some or all of the parts "<user>:<password>@", ":<password>",
":<port>", and "/<url-path>" may be excluded. The scheme specific
data start with a double slash "//" to indicate that it complies with
the common Internet scheme syntax.
But if you find another reference, please let me know.
Maybe next time though they'll be far enough left for you?
They aren't left at all; they're right of centre.
Hell go even further to the left and next time they'll meet your expectations and instead of 1 in 5 UK citizens working for the government,
Except, by your own link, that number is *down* from 1992 when there was a Conservative government in power.
thought crime,
There no law against thought in the UK.
open borders
This might have been decent, but it doesn't exist. Of course, it used to be a Conservative issue that a man could go anywhere in the world and it was his own business, but now it's "left".
and and the state inserting itself absolutely between parents and middle class children
No idea what you're talking about here.
they'll fully embrace the ultimate "necessary evil" to bring about a classless society?
The oppression of the right-wing middle-class in Britain is that their friends look shocked when they start talking about the problems with the "Pakis" and "Darkies". That's it; that's the severe oppression: getting embarrassed at dinner parties.
Now compare that to someone beaming from 1880 to 1920: automobiles have replaced horses
There were already internal combustion engines in 1880, and there were certainly steam powered vehicles operating at the time.
"radio waves" transmit sounds across the ether (which scientists say no longer exists, according to some guy named Einstein)
Based on work by Faraday and Maxwell before 1880; the concept was known at the time.
petroleum-powered flying mahines can carry passengers in minutes over distances that used to take hours
An evolution of when trains reduced travel times to the extent that time-zones were required. Flying machines certainly weren't an alien concept.
most homes now have something called "electricity" that powers "appliances",
Electricity was known and electrical machines were expected. Its ubiquity might have been a little surprising.
Oh, yeah: and WOMEN CAN VOTE!
Certainly not surprising. The Isle of Man gave women the right to vote (or, if you prefer, acknowledged said right) in 1880. The movement for women's suffrage was certainly much older.
All technology is built on previous technology. You can always go back a few years and show where the building blocks came from. The concept that technology is slowing *now*, when, for example, we've just sequenced the human genome, is ridiculous.
Just because the tax is called a "license fee" does not mean that it isn't still a tax.
It's not a tax.
And because the federal government collects the tax
Except, it's not a tax, it's collected by the TVLA not the government, and we don't have a federal government at all.
, and despite the fact that the money doesn't pass through the federal government
Or even just our government...
and the fact that the BBC isn't regulated like other federally funded services,
We don't have any federally funded services as we don't have a federation.
the BBC is federally funded.
I'm pretty sure it's not, you know.
More seriously, the BBC is neither government nor private: it's something in between. It was deliberately set up that way specifically to avoid becoming a government mouthpiece and considering the critisism it receives, from both government and opposition, I reckon it's working pretty well.
Game theory?! When you get ripped off buying a new car, do you put it down to Game Theory as well, or do you just say that fucker ripped me off? Oh, and if you had paid less for your car, someone else would have to pay more! That's why you *like* being ripped off! Otherwise research into fuel economy would have to be cut!
I do get a kick from the irony that some of the biggest losers will be the more socialist countries of Europe if the US actually does pass substantial health care reform.
I'm really not sure how you can have such a poor grasp of economics that you believe that. You really think the reason we get drugs cheaper is that the pharma companies have decided to be nice to us? Or what? How do you think this works? "We've made enough money from the US market! Let's give our stuff away elsewhere!" Something like that?
Only because you are the recipients of our R&D, resulting in cheap costs for you. Why would you want this to stop?
Try reading that again and understanding. The Europeans and Canadians are the ones calling for it to stop; the Americans are the ones calling for it to continue. How come?
I think it's going to be a little more than "a couple of pounds"
A big problem in Pharma is that only the US is paying for R&D costs (since most of the R&D takes place here some in the nation benefit from it), but if the US "fixes" the drug price problem, Europe and Canada would have to start footing more of the bill.
It's interesting that I've never, ever, heard a Canadian or European raise this as a point: only Americans.
I'm incredibly grateful that you're so eager to do me this favour, but you know, I reckon I could probably afford the extra couple of pounds towards the NHS to cover the drug costs, so you feel free to go ahead and fix your price problem. I'm astonished you've been so self-sacrificing for so long.
(It's even more surprising that it's normally right-wing Americans who're so keen on subsidising the Socialist countries' health care! Never accuse them of being uncaring, you Liberal swine!)
