The problem with the technique is it does not add anything to the story while alienating people like myself who have a hard time watching that sort of thing. I have the same problem with Band of Brothers, Saving Private Ryan, Romeo + Juliet, etc. I end up not watching because it's distracting and difficult to focus on what's going on.
Hell, it's even worse now that every two-bit wannabe mail administrator thinks he can block.info because "nobody uses it but spammers". I've talked with these people. They're like "get a gmail account. It's free." Free -- sure, but nevermind the investment I've made in having nice, short contact info. If you hadn't broken your mail system, I wouldn't have to go to this extra effort to deal with your idiocy.
tomorrow we won't be able to commute without an outdoor permit
Which is why all-out, global Libertarianism is a bad idea. They have some good principles, but it'd be a veritable Lawyer World if it were taken to its logical extreme. (What am I talking about? Getting permits from your neighbors to walk down the street or hell even use a street. Broadband Internet would be nearly impossible because of all the paperwork you'd need to get everyone on board with digging up all your yards to put in cables. You couldn't use wireless because there'd be no FCC to regulate spectrum. Etc.).
A man should live in his own interest, otherwise he's simply become an altruistic slave to the looters. All right, so that was a bit Rand heavy, but is there something inherently wrong with self interest? I don't achieve it by stepping on someone else or prohibiting their own self interest.
Reread the comment. The point of the comment is not criticism of self-interest but that banks were incapable of sustaining themselves, despite their logical self-interest to do so.
Anywhere humans and money intersect, logic goes out the window. This is why the Austrian school is wrong and the econophysicists are right.
Granted, but we already have water heater standards mandating higher efficiency. The only question is getting people to replace them. The thing about consumer electronics is they are replaced more frequently than appliances so their impact can increase more quickly than appliance efficiency. I understand your point that replacing appliances reduces demand more, but that doesn't negate the net effect of mandating more efficient consumer electronics (whose net effect will reduce demand for new power plants).
The thing is, for these activities, typically you give drugs to the stem cells to make them produce like crazy (like the drugs+aphoresis marrow donation technique). That is what concerns me and was not addressed in the article.
... which frankly, strikes me as dangerous. If they're replicating stem cells from people who are already at high risk of breast cancer, doesn't that increase it even more (more generations == shorter telomeres)?
Well, the Uverse box, in particular, is a horrible device. It gets REALLY hot and craps out easily, especially if it's been left on all day/night (recording). The two replacements have had the same problems.
As far as "overblown", conservation only makes sense en masse. The City of Austin estimates it has saved an entire power plant's worth of KW over the last couple of decades through its conservation programs. Consequently, I see myself acting in the "think globally, act locally" sense, not because saving $2.50/mo is a big deal for me. I also upgraded the HVAC in my 1981 era house from its original equipment, added insulation, and have newish, Energy Star appliances.
The only thing I don't like is HVAC ductwork showing everywhere in every establishment. It's like Brazil down here!
Yeah, all my electronics are guiltless vampires. I'm mean and put them on the "power off" light switch so they're all OFF when I want them OFF. Sure, it takes awhile for the Uverse box to sync back up on power-on, but the savings is worth it to me.
I understand that UUCP mailnet is ALREADY in use in Africa in a very interesting form:
- Villages have a WiFi-enabled machine to exchange mails and files with the outside world.
- The local mail carrier has a bicycle with a WiFi-enabled, battery-powered machine with a decently large disk.
- As he cycles from village to village the bike-mounted machine associates with the local machine and UUCP does its usual magic, transferring mail, files, and download requests. (Don't know if they also run netnews groups on it...
- One of the machines on his route has internet connectivity and transfers the mail, files, and download requests to the rest of the world.
All with legacy protocols doing what they always did. And he doesn't even have to stop pedaling. B-)
1) I expect you could make a SQL injection attack out of a carefully crafted RFC-compliant email address. Why? Because the charspace is huge and allows plenty of funny business. However, with bounds checking (length < whatever) and bind variables, what's the worry? Do you write all your web forms in C?
