Yes it would be as easy for a parser to determine semantics from attributes as it would from elements. But you would still need the attribute to be defined in a specification like HTML 5 in order for it to be any use.
Someone already mentioned microformats, which I believe would be a better solution in that:
They don't involve modifying the underlying schema. A document with add microformats is just as valid as that document without them.
They're more ad-hoc and don't require waiting for a central committee to approve each and every one. The guys working on the "geo" microformat don't have to wait for the hResume team to finish their spec before releasing updates.
I think Google would be in a prime position to push adoption of selected microformats (as they already have with 'rel="nofollow"'): "wrap your articles in the <div class="article"> tag and watch your Pagerank climb!" If there were a real need for this, I think they could have done it by now.
It's all well and good styling your text with <span class="header">, <span class="emphasis">, <span class="cite"> etc. to make your text look good on your webpage but that's no good for a computer that's trying to interpret your text in a meaningful way.
Is there a requirement that attributes can't be semantic? Like the GP asked, what's the inherent difference between <article> and <div class="article">? It'd be equally easy to configure a parser to treat each of those as semantic markup.
As a sibling pointed out, that won't work. But you can nest an un-passworded "mycode.zip" inside a password-protected "wrapper.zip" file. Spam filters will see that wrapper.zip contains mycode.zip (because of Zip's stupid encryption (hah!) doesn't protect its content list), but won't be able to examine mycode.zip.
For one, it is to protect the children, and secondly, to protect the liability of the school.
...thereby revoking your safe harbor protections under the DMCA and probably most other civil venues: "Your Honor, since the school system took responsibility for filtering, it was clearly their responsibility to protect my client's child from seeing that naked breast!"
Good thing you're not a network administrator for a school.
This is by design - see 100 Years of Medical Robbery or How The Cost-Plus System Evolved for more on how the AMA lobbied to exterminate the competitors to allopathic medicine.
Damn the AMA and their insistence on the scientific method!
Seriously, take your anti-intellectual crap to Fark. Engineering types tend to like science and testable theories, not quackery like "toxins".
The problem is that once the plates have moved together which is work, you don't get any more work out of the system unless you move the plates back apart.
What I've asked before but never really got an answer I understood:
What if the plates weren't parallel, but slightly angled toward each other (like a wedge)? It seems like the forces would be perpendicular to the plates, and since they'd be angled, there'd be a slight force toward the open end of the wedge.
I am not a physicist so please be merciful if this is a dumb question.
It is not our responsibility to act like one of the boys.
Yes, it is. More accurately, it's your responsibility to acclimate to the environment that existed there before you came along. That doesn't mean putting up with outright harassment, but if there was a strong adversarial culture in place where it's the norm so see your ideas picked apart (even by people who believe they'll work but who think through them by tearing into the details), then it's up to you to grow a thick skin and get good at returning the criticism.
Put another way, maybe "acting like one of the boys" really means "acting like someone who works at this company", but it's easier to dismiss it as male culture than to accept it as business culture. Maybe you're not doing that, but I've seen plenty of women (and men!) who do.
Again, I'm really not the best person to argue this with. I don't particular care to change culture or blame Barbie. My girls play with Barbies because they like them, and my son gets trucks because he likes them. It's my perception that society (and magazine in particular) seem to want to push a certain desire to young girls, but I'm not so convinced that I could actually defend the point. It was just an observation, and one that I acknowledge may not seem valid to others.
Fragility? Robustness? Unknown destination conditions? Maybe I'd make something that could potentially evolve something that might have some of my faculties if that's the best I could do.
Survival, if not for them, then for their makeup. They knew their time was limited; perhaps their sun was developing the rattlings of a nova. Rather than sending out one giant, fragile ship holding their entire civilization, they decided to sent out a trillion probes in hopes that a few would survive.
On a cruder level, maybe to sow their wild oats on a galactic scale. The drive to reproduce is what fuels evolution, after all.
OK, so maybe I don't believe that, either. I just wanted to point out that there are other reasons for spreading your genetic information than just direct personal benefit.
Now, if you want to AUTOMATE configuration of your webserver, obviously IIS royally sucks compared to Apache. But for clarity and simplicity of configuration, IIS wins by a mile.
In my opinion, those are goals are identical. For example, I host about 20 Drupal sites on a server. Their configurations are almost the same, so adding a new host involves copying a template file and editing the domain name like so:
Include etc/apache22/Includes/drupal-common </VirtualHost >
Done. If my Drupal configuration ever changes, it's automatically propagated across every host that uses it. Toss in SVN for version control so that you can always track changes and you have a pretty nice setup that's dead easy to maintain or replicate to other servers.
