No, you're wrong. It's not a pay per view model. It's a "everyone pays whether they view or not" model. For example, I don't watch professional baseball but I absolutely pay for the players' salaries.
Ads is a very expensive way to pay for content. Your cost of living is 9% to 12% higher because of Marketing. I think that if we took the money spent on ads and gave it to content creators instead, we would have more and better quality content. As an added bonus, no annoying ads that slow everything down.
We pay for all the ads from all the companies whether we see them or not. I didn't watch the Super Bowl but I paid for the ads. Just because you don't use GMail, don't think you're not paying for those ads. Advertising is a 25% hidden sales tax on everything and it's mostly unnecessary in this modern era of mass connectivity. I hope to see it extinct soon and live 25% wealthier.
Yes, I agree. Cats behave roughly the same regardless of their surroundings and culture (if there is such a thing for cats). They attack, defend and groom without being taught. It's built in their ROM. We're not born empty. We are born programmed and very few are ever able to change this internal programming. The question is, where does this programming come from and how is it stored in our DNA?
What they should to instead is create a translator from DNA to C, Python or Haskell. If we succeed in doing that, the possibilities are endless.
You're resting HR is probably higher if you don't exercies. I would guess somewhere between 70 and 90 BPM depending on your body composition. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say that your resting HR is 70BPM. Which is about 100,800 beats per day.
I exercise and because of that, my resting HR is between 45 and 55 BPM. If I exercise for 1 hour per day and my HR during that hour is about 140BPM, my total daily beats are 69,000 (23 hours) + 8,400 (1 hour) = 77,400 beats.
Exercise and you're going to live more than 20% longer with some awesome side effects like better health and probably a better life.
Damn. I was hoping no one would make me go through that code. I'll make you deal. If you get voted up a couple of points, I'll re-implement it and show you how it's done.
This is unedited code that I discovered yesterday while reviewing a client's app. This little gem was written in 2012.
function myfunction(order_date) {//Find here Lunch days....... var launch_day = new Date(order_date*1000);
var dd = launch_day.getDate();
var mm = launch_day.getMonth()+1;//January is 0!
var yyyy = launch_day.getFullYear();// will display time in 10:30:23 format var lunchdate = yyyy+'-'+mm+'-'+dd;
var weekday=new Array(7); weekday[0]="Sunday"; weekday[1]="Monday"; weekday[2]="Tuesday"; weekday[3]="Wednesday"; weekday[4]="Thursday"; weekday[5]="Friday"; weekday[6]="Saturday"; var compare_lunchdate = weekday[launch_day.getDay()];//this is lunch days// Find here Current day.............. var current_day = new Date();
var current_weekday=new Array(7); current_weekday[0]="Sunday"; current_weekday[1]="Monday"; current_weekday[2]="Tuesday"; current_weekday[3]="Wednesday"; current_weekday[4]="Thursday"; current_weekday[5]="Friday"; current_weekday[6]="Saturday"; var compare_current_day = current_weekday[current_day.getDay()];//this is Current days//alert(compare_current_day=="Saturday") if(compare_current_day=="Saturday") {
var today = new Date();
var adddays=Date.parse(today.setDate(today.getDate()+ 2));
var dd = adddays.getDate();
var mm = adddays.getMonth()+1;//January is 0!
var yyyy = adddays.getFullYear();// will display time in 10:30:23 format var checkdays = yyyy+'-'+mm+'-'+dd;
The missing comma in soNineties.p was intentional. I'm trying to show that some errors are easier to catch by just using a different style. By putting the delimiter distinctly in front and away from the strings, you create a wider separation between code and content. It is this visual separation that helps spot errors quicker, whether it is in the code or the content.
There are a few errors in these blocks of code. In which are they easier to find? var inStyle = {
j: 'Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit'
, k: 'Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit'
, l: 'Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit'
m: 'Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit'
, n: 'Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit'
, o: 'Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit'
, p: 'taciti sociosqu ad litora torquent per conubia nostra,'
, q: 'Aenean non purus et dolor adipiscing blandit at sed tellus.' }
var soNineties = {
j: 'Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit',
k: 'Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit',
l: 'Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit',
m: 'Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit',
n: 'Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit',
o: 'Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit',
p: 'taciti sociosqu ad litora torquent per conubia nostra'.
q: 'Aenean non purus et dolor adipiscing blandit at sed tellus.', }
The compiler/interpreter will catch them for you but that just slows you down.
