why it is so important to try and nail this particular defendant. It's not like they lack potential victims; drop "making available" (just as they did in refiling this one) and do the next sweep. Is it only because they're pissed this one got away? They can't afford it. Revenge is a dish best prepared from correct ingredients; if all you have is crap, just keep shoveling it in front of the ventilator, and don't attempt precision targeting.
The DTD files for the basic XML schemas had been hosted centrally at Netscape and w3.org since forever. No one cares or, indeed, notices (until they go down, that is).
"...will work with [NBC] to try to develop..." is classic software marketing BS - three weasel verbs in succession, a minor masterpiece. Translation: "This feature? Oh, sure, we have it. I mean, we'll have it in the next release. I mean, the crack team of our coding monkeys is going to make it their priority. Now just sign here, initial here and here."
Computers in a botnet are not "peoples' PCs" anymore. They are not under control of the owner. This needs to be clarified again and again. When you see a Borg drone, you (try to) kill it. And Picard was right - you'll be doing it a favor.
People who, when reading "forged packets", do not form a picture of counterfeit plastic bags in their heads are a small, albeit vocal minority. Comcast seems to have found the way to kick them off of its customer rolls by self-selection (the more/. stories stoking the outrage, the better), thereby only retaining the sheep. Good business plan, as I see it. Bully for them. The antitrust and legal issues can be sorted out, I would assume, by changing some verbiage in the customer agreement and allowing some sort of so-called oversight from the benevolent government.
You think you're being facetious, but yes, there is an black market in cheese, and it does have fantastic profit margins. USDA regulations forbid importation of any raw milk cheese not aged for at least 60 days; people who like younger fermented curd really do support smuggling operations of said cheesy comestible from Europe with their $$.
SCOTUS grants less than a percent of all cert petitions, and in this case the ruling would set a widely applicable precedent, which is precisely why they wouldn't even look at it.
Unless Jackson is able to completely redo his visual style (and/or the way of thinking) for this project, I would not call this a good idea. "Hobbit" and "LOTR", even though separated in time by only several dozen years, evoke completely different feelings - with the former still staged inside a fairy tale, a time of wonders, while the latter is a clinical account of the fading of the Age; and since Jackson completely nailed that one, I find it hard to believe that the all-important overall tone is going to be adequate for the "Hobbit" project. He's going to film another installment of the same movie, and no mistake.
that the error message is lying and it is in fact file descriptors that are leaking? I can imagine people writing the info window saying "we'll never explain to the John Q. User what a file descriptor is, whereas memory is something they have a chance to understand; come to think of it, there's a ready answer for the helpdesk techs whenever somebody calls about this - buy more RAM!"
Apple maliciously wants to keep all the money from their products to themselves, instead of giving some of it to me, the struggling developer. Those filthy rich bastards.
Look, every purchase, be it a loaf of bread or an iPhone, is an exercise in weighing potential benefits of the thing acquired against the sum of money needed to acquire it. If for you the lock-in is a deal-breaker, don't buy. When enough people do that, Apple will listen. Before that - I wouldn't bet on it.
Google would receive in the community, if they enclosed a blurb with the standard C&D letter sent to people whose clips they take down, informing them of this provision.
it is seriously disagreeing with the author. First off, how could 281, of whatever, be slightly better than 546 of the same thing? It is almost half; I wouldn't call that "slight". And then, a 100% improvement means that the criterion in question is completely eliminated, so "100% faster than [your browser here]" means instantaneous.
you go to the store to look at the laptops, but then return home, get on the trusty ol' Internet and order it at the same store's site, from the comfort of your own chair, choosing the "pick up at the store" delivery option. The girl at the pick-up and service window will not try to foist anything upon you - she's not being paid for that. I was in and out in under 5 minutes with a new Toshiba in a factory-sealed box under my arm, and not 2 complete sentences said to me in the process.