2) You have to validate server-side anyway because you can't trust JavaScript. Furthermore, you don't know if it's a genuine email address anyway until you try it.
3) The codemonkeys I'm talking about typically use JavaScript for "validation" (I put it in quotes, because most code it incorrectly and wouldn't know what an SQL injection was if it bit 'em in the server).
Lastly, it hasn't given me the "best user experience" when other "programmers" have tried to validate my address. The most useful advice is "don't". I'm going to abuse a quote here about TCP/IP: Most email validators implement the spec, badly.
If makers of JavaScript want to do the world a favor, they should implement a built-in for checking addresses for RFC822 compliance. Because for regular Joes two steps above coding-by-drag-n-drop, it really is Too Hard[tm]. This is what standard libraries are for, anyway, and email addresses are part and parcel to the Internet.
Anything is possible with a Turing machine, including running it poorly. -l
I emailed them a couple of times about the microphone thing. Wish they'd've tried it sooner, darn it. No Mars Polar Lander microphone. No Phoenix microphone. We're 0 for 2 people!
1) a) Everyone does not use copy and paste. b) That's beside the point anyway. The point of double-entry is so the user looks at their email address twice.
2) If you need a valid email on a web form, send a trackback URL.
3) There's no point in checking for RFC-compliant addresses because it's a waste of time and most coders do it poorly anyway. Let the mail server handle it (see [2]). If the address is eaoouaeoa@sthtnhnshnssth.com, you have an RFC-compliant address that goes nowhere. So you're screwed anyway without a trackback.
Lastly, I'm only talking about Web forms here. If you're crawling the Web for addresses or doing some data mining or something, go ahead and validate to your heart's content. But it is foolhardy to try and validate an email address in a few lines of Javascript because inevitably you will do it wrong and the number of valid email addresses that go nowhere is unbounded.
-l
P.s., this is from personal experience as a legitimate user of a.info domain. I can't tell you how many websites out there are completely broken if you don't have a.com/.net/.org/.edu email address.
Bah, it's still a bad idea. ICANN adds more TLDs every year and soon Microsoft and Google will have.microsoft and.google and there will be Unicode domain names soon enough. It's a terrible, terrible idea for websites to bother validating them outside of actually using them. Require double-entry and send a "click here to complete registration" URL in an email. That's it. Anything else is a recipe for failure on the Web.
Eh, I should step back and say, "it's a bad idea, on the Web". I can see legitimate use of such code in, say, data mining.
What good is an RFC-valid email address that nobody will accept mail from?
Indeed. I bought my.info domain back before.info was spam-capital of the universe. I figured "Hey, tons of new TLDs are coming out. I can have a short domain all to myself. This is great!". Fast forward to the future. I can't use it to post on Craigslist (which they won't even TELL you unless you get a customer service rep who knows that that is their unwritten "policy". You only get a meaningless error number and a note to check your post for errors). Tons of websites use retarded email validation code that only checks for specific domains or assumes that all TLDs have 3 characters. Latest example: my kid's orthodontist's website. It is also silently blocked by Child Protective Services so I can't email our adoptive son's worker.
In short, it is a huge mess but I use this domain for everything and it will be a major pain to switch (like switching banks).
Which will break when Google and Microsoft finally get their grubby hands on.google and.microsoft. The only thing you should do to validate addresses is require double-entry and send a URL to the email address for confirmation. Anything else is hopelessly subject to failure.
You want liberal bias? Watch or listen to PBS/NPR?
Some of the NPR affiliate shows definitely lean left (hello LatinoUSA!), but I think their flagship shows, Morning Edition and All Things Considered, are quite neutral and fair.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem with the technique is it does not add anything to the story while alienating people like myself who have a hard time watching that sort of thing. I have the same problem with Band of Brothers, Saving Private Ryan, Romeo + Juliet, etc. I end up not watching because it's distracting and difficult to focus on what's going on.
