According to Wikipedia, there are several locations in which the location is in one state, but it's serviced from another (thus having the others zipcode). See the link below (towads the bottom of the section)
You could likely differentiate by extended 4 to get the right tax amount, but you may not have the extended 4.. that would mean subscribing to a service that can locate it.
Zipcodes can and do span counties, much less cities. Some cities and counties have their own taxes (ie if you're in the county you pay an extra.5% and if you're in the city you pay the.5 and an additional.5 percent).
There are even zipcodes that span states. That's even more of a nightmare.
For example, some northern parts of Arkansas have the Protem Missouri Zip Code.
Sprints can be as long as you want. However, the shorter the better. Sprints are all about course correction. At the end of a sprint, you review where you're at and what you're doing next. You try to plan enough work for a sprint, but you don't HAVE to make it only one sprint. It's best practice though.
Like anything, if it had absolutes, it wouldn't be feasible. It's never possible to do everything in a strict methodology, it has to have some wiggle room.
We should start a fund-drive to take out full page ads that say "Google, you are not our overlords". Since there is no way to "contact" google, it would take something that drastic for them to realize how douchey they are being.
MacOS may be Unix, but that doesn't mean it's built around a command line.
MacOS X is just as "built around a command line" as Windows is. Both systems are built around a GUI shell. The shell is the root program for the user.
In Linux, everything is based around the command line because the root shell is typically a command line, and that command line then loads a GUI. Not so with MacOS, Windows, or Android.
I'm really not sure what you mean by "taking a break because that's what some methodology says you have to do" means. Agile does not say you have to take breaks..
I think you are confused by what agile is. It doesn't mean "Only do the work allocated to you for this sprint", Sprints can and should be adjusted if you have more work than can be done or not enough. And it's ok if you don't finish your work within the sprint, you just continue working on it in the next.. but if this happens too much you really should consider breaking it into smaller pieces.
What the hell are you talking about? The federal government does not regulate growing corn for your own consumption.
There is a department of agriculture, and they can regulate things you might want in order to grow your own corn, but that's not exactly the same thing.
I think it means "commerce that occurs between two ore more entities in two or more states". Which is precisely what it is.
Oh, and the constitution also gives those old white guys the power to interpret it.
You can't have it both ways. If you're a strict constitutionalist, you have to abide by the letter of the constitution. you can't pick and choose what you like.
I didn't say the situation was the same. I was commenting on the comment that it's better to vote for who you want, and get someone you don't than to vote for someon you don't want and get it.
If a piece of functionality takes longer than 2 weeks to finish (maybe not QA'd finished code, but developer finished) then break it down to smaller pieces that can be finished in two weeks. It's not that hard, but lots of developers make it much harder than it has to be.
Hint: Copying the footnote markers, without copying the footnotes makes it very obvious you just copied it from somewhere else, rather than using your own words.
However, Ron Paul may believe a lot of things, but he's wrong on many of them.
For instance, the constitution clearly gives the federal government the power to regulate interstate commerce. Thus, the idea that actually doing that is unconstitutional is beyond ridiculous.
Well, that all depends. Was it better to vote for Nader in 2000, and get George Bush? Or would it have been better to vote for Al Gore and get Al Gore?
Hard to say, really, but I don't think the tautaulogy works for everyone.
Oh, come on.. First, HTML 3.2 was not a standard. Second, Konq was a buggy PoS for at least the first few years. It got MUCH better after Apple started contributing to it.
I am quite surprised. nginx may be a good product, but it's also lacking a lot of functionality that a web server used as a load balancer or cache should support. For example, it doesn't support HTTP 1.1 to the backend, thus it can't do name based virtual hosts on the servers it caches.
I *WANTED* to use nginx for a large multi-tennant website we were building, but it didn't support it.
This has nothing to do with Microsoft. First, this is targeting classic ASP and Cold Fusion, that's a 15 year old technology that nobody uses anymore and a non-MS technology. Second, sql injection attacks are all about the application code, not the framework.
You said "Remember that the incompatibilities built into IE6 were no accident."
The fact is, IE6 was *NOT* incompatible when it was released. It was more compatible than any other browser at the time.
ActiveX is not an "incompatibility". Every other browser out there has a proprietary plug-in model. IE is no different. It just so happens that IE's is ActiveX. Netscape had its plug-in model, as does FF. Chrome has it's plug-in model, and Opera has it's own. Some of them have a plug-in compatibility mode that allows a common (typically netscape based) plug-in.
None of this has anything to do with HTML compatibility. IE is very HTML compatible. That's not the problem. The problem has been CSS compatibility, and much of that was a result of unclear definitions in the standard. These definitions have been clarified in CSS 2.1 and it has made a lot of things better.
