That said, if you REALLY need constants and inheritance you could implement some server side hackery. I realize that would not be optimal for most folks and breaks the independent style paradigm.
It doesn't really. If the style coming over the wire isn't the style as written by the original developer, but has a collection of transformations applied to it in between (e.g., converting "constants" to their values) then who cares except the developer? What's really wrong is that CSS isn't done with a syntax that can be produced from XSLT processing easily; if it was, all this whining about a lack of programming flexibility would be seen for what it is.
We have a roomful of senior DHS and other government officials. The head of the group stands up and says, "Gentlemen, the results are now in... everything is an aid to terrorism."
From that and the well-known fact that everything causes cancer in rats, I conclude that cancer in rats must aid terrorism (or, to be fair, that cancer in terrorists aids rats).
The shuttle program was a huge waste of money, for almost no science benefit.
One word for you: Hubble Another one: Galileo Don't forget: Chandra X-Ray telescope
If there hadn't been the shuttle but instead a proper heavy lift rocket, those would have still been able to go up. The shuttle's design was just never optimal for anything related to launch. Note that I'm not saying that great things were not done with the shuttle, but rather that they were not specifically enabled by the shuttle. Versions of those great missions would have probably happened anyway.
You pedantry is born of obtusery (obviously he was talking about the US military alone), and you have consequently contributed nothing.
But in this respect, the US military is exactly like every other fighting force in the world is and has been for as far back as records go. The only exceptions have been where other drugs or same-sex relations were preferred instead, but that's not enormously variant in the grand scheme of things. Armies are always full of troublesome young men.
Maybe screen readers could add something to the user agent string to allow servers to detect the presence of one and modify the page to better suit them.
Well, you could have an alternate stylesheet that is targeted at being highly contrasting or especially suitable for conversion to speech. I don't know how a browser would know to select it, but that sort of thing would provide a good way to make a site that is adapted properly for people with multiple types of blindness. It's certainly reasonable to require adjusting a setting in the browser, if only once, and then have that information then used to improve the user's experience.
And of course a little common sense is needed anyway. Youtube and Flickr just don't need to do a lot of catering for the fully blind; those sites are all about visual material. (Not that they should be obstructive either, natch.)
The problem we have is that as soon as the corporation thought this might happen, the whole operation could dissolve and be reincorporated practically unchanged in a different country.
That's why seizing assets is so important, and remember that where where courts determine that an "individual" (corporate or otherwise) is doing shenanigans to avoid their liabilities those otherwise-transferred assets can be declared to have not legally changed ownership and seized anyway. At that point the new company is screwed. The other really important punishment is to make it illegal for senior officers of a company to be in such positions anywhere, since that cuts them off from the gravy train and marks them out as pure poison. No sane investor would employ them for anything significant (well, not without having hit-men on standby "just in case") and this is an area where disqualification in one part of the world tends to be respected everywhere else too; scumbags are scum everywhere.
Dicking around with courts is a great way to massively increase the pain of the punishments they can hand out.
It's a joke for enterprise apps, especially for the very large number of network-based applications. To do such things with.NET you basically have to buy into the whole Microsoft platform, but that's a deal-breaker if you're not willing to do that (switching a whole enterprise IT back-end from Unix-based to Windows-based is just amazingly difficult and painful; switching the other way is likely to be similarly bad too, of course, if in different ways).
Rehabilitation never worked in the first place, so that's no great loss.
The evidence is that for many people, quite possibly even a majority of those in custody, the rehabilitation works just fine. However, there is a significant minority for whom it doesn't work. This sucks, but it's how the world is.
However, the UK government at least is going to try to cut the prison population hard, despite imprisonment being very popular with the Tories, because it's so damned expensive. I don't know what the result of that will be, but I worry.
Someone, somewhere on the network, will hook up a modem, or an AP with WEP or a default PSK, or what-have-you, Maybe even deliberately. And then you get serious havoc.
A good first start is to make routers only route packets for known MAC addresses, and include something so they go screaming to the central sysadmins when an unknown MAC shows up. Then all you need to do is to control the specific devices that you do allow on. (It's possible to get around this, but it requires a lot more work on the part of users than just plugging in an unauthorized device.)
None of this means that you shouldn't be deploying secure protocols inside the locked-down network of course. For one thing, it's damn rare (especially on a large network) that everyone allowed on at all is also allowed to see and manipulate everything, so software-level security needs to help out with that. Common sense really...
Often times in my experience, the engineers who refuse to write documentation also write the worst & most brittle code, because they're making it up as they go along, rather than thinking about the problem they're trying to solve, and how they want to solve it, before they start churning out objects and methods.