$0.02USD,
-l
Hell, it's even worse now that every two-bit wannabe mail administrator thinks he can block .info because "nobody uses it but spammers". I've talked with these people. They're like "get a gmail account. It's free." Free -- sure, but nevermind the investment I've made in having nice, short contact info. If you hadn't broken your mail system, I wouldn't have to go to this extra effort to deal with your idiocy.
-l
tomorrow we won't be able to commute without an outdoor permit
Which is why all-out, global Libertarianism is a bad idea. They have some good principles, but it'd be a veritable Lawyer World if it were taken to its logical extreme. (What am I talking about? Getting permits from your neighbors to walk down the street or hell even use a street. Broadband Internet would be nearly impossible because of all the paperwork you'd need to get everyone on board with digging up all your yards to put in cables. You couldn't use wireless because there'd be no FCC to regulate spectrum. Etc.).
-l
How does that match with the big bang theory, 13.5-14 billion years old and nothing can travel faster than light? =P
Read about inflation.
-l
A man should live in his own interest, otherwise he's simply become an altruistic slave to the looters. All right, so that was a bit Rand heavy, but is there something inherently wrong with self interest? I don't achieve it by stepping on someone else or prohibiting their own self interest.
Reread the comment. The point of the comment is not criticism of self-interest but that banks were incapable of sustaining themselves, despite their logical self-interest to do so.
Anywhere humans and money intersect, logic goes out the window. This is why the Austrian school is wrong and the econophysicists are right.
$0.02USD,
-l
Believe it or not, I had similar thoughts, though my wife has perfect sized breasts. It will definitely be a hit with the strippers!
-l
Granted, but we already have water heater standards mandating higher efficiency. The only question is getting people to replace them. The thing about consumer electronics is they are replaced more frequently than appliances so their impact can increase more quickly than appliance efficiency. I understand your point that replacing appliances reduces demand more, but that doesn't negate the net effect of mandating more efficient consumer electronics (whose net effect will reduce demand for new power plants).
-l
Previous response on this.
-l
The thing is, for these activities, typically you give drugs to the stem cells to make them produce like crazy (like the drugs+aphoresis marrow donation technique). That is what concerns me and was not addressed in the article.
-l
Somehow, I figured lonely slashdotters would be more interested in this article: Using Stem Cells for Breast Enhancement
... which frankly, strikes me as dangerous. If they're replicating stem cells from people who are already at high risk of breast cancer, doesn't that increase it even more (more generations == shorter telomeres)?
-l
Well, the Uverse box, in particular, is a horrible device. It gets REALLY hot and craps out easily, especially if it's been left on all day/night (recording). The two replacements have had the same problems.
As far as "overblown", conservation only makes sense en masse. The City of Austin estimates it has saved an entire power plant's worth of KW over the last couple of decades through its conservation programs. Consequently, I see myself acting in the "think globally, act locally" sense, not because saving $2.50/mo is a big deal for me. I also upgraded the HVAC in my 1981 era house from its original equipment, added insulation, and have newish, Energy Star appliances.
The only thing I don't like is HVAC ductwork showing everywhere in every establishment. It's like Brazil down here!
-l
Yeah, all my electronics are guiltless vampires. I'm mean and put them on the "power off" light switch so they're all OFF when I want them OFF. Sure, it takes awhile for the Uverse box to sync back up on power-on, but the savings is worth it to me.
-l
I understand that UUCP mailnet is ALREADY in use in Africa in a very interesting form: - Villages have a WiFi-enabled machine to exchange mails and files with the outside world. - The local mail carrier has a bicycle with a WiFi-enabled, battery-powered machine with a decently large disk. - As he cycles from village to village the bike-mounted machine associates with the local machine and UUCP does its usual magic, transferring mail, files, and download requests. (Don't know if they also run netnews groups on it... - One of the machines on his route has internet connectivity and transfers the mail, files, and download requests to the rest of the world. All with legacy protocols doing what they always did. And he doesn't even have to stop pedaling. B-)
[Citation needed]
-l
soaked in liquor (spiced rum ftw)
Meh, cherry brandy FTW.
-l
Or John Carmack...
