My house may not burn down. Your house may not burn down. But somebody's house is probably going to burn down this year.
Good example. Now, what if the insurance company charges more for pine wood houses than for stone houses ? Would it be fair ?
What if the insurance company charges less
(against burglary) for a house with an alarm, 5 locks on every door, and only reinforced doors ?
Is it fair ?
The issue here is not about risk evaluation. It's about control. If you choose to build a stronger house, use a more secure car, or plug redundant power supply on your main server, you will pay less for your insurance.
But you can't change your genetic exposure to risk. You can't decide, after a genetic test, "well, I'm gonna a change this gene for a more secure one, this one is too risky". So, you'll have to choose not to change it. And the insurance company will charge you for this choice. And that is frightening.
Feb. 31 is a valid date [...] the date handling is just plain flawed.
Feb. 31 is not valid, it's interpreted. It's interpreted as "the 31st day after the beginning of Feb.", which will result as either Mar. 3 or Mar. 2 depending on the year.
This is a very useful feature. You have to choose: should the database engine be able to
compute correct date arithmetic (increment the day to "Dec. 32", take care about overflow)
The reason big software companies are still using glibc 2.0 is that glibc 2.2 rock sucks. It's much too buggy to get workaround or fix for all bugs (this assertion is only valid for big software, which use a wide range of the API).
If you want Netscape to use 2.2, writing a letter is not a solution. Go fix glibc bugs. If enough people do it, Netscape will switch.
This is indeed a new UI concept. A new extention to the disapearing menubar: whenever the user is not using the mouse, let's remove the mouse-only widgets to let this user have an implicit full-screen feature.
However, there is no need to build a new device for this feature: the existing mice give all needed information. What's the difference between:
a mouse which doesn't move,
a mouse which doesn't move AND the user has not the hand on the mouse?
In both cases, there is no need to display the icon bars or any other mouse-related widget. They will never be clicked if the mouse is still.
The first sentence has an agent (the team) who won something in the past, and an object (the match) which was won: "The team won the match".
The second sentence has an agent (the player, who is male) who broke something, an agent (the leg) which was broken, and modifiers which specify that this leg is that player's own left leg: "The player broke his left leg."
Slashdot Mirror
Good example. Now, what if the insurance company charges more for pine wood houses than for stone houses ? Would it be fair ?
What if the insurance company charges less (against burglary) for a house with an alarm, 5 locks on every door, and only reinforced doors ? Is it fair ?
The issue here is not about risk evaluation. It's about control. If you choose to build a stronger house, use a more secure car, or plug redundant power supply on your main server, you will pay less for your insurance.
But you can't change your genetic exposure to risk. You can't decide, after a genetic test, "well, I'm gonna a change this gene for a more secure one, this one is too risky". So, you'll have to choose not to change it. And the insurance company will charge you for this choice. And that is frightening.
Feb. 31 is not valid, it's interpreted. It's interpreted as "the 31st day after the beginning of Feb.", which will result as either Mar. 3 or Mar. 2 depending on the year.
This is a very useful feature. You have to choose: should the database engine be able to
- compute correct date arithmetic (increment the day to "Dec. 32", take care about overflow)
- or check a user input validity
I believe the first one is much more useful.He succeeded in writing the exact same size of code in numerous projects:
The reason big software companies are still using glibc 2.0 is that glibc 2.2 rock sucks. It's much too buggy to get workaround or fix for all bugs (this assertion is only valid for big software, which use a wide range of the API).
If you want Netscape to use 2.2, writing a letter is not a solution. Go fix glibc bugs. If enough people do it, Netscape will switch.
Too bad. You wrote an odd number of even. And so did I.
However, there is no need to build a new device for this feature: the existing mice give all needed information. What's the difference between:
- a mouse which doesn't move,
- a mouse which doesn't move AND the user has not the hand on the mouse?
In both cases, there is no need to display the icon bars or any other mouse-related widget. They will never be clicked if the mouse is still.--
"Show me the code" - Linus.
Here is an example so you can have a better feeling of what it's like:
So, this a two-sentences, one-paragraph text.
The first sentence has an agent (the team) who won something in the past, and an object (the match) which was won: "The team won the match".
The second sentence has an agent (the player, who is male) who broke something, an agent (the leg) which was broken, and modifiers which specify that this leg is that player's own left leg: "The player broke his left leg."
--
"Show me the code" -- Linus.