Could someone explain this to the developers of Ruby? I and my colleagues have just spent the day trying to figure out what on earth a whole bunch of libraries (some gems, some in core Ruby) were trying to do from some terrible docs (well, RDoc output which barely qualifies...) It helped that I knew most of the APIs from other languages so could point to what was required, but even so... it was just a terrible way to spend a day.
We still don't have Alpha Centauri 2 That's all I ever want. Nothing else. Just that.:(
Yes! SMAC was always my favourite of the lot. And those starting secret projects were really valuable because they didn't expire. (The University always wanted the Virtual World, though it did mean that you'd miss out on some of the coolest buildings messages in the game. "Do you know what I've been told? Deirdre's got a Network Node!...")
Alzheimer's is degenerative & he's only been relatively recently diagnosed; he's had Unseen Academicals and I shall wear midnight both published this year - if you can have two books published you're bound to still be in good mental shape - it's when he stops publishing that we'll know his Alzheimer's has got his mind.
Not just that, but it seems to be mainly progressing in parts of his brain that aren't needed for producing stories. (Before watching a TV programme about TP's Alzheimers, I didn't know that it could differentially affect different areas of the brain. Just goes to show that TV can be educational after all.)
Personally, I would not recommend air rifles for shooting possums, or any other "varmints" for that matter.
Use a grenade launcher instead. OK, you might cause a bit of damage to other things in the vicinity (the trash can, the building, passing relatives, etc.) but you'll have greatly increased the chance of killing the thing first time!
Nobody has ever proved that speeding, by itself, caused accidents. Look at the low rate of accidents in places like Montana where 85-90 mph is the norm. Speeding is not what causes accidents. Driver error/recklessness does.
Excessive speed causes accidents because it reduces the amount of time that a driver has to react to a situation and take mitigation steps. It also increases how long it takes for things to actually happen. Of course, what is excessive will vary from one road to another. Straight freeways in dry weather can support higher safe speeds than twisty mountain roads in snow. (Duh!) More to the point, the safe speed for a road also depends on traffic conditions; in heavy traffic, the safe speed tends to be lower. Trickier is when the safe speed for a road is lower than it appears to be (e.g., because of a hidden dip containing a crossing).
But let's treat this with a more scientific approach. Lowering a speed limit makes sense for a road when it leads to a statistically significant reduction in serious crashes (relative to the inconvenience to folks of having less freedom to drive as they please). That reducing speed has such an impact, at least in some locations, shows that it must be a contributing factor in crashes. Yes, it's probably also a proxy for the recklessness of some drivers, but that doesn't change the fact that increasing the amount of time for people to react and reducing the kinetic energy of the impact if/when a crash happens does make things safer.
Obviously speed can't be the only factor; this means that taking the limit down too far doesn't help because the other (immediate) factors become totally dominating. It's a bit like a bottleneck analysis in program optimization; no point in putting effort into dealing with things that only have a miniscule contribution. But what it does do is make everything else worse because of its impact on time for people to react and on KE at impact.
So basically reducing the speed limit, even as low as 35 on an interstate, will not magically end crashes.
The only way to magically end crashes on roads is to get rid of road traffic. Or roads I suppose. Not exactly practical either way.
There will always be people about who take too many chances; they're just inclined to be reckless from time to time. However, the way I was taught to drive, the first consideration was always to drive in a manner that is safe for the road and for other road users. It's damn rare that you need to go faster than the posted speed limit. (If you live somewhere where you're expected to obey unposted limits, that's definitely unfair and something you should be talking to relevant politicians about fixing.) And to be blunt, having a crash kind-of guarantees that you won't get to where you want to be on time...
The browser already has a location from the href, it doesn't care what the ping response(s) are, except for the headers (so that cookies can be updated), so HTTP HEAD would suffice.
Except that HEAD is cacheable in proxies, so the tracking information that the W3C's participants want so badly would get swallowed. By using POST, they're circumventing efficiency for the sake spying on you (in a small, mean-spirited way).
He isn't a Libertarian, real libertarians either believe in A) Incredibly limited copyright or B) No copyright. For example, see the Ludwig Von Mises article (http://mises.org/daily/4575) because property by nature is scarce and not unlimited.
I suspect you're applying the No True Scotsman Fallacy there, by trying to redefine those who say some things that you think you agree with but others you don't to be not real examples of proponents of the political position you espouse. To the minds of a lot of other people, this means instead that Libertarianism is a bit of a misnomer, as it really consists of two groups; crypto-corporatists and right-wing anarchists. Which are you? (The anarchists have a consistent position but are useless because most people simply don't agree; the corporatists are scary because their real goal is a form of fascism.)
