Toddler Lock works nicely. Cool colours and sounds as they touch the screen. It temporarily replaces the home screen so it locks out phone/internet/other app access until an adult follows the onscreen unlock instructions. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=marcone.toddlerlock
SD widescreen sets are still 720x576. All SD sets will then stretch the image to get the correct aspect ratio. A 4:3 set stretches 720x576 => 768x576; whilst a widescreen set stretches 720x576 => 1024x576.
Evolution is defined as natural selection of random mutations.
Haven't you just defined a specific form of evolution, known as evolution by natural selection?
Most domesticated species (eg dogs) have evolved over the centuries as a direct result of human selection. Of course, until the twentieth century that selection was entirely based on external phenotypes, but this was still selection indirectly based on genetic information.
For one thing, if I have a class called Fruit, and I create a new subclass which extends Fruit, say Apple, then the following code samples are equivalent:
class Apple extends Fruit {
function Fruit() {
echo 'I am an apple';
parent::Fruit('apple');
} }
and
class Apple extends Fruit {
public function __construct() {
echo 'I am an apple';
parent::__construct('apple');
} }
However, if I now rename the parent class to RipenedOvary, in the first example I will also need to change every reference to Fruit(); in the second example I will only need to change the first line.
I previewed that and still missed the typo! Should say:
Evolution does not have a target or a final destination. It keeps on going. Richard Dawkins is no more evolved than George Bush, who in turn is no more evolved than an earthworm.
fully evolved ? Evolution does not have a target or a final destination. It keeps on going. Richard Dawkins is no more evolved than George Bush, who in turn is no more involved than an earthworm.
Re:Bet there still isn't a decent "Stop!" button
on
HTML V5 and XHTML V2
·
· Score: 1
I know that browsers will encounter tag soup in reality, but I don't believe the standards should encourage it.
An alternative implementation would be to rely on a combination of server and client filtering, making use of a well-formed document. Imagine you start with a page template which is entirely well-formed (go with me here). Wherever we are going to insert content into this template, we can wrap the new content with:
Now for the server-side filtering. Do what you like to filter the content, but make sure that it ends up as well-formed markup. This may involve using Tidy for instance. When you have done filtering, insert the content into the template as a child of the restriction element. As long as the content was well-formed when it was inserted, even if no other filtering had taken place, it will be safely wrapped in the restriction blanket.
Of course (as other people have said) this is only effective if the user-agent honours the restriction element. Until that can be relied upon (bacon wing, anyone?) then server-side filtering would still be required. As a just-in-case-safety-net however, I think there is potential in your idea but it may be difficult to agree on an implementation which would please everyone.
In any case, my comment was a concern with the proposed implementation and not a criticism of the overall idea. Good luck with your campaign.
Re:Bet there still isn't a decent "Stop!" button
on
HTML V5 and XHTML V2
·
· Score: 1
I see the error in my own logic: you are treating restriction as a empty element, so I can't inject a closing tag for it.
Now I have realised that, another (less critical) concern occurs to me: any user agent would have to treat your document as tag-soup instead of parsing a DOM-tree because that would be the only way to recognise the on and off states. Whether you see that as a problem or not depends on your attitude to the difference between HTML 4 and XHTML 1; an argument which is surely taking place elsewhere on this page so I won't go into it here:-).
Re:Bet there still isn't a decent "Stop!" button
on
HTML V5 and XHTML V2
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Could you not get around that by injecting code like:
</restriction> <!-- closes the existing restriction zone. Might not pass as valid XML, but HTML browsers work with tag soup. --> Something evil!!! <restriction lock="I don't really care here" except="everything"> <!-- This bit is purely optional -->
Obviously I need to work on something more destructive than "Something evil!!!" before I attempt to conquer the planet...
Thanks to what Microsoft have told me, I believe there is a place in the world for both of your competing certifying bodies. One may publish potential standards that have been created from scratch with the intention of being useful to the world, whilst the other may be better suited to represent existing standards in a more open way.