IE also did not implement a number of features. That's not the same as "incompatible", which means a differing implementation from the standard.
Some of them were just plain bugs. If you can point to any single thing that is a real deliberate incompatibility then i'd like to see it. (this ignores stuff like Marquee, which happened during the lull when the HTML standards bodies were all but dead, that is HTML3).
Say what? IE9's javascript performance is quite good. It was better than Chrome 10's. Obviously, Chrome has improved a bit since then, but to say it's pathetic is way out there.
It's just plain revisionist history to suggest otherwise. IE's problem was that it was not updated as the standards evolved and were clarified, not that it was originally so vastly uncompliant.
Dude, lay off the paranoia. IE6 is 10 years old. It predates every other browser in use today, other than Opera.
To say that Microsoft deliberately made it incompatible with browsers that didn't exist when it was written is a bit crazy.
IE6 was the most standards compliant browser there was when it existed, even more so than Opera. WAY more so than Netscape. And Mozilla was nowhere close to a finished product.
No, it was not perfect, and no, it didn't fully support the existing standards, but then neither did anyone else. IE6 is just old, it was not a plot to destroy standards compatibility.
Most people, even hypocondriacs, can't fake all the symptoms accurately. What's known to the layman about these diseases is not the same as what the doctors know. You have to have very specific symptoms, and be able to talk about them in great detail, not just vaguely wave your hands.
Trust me, you can't easily fake the knowledge necessary from actual experience. You would have to be intimately familiar with someone who had the disease.
That doesn't mean it's beyond the realm of possibility, but if you go to that much trouble... you could fake a lot of things that are much better known and less work.
Slashdot Mirror
According to Wikipedia, there are several locations in which the location is in one state, but it's serviced from another (thus having the others zipcode). See the link below (towads the bottom of the section)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZIP_code#By_geography
You could likely differentiate by extended 4 to get the right tax amount, but you may not have the extended 4.. that would mean subscribing to a service that can locate it.
Zipcodes can and do span counties, much less cities. Some cities and counties have their own taxes (ie if you're in the county you pay an extra .5% and if you're in the city you pay the .5 and an additional .5 percent).
There are even zipcodes that span states. That's even more of a nightmare.
For example, some northern parts of Arkansas have the Protem Missouri Zip Code.
Sprints can be as long as you want. However, the shorter the better. Sprints are all about course correction. At the end of a sprint, you review where you're at and what you're doing next. You try to plan enough work for a sprint, but you don't HAVE to make it only one sprint. It's best practice though.
Like anything, if it had absolutes, it wouldn't be feasible. It's never possible to do everything in a strict methodology, it has to have some wiggle room.
We should start a fund-drive to take out full page ads that say "Google, you are not our overlords". Since there is no way to "contact" google, it would take something that drastic for them to realize how douchey they are being.
MacOS may be Unix, but that doesn't mean it's built around a command line.
MacOS X is just as "built around a command line" as Windows is. Both systems are built around a GUI shell. The shell is the root program for the user.
In Linux, everything is based around the command line because the root shell is typically a command line, and that command line then loads a GUI. Not so with MacOS, Windows, or Android.
I'm really not sure what you mean by "taking a break because that's what some methodology says you have to do" means. Agile does not say you have to take breaks..
I think you are confused by what agile is. It doesn't mean "Only do the work allocated to you for this sprint", Sprints can and should be adjusted if you have more work than can be done or not enough. And it's ok if you don't finish your work within the sprint, you just continue working on it in the next.. but if this happens too much you really should consider breaking it into smaller pieces.
What the hell are you talking about? The federal government does not regulate growing corn for your own consumption.
There is a department of agriculture, and they can regulate things you might want in order to grow your own corn, but that's not exactly the same thing.
I think it means "commerce that occurs between two ore more entities in two or more states". Which is precisely what it is.
Oh, and the constitution also gives those old white guys the power to interpret it.
You can't have it both ways. If you're a strict constitutionalist, you have to abide by the letter of the constitution. you can't pick and choose what you like.
I didn't say the situation was the same. I was commenting on the comment that it's better to vote for who you want, and get someone you don't than to vote for someon you don't want and get it.
That very way of thinking gave us 8 years of GWB.
I think it's pretty damn impressive that they were able to finish the main functionality, and only need performance tuning in only a year.
This should be celebrated, not mocked.
If a piece of functionality takes longer than 2 weeks to finish (maybe not QA'd finished code, but developer finished) then break it down to smaller pieces that can be finished in two weeks. It's not that hard, but lots of developers make it much harder than it has to be.