IIS is very easy to set up for one domain. Apache is far easier when setting up more than one domain.
To a point, sure - I'd say it's responding to market forces. Still, it's a long way from "here's how to work with what you've got" to "try to be Kate Moss, but skinnier".
at least I'm not stuck with a long term contract that's guarenteed to suffer a reduction of service quality over the life of the contract.
True, but the long-term contract also includes a security level guarantee. Should your partner's system be penetrated, the contract is declared null and void. A direct consequence of that clause is a reduced need for an antivirus.
You're forgetting something: the only reason any private ISP can exist at all is because of a government-granted right of way to run cable wherever they need to, across public and private property.
For the record, there are still ISPs that don't own their own last mile. Since my DSL runs over Qwest's copper, and Qwest is unlikely to passively allow anyone to tell them they can't run copper to my door, I'm not terribly worried about that.
If the government passes some law or prosecutes someone to suppress speech (as it has before), a private ISP won't be immune to that... unless it has an army to defend itself with.
The difference is the legal route should the city decide to enforce filtering:
Private ISP: No. Until a judge says we have to comply (and good luck with that), we're not going to.
City-owned ISP: OK. Until a judge says we can't comply (and good luck with that), we're going to.
There's a lot to be said for separation of powers.
If the local governments wish to have their own municipal ISP then I can justify that because there is nothing in federal constitution that would prohibit such behavior.
I totally agree with that. If this were a new federal project, I'd be pretty well apoplectic by now. I'm OK with cities deciding for themselves; if a particular region wants to be entirely free enterprise and another wants fully-funded government services, that's their right.
So yes... You can be a libertarian and still support municipal ISPs.
Here's the problem: I fully support your municipal ISP, assuming you want one. I'm not sure that I'd support having my own municipal ISP, though, and I haven't heard enough about the track records of such projects to know how they tend to work out.
The same thing that's their incentive to maintain all the other things local government provides
The desire to grow the tax base?
God help us all.
Fire departments, police, and roads aren't inherently competitive activities. There are some things that make a lot of sense to roll under the government roof. Telecom is extremely competitive, though, and I think that's good for us.
Let me illustrate another facet: my local government is currently trying to force us to approve a bond issue to pay for a new water park that no one really seems to want. They're doing this by deliberately allowing the municipal swimming pools to deteriorate until we give in and approve it. Furthermore, they're flat-out lying about how much it would cost to repair those three pools (quoting $5 million for three 25m pools, all currently open and in use). I am 100% positive I could have someone to build a brand new 25m pool in my currently pool-less back yard for less than $1.67 million.
Now, I have absolutely no faith in their ability not to turn a city-owned broadband system into a total debacle. Sure, we have good fire department. Yes, our policemen are great. Our roads are even reasonably decent. But when it comes to building out and managing quality-of-life infrastructure, our local government sucks badly. That seems to be mostly true in the places I've lived.
The big telecoms may not be be too happy about the bill, however
I really have mixed feelings on this. On one hand, it'd be nice to actually get something cool like this for my tax dollars. On the other, I definitely don't want to see my city out-compete our wonderful local ISPs. If/when they became the only game in down, what's their incentive to maintain the networks? Will Joe Cityadmin give a rat's butt if I call to complain about an outage? And above all else, do I really want the government (even the friendly local variety) being my gateway to the Internet? I have nightmares of hearing a prosecuting attorney saying something like "our city access records indicate you posted anti-government statements to a communist website called Dotslash." Maybe that's unlikely, but tell me honestly you can't hear a mayor explaining how his city's network will be "a safe place for our children to play thanks to our new monitoring and filtering system" to thunderous applause. If there's a vibrant ecosystem of private competition in an area, great. If not...
Help me out here. Do I root for the cities to undercut big telco (whom I customarily hate on general principles), or for private enterprise to win out over the government's desire to protect me from myself?
Imagine for a minute if a successful male role model had written a book explicitly for boys, in the tradition of the classical textbooks on engineering/science/mathematics, and emphasised rigour, and used examples exclusively applicable to males, using language which boys would be comfortable with (but girls would probably not).
No matter what you do today, some people will delight in being offended by it. To hell with them. Do what you think is right and let the chips fall where they may.
I might very well be getting Danica's book for my daughters. If you can find a similarly male-oriented book for my sons, please let me know. Social commentators can kiss my butt; I just want my kids to enjoy being smart.
First, you're really barking up the wrong tree with me. I'm not a conspiracy theorist and don't have any interest in "wicked patriarchal plots" and all that. Second, I'm sure it is innate. Biologically speaking, the more attractive we are, the more likely we are to reproduce. I'm cool with that.