It's not more difficult. Stupid numbers and alphanumeric passwords are what they find difficult! The first few words of a favourite song or book is easier for them.
Oh, and a 4 digit pin? Why even bother with security at all!
No one who thinks about others perceptions, would ever use that word [bullshit] in an online conversation,email, text, IM.
You've clearly never worked with Australians!;-)
This is an international site; maybe the cultural expectations are different where he is. Even if not, this is a pretty informal place, not a business meeting!
Try this: for the address, type "Rheine". Then zoom out two steps. Processing on Firefox 3.5: about 20 seconds. Processing for the same area on Chrome: about 1 second.
3 seconds. Actually, as quick as it could download, I think. Yes, just checked, realtime once it's cached.
I was about to post exactly the same thing. Passwords are the problem. They should always be referred to as passphrases in all documentation and the part on "how to choose a good passphrase" should suggest that if the person knows another language, they should make use of it.
Oops, sorry, since you linked to arxiv I assumed that's what you were referring to when you said "peer reviewed", but mea culpa. Still, have a look at this. If you're wondering why the conclusions are such crap, you might consider that the first conference this paper was presented at was sponsored by OPEC. What a coincidence.
Observed, I stick by, and no...I've found enough links for you. Your turn to do some work.
I'm not afraid that the AGW hypothosis isn't set in stone. I get into these discussions just to check if anything new has come from the "it's not my fault!" crowd. You've been the most fun so far, with at least none of the volcanoes, rain clouds or solar crap, but you're still well short of anything resembling a decent alternative theory.
arXiv is not peer reviewed; any idiot can put a paper up there. Nobody said that the greenhouse effect was the same as the way a greenhouse works, it's a metaphor. This idiot is claiming there's no such effect, which would leave the Earth as a block of ice!
I'm still right on observed. You have time enough to look up nutters; spend some of it checking what you're posting.
In reality it's likely that there's _no_ additional forcing from CO2 at the moment;)
No, in reality we know there is.
You might want to send me a link to something else than a discussion forum where I don't even know which post you feel is interesting.
I told you which one. Surely you know how to search a page? At least my link discussed the issue in detail, rather than just a link to a random graph by some random guy.
When it comes to AGW nothing is observed. It's all just models.
No, climatology is built on observations and CO2 trapping heat has *definitely* been observed.
But I guess I'm wasting my time. If anyone really wants to know about global climate change there's huge amounts of information out there. Instead we get the stupid "volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans" lines again and again. It's got to be willful ignorance.
... because only the first 20 to 80 ppm or so are really noticeable, since CO2 absorption is logaritmic.
Wasn't very nice to just link me to a graph without the accompanying article! Not to worry; I found it OK. Trouble is, he's wrong. Look at this. Note that AEBanner makes effectively the same argument that your guy does. Scroll down to the reply supplied by "blacktip hunter" (sorry, I can't see where to link to these comments directly). The essence of the argument is that the simple single frequency theory doesn't work in the real world. This has been directly observed; it's not just theory.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think so, since the double slashes only apply to Internet schemes anyway. RFC1738 says:
But if you find another reference, please let me know.
Interesting calculation! Minor point: on average you search through half the keyspace in a brute force attack, so use 2^511 rather than 2^512.
Then they really shouldn't be driving at all...
Is it really? I'd always heard it was pretty fast, and a quick google throws up links like this. Do you have a link showing its poor performance?
They aren't left at all; they're right of centre.
Except, by your own link, that number is *down* from 1992 when there was a Conservative government in power.
There no law against thought in the UK.
This might have been decent, but it doesn't exist. Of course, it used to be a Conservative issue that a man could go anywhere in the world and it was his own business, but now it's "left".
No idea what you're talking about here.
The oppression of the right-wing middle-class in Britain is that their friends look shocked when they start talking about the problems with the "Pakis" and "Darkies". That's it; that's the severe oppression: getting embarrassed at dinner parties.
What?! How does evolution occur then?
I don't care. Cold-cathode Dekatrons are how everything should be stored!
There were already internal combustion engines in 1880, and there were certainly steam powered vehicles operating at the time.
Based on work by Faraday and Maxwell before 1880; the concept was known at the time.
An evolution of when trains reduced travel times to the extent that time-zones were required. Flying machines certainly weren't an alien concept.
Electricity was known and electrical machines were expected. Its ubiquity might have been a little surprising.
Certainly not surprising. The Isle of Man gave women the right to vote (or, if you prefer, acknowledged said right) in 1880. The movement for women's suffrage was certainly much older.
