You know what? I *get* that 'HTML5 video' is shorthand for 'video in a generally supported format wrapped in HTML5 tags'. But if I hadn't got that, I wouldn't have found it out from either the article or the summary.
I'm not really sure what the point of Slashdot is if it's just going to be another link aggregation site with the summary merely an excerpt or paraphrase of the linked article. It being 'news for nerds', I'd expect *at least* a technical angle on the story, because frankly there are far easier places for me to get my 'technical news for laypeople'.
Hence my point. Sorry it rubbed you up the wrong way.
You know what? I *get* that 'HTML5 video' is shorthand for 'video in a generally supported format wrapped in HTML5 tags'. But if I hadn't got that, I wouldn't have found it out from either the article or the summary.
I'm not really sure what the point of Slashdot is if it's just going to be another link aggregation site with the summary merely an excerpt or paraphrase of the linked article. It being 'news for nerds', I'd expect *at least* a technical angle on the story, because frankly there are far easier places for me to get my 'tech news for laypeople'.
Hence my point. Sorry it rubbed you up the wrong way.
You know what? I *get* that 'HTML 5 video' is shorthand for 'video in a generally-supported format wrapped in HTML5 video tags'. If I didn't get that though, I wouldn't have found it out from the article. So in the age of twitter, reddit, etc., what exactly is the point of Slashdot if it's just another link aggregation service? You would expect, it being 'news for nerds', that you'd see some technical content added to the story here if anywhere.
Hence my point. Sorry it rubbed you up the wrong way.
I'm glad to see the standard of technical journalism around here is as high as ever, Slashdot. Please point me at the part of the HTML5 which describes its capabilities as a video container format and/or codec. Hint: the presence of a tag doesn't cover it.
If the law is so out of sync with reality that everybody find adherence to be too difficult to do, or too invasive to want to abide by, then isn't that an indication that the law is out of sync with reality?
'If x is so y that z, isn't that an indication that x is y?'
When TSA sees this, it means they won't make the same mistake again, which ultimtely results in less useful information released to the public.
So you're annoyed that someone released information to the public because doing so might result in less information being released to the public? Your ideas intrigue me.
You could do something similar in any language supporting higher-order functions. The code meets your requirement of not expressing things through nested loops and reads more like "do this to all items for which 'condition' is true." That said, Inform7 is very cool.:)
You won't get modded up because understanding the subject and moderating the comments are mutually exclusive round here, but I just want you to know that your comment was hilarious.
My thorough (3 minute research) turned up this tidbit from TLDP:
Beware: do not run ldd on a program you don't trust. As is clearly stated in the ldd(1) manual, ldd works by (in certain cases) by setting a special environment variable (for ELF objects, LD_TRACE_LOADED_OBJECTS) and then executing the program. It may be possible for an untrusted program to force the ldd user to run arbitrary code (instead of simply showing the ldd information). So, for safety's sake, don't use ldd on programs you don't trust to execute.
And continues to non-inform us of anything but her ability to fill space,
The sky over my home matches the grey in my eyes; the barbed wire fence around Lake Sequoyah is commemorated eternally by the disfiguration of my left hip.
It's not the best thing I've ever read, but at least she knows the difference between a semicolon and a comma.
What's unethical about it? Presumably you're talking about not marking.docx submissions?
If he can't read it, by definition, he can't mark it. That's not an ethical issue, it's basic logic.
I train developers. If they submit documents with improperly indented code or incomplete change histories, etc., I don't look at the contents. Please explain how this is 'unethical'.
There's no reason why it can't be titillating and art at the same time, and there's nothing wrong or uncommon about erotic art. I was making a point about intentions. While I can't prove Michaelangelo's intentions, or those of any other artist, I'd imagine that there are a great many cases in which a nude has been created without the specific intention to titillate, and I'd also imagine that David is one of them.
I agree with your first paragraph, even if it's not a popular opinion. In spite of all of the arguments from biology - that it's a natural function of living, all animals do it in some shape or form, etc. - it's obvious to me that sex has a special place in human thought and society, and that a large part of the apparatus of modern society depends upon us acting contrary to our animal urges.
On the other hand, I disagree with your second paragraph. You identify two possible intentions for the portrayal of people in the nude (and I question how common the first is as a primary intention - it is undoubtedly a common consequence), but not a great many others. Michaelangelo's David is nude, but not in order to demean the subject or to titillate the observer. The same could be said for a great many works of art and photography.
Tomcat and JBoss both run on 64 bit servers. There's a 64-bit JVM. The only thing there isn't a 64-bit binary for is applet viewer plugins for web browsers. Hence my comment.
Slashdot Mirror
You know what? I *get* that 'HTML5 video' is shorthand for 'video in a generally supported format wrapped in HTML5 tags'. But if I hadn't got that, I wouldn't have found it out from either the article or the summary.
I'm not really sure what the point of Slashdot is if it's just going to be another link aggregation site with the summary merely an excerpt or paraphrase of the linked article. It being 'news for nerds', I'd expect *at least* a technical angle on the story, because frankly there are far easier places for me to get my 'technical news for laypeople'.
Hence my point. Sorry it rubbed you up the wrong way.
You know what? I *get* that 'HTML5 video' is shorthand for 'video in a generally supported format wrapped in HTML5 tags'. But if I hadn't got that, I wouldn't have found it out from either the article or the summary.