Still, and perhaps I'm just looking for it now that I have daughters, it really does seem like girls are pushed toward beauty with all else as a secondary goal. It looks like Danica is picking her battle wisely. There's no way she could ever singlehandedly turn culture and biology to believe that beauty is unimportant. Instead, she's saying that you can have that without sacrificing your intelligence. Girls don't have to choose. And frankly, I like that message and wish her the best with it.
Part of the reason is if they make an All girls school or make programs that are designed to help girls they do so sometimes at the expense of the education of the boys.
I'm with you 100%. However, one of the things I like about this book is that it tries to build girls up without tearing down boys. I don't mind helping out one if it's not detrimental to the other.
Similarly, I'd kind of like to see someone like Derek Jeter telling boys that education is important. "Sports are fun but you have a one in a million chance of playing pro ball, so study!"
Slashdot Mirror
I hate you. Where's my eye-bleach?
They probably didn't want to deal with the sudden onslaught of users with ruined drives.
Someone already mentioned microformats, which I believe would be a better solution in that:
I think Google would be in a prime position to push adoption of selected microformats (as they already have with 'rel="nofollow"'): "wrap your articles in the <div class="article"> tag and watch your Pagerank climb!" If there were a real need for this, I think they could have done it by now.
Is there a requirement that attributes can't be semantic? Like the GP asked, what's the inherent difference between <article> and <div class="article">? It'd be equally easy to configure a parser to treat each of those as semantic markup.
As a sibling pointed out, that won't work. But you can nest an un-passworded "mycode.zip" inside a password-protected "wrapper.zip" file. Spam filters will see that wrapper.zip contains mycode.zip (because of Zip's stupid encryption (hah!) doesn't protect its content list), but won't be able to examine mycode.zip.
Alternatively, use GPG and go forward.
Oh! Gotcha. Thanks for the clarification.
...thereby revoking your safe harbor protections under the DMCA and probably most other civil venues: "Your Honor, since the school system took responsibility for filtering, it was clearly their responsibility to protect my client's child from seeing that naked breast!"
Good thing you're not a network administrator for a school.
Damn the AMA and their insistence on the scientific method!
Seriously, take your anti-intellectual crap to Fark. Engineering types tend to like science and testable theories, not quackery like "toxins".
What I've asked before but never really got an answer I understood:
What if the plates weren't parallel, but slightly angled toward each other (like a wedge)? It seems like the forces would be perpendicular to the plates, and since they'd be angled, there'd be a slight force toward the open end of the wedge.
I am not a physicist so please be merciful if this is a dumb question.
Yes, it is. More accurately, it's your responsibility to acclimate to the environment that existed there before you came along. That doesn't mean putting up with outright harassment, but if there was a strong adversarial culture in place where it's the norm so see your ideas picked apart (even by people who believe they'll work but who think through them by tearing into the details), then it's up to you to grow a thick skin and get good at returning the criticism.
Put another way, maybe "acting like one of the boys" really means "acting like someone who works at this company", but it's easier to dismiss it as male culture than to accept it as business culture. Maybe you're not doing that, but I've seen plenty of women (and men!) who do.
Again, I'm really not the best person to argue this with. I don't particular care to change culture or blame Barbie. My girls play with Barbies because they like them, and my son gets trucks because he likes them. It's my perception that society (and magazine in particular) seem to want to push a certain desire to young girls, but I'm not so convinced that I could actually defend the point. It was just an observation, and one that I acknowledge may not seem valid to others.
Fragility? Robustness? Unknown destination conditions? Maybe I'd make something that could potentially evolve something that might have some of my faculties if that's the best I could do.
Survival, if not for them, then for their makeup. They knew their time was limited; perhaps their sun was developing the rattlings of a nova. Rather than sending out one giant, fragile ship holding their entire civilization, they decided to sent out a trillion probes in hopes that a few would survive.
On a cruder level, maybe to sow their wild oats on a galactic scale. The drive to reproduce is what fuels evolution, after all.
OK, so maybe I don't believe that, either. I just wanted to point out that there are other reasons for spreading your genetic information than just direct personal benefit.
I'm noticing the conspicuous lack of people jumping in to defend COBOL.
There is no such thing as a "best" programming language.True, but there are quite a few competing for "worst".
In my opinion, those are goals are identical. For example, I host about 20 Drupal sites on a server. Their configurations are almost the same, so adding a new host involves copying a template file and editing the domain name like so:
Done. If my Drupal configuration ever changes, it's automatically propagated across every host that uses it. Toss in SVN for version control so that you can always track changes and you have a pretty nice setup that's dead easy to maintain or replicate to other servers.