-l
1) I expect you could make a SQL injection attack out of a carefully crafted RFC-compliant email address. Why? Because the charspace is huge and allows plenty of funny business. However, with bounds checking (length < whatever) and bind variables, what's the worry? Do you write all your web forms in C?
2) You have to validate server-side anyway because you can't trust JavaScript. Furthermore, you don't know if it's a genuine email address anyway until you try it.
3) The codemonkeys I'm talking about typically use JavaScript for "validation" (I put it in quotes, because most code it incorrectly and wouldn't know what an SQL injection was if it bit 'em in the server).
Lastly, it hasn't given me the "best user experience" when other "programmers" have tried to validate my address. The most useful advice is "don't". I'm going to abuse a quote here about TCP/IP: Most email validators implement the spec, badly.
If makers of JavaScript want to do the world a favor, they should implement a built-in for checking addresses for RFC822 compliance. Because for regular Joes two steps above coding-by-drag-n-drop, it really is Too Hard[tm]. This is what standard libraries are for, anyway, and email addresses are part and parcel to the Internet.
Anything is possible with a Turing machine, including running it poorly.
-l
I emailed them a couple of times about the microphone thing. Wish they'd've tried it sooner, darn it. No Mars Polar Lander microphone. No Phoenix microphone. We're 0 for 2 people!
-l
1) a) Everyone does not use copy and paste. b) That's beside the point anyway. The point of double-entry is so the user looks at their email address twice.
2) If you need a valid email on a web form, send a trackback URL.
3) There's no point in checking for RFC-compliant addresses because it's a waste of time and most coders do it poorly anyway. Let the mail server handle it (see [2]). If the address is eaoouaeoa@sthtnhnshnssth.com, you have an RFC-compliant address that goes nowhere. So you're screwed anyway without a trackback.
Lastly, I'm only talking about Web forms here. If you're crawling the Web for addresses or doing some data mining or something, go ahead and validate to your heart's content. But it is foolhardy to try and validate an email address in a few lines of Javascript because inevitably you will do it wrong and the number of valid email addresses that go nowhere is unbounded.
-l
P.s., this is from personal experience as a legitimate user of a .info domain. I can't tell you how many websites out there are completely broken if you don't have a .com/.net/.org/.edu email address.
I must say, I'm disappointed by the lack of "itbelongsina.museum".
-l
You could use "< Report_Name".
-l
... probably due to the large amounts of contiguous spaces. Don't really know.
-l
Bah, it's still a bad idea. ICANN adds more TLDs every year and soon Microsoft and Google will have .microsoft and .google and there will be Unicode domain names soon enough. It's a terrible, terrible idea for websites to bother validating them outside of actually using them. Require double-entry and send a "click here to complete registration" URL in an email. That's it. Anything else is a recipe for failure on the Web.
Eh, I should step back and say, "it's a bad idea, on the Web". I can see legitimate use of such code in, say, data mining.
-l
What good is an RFC-valid email address that nobody will accept mail from?
Indeed. I bought my .info domain back before .info was spam-capital of the universe. I figured "Hey, tons of new TLDs are coming out. I can have a short domain all to myself. This is great!". Fast forward to the future. I can't use it to post on Craigslist (which they won't even TELL you unless you get a customer service rep who knows that that is their unwritten "policy". You only get a meaningless error number and a note to check your post for errors). Tons of websites use retarded email validation code that only checks for specific domains or assumes that all TLDs have 3 characters. Latest example: my kid's orthodontist's website. It is also silently blocked by Child Protective Services so I can't email our adoptive son's worker.
In short, it is a huge mess but I use this domain for everything and it will be a major pain to switch (like switching banks).
-l
Which will break when Google and Microsoft finally get their grubby hands on .google and .microsoft. The only thing you should do to validate addresses is require double-entry and send a URL to the email address for confirmation. Anything else is hopelessly subject to failure.
-l
You want liberal bias? Watch or listen to PBS/NPR?
Some of the NPR affiliate shows definitely lean left (hello LatinoUSA!), but I think their flagship shows, Morning Edition and All Things Considered, are quite neutral and fair.
$0.02USD,
-l