you're forgetting that there's only so close that you can pack spheres together. so you would only need about 3/4 the number (pi/18^.5 * 1.5*10^9) - 1.1*10^9 balls, and you'd be left with 1/4 the water still in the ship
if you know someone else has been breaking the law,/and you don't report it/, that makes you an obstruction to the law, as the guilty party may continue doing what they have been doing, making you partly guilty.
similarly, if you know that someone has been killing people,/and you don't report it/, and the person then goes on to kill more people, then you are partly guilty of letting some people get killed.
at the moment, yes, they do need to support IE, Firefox, etc., as that's what most people use.
but they're also releasing the Chromebook, which will cost only $20-$30 per month.
my post was a joke, but it is entirely possible that Google could end up with a huge chunk of the OS market.
and if history (of large corporations that end up with a huge market share) is any judge, then it is also possible that they may exploit this by gradually tightening the requirements until it is much easier to use just their products and no-one else's. It won't have to happen/tomorrow/ - but they could do it so gradually that you simply don't notice you depend on them until it's too late.
You might call all of this "abject stupidity". But to think that it cannot possible happen is utter naivety.
SSL certs are not expensive - but they do cost money and also cost time to set up, and a slightly more complex server configuration. My guess is that most server managers don't know how to configure an SSL cert.
On the caching issue - yes, you/can/ have non-SSL-encrypted images embedded in an SSL-encrypted page, but that will raise alarm-bells within the browser. Browsers don't like to mix encrypted/non-encrypted sources.
Personally, I'd love it if browsers would let me embed non-SSL images, etc., within encrypted pages, but that's not the current state of things.
1. it costs money to get an SSL from a recognised signing company 2. SSL for virtual hosts is not supported by Internet Explorer (yet another problem with IE)
it's possible that they/did/ evolve just to eat the titanic. Maybe there were some microbes that ate some other iron-filled delicacy, and happened across this gluttonous feast. over the next thousands/millions of generations, the microbes then evolved to specifically eat the titanic - I mean, why bother struggling to find food elsewhere when you're right at the feast table?
and what happens when the titanic is gone? they die. maybe a few will survive, but any that have specialised to eat the hull will most likely not be able to eat anything else.
If you can do this, then it proves how simple it is, and the onus is then on them to either/prove/ that you were the person that registered the domain name you're accused of, or accept that your boss has been registering domain-names without his/her own knowledge.
> what works in one browser doesnt work in another...
jQuery, ProtoType, MooTools, Ext, etc
> the number of simple functionalities that are missing sleep() for instance?
can be emulated with setTimeout().
PHP has array_merge() but C doesn't. Does that mean that C is crap?
> and its only just recently got threading support
again, could be emulated with setTimeout(). Even for() loops can be broken apart ("threaded") using a bit of thought and setTimeout().
Just because JavaScript doesn't have the same list of tricks that some other languages have doesn't mean it's not worth using.
My opinion is that if there is a language which you/know/ is available on every browser that people use (normal people - not 'noscript' users or web crawlers), then I don't see the problem in using it.
To bring the context back to the article, I've had that idea before, about letting a bit of computation happen on the browsers of people reading my own sites. That could not happen if a big popup announced that a script was trying to run in a plugin not supported by the browser (ActiveX, Java, Silverlight, Flash). Why not just use the language that is there...
I mean, if your requirement is a language that might not be present in all visitors' browsers, then why not go the whole hog and ask the reader to download and install a full application?
Slashdot Mirror
Dude, if you want to work in Scratch, just say so!
You don't need to justify it - we're here to help.
best. frape. ever.
you're forgetting that there's only so close that you can pack spheres together. so you would only need about 3/4 the number (pi/18^.5 * 1.5*10^9) - 1.1*10^9 balls, and you'd be left with 1/4 the water still in the ship
worked for the mythbusters...
to be honest, a coffee table that destroys bears would be pretty awesome!
A lot of the modern world was invented by Scots. Maxwell's equations, animal cloning, telephones, trains, televisions, penicillin.
