There is no native client standard. They can't break compatibility by adding completely new features unrelated to anything else. They'll just result in web games etc. that only work in Chrome.
It's like saying that Apple is "breaking compatibility" by making apps that don't work in Windows.
I hadn't heard that site was violating any standards. From what I understand, Chrome has implemented a set of HTML5 features different from the set some other browsers have implemented, and occasionally the implementations clash because the standard is evolving and not fully defined.
Crap software should not determine your browser choice. You should just stop using crap.
I used Chrome with a faked user agent when I had to use Angel, and only used IE for file uploads (FF wasn't supported a couple years ago either).
The US government would just force them to store plaintext copies. Just like they forced Google to put a backdoor in Gmail. Just like they tap your phones and sniff your dirty packets.
Groupthink is fairly easy to avoid when the point is to gather objective, encyclopedic information rather than Q&A. Not that the current Wiki moderators don't imbibe the blue ganja juice offered by their cult.
Wikipedia needs to adopt some of the stuff StackExchange does to encourage user participation and APPROPRIATE moderation. The SE platform wouldn't work for Wikipedia, but some aspects of the user system would be highly beneficial. Reputation of some sort would be great, along with better privilege levels.
Presumably since it's online, anyone can take it. The article says only Stanford students will get credit, but if you can convince your own university to give you credit for it... do it!
You mean "Two Moons, Earth May Once Have Had" or "Had Two Moons Once, Earth May Have." Yoda often places the predicate (minus the helper verb or all verbs) before the subject -- "Lost a planet, Master Obi-Wan has" -- or otherwise rearranges phrases. He doesn't jumble words around randomly.
The old version of Amazon's agreement stated that developers would receive 20% of the original price when an app was given away for free. Then they changed it, and they didn't make it clear to developers. For many of them it was a nasty surprise. Unfortunately I can't find the original, but the new version is here https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/G/01/mobile-apps/devportal/pdf/Appstore_Distribution_Agreement.pdf with the added sentence "No Royalty is payable for Apps with a List Price of $0.00." in Section 2(a).
My thought exactly. Not to mention that other operations performed by the loop (that are obviously malfunctioning) may be necessary for the program to proceed correctly even if they don't affect the loop invariant.
Slashdot Mirror
Registered non-idiots, that is. Use a throwaway address. But being a non-idiot you knew that, right?
3. Is my direct download URL still available?
Yes. Right under the main "Download Now" button is the direct HTTP download URL which registered CNET members can access.
http://cnet-upload.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/2064
No, just several other diseases ...
There is no native client standard. They can't break compatibility by adding completely new features unrelated to anything else. They'll just result in web games etc. that only work in Chrome. It's like saying that Apple is "breaking compatibility" by making apps that don't work in Windows.
You mean Visual Studio. Intellisense is a small component of it, not a dev environment.
You win an internet, good sir.
This. If it works as well as it says it could be a major breakthrough.
I hadn't heard that site was violating any standards. From what I understand, Chrome has implemented a set of HTML5 features different from the set some other browsers have implemented, and occasionally the implementations clash because the standard is evolving and not fully defined.
Crap software should not determine your browser choice. You should just stop using crap. I used Chrome with a faked user agent when I had to use Angel, and only used IE for file uploads (FF wasn't supported a couple years ago either).
The US government would just force them to store plaintext copies. Just like they forced Google to put a backdoor in Gmail. Just like they tap your phones and sniff your dirty packets.
You just press the button on the device and hold it to the scanner.
And the info sent by the scanner can't be intercepted? The device can't be stolen or cloned? It's just a fancy-dancy password.
Did you know that you're commenting on the internet? You're wasting time more effectively than anyone your ineffective rant reaches.
Groupthink is fairly easy to avoid when the point is to gather objective, encyclopedic information rather than Q&A. Not that the current Wiki moderators don't imbibe the blue ganja juice offered by their cult.
Who cares WHY people contribute as long as it's a good contribution?
Yes, the evil Discovery Network. Convincing the world that the scientific method is "valid" since 1995.
The relevance of this post is astounding.
Wikipedia needs to adopt some of the stuff StackExchange does to encourage user participation and APPROPRIATE moderation. The SE platform wouldn't work for Wikipedia, but some aspects of the user system would be highly beneficial. Reputation of some sort would be great, along with better privilege levels.
That also says that the course starts Sept. 27. So EVERYONE is wrong :P
Presumably since it's online, anyone can take it. The article says only Stanford students will get credit, but if you can convince your own university to give you credit for it ... do it!
The actual website for the course says "The class runs from Sept 26 through Dec 16, 2011." http://www.ai-class.com/
You mean "Two Moons, Earth May Once Have Had" or "Had Two Moons Once, Earth May Have." Yoda often places the predicate (minus the helper verb or all verbs) before the subject -- "Lost a planet, Master Obi-Wan has" -- or otherwise rearranges phrases. He doesn't jumble words around randomly.
The List Price, as originally defined, was set by the developer. Not Amazon. Thus the original agreement effectively said "20% of the original price".
No, originally the agreement clearly said 20% of the original price. It was changed sneakily, though I'm sure it was legal. See http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2361318&cid=36965966
The old version of Amazon's agreement stated that developers would receive 20% of the original price when an app was given away for free. Then they changed it, and they didn't make it clear to developers. For many of them it was a nasty surprise. Unfortunately I can't find the original, but the new version is here https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/G/01/mobile-apps/devportal/pdf/Appstore_Distribution_Agreement.pdf with the added sentence "No Royalty is payable for Apps with a List Price of $0.00." in Section 2(a).
My thought exactly. Not to mention that other operations performed by the loop (that are obviously malfunctioning) may be necessary for the program to proceed correctly even if they don't affect the loop invariant.