No you don't, because the earth is a non-inertial frame.
Not looked at General Relativity much, I see...
General relativity doesn't change the fact that we're in a rotating frame of reference, something which a simple experiment with a pendulum will prove. Either that or you've got to postulate something even more outrageous like invisible unfeelable elves pushing the free-swinging pendulum around. I don't know about you, but a rotating planet makes more sense than invoking a host of magic users with nothing better to do than play around consistently with pendulums.
TOTAL $230,000 currently owed plus $110,000 promised but unfunded = $340,000 per USH (approximately)
The problem is... that number simply doesn't tell the whole story. In particular, the length of time that different parts of it have to be repaid over varies. Credit cards are pretty short term debt (or should be at those interest rates!) whereas mortgages are much longer term, and a lot of government debt even longer than that. Perhaps a more useful figure to study is the approximate amount that the average household has to repay of that debt every month relative to their income; that gives a much stronger figure for just how indebted they actually are.
64bit architecture is 20 years old on the desktop but right now nobody is using it anyway.
They're certainly using more memory than is practically addressable on 32-bit. Ordinary people do need that memory. They do work with large images. They do handle lots of data. They do have many things open at once. They do run large games. Not everyone needs it for everything, but being stuck with only 4GB of address space would really suck. (Luckily ARM isn't limited this way; cortex15 can address 1TB of memory directly, which is rather a lot more than anyone currently puts in a single machine at the moment.)
If I get a Notebook with an ARM, which can run OpenOffice, Email, Firefox and maybe Flash, for half the price and have a battery life of 8 hours and more I really don't care what architecture it have.
The apps are what people care about, yes. But many apps like to have lots of memory because they work with lots of data. (Funny, that...)
Slashdot Mirror
He is professor in Nijmegen.
Was. He moved to Manchester subsequently.
That said, if you REALLY need constants and inheritance you could implement some server side hackery. I realize that would not be optimal for most folks and breaks the independent style paradigm.
It doesn't really. If the style coming over the wire isn't the style as written by the original developer, but has a collection of transformations applied to it in between (e.g., converting "constants" to their values) then who cares except the developer? What's really wrong is that CSS isn't done with a syntax that can be produced from XSLT processing easily; if it was, all this whining about a lack of programming flexibility would be seen for what it is.
We have a roomful of senior DHS and other government officials. The head of the group stands up and says, "Gentlemen, the results are now in ... everything is an aid to terrorism."
From that and the well-known fact that everything causes cancer in rats, I conclude that cancer in rats must aid terrorism (or, to be fair, that cancer in terrorists aids rats).
The shuttle program was a huge waste of money, for almost no science benefit.
One word for you: Hubble
Another one: Galileo
Don't forget: Chandra X-Ray telescope
If there hadn't been the shuttle but instead a proper heavy lift rocket, those would have still been able to go up. The shuttle's design was just never optimal for anything related to launch. Note that I'm not saying that great things were not done with the shuttle, but rather that they were not specifically enabled by the shuttle. Versions of those great missions would have probably happened anyway.
You pedantry is born of obtusery (obviously he was talking about the US military alone), and you have consequently contributed nothing.
But in this respect, the US military is exactly like every other fighting force in the world is and has been for as far back as records go. The only exceptions have been where other drugs or same-sex relations were preferred instead, but that's not enormously variant in the grand scheme of things. Armies are always full of troublesome young men.
Maybe screen readers could add something to the user agent string to allow servers to detect the presence of one and modify the page to better suit them.
Well, you could have an alternate stylesheet that is targeted at being highly contrasting or especially suitable for conversion to speech. I don't know how a browser would know to select it, but that sort of thing would provide a good way to make a site that is adapted properly for people with multiple types of blindness. It's certainly reasonable to require adjusting a setting in the browser, if only once, and then have that information then used to improve the user's experience.
And of course a little common sense is needed anyway. Youtube and Flickr just don't need to do a lot of catering for the fully blind; those sites are all about visual material. (Not that they should be obstructive either, natch.)
The problem we have is that as soon as the corporation thought this might happen, the whole operation could dissolve and be reincorporated practically unchanged in a different country.