I guess when you're surrounded by fields and sheep, all you can do is drink or think.
if you know someone else has been breaking the law, /and you don't report it/, that makes you an obstruction to the law, as the guilty party may continue doing what they have been doing, making you partly guilty.
similarly, if you know that someone has been killing people, /and you don't report it/, and the person then goes on to kill more people, then you are partly guilty of letting some people get killed.
as long as you don't mind just wearing towels:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gy5g33S0Gzo
let's consider this a little further.
at the moment, yes, they do need to support IE, Firefox, etc., as that's what most people use.
but they're also releasing the Chromebook, which will cost only $20-$30 per month.
my post was a joke, but it is entirely possible that Google could end up with a huge chunk of the OS market.
and if history (of large corporations that end up with a huge market share) is any judge, then it is also possible that they may exploit this by gradually tightening the requirements until it is much easier to use just their products and no-one else's. It won't have to happen /tomorrow/ - but they could do it so gradually that you simply don't notice you depend on them until it's too late.
You might call all of this "abject stupidity". But to think that it cannot possible happen is utter naivety.
until there is only Chrome left?
> That would imply that all theories, regardless of any evidence or factual basis, should be taught.
no - read it again:
> "In 2009 the Texas Board of Education said that students should be taught "all sides" of current scientific theories."
creationism is not a current scientific theory.
SSL certs are not expensive - but they do cost money and also cost time to set up, and a slightly more complex server configuration. My guess is that most server managers don't know how to configure an SSL cert.
On the caching issue - yes, you /can/ have non-SSL-encrypted images embedded in an SSL-encrypted page, but that will raise alarm-bells within the browser. Browsers don't like to mix encrypted/non-encrypted sources.
Personally, I'd love it if browsers would let me embed non-SSL images, etc., within encrypted pages, but that's not the current state of things.
1. it costs money to get an SSL from a recognised signing company
2. SSL for virtual hosts is not supported by Internet Explorer (yet another problem with IE)
really? oh dear. I'm so sorry. maybe I should have waited.
turns out I wasn't the first either.
18 million per CD per month? those are quite expensive discs...
it's possible that they /did/ evolve just to eat the titanic. Maybe there were some microbes that ate some other iron-filled delicacy, and happened across this gluttonous feast. over the next thousands/millions of generations, the microbes then evolved to specifically eat the titanic - I mean, why bother struggling to find food elsewhere when you're right at the feast table?
and what happens when the titanic is gone? they die. maybe a few will survive, but any that have specialised to eat the hull will most likely not be able to eat anything else.
can I be banned now?
what email address would I need to end this to?
If you can do this, then it proves how simple it is, and the onus is then on them to either /prove/ that you were the person that registered the domain name you're accused of, or accept that your boss has been registering domain-names without his/her own knowledge.
I didn't buy this phone to listen to music on it. I use it for email, web, talking to people, but not music.
It's a communications device - not a media player.
yes, it /can/ be a media player, but that's a choice, not a mandate.
It makes little sense to me that a music company is trying to force my communications device to do something that would be useless to me.
hey editors, RTFA.
Down's syndrome is not mentioned at all in there. Autism is.
My son is autistic. There's a very big difference between the two.
the speed limit for the centre of Dublin, Ireland, is slower than that - 30KPH.
so the car may be slow for most people, but would be ideal for Dubliners.
lol! nice. and for those that don't get it, read Contact by Carl Sagan.
amen to that!
it's so bad that /every/ time I encounter something which is either needle/haystack or haystack/needle, I need to go back to the documentation.
and I've been writing PHP since the 90s...
/nothing/ has full CSS3 support.
even those browsers that do have corner-radius support don't do it the way the W3C described (with separate x and y radii).
> have you actually tried to write something in javascript?
yes. I'm the author of KFM as well as a few little tricks
> what works in one browser doesnt work in another...
jQuery, ProtoType, MooTools, Ext, etc
> the number of simple functionalities that are
missing sleep() for instance?
can be emulated with setTimeout().
PHP has array_merge() but C doesn't. Does that mean that C is crap?
> and its only just recently got threading support
again, could be emulated with setTimeout(). Even for() loops can be broken apart ("threaded") using a bit of thought and setTimeout().
Just because JavaScript doesn't have the same list of tricks that some other languages have doesn't mean it's not worth using.
My opinion is that if there is a language which you /know/ is available on every browser that people use (normal people - not 'noscript' users or web crawlers), then I don't see the problem in using it.
To bring the context back to the article, I've had that idea before, about letting a bit of computation happen on the browsers of people reading my own sites. That could not happen if a big popup announced that a script was trying to run in a plugin not supported by the browser (ActiveX, Java, Silverlight, Flash). Why not just use the language that is there...
I mean, if your requirement is a language that might not be present in all visitors' browsers, then why not go the whole hog and ask the reader to download and install a full application?