So, for example, OpenISO.org may publish something along the lines of:
Standard process for brushing teeth
Hold toothbrush in left hand;
Hold toothpaste tube in right hand;
Position tube above toothbrush and squeeze the tube until a pea-sized amount of paste is on the brush;
I did hear a suggestion once that, here in the UK, we should begin to drive on the right to bring ourselves in line with the rest of Europe. Obviously, there is bound to be opposition to any such plan, so the suggestion was to start with heavy goods vehicles only and see how they get on.:-)
Despite being modded down to -1, I think this needs treating as a legitimate question:
Isnt it illegal to run windows with this? Googled it n microsoft seems to think so.. MelNews Illegal? That depends on your definition of legal... different nations have different laws. Breach of software license? Possibly... if I recall correctly, the EULA for Vista forbids running in a virtualised environment. I believe it is perfectly legitimate to run XP this way as long as the license key has been purchased legally and is not currently in use in another installation (obviously with the exception of multi-user licenses). For other versions of Windows, it depends on the EULA but I think Vista is the only one to forbid it.
I am not a Microsoft fan and I believe that we have a perfectly good standard office format (ODF) and don't need another.
But... when there are so many good reasons to oppose OOXML (eg it isn't open when part of the spec says "do it like Word 97" [I paraphrase], ignores other existing standards such as SVG and invents whole new languages) there is no reason to make up new criticisms. Apart from the specification not being open, I can understand that this XML-based format, originally designed for use in Microsoft Office, can be called Office Open XML.
to give it a proper name, the format is "Microsoft Open Office XML" I believe it is "Office Open XML", although the potential to confuse it with OpenOffice.org is undoubtedly there.
I am not a cracker. I am not a phisher. I do not try to get into random people's accounts.
I can't help thinking that IF I ever did try to get into someone else's account, it would be to spy on or get revenge on someone I know. (Really, that isn't something I do. This is a big IF). In those cases, this would surely be so much easier. For example, I am sure I would recognise my family's handwriting.
I certainly remember, when I was a secondary school maths teacher, having to work out who had produces a certain piece of work by recognising the handwriting. Obviously, being maths work, this usually involved recognising digits.
I know this won't be everyone's primary concern, but what happens to all of those pages carefully crafted to adhere to a specific standard eg HTML 4.01, XHTML 1.1 or whatever else you may choose? Surely, unless these uninvited contributions also adhere to that specific standard, we have no hope of producing standards-compliant documents.
... providing that entitlement to payment for something you did more than 50 years ago is applied equally. So, for example, I expect that Jane Waddle who worked for a 30 day period in a Disney Store back in 2001, will be entitled to a month's salary every month for the rest of her life from the Disney corporation. That's fair, isn't it?
Slashdot Mirror
Replying to revoke accidental moderation thanks to the very unhelpful auto-submitting dropdown!
Toddler Lock works nicely. Cool colours and sounds as they touch the screen. It temporarily replaces the home screen so it locks out phone/internet/other app access until an adult follows the onscreen unlock instructions.
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=marcone.toddlerlock
It's a learning management system which has a major release, Moodle 2.0, last week...
SD widescreen sets are still 720x576. All SD sets will then stretch the image to get the correct aspect ratio. A 4:3 set stretches 720x576 => 768x576; whilst a widescreen set stretches 720x576 => 1024x576.
Evolution is defined as natural selection of random mutations.
Haven't you just defined a specific form of evolution, known as evolution by natural selection ?
Most domesticated species (eg dogs) have evolved over the centuries as a direct result of human selection. Of course, until the twentieth century that selection was entirely based on external phenotypes, but this was still selection indirectly based on genetic information.
For one thing, if I have a class called Fruit, and I create a new subclass which extends Fruit, say Apple, then the following code samples are equivalent:
class Apple extends Fruit {
function Fruit() {
echo 'I am an apple';
parent::Fruit('apple');
}
}
and
class Apple extends Fruit {
public function __construct() {
echo 'I am an apple';
parent::__construct('apple');
}
}
However, if I now rename the parent class to RipenedOvary, in the first example I will also need to change every reference to Fruit(); in the second example I will only need to change the first line.
I previewed that and still missed the typo! Should say:
Evolution does not have a target or a final destination. It keeps on going. Richard Dawkins is no more evolved than George Bush, who in turn is no more evolved than an earthworm.
I know that browsers will encounter tag soup in reality, but I don't believe the standards should encourage it.
An alternative implementation would be to rely on a combination of server and client filtering, making use of a well-formed document. Imagine you start with a page template which is entirely well-formed (go with me here). Wherever we are going to insert content into this template, we can wrap the new content with:
<restricton lock="Random_hard_to_guess_string" except="java,safe-html">
Content goes here.
