Not "real binary"? WTF are you talking about? It's either binary or it's not. And it's binary.
As for your poorly-made argument that computers use words with certain widths, just because you've never used a computer where CHAR_BIT != 8 doesn't mean they don't exist.
You said, and I quote: I supported Fred before I read this and support him after I read it.
That's what "reaffirmed" means. If that's not what you meant, maybe you shouldn't have written it. Oh, and I read your link from the club for growth. It doesn't say his tax plan is the most detailed; it says it's the most comprehensive. Those words mean completely different things. How's that for a capacity to process information?
PS: You're way off-base. I'm a small-government conservative fed up with big-government Republicans (which is about all we seem to have these days, Ron Paul notwithstanding).
PPS: It says a lot about your character that you resort to insults and hyperbole when someone simply disagrees with you.
PPPS: If you reply, I'll read it (I promise) but I won't respond. You can have the last word, if you like.
How do you know? He could have thrown dice or used some other good source of random data. Just because a sequence has a pattern (and it's a short sequence, at that) doesn't mean it's non-random.
I'm intrigued, and I'm always willing to listen to a fellow Ada appreciator, so let's take a look.
Auto
Invest "in renewable and alternative fuels to promote greater energy independence and a cleaner environment."
Wow, there's a well-thought-out plan!
Digital/Tech
Parents need to be empowered to protect their children from inappropriate matter, whether on TV, in video games, or on the computer. And we must do all we can to fight the explosion of child pornography over the Internet. [empahsis added]
Nothing to disagree with there!
Energy/Climate
committed to a balanced approach to energy security that increases domestic supplies, reduces demand for oil and gas, and promotes alternative fuels and other diverse energy sources... [and] places more emphasis on conservation and energy efficiency
Wow, that's a great idea! I wonder why no other candidates say stuff like that?
Science/Education
Encourage students to pursue careers in science, technology, engineering and math.
Joke elided for fear of sounding like a broken record.
You read this stuff and it reaffirmed your faith in this guy? I knew absolutely nothing about his platform or views before. Now, I know he doesn't have any actual ideas or plans. I checked his website just to make sure I wasn't missing anything profound, and there's really *nothing* there other than vague hand-waiving. Given his "platform", I don't see why he's even bothering to run.
o Auto o Digital/Tech o Climate/Energy o Environment o Gun control o Infrastructure o Science/Education o Space
WTF??
Re:no, your a wannabe.. who never learned to code
on
Your Worst IT Workshop?
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
When communicating with other people, what words mean *to you* doesn't count for much. In the context of web content, static means unchanging _from the server's point of view_. Whether the client thinks the content changes or not doesn't matter. Flash is (usually) static content, for example.
WebGUI has some support for dynamic content, but I'm not familiar enough with it to know how much (I'm thinking of the thing where it takes a SQL query and turns it into a table or whatever). But what the guy you were talking to meant, is that if you put a PHP script into the WebGUI edit box and save it, it just spits the PHP back when you request the page (static content) instead of *executing* it (dynamic content).
I'm actually dealing with some pages right now where the content needs to be dynamically generated, but the original author wanted it integrated with WebGUI. So what does he do? He writes a ColdFusion.cfc which responds to AJAX requests, and he loads all of the dynamic data as JSON during onLoad, and then he uses DOM manipulation to add the information to the page. What a MESS!! All because he used a CMS for something it's not meant.
The legal-dictionary section of thefreedictionary has the following definition for "action":
"action n. a lawsuit in which one party (or parties) sues another. (See: cause of action, lawsuit)"
There is no other sense listed. It was my initial source for the legal definition of "action".
A criminal proceeding is NOT an action. And your point is silly; I just told you that "action" and "civil action" mean exactly the same thing.
Consider: "No apples shall be given to any children." It's perfectly fine to give Billy an orange.
Since criminal proceedings are not actions, the telcos could still be charged. (They won't, for two reasons, but this bill isn't one of them.) You may want this bill to ban criminal charges (or not, I don't know). But what you want doesn't matter; only what it SAYS matters.
No, it doesn't. Nice bold words there, but you ignored the important ones. "Relief" and "action" only apply to civil proceedings. "Remedy" may apply to either, but given that it is embedded in a sentence with two civil-only words, the author's intent is clear.
