Data access is far more important than the code. There is some chance that the code is doing something particularly interesting, but for most web apps, it probably isn't.
The water gets muddy (those folks can at least threaten to get El Presidente on the phone, whether they have real power or not), but should Bush II have gotten permission from Congress to talk to his daddy (ostensibly, Bush Sr. gave Jr. advice at least once...)?
Depends on the screw and the nail, and the hammer and the screwdriver. A lot.
A small machine screw isn't very suited to a hammer, but a framing nail isn't very suited to a screwdriver. If you give me a sledge, a drywall screw is going to work an awful lot like a nail (but you hold the screw).
Pretty much everyone is resistant to using things that don't work.
It isn't all that likely that something like a TV will (ever!) ship with only voice recognition (and no other controls), so I wouldn't worry about having to rely solely on voice recognition. It wouldn't be all that surprising if voice recognition 15 years hence is a lot more reliable than the current state of the industry.
Nice that you ragged on Clinton (that link doesn't demonstrate that every person working for the president is doing so with congressional approval, it just demonstrates that you are making an awful lot of assumptions...).
So the chip companies are generally going to end up spending process improvements by making chips cheaper, rather than more complex?
Sounds good to me. As it is, I probably spend more time waiting for Firefox to execute some javascript than anything else, and that is something that is relatively straightforward for the developers to deal with.
I do think that campaigns are out of control, but I don't really like the idea of legislating further limits. I guess it is because I figure the money will find its way in anyway, and the rules will give the campaigns something to point at when they say "we are playing fair", and there will then be calls for more rules, and...
A system with no limits might make people a little more cynical about all the T.V. ads that Shiny McGladhand plays.
Anyway, giving voters more and more and more rules that they have to follow isn't going to make them any better at voting.
"but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments."
When Congress establishes a position, they can forgo having to confirm it.
DHS is already under the purview of the Whitehouse. The article doesn't discuss if the director of Office of the National Cybersecurity Advisor would be subject to congressional confirmation (DHS is), but they could be.
If they are mostly advising the president on what other agencies should be doing (rather than implementing things), the change doesn't hurt anything at all (and not running everything through DHS is probably better).
The Chinese have demonstrated that the U.S. Navy will not admit that they are able to detect one of their subs running on electric. This could well mean that the navy can't do it. It could also mean that the navy doesn't care to let China know significant details about their capabilities.
Donald Rumsfeld would tell you that you need to think about your known unknowns and your unknown unknowns some more.
It's pretty clear they aren't trying to find the ballpark. High-end consumer electronics (this seems like a reasonable way to look at Apple) is low margin enough, why would they bother to compete with Dell and HP?
Slashdot Mirror
Data access is far more important than the code. There is some chance that the code is doing something particularly interesting, but for most web apps, it probably isn't.
Yeah, he should learn to right.
Gmail does imap. It supports iphone. You can backup using imap.
There are still plenty of reasons for someone to run their own server, but "I need imap" isn't a strong one.
He prefers pink unicorns (6 at a time if you can manage it).
The water gets muddy (those folks can at least threaten to get El Presidente on the phone, whether they have real power or not), but should Bush II have gotten permission from Congress to talk to his daddy (ostensibly, Bush Sr. gave Jr. advice at least once...)?
Do you broadcast and cable or stare and drool?
I'll bet you $5 that stare and drool has many a day.
No, most people do not turn off their phones. I don't know of anyone that does it.
I don't think it is going to happen though.
Do you guys use the red button to turn up the volume or something?
I get the occasional dropped call, but it's generally on the edge of a network (I looka da map), and it isn't something that happens real often.
Do you have a list of positions that you have good reason to believe are not approved by Congress? That's the assumption that I am talking about.
Depends on the screw and the nail, and the hammer and the screwdriver. A lot.
A small machine screw isn't very suited to a hammer, but a framing nail isn't very suited to a screwdriver. If you give me a sledge, a drywall screw is going to work an awful lot like a nail (but you hold the screw).
Pretty much everyone is resistant to using things that don't work.
It isn't all that likely that something like a TV will (ever!) ship with only voice recognition (and no other controls), so I wouldn't worry about having to rely solely on voice recognition. It wouldn't be all that surprising if voice recognition 15 years hence is a lot more reliable than the current state of the industry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_Czar
Nice that you ragged on Clinton (that link doesn't demonstrate that every person working for the president is doing so with congressional approval, it just demonstrates that you are making an awful lot of assumptions...).
These generally get pretty good reviews (it's not a smartphone, but it's programmable...):
http://www.logitech.com/index.cfm/remotes/universal_remotes/devices/377&cl=us,en
So the chip companies are generally going to end up spending process improvements by making chips cheaper, rather than more complex?
Sounds good to me. As it is, I probably spend more time waiting for Firefox to execute some javascript than anything else, and that is something that is relatively straightforward for the developers to deal with.
Are you talking about trans fats? They don't taste any better than butter or peanut oil, they just last on the shelf better.
I do think that campaigns are out of control, but I don't really like the idea of legislating further limits. I guess it is because I figure the money will find its way in anyway, and the rules will give the campaigns something to point at when they say "we are playing fair", and there will then be calls for more rules, and ...
A system with no limits might make people a little more cynical about all the T.V. ads that Shiny McGladhand plays.
Anyway, giving voters more and more and more rules that they have to follow isn't going to make them any better at voting.
Read what you quoted:
"but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments."
When Congress establishes a position, they can forgo having to confirm it.
The MPAA and RIAA are little industries.
That ending racism stuff there is pretty wacky.
DHS is already under the purview of the Whitehouse. The article doesn't discuss if the director of Office of the National Cybersecurity Advisor would be subject to congressional confirmation (DHS is), but they could be.
If they are mostly advising the president on what other agencies should be doing (rather than implementing things), the change doesn't hurt anything at all (and not running everything through DHS is probably better).
It's merely unfortunate.
95,000 liters is 95 cubic meters, which is less than 5 meters on a side. In the ocean, that counts as small. Very, very small.
(It is still not something that we should make happen everyday, but it isn't something to worry about when it only happens occasionally)
(Also, 95,000 gallons would still only be just over 7 cubic meters on a side)
The Chinese have demonstrated that the U.S. Navy will not admit that they are able to detect one of their subs running on electric. This could well mean that the navy can't do it. It could also mean that the navy doesn't care to let China know significant details about their capabilities.
Donald Rumsfeld would tell you that you need to think about your known unknowns and your unknown unknowns some more.
It's pretty clear they aren't trying to find the ballpark. High-end consumer electronics (this seems like a reasonable way to look at Apple) is low margin enough, why would they bother to compete with Dell and HP?
A couple of weeks ago, I had to replace the battery in my timex watch.
Too bad you blew all that cash, you could have tried a more direct approach.