And you are supposed to submit to measurements and give your blood for analysis - how often? Once a month? Quarterly? Who is going to pay for processing the results? Presumably, hospital eats the cost, and there go your 200 bucks a year in savings. And if this is a once-a-year deal, that would kind of defeat the purpose: squeak in once, and pig out for the rest of the year; plus another interesting avenue for lawsuits - someone going on a crash no-carbs, no-fat, total purge week-long diet before the check-up, damages his or her stomach/liver/whatever.
OK, this finally is a comment about the book itself, and not about its subject. In my practice, it is almost impossible to get people to understand that generics do not mean "a List of Objects now becomes a List of objects of certain type". Once a person latches onto this notion (that parameterization is simply a way of indicating something similar to a collection), he is almost impossible to shift from it - I've tried explaining the declaration of the base Enum (which is Enum<E extends Enum<E>> - to get the compareTo () to work in a type-safe manner) to seasoned Java developers, only to get (without exception, or even a Throwable): "Oh, I get it, that means that Enum contains other Enum-like things!". And yet the book dives right into this concept; the first glimpse of the actual meaning of parameterization does not appear until the section 2 of chapter 3, a good one third way through. If I were to do it the right way, I'd start with <T extends Comparable<T>>, explain it thoroughly, and only then allow Collection to enter the picture. So, I would disagree with the reviewer - if you want to understand ? super Foo, this is not the book, unless you are willing to skip the first 2 chapters.
There are precedents for suing yourself, so the door is open a crack. Actually, no matter what the TFA implies, I imagine that search history wouldn't be the most interesting piece of information you could find about yourself, if you arm yourself with a good subpoena against yourself.
Slashdot Mirror
why it is so important to try and nail this particular defendant. It's not like they lack potential victims; drop "making available" (just as they did in refiling this one) and do the next sweep. Is it only because they're pissed this one got away? They can't afford it. Revenge is a dish best prepared from correct ingredients; if all you have is crap, just keep shoveling it in front of the ventilator, and don't attempt precision targeting.
The DTD files for the basic XML schemas had been hosted centrally at Netscape and w3.org since forever. No one cares or, indeed, notices (until they go down, that is).
Well, that's certainly a way to deal with all those XO keyboards falling apart - not having a keyboard at all.
His personal best is still more than a second behind the qualifying time for the Olympics.
"...will work with [NBC] to try to develop..." is classic software marketing BS - three weasel verbs in succession, a minor masterpiece. Translation: "This feature? Oh, sure, we have it. I mean, we'll have it in the next release. I mean, the crack team of our coding monkeys is going to make it their priority. Now just sign here, initial here and here."
Computers in a botnet are not "peoples' PCs" anymore. They are not under control of the owner. This needs to be clarified again and again. When you see a Borg drone, you (try to) kill it. And Picard was right - you'll be doing it a favor.
People who, when reading "forged packets", do not form a picture of counterfeit plastic bags in their heads are a small, albeit vocal minority. Comcast seems to have found the way to kick them off of its customer rolls by self-selection (the more /. stories stoking the outrage, the better), thereby only retaining the sheep. Good business plan, as I see it. Bully for them. The antitrust and legal issues can be sorted out, I would assume, by changing some verbiage in the customer agreement and allowing some sort of so-called oversight from the benevolent government.
You think you're being facetious, but yes, there is an black market in cheese, and it does have fantastic profit margins. USDA regulations forbid importation of any raw milk cheese not aged for at least 60 days; people who like younger fermented curd really do support smuggling operations of said cheesy comestible from Europe with their $$.
SCOTUS grants less than a percent of all cert petitions, and in this case the ruling would set a widely applicable precedent, which is precisely why they wouldn't even look at it.
ZIPped JPEGs? What's the point?
to "inadvertently". You have no reason to assume that the author is not smart enough to have foreseen (and even counted on) this effect.
Actually, I take a separate exception to "inadvertantly".