</restricton>
Now for the server-side filtering. Do what you like to filter the content, but make sure that it ends up as well-formed markup. This may involve using Tidy for instance. When you have done filtering, insert the content into the template as a child of the restriction element. As long as the content was well-formed when it was inserted, even if no other filtering had taken place, it will be safely wrapped in the restriction blanket.
Of course (as other people have said) this is only effective if the user-agent honours the restriction element. Until that can be relied upon (bacon wing, anyone?) then server-side filtering would still be required. As a just-in-case-safety-net however, I think there is potential in your idea but it may be difficult to agree on an implementation which would please everyone.
In any case, my comment was a concern with the proposed implementation and not a criticism of the overall idea. Good luck with your campaign.
I see the error in my own logic: you are treating restriction as a empty element, so I can't inject a closing tag for it.
:-).
Now I have realised that, another (less critical) concern occurs to me: any user agent would have to treat your document as tag-soup instead of parsing a DOM-tree because that would be the only way to recognise the on and off states. Whether you see that as a problem or not depends on your attitude to the difference between HTML 4 and XHTML 1; an argument which is surely taking place elsewhere on this page so I won't go into it here
Could you not get around that by injecting code like:
</restriction> <!-- closes the existing restriction zone. Might not pass as valid XML, but HTML browsers work with tag soup. -->
Something evil!!!
<restriction lock="I don't really care here" except="everything"> <!-- This bit is purely optional -->
Obviously I need to work on something more destructive than "Something evil!!!" before I attempt to conquer the planet...
Or even, referring to the original source, listened to episode 6 of the radio series, The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy.
So, for example, OpenISO.org may publish something along the lines of:
Whereas SoiOpen.com may publish something along the lines of:
Sorted.
I did hear a suggestion once that, here in the UK, we should begin to drive on the right to bring ourselves in line with the rest of Europe. Obviously, there is bound to be opposition to any such plan, so the suggestion was to start with heavy goods vehicles only and see how they get on. :-)
Breach of software license? Possibly... if I recall correctly, the EULA for Vista forbids running in a virtualised environment. I believe it is perfectly legitimate to run XP this way as long as the license key has been purchased legally and is not currently in use in another installation (obviously with the exception of multi-user licenses). For other versions of Windows, it depends on the EULA but I think Vista is the only one to forbid it.
I am not a Microsoft fan and I believe that we have a perfectly good standard office format (ODF) and don't need another.
But... when there are so many good reasons to oppose OOXML (eg it isn't open when part of the spec says "do it like Word 97" [I paraphrase], ignores other existing standards such as SVG and invents whole new languages) there is no reason to make up new criticisms. Apart from the specification not being open, I can understand that this XML-based format, originally designed for use in Microsoft Office, can be called Office Open XML.
Whilst on the subject of confusing names, remember that Open Office is actually a trademark owned by someone else entirely. The office suite used by most free software users is called OpenOffice.org.
...an undocumented proprietary format that Microsoft named "Open Office XML"... It's "Office Open XML".I am not a cracker. I am not a phisher. I do not try to get into random people's accounts.
I can't help thinking that IF I ever did try to get into someone else's account, it would be to spy on or get revenge on someone I know. (Really, that isn't something I do. This is a big IF). In those cases, this would surely be so much easier. For example, I am sure I would recognise my family's handwriting.
I certainly remember, when I was a secondary school maths teacher, having to work out who had produces a certain piece of work by recognising the handwriting. Obviously, being maths work, this usually involved recognising digits.
I know this won't be everyone's primary concern, but what happens to all of those pages carefully crafted to adhere to a specific standard eg HTML 4.01, XHTML 1.1 or whatever else you may choose? Surely, unless these uninvited contributions also adhere to that specific standard, we have no hope of producing standards-compliant documents.
... providing that entitlement to payment for something you did more than 50 years ago is applied equally. So, for example, I expect that Jane Waddle who worked for a 30 day period in a Disney Store back in 2001, will be entitled to a month's salary every month for the rest of her life from the Disney corporation. That's fair, isn't it?
All who found that amusing, join me in the march:
"Sinestra. Sinestra. Sinestra, dextra, sinestra..."