That's why seizing assets is so important, and remember that where where courts determine that an "individual" (corporate or otherwise) is doing shenanigans to avoid their liabilities those otherwise-transferred assets can be declared to have not legally changed ownership and seized anyway. At that point the new company is screwed. The other really important punishment is to make it illegal for senior officers of a company to be in such positions anywhere, since that cuts them off from the gravy train and marks them out as pure poison. No sane investor would employ them for anything significant (well, not without having hit-men on standby "just in case") and this is an area where disqualification in one part of the world tends to be respected everywhere else too; scumbags are scum everywhere.
Dicking around with courts is a great way to massively increase the pain of the punishments they can hand out.
Have you heard of the Mono project?
It's a joke for enterprise apps, especially for the very large number of network-based applications. To do such things with .NET you basically have to buy into the whole Microsoft platform, but that's a deal-breaker if you're not willing to do that (switching a whole enterprise IT back-end from Unix-based to Windows-based is just amazingly difficult and painful; switching the other way is likely to be similarly bad too, of course, if in different ways).
Rehabilitation never worked in the first place, so that's no great loss.
The evidence is that for many people, quite possibly even a majority of those in custody, the rehabilitation works just fine. However, there is a significant minority for whom it doesn't work. This sucks, but it's how the world is.
However, the UK government at least is going to try to cut the prison population hard, despite imprisonment being very popular with the Tories, because it's so damned expensive. I don't know what the result of that will be, but I worry.
Someone, somewhere on the network, will hook up a modem, or an AP with WEP or a default PSK, or what-have-you, Maybe even deliberately. And then you get serious havoc.
A good first start is to make routers only route packets for known MAC addresses, and include something so they go screaming to the central sysadmins when an unknown MAC shows up. Then all you need to do is to control the specific devices that you do allow on. (It's possible to get around this, but it requires a lot more work on the part of users than just plugging in an unauthorized device.)
None of this means that you shouldn't be deploying secure protocols inside the locked-down network of course. For one thing, it's damn rare (especially on a large network) that everyone allowed on at all is also allowed to see and manipulate everything, so software-level security needs to help out with that. Common sense really...
If you put a live [frog] in a cauldron with boiling water, he will leap out as soon as he touches the water.
Actually, the frog will probably die too quickly for it to be able to leap out, assuming that you've got the cauldron going at a proper boil.
Often times in my experience, the engineers who refuse to write documentation also write the worst & most brittle code, because they're making it up as they go along, rather than thinking about the problem they're trying to solve, and how they want to solve it, before they start churning out objects and methods.
Could someone explain this to the developers of Ruby? I and my colleagues have just spent the day trying to figure out what on earth a whole bunch of libraries (some gems, some in core Ruby) were trying to do from some terrible docs (well, RDoc output which barely qualifies...) It helped that I knew most of the APIs from other languages so could point to what was required, but even so... it was just a terrible way to spend a day.
We still don't have Alpha Centauri 2 :(
That's all I ever want.
Nothing else.
Just that.
Yes! SMAC was always my favourite of the lot. And those starting secret projects were really valuable because they didn't expire. (The University always wanted the Virtual World, though it did mean that you'd miss out on some of the coolest buildings messages in the game. "Do you know what I've been told? Deirdre's got a Network Node!...")
But what if they used.. single quotes!!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!! *gasp* :0
But what if attackers used single quotes too?
(Sheesh!)
Alzheimer's is degenerative & he's only been relatively recently diagnosed; he's had Unseen Academicals and I shall wear midnight both published this year - if you can have two books published you're bound to still be in good mental shape - it's when he stops publishing that we'll know his Alzheimer's has got his mind.
Not just that, but it seems to be mainly progressing in parts of his brain that aren't needed for producing stories. (Before watching a TV programme about TP's Alzheimers, I didn't know that it could differentially affect different areas of the brain. Just goes to show that TV can be educational after all.)
Personally, I would not recommend air rifles for shooting possums, or any other "varmints" for that matter.
Use a grenade launcher instead. OK, you might cause a bit of damage to other things in the vicinity (the trash can, the building, passing relatives, etc.) but you'll have greatly increased the chance of killing the thing first time!
Nobody has ever proved that speeding, by itself, caused accidents. Look at the low rate of accidents in places like Montana where 85-90 mph is the norm. Speeding is not what causes accidents. Driver error/recklessness does.
Excessive speed causes accidents because it reduces the amount of time that a driver has to react to a situation and take mitigation steps. It also increases how long it takes for things to actually happen. Of course, what is excessive will vary from one road to another. Straight freeways in dry weather can support higher safe speeds than twisty mountain roads in snow. (Duh!) More to the point, the safe speed for a road also depends on traffic conditions; in heavy traffic, the safe speed tends to be lower. Trickier is when the safe speed for a road is lower than it appears to be (e.g., because of a hidden dip containing a crossing).