All technology is built on previous technology. You can always go back a few years and show where the building blocks came from. The concept that technology is slowing *now*, when, for example, we've just sequenced the human genome, is ridiculous.
My father bought me my first guitar and I took far better care of it than I have any guitar I've bought for myself since.
It's not a tax.
Except, it's not a tax, it's collected by the TVLA not the government, and we don't have a federal government at all.
Or even just our government...
We don't have any federally funded services as we don't have a federation.
I'm pretty sure it's not, you know.
More seriously, the BBC is neither government nor private: it's something in between. It was deliberately set up that way specifically to avoid becoming a government mouthpiece and considering the critisism it receives, from both government and opposition, I reckon it's working pretty well.
No, it simply isn't. No matter how deluded you are, there is no measure by which your system is even close to average.
Why?
Game theory?! When you get ripped off buying a new car, do you put it down to Game Theory as well, or do you just say that fucker ripped me off? Oh, and if you had paid less for your car, someone else would have to pay more! That's why you *like* being ripped off! Otherwise research into fuel economy would have to be cut!
I'm really not sure how you can have such a poor grasp of economics that you believe that. You really think the reason we get drugs cheaper is that the pharma companies have decided to be nice to us? Or what? How do you think this works? "We've made enough money from the US market! Let's give our stuff away elsewhere!" Something like that?
Try reading that again and understanding. The Europeans and Canadians are the ones calling for it to stop; the Americans are the ones calling for it to continue. How come?
I doubt it very much...
It's interesting that I've never, ever, heard a Canadian or European raise this as a point: only Americans.
I'm incredibly grateful that you're so eager to do me this favour, but you know, I reckon I could probably afford the extra couple of pounds towards the NHS to cover the drug costs, so you feel free to go ahead and fix your price problem. I'm astonished you've been so self-sacrificing for so long.
(It's even more surprising that it's normally right-wing Americans who're so keen on subsidising the Socialist countries' health care! Never accuse them of being uncaring, you Liberal swine!)
Cosmic Rays are high energy particles, not electromagnetic radiation. They're mostly protons.
It's not more difficult. Stupid numbers and alphanumeric passwords are what they find difficult! The first few words of a favourite song or book is easier for them.
Oh, and a 4 digit pin? Why even bother with security at all!
You've clearly never worked with Australians! ;-)
This is an international site; maybe the cultural expectations are different where he is. Even if not, this is a pretty informal place, not a business meeting!
3 seconds. Actually, as quick as it could download, I think. Yes, just checked, realtime once it's cached.
(That's on a 2.8 GHz iMac, Firefox 3.5.2).
I was about to post exactly the same thing. Passwords are the problem. They should always be referred to as passphrases in all documentation and the part on "how to choose a good passphrase" should suggest that if the person knows another language, they should make use of it.
Oops, sorry, since you linked to arxiv I assumed that's what you were referring to when you said "peer reviewed", but mea culpa. Still, have a look at this. If you're wondering why the conclusions are such crap, you might consider that the first conference this paper was presented at was sponsored by OPEC. What a coincidence.
Observed, I stick by, and no...I've found enough links for you. Your turn to do some work.
I'm not afraid that the AGW hypothosis isn't set in stone. I get into these discussions just to check if anything new has come from the "it's not my fault!" crowd. You've been the most fun so far, with at least none of the volcanoes, rain clouds or solar crap, but you're still well short of anything resembling a decent alternative theory.
arXiv is not peer reviewed; any idiot can put a paper up there. Nobody said that the greenhouse effect was the same as the way a greenhouse works, it's a metaphor. This idiot is claiming there's no such effect, which would leave the Earth as a block of ice!
I'm still right on observed. You have time enough to look up nutters; spend some of it checking what you're posting.
No, in reality we know there is.
I told you which one. Surely you know how to search a page? At least my link discussed the issue in detail, rather than just a link to a random graph by some random guy.
No, climatology is built on observations and CO2 trapping heat has *definitely* been observed.
But I guess I'm wasting my time. If anyone really wants to know about global climate change there's huge amounts of information out there. Instead we get the stupid "volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans" lines again and again. It's got to be willful ignorance.
Wasn't very nice to just link me to a graph without the accompanying article! Not to worry; I found it OK. Trouble is, he's wrong. Look at this. Note that AEBanner makes effectively the same argument that your guy does. Scroll down to the reply supplied by "blacktip hunter" (sorry, I can't see where to link to these comments directly). The essence of the argument is that the simple single frequency theory doesn't work in the real world. This has been directly observed; it's not just theory.