85mph is the maximum legal speed. If your vehicle is not capable of maintaining it, then simply go slower. This road should certainly have enough lanes to let people pass if they must.
I bike commute to work every day, and I can't maintain the speed limit, yet I have the right to ride in the street. And when lanes get narrow, I even take the whole lane so someone isn't tempted to pass me unsafely in the same lane. Anyway, my point is people treat speed limits as a minimum, although legally they are a maximum, so feel free to go slower.
god damn it. i take it you're not a parent. nor am i, but after the age of about 5, it's quite normal for a child to not be in physical proximity to their parents 24/7. I suspect it would be unhealthy in fact.
I never disagreed with that point. If it wasn't clear, let me state it more directly:
Firefox has flaws. One of them is it's propensity to fuck up table layout flows, or whatever they're called. I also think that standards should be followed as long as possible.
Furthermore, all web browsers have flaws. You ask why use Firefox when it can't render tables right? Because it works better than any other browser I have tried so far. If you have found that not to be the case in your personal experience, go ahead and continue to use IE, but do not expect to be taken seriously when you say it is more standards compliant than Firefox. The link I gave earlier describes IE flaws mostly rendering CSS, but there are a boatload more, notably including PNG alpha channel support.
The only reason IE appears to work so well is that it has such a large market share, and thus developers must code around some of its more gaping deficiencies. If the ends justify the means in your mind, then you could possibly consider IE superior in this way.
If the market shares of IE and Firefox were reversed, you would see a lot more rendering anomolies in IE, since it's such a bitch to code for.
Where did you get this information? Because it's exactly wrong. It's true that firefox has a bug with table layouts, but it can't compete with the dozens and dozens of ridiculous layout bugs in ie. Since I suspect you'll dismiss this out of hand, check out http://www.positioniseverything.net/explorer.html or just search google for more information on ie bugs. Believe me when I say web developers have to spend a significant amount of time coding around IE's bugs so that people like you will think it is "standards compliant". If you don't believe me, ask a working web developer.
Furthermore, it only tends to manifest itself in sites that are using tables for layout. (ahem, slashdot) Not saying it's ok, but any site that has been designed in the past five years should not be affected.
A great specimen too, really fucking hilarious. In my opinion, if this is what you call humor, then it deserves to ridiculed by calling its bluff. It sucks. Furthermore, I commend the parent poster.
Yeah, I like it quite a bit. I first tried an Edirol USB interface, which was quite crap. (stay away!) You'd probably be better off a creative card. hah! Then I returned it and got the audiophile, and have been extremely impressed with it.
Set up your recording application. (3 minutes) Play the cd. Walk away. Come back when the CD is done playing. Split the tracks. It's usually obvious where track breaks will be. (5 minutes) Name the tracks. (6 minutes) Encode to mp3. (background task if neccesary)
Total work: 14 minutes
Note that these are very liberal estimates, and it could probably be done in half the time if you are experienced. There are plenty of people with quality audio input. I have an M-Audio Audiophile 2496 that would work for the task, and many others have even better interfaces.
However, the most important thing to remember is that only one person needs to do this.
They're not worried about it. They just understand that they can save money by minimizing the lenghth of the javascript. Why wouldn't they do this?
Re:Cool! Just like form AutoComplete
on
Google Suggest
·
· Score: 1
You are correct.
Re:Cool! Just like form AutoComplete
on
Google Suggest
·
· Score: 1
Although I doubt you'll believe me, I already understand this. I can't even remember how many university CS classes I've taken, most relevantly including theoretical CS and algorithms courses.
My point is that O(n) notation is not always a satisfactory measure of real world performance. The thing that matters to a person using an application is the number of milliseconds that they have to wait for a computation to finish. Iterating over a list of n elements is O(n). Doing it 10 times is also O(n). Despite this, in real life, a user will much prefer an algorithm that uses the first approach to the second.
My point was that you have to specify what n represents. An algorithm that was O(n^2) where n is the length of the user input would probably beat an algorithm that was O(n) where n is the size of the google database.