Unless Jackson is able to completely redo his visual style (and/or the way of thinking) for this project, I would not call this a good idea. "Hobbit" and "LOTR", even though separated in time by only several dozen years, evoke completely different feelings - with the former still staged inside a fairy tale, a time of wonders, while the latter is a clinical account of the fading of the Age; and since Jackson completely nailed that one, I find it hard to believe that the all-important overall tone is going to be adequate for the "Hobbit" project. He's going to film another installment of the same movie, and no mistake.
I guess that the only thing left for Russians is to try and influence elections in the US, since they had absolutely no chance to do that at home.
So this is what Brin had sold his soul for: a Faustian bargain where Mephistopheles doesn't keep his end, and never intended to.
that the error message is lying and it is in fact file descriptors that are leaking? I can imagine people writing the info window saying "we'll never explain to the John Q. User what a file descriptor is, whereas memory is something they have a chance to understand; come to think of it, there's a ready answer for the helpdesk techs whenever somebody calls about this - buy more RAM!"
Just in time for the forced update from MS then? Perfect.
a 16-bit application at heart. All the development done since Version 4 is more or less window-dressing (or fabulous new features).
It also cannot display more than 2**16-1 lines in a table; that seems to be regarded as a feature, not a bug.
Apple maliciously wants to keep all the money from their products to themselves, instead of giving some of it to me, the struggling developer. Those filthy rich bastards.
Look, every purchase, be it a loaf of bread or an iPhone, is an exercise in weighing potential benefits of the thing acquired against the sum of money needed to acquire it. If for you the lock-in is a deal-breaker, don't buy. When enough people do that, Apple will listen. Before that - I wouldn't bet on it.
That should read "if only".
I mean, how on Earth could people "not know" when it's spelled out to them?
Google would receive in the community, if they enclosed a blurb with the standard C&D letter sent to people whose clips they take down, informing them of this provision.
it is seriously disagreeing with the author. First off, how could 281, of whatever, be slightly better than 546 of the same thing? It is almost half; I wouldn't call that "slight". And then, a 100% improvement means that the criterion in question is completely eliminated, so "100% faster than [your browser here]" means instantaneous.
you go to the store to look at the laptops, but then return home, get on the trusty ol' Internet and order it at the same store's site, from the comfort of your own chair, choosing the "pick up at the store" delivery option. The girl at the pick-up and service window will not try to foist anything upon you - she's not being paid for that. I was in and out in under 5 minutes with a new Toshiba in a factory-sealed box under my arm, and not 2 complete sentences said to me in the process.
And you are supposed to submit to measurements and give your blood for analysis - how often? Once a month? Quarterly? Who is going to pay for processing the results? Presumably, hospital eats the cost, and there go your 200 bucks a year in savings. And if this is a once-a-year deal, that would kind of defeat the purpose: squeak in once, and pig out for the rest of the year; plus another interesting avenue for lawsuits - someone going on a crash no-carbs, no-fat, total purge week-long diet before the check-up, damages his or her stomach/liver/whatever.
OK, this finally is a comment about the book itself, and not about its subject. In my practice, it is almost impossible to get people to understand that generics do not mean "a List of Objects now becomes a List of objects of certain type". Once a person latches onto this notion (that parameterization is simply a way of indicating something similar to a collection), he is almost impossible to shift from it - I've tried explaining the declaration of the base Enum (which is Enum<E extends Enum<E>> - to get the compareTo () to work in a type-safe manner) to seasoned Java developers, only to get (without exception, or even a Throwable): "Oh, I get it, that means that Enum contains other Enum-like things!". And yet the book dives right into this concept; the first glimpse of the actual meaning of parameterization does not appear until the section 2 of chapter 3, a good one third way through. If I were to do it the right way, I'd start with <T extends Comparable<T>>, explain it thoroughly, and only then allow Collection to enter the picture. So, I would disagree with the reviewer - if you want to understand ? super Foo, this is not the book, unless you are willing to skip the first 2 chapters.
There are precedents for suing yourself, so the door is open a crack. Actually, no matter what the TFA implies, I imagine that search history wouldn't be the most interesting piece of information you could find about yourself, if you arm yourself with a good subpoena against yourself.