At first I agreed with you two, but then I started thinking.
o My wife spilled water in my keyboard (which I love, so I don't want to replace). The left control key doesn't work, so I have X configured to rebind the capslock key ask control. o I have tons of non-standard apt repositories configured for different programs that I want to keep up-to-date automatically. o I configured a 32-bit chroot environment so run WINE and Opera work with a 64-bit OS. o I have a few locally-compiled apps, some of which I've added shell support for. o I've customized the keyboard shortcuts, albeit mostly to mimic windows. I prefer Win+R to Alt+F2, so shoot me. o A buncho of UI adjustments (mainly the Kicker)
Have you considered the possibility that someone has broken into the stock buying site and now would like to get into your banking site?
Then they already have my ACH transfer information. Game over. This is my point: I've already established an *explicit* trust relationship with that entity. It does me no good to backtrack on that trust later.
It's like people who ask you to run an ActiveX control because it is "more secure".
Um... my travel voucher site implements PKI signing of documents (generated on the server) via ActiveX. That _does_ provide more security than anything browsers support, and there's no way to automate that other than executing code on the client machine (unless you want me to start turning over my private key). The danger of ActiveX isn't that you run someone else's code; it's that by default their code can run without your authorization.
Why would I engage in thousands of dollars worth of transactions with an entity I don't trust? If they want my money, they can just *take it*. They don't need to break into my bank.
If my bank's website was broken into and modified to offer me malware or the company is unethical enough to break into people's computers, I have worse things to worry about than getting a virus from them. I already explicitly entrusted them with tens of thousands of dollars of my money; it doesn't make sense for me to turn around and distrust them with my computer.
Your evaluation only makes sense for business relationships in which the value of the relationship is less than the value of the security of the client computer, which is clearly not the context of the article (the example was a stock trading website).
Slashdot Mirror
It's not "31 bits plus a sign bit". It's (usually) two's complement.
Your point about hardware upgrades not mattering is a good one, though, and was in fact made by TFA.
Not "real binary"? WTF are you talking about? It's either binary or it's not. And it's binary.
As for your poorly-made argument that computers use words with certain widths, just because you've never used a computer where CHAR_BIT != 8 doesn't mean they don't exist.
You said, and I quote: I supported Fred before I read this and support him after I read it.
That's what "reaffirmed" means. If that's not what you meant, maybe you shouldn't have written it. Oh, and I read your link from the club for growth. It doesn't say his tax plan is the most detailed; it says it's the most comprehensive. Those words mean completely different things. How's that for a capacity to process information?
PS: You're way off-base. I'm a small-government conservative fed up with big-government Republicans (which is about all we seem to have these days, Ron Paul notwithstanding).
PPS: It says a lot about your character that you resort to insults and hyperbole when someone simply disagrees with you.
PPPS: If you reply, I'll read it (I promise) but I won't respond. You can have the last word, if you like.
OK, that makes sense. I don't read the magazine regularly; but I've seen plenty of covers, and I never suspected guns were a main focus.
Everyone running for office in this election is a cunt, and like bush, whoever wins will be a cunt when he/she is elected.
How true. Even Thomas Jefferson turned into a cunt when he was sworn in.
Or, on the other side, Kucinich. Both of those men have class and integrity. I would be happy to vote for either.
How do you know? He could have thrown dice or used some other good source of random data. Just because a sequence has a pattern (and it's a short sequence, at that) doesn't mean it's non-random.
Auto
Wow, there's a well-thought-out plan!
Digital/Tech
Nothing to disagree with there!
Energy/Climate
Wow, that's a great idea! I wonder why no other candidates say stuff like that?
Science/Education
Joke elided for fear of sounding like a broken record.
You read this stuff and it reaffirmed your faith in this guy? I knew absolutely nothing about his platform or views before. Now, I know he doesn't have any actual ideas or plans. I checked his website just to make sure I wasn't missing anything profound, and there's really *nothing* there other than vague hand-waiving. Given his "platform", I don't see why he's even bothering to run.
o Auto
o Digital/Tech
o Climate/Energy
o Environment
o Gun control
o Infrastructure
o Science/Education
o Space
WTF??
When communicating with other people, what words mean *to you* doesn't count for much. In the context of web content, static means unchanging _from the server's point of view_. Whether the client thinks the content changes or not doesn't matter. Flash is (usually) static content, for example.