I have difficulty believing your story. The only MS Word documents that 3.6.3 has may have difficulty with is 2010 but you're saying that you have an ancient laptop to open these files? So you have an ancient laptop running Word 2010? Right... Damn trolls.
You must be running Windows. From the release notes.
Windows users that rely on accessibility tools are recommended to stay with LibreOffice 3.5 versions for the while, due to bug 53474. This bug has been resolved in the upcoming release of LibreOffice 3.6.4.
If that bug doesn't affect you, install 3.6. It's definitely worth the upgrade
On Linux distros, the package manager does the updates and assures that dependencies are met so a manual install Windows Style(TM) is not recommended unless you know what you're doing.
That just sounds like a really bad design. Hasn't anyone been able to reduce the complexity while maintaining performance and features? Can't the hardware be abstracted in that same way that software is?
Thanks for sharing, I didn't know this monitor existed. The contrast ratio doesn't seem that great though from the specs, would you care to comment on that.... damn AC, I guess I'll never know unless he/she is still reading the thread.
Slashdot Mirror
Feature request: Automatically detach email attachments. Put files in Dropbox and create link to file in message.
No, you're wrong. It's not a pay per view model. It's a "everyone pays whether they view or not" model. For example, I don't watch professional baseball but I absolutely pay for the players' salaries.
Ads is a very expensive way to pay for content. Your cost of living is 9% to 12% higher because of Marketing. I think that if we took the money spent on ads and gave it to content creators instead, we would have more and better quality content. As an added bonus, no annoying ads that slow everything down.
How about, giving the users the ability to donate to the content creators?
We pay for all the ads from all the companies whether we see them or not. I didn't watch the Super Bowl but I paid for the ads. Just because you don't use GMail, don't think you're not paying for those ads. Advertising is a 25% hidden sales tax on everything and it's mostly unnecessary in this modern era of mass connectivity. I hope to see it extinct soon and live 25% wealthier.
Yes, I agree. Cats behave roughly the same regardless of their surroundings and culture (if there is such a thing for cats). They attack, defend and groom without being taught. It's built in their ROM. We're not born empty. We are born programmed and very few are ever able to change this internal programming. The question is, where does this programming come from and how is it stored in our DNA?
What they should to instead is create a translator from DNA to C, Python or Haskell. If we succeed in doing that, the possibilities are endless.
You must be running Windows. It's a different story on Linux.
He'll be back. He's done this before.
http://linux.slashdot.org/story/03/08/20/1331205/linux-guru-alan-cox-takes-a-year-off
You're resting HR is probably higher if you don't exercies. I would guess somewhere between 70 and 90 BPM depending on your body composition. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say that your resting HR is 70BPM. Which is about 100,800 beats per day.
I exercise and because of that, my resting HR is between 45 and 55 BPM. If I exercise for 1 hour per day and my HR during that hour is about 140BPM, my total daily beats are 69,000 (23 hours) + 8,400 (1 hour) = 77,400 beats.
Exercise and you're going to live more than 20% longer with some awesome side effects like better health and probably a better life.
Damn. I was hoping no one would make me go through that code. I'll make you deal. If you get voted up a couple of points, I'll re-implement it and show you how it's done.
http://pastebin.com/GwknZ0z1
This is unedited code that I discovered yesterday while reviewing a client's app. This little gem was written in 2012.
function myfunction(order_date) //Find here Lunch days.......