Re:URL is same, with ?complete=1?
on
Google Suggest
·
· Score: 1
Right. It took me over an hour to satisfactorily do that though.
Re:URL is same, with ?complete=1?
on
Google Suggest
·
· Score: 1
It's nuts then.
If you're into shit that's nuts, I suggest you read the javascript that runs this mother. I'm about 2 hours in, and this bitch is wild! But I still have a long way to go.
Re:I call foul: CENSORSHIP
on
Google Suggest
·
· Score: 3, Funny
I agree with your conclusion, but I just had to stop and point out that you don't condone one-handed sex searching. Hilarious!
Careful though, some pervs our there might think you were talking about wanking, jagging, or otherwise masturbating. (Horrors!) They might not get your true message about amputees.
I keed, I keed. I was just very amused with puritanical way you approached the subject, and that you went the extra step not to condone it.
Re:Cool! Just like form AutoComplete
on
Google Suggest
·
· Score: 1
Well, i think it matters enough to make a difference between n=5 (n is word length) and n=10000000000 (n is the number of pages in google's db)
I admit that the latter case is highly unlikely to be what the poster referring to, but it's not inconceivable. (you might have to squint)
In the real world, the size of n does matter. A factor of 2 difference in n affects the speed of an O(n^2) algorithm by a factor of 4. Of course, theoretical CS isn't concerned with small factors like 4, but someone back in the real world waiting for their search results cares about a ratio of 1.5
Re:Cool! Just like form AutoComplete
on
Google Suggest
·
· Score: 1
In your rush to point out you know more than the above poster, did you stop to consider that he might not be asking about the notation? I don't understand what n is supposed to be either. Do you? If you do, why don't you clue us in, instead of your smug arrogance. In case you are still missing it, I do know how O(n) notation works. So does the poster above.
Slashdot Mirror
85mph is the maximum legal speed. If your vehicle is not capable of maintaining it, then simply go slower. This road should certainly have enough lanes to let people pass if they must.
I bike commute to work every day, and I can't maintain the speed limit, yet I have the right to ride in the street. And when lanes get narrow, I even take the whole lane so someone isn't tempted to pass me unsafely in the same lane. Anyway, my point is people treat speed limits as a minimum, although legally they are a maximum, so feel free to go slower.
Right, it's reductio ad absurdum. He's showing that the parent poster can't be correct. He doesn't actually believe it. Get it?
god damn it. i take it you're not a parent. nor am i, but after the age of about 5, it's quite normal for a child to not be in physical proximity to their parents 24/7. I suspect it would be unhealthy in fact.
It's spelled Congratulations.
I never disagreed with that point. If it wasn't clear, let me state it more directly:
Firefox has flaws. One of them is it's propensity to fuck up table layout flows, or whatever they're called. I also think that standards should be followed as long as possible.
Furthermore, all web browsers have flaws. You ask why use Firefox when it can't render tables right? Because it works better than any other browser I have tried so far. If you have found that not to be the case in your personal experience, go ahead and continue to use IE, but do not expect to be taken seriously when you say it is more standards compliant than Firefox. The link I gave earlier describes IE flaws mostly rendering CSS, but there are a boatload more, notably including PNG alpha channel support.
The only reason IE appears to work so well is that it has such a large market share, and thus developers must code around some of its more gaping deficiencies. If the ends justify the means in your mind, then you could possibly consider IE superior in this way.
If the market shares of IE and Firefox were reversed, you would see a lot more rendering anomolies in IE, since it's such a bitch to code for.
bwahahahahahaha!
hah!
ha
Where did you get this information? Because it's exactly wrong. It's true that firefox has a bug with table layouts, but it can't compete with the dozens and dozens of ridiculous layout bugs in ie. Since I suspect you'll dismiss this out of hand, check out http://www.positioniseverything.net/explorer.html or just search google for more information on ie bugs. Believe me when I say web developers have to spend a significant amount of time coding around IE's bugs so that people like you will think it is "standards compliant". If you don't believe me, ask a working web developer.