.cfc which responds to AJAX requests, and he loads all of the dynamic data as JSON during onLoad, and then he uses DOM manipulation to add the information to the page. What a MESS!! All because he used a CMS for something it's not meant.
WebGUI has some support for dynamic content, but I'm not familiar enough with it to know how much (I'm thinking of the thing where it takes a SQL query and turns it into a table or whatever). But what the guy you were talking to meant, is that if you put a PHP script into the WebGUI edit box and save it, it just spits the PHP back when you request the page (static content) instead of *executing* it (dynamic content).
I'm actually dealing with some pages right now where the content needs to be dynamically generated, but the original author wanted it integrated with WebGUI. So what does he do? He writes a ColdFusion
The legal-dictionary section of thefreedictionary has the following definition for "action":
"action n. a lawsuit in which one party (or parties) sues another. (See: cause of action, lawsuit)"
There is no other sense listed. It was my initial source for the legal definition of "action".
A criminal proceeding is NOT an action. And your point is silly; I just told you that "action" and "civil action" mean exactly the same thing.
Consider: "No apples shall be given to any children."
It's perfectly fine to give Billy an orange.
Since criminal proceedings are not actions, the telcos could still be charged. (They won't, for two reasons, but this bill isn't one of them.) You may want this bill to ban criminal charges (or not, I don't know). But what you want doesn't matter; only what it SAYS matters.
No, it doesn't. Nice bold words there, but you ignored the important ones. "Relief" and "action" only apply to civil proceedings. "Remedy" may apply to either, but given that it is embedded in a sentence with two civil-only words, the author's intent is clear.
The bill would shield them from *civil* liability only. That clause doesn't apply.
>> My wife spilled water in my keyboard (which I love, so I don't want to replace).
:-)
> Which, the keyboard or the wife?
Yes.
At first I agreed with you two, but then I started thinking.
o My wife spilled water in my keyboard (which I love, so I don't want to replace). The left control key doesn't work, so I have X configured to rebind the capslock key ask control.
o I have tons of non-standard apt repositories configured for different programs that I want to keep up-to-date automatically.
o I configured a 32-bit chroot environment so run WINE and Opera work with a 64-bit OS.
o I have a few locally-compiled apps, some of which I've added shell support for.
o I've customized the keyboard shortcuts, albeit mostly to mimic windows. I prefer Win+R to Alt+F2, so shoot me.
o A buncho of UI adjustments (mainly the Kicker)
OTOH, I do still have the default background.
Using gconf-editor, for all intents and purposes, *is* hacking at text files.
Proof in the hardware review industry:
http://www.dailytech.com/pay+to+play+uncovering+online+payola/article7510.htm
How much you wanna bet a similar investigation would show the game review industry is similar?
How would you tell the difference between a reviewer who advertised only the games he liked and one who "liked" all the games he advertised?
Have you considered the possibility that someone has broken into the stock buying site and now would like to get into your banking site?
Then they already have my ACH transfer information. Game over.
This is my point: I've already established an *explicit* trust relationship with that entity. It does me no good to backtrack on that trust later.
It's like people who ask you to run an ActiveX control because it is "more secure".
Um... my travel voucher site implements PKI signing of documents (generated on the server) via ActiveX. That _does_ provide more security than anything browsers support, and there's no way to automate that other than executing code on the client machine (unless you want me to start turning over my private key). The danger of ActiveX isn't that you run someone else's code; it's that by default their code can run without your authorization.
Why would I engage in thousands of dollars worth of transactions with an entity I don't trust? If they want my money, they can just *take it*. They don't need to break into my bank.
If my bank's website was broken into and modified to offer me malware or the company is unethical enough to break into people's computers, I have worse things to worry about than getting a virus from them. I already explicitly entrusted them with tens of thousands of dollars of my money; it doesn't make sense for me to turn around and distrust them with my computer.
Your evaluation only makes sense for business relationships in which the value of the relationship is less than the value of the security of the client computer, which is clearly not the context of the article (the example was a stock trading website).
It's not their fault you can't tell the difference between the words "on" and "in".
"Depending on the platform" is the mantra of the C programmer.
It'll be fine. In a pinch, the saber can substitute for an inanimate carbon rod.