{
var launch_day = new Date(order_date*1000);
var dd = launch_day.getDate();
var mm = launch_day.getMonth()+1; //January is 0!
var yyyy = launch_day.getFullYear(); // will display time in 10:30:23 format
var lunchdate = yyyy+'-'+mm+'-'+dd;
var weekday=new Array(7); //this is lunch days // Find here Current day..............
weekday[0]="Sunday";
weekday[1]="Monday";
weekday[2]="Tuesday";
weekday[3]="Wednesday";
weekday[4]="Thursday";
weekday[5]="Friday";
weekday[6]="Saturday";
var compare_lunchdate = weekday[launch_day.getDay()];
var current_day = new Date();
var current_weekday=new Array(7); //this is Current days //alert(compare_current_day=="Saturday")
current_weekday[0]="Sunday";
current_weekday[1]="Monday";
current_weekday[2]="Tuesday";
current_weekday[3]="Wednesday";
current_weekday[4]="Thursday";
current_weekday[5]="Friday";
current_weekday[6]="Saturday";
var compare_current_day = current_weekday[current_day.getDay()];
if(compare_current_day=="Saturday")
{
var today = new Date();
var adddays=Date.parse(today.setDate(today.getDate()+ 2));
var dd = adddays.getDate();
var mm = adddays.getMonth()+1; //January is 0!
var yyyy = adddays.getFullYear(); // will display time in 10:30:23 format
var checkdays = yyyy+'-'+mm+'-'+dd;
if((Date.parse(checkdays))
lol
There's your problem. You're depending on growth.
Yes, that's what I was referring to in my previous comment. The soNineties.p - "nostra" vs. "nostra," was intentional.
The missing comma in soNineties.p was intentional. I'm trying to show that some errors are easier to catch by just using a different style. By putting the delimiter distinctly in front and away from the strings, you create a wider separation between code and content. It is this visual separation that helps spot errors quicker, whether it is in the code or the content.
Coding style is about seeing and avoiding bugs.
There are a few errors in these blocks of code. In which are they easier to find?
var inStyle = {
j: 'Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit'
, k: 'Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit'
, l: 'Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit'
m: 'Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit'
, n: 'Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit'
, o: 'Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit'
, p: 'taciti sociosqu ad litora torquent per conubia nostra,'
, q: 'Aenean non purus et dolor adipiscing blandit at sed tellus.'
}
var soNineties = {
j: 'Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit',
k: 'Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit',
l: 'Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit',
m: 'Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit',
n: 'Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit',
o: 'Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit',
p: 'taciti sociosqu ad litora torquent per conubia nostra'.
q: 'Aenean non purus et dolor adipiscing blandit at sed tellus.',
}
The compiler/interpreter will catch them for you but that just slows you down.
I doubt it. Qt is nice but depending on what's being developed, HTML5/JavaScript can be the superior solution.
Besides, HTML5/JavaScript has so much momentum and is moving so fast that I'm afraid Qt will be irrelevant in a few years.
Check out this app.
https://moqups.com/
A native Qt app would have made the experience clumsy.
There are so many great JavaScript libraries in development that it's hard to pick one. Here are a few that you should keep your eye on though.
http://www.meteor.com/
http://angularjs.org/
http://emberjs.com/
http://dojotoolkit.org/
http://backbonejs.org/
http://jquery.com/
I have difficulty believing your story. The only MS Word documents that 3.6.3 has may have difficulty with is 2010 but you're saying that you have an ancient laptop to open these files? So you have an ancient laptop running Word 2010? Right... Damn trolls.
You must be running Windows. From the release notes.
If that bug doesn't affect you, install 3.6. It's definitely worth the upgrade
On Linux distros, the package manager does the updates and assures that dependencies are met so a manual install Windows Style(TM) is not recommended unless you know what you're doing.
LibreOffice 3.6.2 has mostly fixed the MS Office 2010 compatibility issues.
I'm still around but barely. The content has become too mainstream, stuff that I can find anywhere so I've subscribed other more specialized sites.
I only frequent this site when I procrastinate now.
That just sounds like a really bad design. Hasn't anyone been able to reduce the complexity while maintaining performance and features? Can't the hardware be abstracted in that same way that software is?
No it's not. Look at the video. They run a benchmark that the Linaro version completes a few minutes before the stock version.
Thanks for sharing, I didn't know this monitor existed. The contrast ratio doesn't seem that great though from the specs, would you care to comment on that. ... damn AC, I guess I'll never know unless he/she is still reading the thread.