Furthermore, it only tends to manifest itself in sites that are using tables for layout. (ahem, slashdot) Not saying it's ok, but any site that has been designed in the past five years should not be affected.
A great specimen too, really fucking hilarious. In my opinion, if this is what you call humor, then it deserves to ridiculed by calling its bluff. It sucks. Furthermore, I commend the parent poster.
Yeah, I like it quite a bit. I first tried an Edirol USB interface, which was quite crap. (stay away!) You'd probably be better off a creative card. hah! Then I returned it and got the audiophile, and have been extremely impressed with it.
Well, you're certainly not part of the solution.
BTW, what are those examples of? Stupendous dumbassitude I suppose...
Set up your recording application. (3 minutes)
Play the cd.
Walk away. Come back when the CD is done playing.
Split the tracks. It's usually obvious where track breaks will be. (5 minutes)
Name the tracks. (6 minutes)
Encode to mp3. (background task if neccesary)
Total work: 14 minutes
Note that these are very liberal estimates, and it could probably be done in half the time if you are experienced. There are plenty of people with quality audio input. I have an M-Audio Audiophile 2496 that would work for the task, and many others have even better interfaces.
However, the most important thing to remember is that only one person needs to do this.
I'm thinking hard here, and the only things I am coming up with are OS shell integration and activeX, which are dubious at best.
It has surpassed IE in the following categories:
And if you don't like it, you have the ability to uninstall it!
Yeah, since linux doesn't have it, it probably sucks.
DEATH TO MICRO$OFT!!@@!
1% by my calculation. I was required to earn 120 credits to graduate. I think this is pretty standard.
They're not worried about it. They just understand that they can save money by minimizing the lenghth of the javascript. Why wouldn't they do this?
You are correct.
Although I doubt you'll believe me, I already understand this. I can't even remember how many university CS classes I've taken, most relevantly including theoretical CS and algorithms courses.
My point is that O(n) notation is not always a satisfactory measure of real world performance. The thing that matters to a person using an application is the number of milliseconds that they have to wait for a computation to finish. Iterating over a list of n elements is O(n). Doing it 10 times is also O(n). Despite this, in real life, a user will much prefer an algorithm that uses the first approach to the second.
My point was that you have to specify what n represents. An algorithm that was O(n^2) where n is the length of the user input would probably beat an algorithm that was O(n) where n is the size of the google database.
Right. It took me over an hour to satisfactorily do that though.
It's nuts then.
If you're into shit that's nuts, I suggest you read the javascript that runs this mother. I'm about 2 hours in, and this bitch is wild! But I still have a long way to go.
I agree with your conclusion, but I just had to stop and point out that you don't condone one-handed sex searching. Hilarious!
Careful though, some pervs our there might think you were talking about wanking, jagging, or otherwise masturbating. (Horrors!) They might not get your true message about amputees.
I keed, I keed. I was just very amused with puritanical way you approached the subject, and that you went the extra step not to condone it.
Well, i think it matters enough to make a difference between n=5 (n is word length) and n=10000000000 (n is the number of pages in google's db)
I admit that the latter case is highly unlikely to be what the poster referring to, but it's not inconceivable. (you might have to squint)
In the real world, the size of n does matter. A factor of 2 difference in n affects the speed of an O(n^2) algorithm by a factor of 4. Of course, theoretical CS isn't concerned with small factors like 4, but someone back in the real world waiting for their search results cares about a ratio of 1.5
In your rush to point out you know more than the above poster, did you stop to consider that he might not be asking about the notation? I don't understand what n is supposed to be either. Do you? If you do, why don't you clue us in, instead of your smug arrogance. In case you are still missing it, I do know how O(n) notation works. So does the poster above.
Then you take it wrong. He's talking about 'faster/fastre'. If you don't believe me, try reading the post to which he responded.
I have no idea what you're talking about. I don't know any BJ, but if I did, I think I would feel dirty asking him/it for a pizookie.
No, the war on terror is the new McCarthyism.
Terrorism is the new Communism.
But I don't plan on running limewire anytime soon.