I'm not really sure what the point of Slashdot is if it's just going to be another link aggregation site with the summary merely an excerpt or paraphrase of the linked article. It being 'news for nerds', I'd expect *at least* a technical angle on the story, because frankly there are far easier places for me to get my 'tech news for laypeople'.
Hence my point. Sorry it rubbed you up the wrong way.
You know what? I *get* that 'HTML 5 video' is shorthand for 'video in a generally-supported format wrapped in HTML5 video tags'. If I didn't get that though, I wouldn't have found it out from the article. So in the age of twitter, reddit, etc., what exactly is the point of Slashdot if it's just another link aggregation service? You would expect, it being 'news for nerds', that you'd see some technical content added to the story here if anywhere.
Hence my point. Sorry it rubbed you up the wrong way.
And presumably meta http-equiv="refresh" tags? :)
"the video is decoded and then encoded in HTML5"
I'm glad to see the standard of technical journalism around here is as high as ever, Slashdot. Please point me at the part of the HTML5 which describes its capabilities as a video container format and/or codec. Hint: the presence of a tag doesn't cover it.
If the law is so out of sync with reality that everybody find adherence to be too difficult to do, or too invasive to want to abide by, then isn't that an indication that the law is out of sync with reality?
'If x is so y that z, isn't that an indication that x is y?'
Yes.
[T]o post it to the public; a highly abusive act
When TSA sees this, it means they won't make the same mistake again, which ultimtely results in less useful information released to the public.
So you're annoyed that someone released information to the public because doing so might result in less information being released to the public? Your ideas intrigue me.
A-Team member to media mogul. That's quite a career progression. (I think you meant Rupert Murdoch). Not that I disagree with you. :)
It's also a correct spelling in British English. Please see this page.
All right, I can't resist. A ruby implementation...
def should_uncheck(item)
item.checked? && current_font.provided_styles.include? item.style
end
menu.items.select{|item| should_uncheck?(item)}.map{|it| it.uncheck}
You could do something similar in any language supporting higher-order functions. The code meets your requirement of not expressing things through nested loops and reads more like "do this to all items for which 'condition' is true." That said, Inform7 is very cool. :)
Dear parent,
You won't get modded up because understanding the subject and moderating the comments are mutually exclusive round here, but I just want you to know that your comment was hilarious.
'I researched this subject thoroughly and found that it's almost completely undocumented'.
Did the thorough research include a Google search for 'ldd security'?
My thorough (3 minute research) turned up this tidbit from TLDP:
Beware: do not run ldd on a program you don't trust. As is clearly stated in the ldd(1) manual, ldd works by (in certain cases) by setting a special environment variable (for ELF objects, LD_TRACE_LOADED_OBJECTS) and then executing the program. It may be possible for an untrusted program to force the ldd user to run arbitrary code (instead of simply showing the ldd information). So, for safety's sake, don't use ldd on programs you don't trust to execute.
Tegra, Tegra, wherefore art though Tegra?
I'm not. Wherefore do you ask?
And continues to non-inform us of anything but her ability to fill space,
The sky over my home matches the grey in my eyes; the barbed wire fence around Lake Sequoyah is commemorated eternally by the disfiguration of my left hip.
It's not the best thing I've ever read, but at least she knows the difference between a semicolon and a comma.
Sadly, you're not the first. You are a cock though.
A man who can correctly spell and use the word 'disingenuous', yet who says 'your and idiot', is a rare thing indeed.
So if we didn't play games, we'd all be out conquering (and enslaving and crucifying the people of) neighbouring countries?
And what the fuck does volunteering at a hospital have to do with anything?
The summary's second link is to http://tech.slashdot.org/hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/05/05/151234
I don't think that will work. :)
If you're going to nitpick, probably a good idea to learn about the difference between HTML and HTTP first, eh?
What's unethical about it? Presumably you're talking about not marking .docx submissions?
If he can't read it, by definition, he can't mark it. That's not an ethical issue, it's basic logic.
I train developers. If they submit documents with improperly indented code or incomplete change histories, etc., I don't look at the contents. Please explain how this is 'unethical'.
There's no reason why it can't be titillating and art at the same time, and there's nothing wrong or uncommon about erotic art. I was making a point about intentions. While I can't prove Michaelangelo's intentions, or those of any other artist, I'd imagine that there are a great many cases in which a nude has been created without the specific intention to titillate, and I'd also imagine that David is one of them.
You obviously spent so long in the Navy that HUGE SEXUAL ORGANS you don't even notice sexual terms embedded in ORGY text. ;)
I agree with your first paragraph, even if it's not a popular opinion. In spite of all of the arguments from biology - that it's a natural function of living, all animals do it in some shape or form, etc. - it's obvious to me that sex has a special place in human thought and society, and that a large part of the apparatus of modern society depends upon us acting contrary to our animal urges.
On the other hand, I disagree with your second paragraph. You identify two possible intentions for the portrayal of people in the nude (and I question how common the first is as a primary intention - it is undoubtedly a common consequence), but not a great many others. Michaelangelo's David is nude, but not in order to demean the subject or to titillate the observer. The same could be said for a great many works of art and photography.
Tomcat and JBoss both run on 64 bit servers. There's a 64-bit JVM. The only thing there isn't a 64-bit binary for is applet viewer plugins for web browsers. Hence my comment.
Unless the sysadmins are loading up sites using Java applets on those servers, there won't be a problem.