IIS is very easy to set up for one domain. Apache is far easier when setting up more than one domain.
Which brings us back to...
What if their self-replicating probes' payload was code-named "DNA"?
To a point, sure - I'd say it's responding to market forces. Still, it's a long way from "here's how to work with what you've got" to "try to be Kate Moss, but skinnier".
True, but the long-term contract also includes a security level guarantee. Should your partner's system be penetrated, the contract is declared null and void. A direct consequence of that clause is a reduced need for an antivirus.
For the record, there are still ISPs that don't own their own last mile. Since my DSL runs over Qwest's copper, and Qwest is unlikely to passively allow anyone to tell them they can't run copper to my door, I'm not terribly worried about that.
If the government passes some law or prosecutes someone to suppress speech (as it has before), a private ISP won't be immune to that... unless it has an army to defend itself with.The difference is the legal route should the city decide to enforce filtering:
There's a lot to be said for separation of powers.
I totally agree with that. If this were a new federal project, I'd be pretty well apoplectic by now. I'm OK with cities deciding for themselves; if a particular region wants to be entirely free enterprise and another wants fully-funded government services, that's their right.
So yes... You can be a libertarian and still support municipal ISPs.Here's the problem: I fully support your municipal ISP, assuming you want one. I'm not sure that I'd support having my own municipal ISP, though, and I haven't heard enough about the track records of such projects to know how they tend to work out.
The desire to grow the tax base?
God help us all.
Fire departments, police, and roads aren't inherently competitive activities. There are some things that make a lot of sense to roll under the government roof. Telecom is extremely competitive, though, and I think that's good for us.
Let me illustrate another facet: my local government is currently trying to force us to approve a bond issue to pay for a new water park that no one really seems to want. They're doing this by deliberately allowing the municipal swimming pools to deteriorate until we give in and approve it. Furthermore, they're flat-out lying about how much it would cost to repair those three pools (quoting $5 million for three 25m pools, all currently open and in use). I am 100% positive I could have someone to build a brand new 25m pool in my currently pool-less back yard for less than $1.67 million.
Now, I have absolutely no faith in their ability not to turn a city-owned broadband system into a total debacle. Sure, we have good fire department. Yes, our policemen are great. Our roads are even reasonably decent. But when it comes to building out and managing quality-of-life infrastructure, our local government sucks badly. That seems to be mostly true in the places I've lived.
I really have mixed feelings on this. On one hand, it'd be nice to actually get something cool like this for my tax dollars. On the other, I definitely don't want to see my city out-compete our wonderful local ISPs. If/when they became the only game in down, what's their incentive to maintain the networks? Will Joe Cityadmin give a rat's butt if I call to complain about an outage? And above all else, do I really want the government (even the friendly local variety) being my gateway to the Internet? I have nightmares of hearing a prosecuting attorney saying something like "our city access records indicate you posted anti-government statements to a communist website called Dotslash." Maybe that's unlikely, but tell me honestly you can't hear a mayor explaining how his city's network will be "a safe place for our children to play thanks to our new monitoring and filtering system" to thunderous applause. If there's a vibrant ecosystem of private competition in an area, great. If not...
Help me out here. Do I root for the cities to undercut big telco (whom I customarily hate on general principles), or for private enterprise to win out over the government's desire to protect me from myself?
No matter what you do today, some people will delight in being offended by it. To hell with them. Do what you think is right and let the chips fall where they may.
I might very well be getting Danica's book for my daughters. If you can find a similarly male-oriented book for my sons, please let me know. Social commentators can kiss my butt; I just want my kids to enjoy being smart.
First, you're really barking up the wrong tree with me. I'm not a conspiracy theorist and don't have any interest in "wicked patriarchal plots" and all that. Second, I'm sure it is innate. Biologically speaking, the more attractive we are, the more likely we are to reproduce. I'm cool with that.
Still, and perhaps I'm just looking for it now that I have daughters, it really does seem like girls are pushed toward beauty with all else as a secondary goal. It looks like Danica is picking her battle wisely. There's no way she could ever singlehandedly turn culture and biology to believe that beauty is unimportant. Instead, she's saying that you can have that without sacrificing your intelligence. Girls don't have to choose. And frankly, I like that message and wish her the best with it.
I'm with you 100%. However, one of the things I like about this book is that it tries to build girls up without tearing down boys. I don't mind helping out one if it's not detrimental to the other.
Similarly, I'd kind of like to see someone like Derek Jeter telling boys that education is important. "Sports are fun but you have a one in a million chance of playing pro ball, so study!"