Dude,
This is how it's supposed to work. You can fix defects... You can't fix a system that isn't even working a little bit.
This is how open source works. Get something working, anything.. and then define the changes to get to where you want to be.
Hint: Copying the footnote markers, without copying the footnotes makes it very obvious you just copied it from somewhere else, rather than using your own words.
However, Ron Paul may believe a lot of things, but he's wrong on many of them.
For instance, the constitution clearly gives the federal government the power to regulate interstate commerce. Thus, the idea that actually doing that is unconstitutional is beyond ridiculous.
Well, that all depends. Was it better to vote for Nader in 2000, and get George Bush? Or would it have been better to vote for Al Gore and get Al Gore?
Hard to say, really, but I don't think the tautaulogy works for everyone.
Oh, come on.. First, HTML 3.2 was not a standard. Second, Konq was a buggy PoS for at least the first few years. It got MUCH better after Apple started contributing to it.
I am quite surprised. nginx may be a good product, but it's also lacking a lot of functionality that a web server used as a load balancer or cache should support. For example, it doesn't support HTTP 1.1 to the backend, thus it can't do name based virtual hosts on the servers it caches.
I *WANTED* to use nginx for a large multi-tennant website we were building, but it didn't support it.
This has nothing to do with Microsoft. First, this is targeting classic ASP and Cold Fusion, that's a 15 year old technology that nobody uses anymore and a non-MS technology. Second, sql injection attacks are all about the application code, not the framework.
Obviously, you were not doing web development in 2001.
http://www.quora.com/Why-has-Microsoft-failed-to-make-Internet-Explorer-web-standards-compliant-in-spite-of-years-of-browser-market-share-loss
You said "Remember that the incompatibilities built into IE6 were no accident."
The fact is, IE6 was *NOT* incompatible when it was released. It was more compatible than any other browser at the time.
ActiveX is not an "incompatibility". Every other browser out there has a proprietary plug-in model. IE is no different. It just so happens that IE's is ActiveX. Netscape had its plug-in model, as does FF. Chrome has it's plug-in model, and Opera has it's own. Some of them have a plug-in compatibility mode that allows a common (typically netscape based) plug-in.
None of this has anything to do with HTML compatibility. IE is very HTML compatible. That's not the problem. The problem has been CSS compatibility, and much of that was a result of unclear definitions in the standard. These definitions have been clarified in CSS 2.1 and it has made a lot of things better.
IE also did not implement a number of features. That's not the same as "incompatible", which means a differing implementation from the standard.
Some of them were just plain bugs. If you can point to any single thing that is a real deliberate incompatibility then i'd like to see it. (this ignores stuff like Marquee, which happened during the lull when the HTML standards bodies were all but dead, that is HTML3).
Say what? IE9's javascript performance is quite good. It was better than Chrome 10's. Obviously, Chrome has improved a bit since then, but to say it's pathetic is way out there.
http://ie.microsoft.com/testdrive/benchmarks/sunspider/default.html
Actually, yes. IE6, at the time of its release was the most standards compliant browser on the market. Seriously.
There were many articles at the time discussing this. Don't believe me? There's still articles around that discuss this. For instance:
http://www.quora.com/Why-has-Microsoft-failed-to-make-Internet-Explorer-web-standards-compliant-in-spite-of-years-of-browser-market-share-loss
It's just plain revisionist history to suggest otherwise. IE's problem was that it was not updated as the standards evolved and were clarified, not that it was originally so vastly uncompliant.
Dude, lay off the paranoia. IE6 is 10 years old. It predates every other browser in use today, other than Opera.
To say that Microsoft deliberately made it incompatible with browsers that didn't exist when it was written is a bit crazy.
IE6 was the most standards compliant browser there was when it existed, even more so than Opera. WAY more so than Netscape. And Mozilla was nowhere close to a finished product.
No, it was not perfect, and no, it didn't fully support the existing standards, but then neither did anyone else. IE6 is just old, it was not a plot to destroy standards compatibility.
I have no idea what is and isn't legal in germany in this regard.
Most people, even hypocondriacs, can't fake all the symptoms accurately. What's known to the layman about these diseases is not the same as what the doctors know. You have to have very specific symptoms, and be able to talk about them in great detail, not just vaguely wave your hands.
Trust me, you can't easily fake the knowledge necessary from actual experience. You would have to be intimately familiar with someone who had the disease.
That doesn't mean it's beyond the realm of possibility, but if you go to that much trouble... you could fake a lot of things that are much better known and less work.
That's a lot of ifs. Even if they were true, and there is no evidence to suggest it is, it's still not discriminatory in the legal sense.
Sorry, it's just not.