But let's treat this with a more scientific approach. Lowering a speed limit makes sense for a road when it leads to a statistically significant reduction in serious crashes (relative to the inconvenience to folks of having less freedom to drive as they please). That reducing speed has such an impact, at least in some locations, shows that it must be a contributing factor in crashes. Yes, it's probably also a proxy for the recklessness of some drivers, but that doesn't change the fact that increasing the amount of time for people to react and reducing the kinetic energy of the impact if/when a crash happens does make things safer.
Obviously speed can't be the only factor; this means that taking the limit down too far doesn't help because the other (immediate) factors become totally dominating. It's a bit like a bottleneck analysis in program optimization; no point in putting effort into dealing with things that only have a miniscule contribution. But what it does do is make everything else worse because of its impact on time for people to react and on KE at impact.
So basically reducing the speed limit, even as low as 35 on an interstate, will not magically end crashes.
The only way to magically end crashes on roads is to get rid of road traffic. Or roads I suppose. Not exactly practical either way.
There will always be people about who take too many chances; they're just inclined to be reckless from time to time. However, the way I was taught to drive, the first consideration was always to drive in a manner that is safe for the road and for other road users. It's damn rare that you need to go faster than the posted speed limit. (If you live somewhere where you're expected to obey unposted limits, that's definitely unfair and something you should be talking to relevant politicians about fixing.) And to be blunt, having a crash kind-of guarantees that you won't get to where you want to be on time...
The browser already has a location from the href, it doesn't care what the ping response(s) are, except for the headers (so that cookies can be updated), so HTTP HEAD would suffice.
Except that HEAD is cacheable in proxies, so the tracking information that the W3C's participants want so badly would get swallowed. By using POST, they're circumventing efficiency for the sake spying on you (in a small, mean-spirited way).
He isn't a Libertarian, real libertarians either believe in A) Incredibly limited copyright or B) No copyright. For example, see the Ludwig Von Mises article (http://mises.org/daily/4575) because property by nature is scarce and not unlimited.
I suspect you're applying the No True Scotsman Fallacy there, by trying to redefine those who say some things that you think you agree with but others you don't to be not real examples of proponents of the political position you espouse. To the minds of a lot of other people, this means instead that Libertarianism is a bit of a misnomer, as it really consists of two groups; crypto-corporatists and right-wing anarchists. Which are you? (The anarchists have a consistent position but are useless because most people simply don't agree; the corporatists are scary because their real goal is a form of fascism.)
Internet still hell bent on filtering Conroy.
Bonus points if you can persuade any Australian filter to put in the websites of both Conroy and his party.
Not looked at General Relativity much, I see...
General relativity doesn't change the fact that we're in a rotating frame of reference, something which a simple experiment with a pendulum will prove. Either that or you've got to postulate something even more outrageous like invisible unfeelable elves pushing the free-swinging pendulum around. I don't know about you, but a rotating planet makes more sense than invoking a host of magic users with nothing better to do than play around consistently with pendulums.
Ah yes, it's Jesus and His Website of Far Too Many Colors.
TOTAL $230,000 currently owed plus $110,000 promised but unfunded = $340,000 per USH (approximately)
The problem is... that number simply doesn't tell the whole story. In particular, the length of time that different parts of it have to be repaid over varies. Credit cards are pretty short term debt (or should be at those interest rates!) whereas mortgages are much longer term, and a lot of government debt even longer than that. Perhaps a more useful figure to study is the approximate amount that the average household has to repay of that debt every month relative to their income; that gives a much stronger figure for just how indebted they actually are.
I have a tiny gyro unit for one of my radio control helicopters. Guess what it contains?
Hmm. Let me see... PDP-11?
64bit architecture is 20 years old on the desktop but right now nobody is using it anyway.
They're certainly using more memory than is practically addressable on 32-bit. Ordinary people do need that memory. They do work with large images. They do handle lots of data. They do have many things open at once. They do run large games. Not everyone needs it for everything, but being stuck with only 4GB of address space would really suck. (Luckily ARM isn't limited this way; cortex15 can address 1TB of memory directly, which is rather a lot more than anyone currently puts in a single machine at the moment.)
If I get a Notebook with an ARM, which can run OpenOffice, Email, Firefox and maybe Flash, for half the price and have a battery life of 8 hours and more I really don't care what architecture it have.
The apps are what people care about, yes. But many apps like to have lots of memory because they work with lots of data. (Funny, that...)