Solution for me was to download the Firexfox "CustomizeGoogle" extension. Once installed, the last tab allows you to enter regular expressions of sites to completely remove from displayed search results.
A little bit of config later and its goodbye "about.com", "go.com", "experts-exchange.com" and all the other similar "nothing to see here (unless you give us money)" sites.
Just what is Arcylic for? Is it geared up to be a Photoshop replacement, a replacement for Microsoft Paint - or just some tool for mums and dads to edit their digital photos, removing red-eye and adding bits of text?
What you say is absolutely true. But still, every vote can be traced back to the individual voter, no?
Who exactly guards these records?
What prevents the party in power from trawling them, to discover patterns that could be manipulated by the modification of constituency boundaries, or by directing political campaigning to particular streets or even individual addresses?
We've seen what has gone on in Birmingham with the postal voting fiasco.
Imagine Geoffrey Archer being custodian of the records?
Dunno about the US, but in the UK when you vote the procedure is as follows...
1) You turn up at the polling station. 2) You state your name and address, or show a card mailed to your address containing your voter number. (If someone has stolen your card, and they "get in early" then they can take you vote. Yes, in the recent general election this even happened to "3rd rate tv-celebrity Mariella Frostrup") 3) You are checked against the register to make sure you've not already voted. (see below) 4) A voting slip is taken from a pad. 5) The slip is stamped with a sequential number. 6) That same number is written against your name in the register, to prevent double voting (see above)
When the poll closes the (much scribbled over) register goes "into storage" (in case of legal challenges). Votes are taken and counted, then go "into storage" (in case of legal challenges).
Is such a system anonymous? It is pretty clear that its not.
Ha! The UK labour party decided (*cough* received financial inducements *cough*) to do away with such an arcane system as you subscribe, in favour of enforced postal votes (with no ability to check senders credentials), to be followed by SMS, Email and Digital TV voting systems...
Ha. I also used to think that ATMs would be super secure, well-designed, expertly-coded and superbly-tested beasts.
Then, I got off a train (circa 2000) at Stratford, East London to view a pair of HSBC cashpoint machines, clearly running some WindowsNT embedded (they'd crashed back to "the desktop") showing a modal dialog "WE HAVE FUCKED THE BANK!" (No joke)
The C++ Standard Library : A Tutorial and Reference by Nicolai M. Josuttis
(Current editions) A good book for sure, but don't try to buy it cheap second hand and end up with an early printing. I have a 3rd printing, January 2000 and the errata runs to 9 solid pages of printed A4.
The mistakes are missing references ('&' symbols) to argument modifying functions (!), completely wrong syntax for template defintions, and classics such as replace "getline() ignores leading whitespace" with "getline() does not ignore leading whitespace".
Terrible really if you were coming to this stuff new and trying to use it as a reference.
A fully conforming Javascript implentation provides singleton objects (silently instantiated) such as "String-Prototype object", "Object-Prototype object", "Number-Prototype object", "Function-Prototype object"...
All Javascript objects contain a property "prototype" that references another object. When you invoke a method on a object, the prototype property chain is searched for a matching definition.
When a JavaScript String is created, its "prototype" property references the "String-Prototype object".
The String-Prototype object contains definition for functions such as "indexOf", "toUpperCase"...
The String-Prototype object's prototype property references the Object-Prototype object, containing definitions such as "valueOf", "hasOwnProperty"
A Javascript Array has a prototype property referencing the Array-Prototype object (which itself references the Object-Prototype object). (NOTE: a String or the String-Prototype object not involved in the chain)
Thus a method call on a JavaScript Array cannot reference String-Prototype object methods.
A C/C++ char* string, however, is just a convention - a sequence of characters, terminated by a (char)0. C/C++ arrays and strings bare no resemblance to JavaScript String and Array objects.
Heh, this guy developed his own cross-platform JavaScript VectorGraphics library, that outputs everything as DHTML statically positioned DIV blocks... Does lines, circle, elipses... Impressive, but tends to slow down your browser, somewhat.
ECMA spec allows you to add in anything you want...
A conforming implementation of ECMAScript is permitted to provide additional types, values, objects, properties, and functions beyond those described in this specification. In particular, a conforming implementation of ECMAScript is permitted to provide properties not described in this specification, and values for those properties, for objects that are described in this specification.
There is also a second VAT rate of 5% for certain items within the UK, such as domestic heating fuel.
Many items are also oddly exempt, such as cakes - whilst biscuit are not. This lead to an expensive court case arguing over the very biscuit-like "Jaffa-cake" actually was. After many, many years it was declared "cake".
I seem to recall the owners of the Blackpool "Big-one" (the UK's largest roller coaster) successfully argued that it was "a form of public transport" to avoid the tax.
Well, I have learnt something new tonight if the norm is to get such large paid leave in France.
But I'm not sure what you mean by "paid through employer subsidies". Surely if it (benefits) come from the state, it comes through general taxation (both employer and employee)?
My business would vault in profits if I could just pick and choose which labour laws to obey or not, at a moments whim.
There is nothing stopping Ford reducing their workforce, it's just that they will have to (and this is the stickler) cough up funds, rightfully due to that said workforce, enshrined by their contracts or law - the very same contracts and law that the CEO would be bitching like a baby about if the violation concerned him losing cash.
Slashdot Mirror
The "ced" part of the error message is chaff from some previously display text that has been overwritten.
You will probably have to reduce the size of the system hive, using regedt32.
Could Not Start Because the Following File Is Missing or Corrupt: \Winnt\System32\Config\Systemced
blather on about burning in their digital optical cables...
Is that before or after they've determined the optimum direction for each such cable?
I certainly know the problem you've describing.
Solution for me was to download the Firexfox "CustomizeGoogle" extension.
Once installed, the last tab allows you to enter regular expressions of sites to completely remove from displayed search results.
A little bit of config later and its goodbye "about.com", "go.com", "experts-exchange.com" and all the other similar "nothing to see here (unless you give us money)" sites.
Just what is Arcylic for?
Is it geared up to be a Photoshop replacement, a replacement for Microsoft Paint - or just some tool for mums and dads to edit their digital photos, removing red-eye and adding bits of text?
Whatever happened to Microsoft's Paint.NET?
Smells of one of those viral marketing games/competitions to me.
Slashdot seems to have fallen for a lot of these recently.
The general public "unconfortable" with the act of selling votes?
Do you have references?
This is a subject I'm very interested in.
What's wrong with "selling your vote?"
Policitial parties sell (*cough* become enlightened following donations *cough*) their policies?
What you say is absolutely true. But still, every vote can be traced back to the individual voter, no?
Who exactly guards these records?
What prevents the party in power from trawling them, to discover patterns that could be manipulated by the modification of constituency boundaries, or by directing political campaigning to particular streets or even individual addresses?
We've seen what has gone on in Birmingham with the postal voting fiasco.
Imagine Geoffrey Archer being custodian of the records?
Dunno about the US, but in the UK when you vote the procedure is as follows...
1) You turn up at the polling station.
2) You state your name and address, or show a card mailed to your address containing your voter number. (If someone has stolen your card, and they "get in early" then they can take you vote. Yes, in the recent general election this even happened to "3rd rate tv-celebrity Mariella Frostrup")
3) You are checked against the register to make sure you've not already voted. (see below)
4) A voting slip is taken from a pad.
5) The slip is stamped with a sequential number.
6) That same number is written against your name in the register, to prevent double voting (see above)
When the poll closes the (much scribbled over) register goes "into storage" (in case of legal challenges).
Votes are taken and counted, then go "into storage" (in case of legal challenges).
Is such a system anonymous? It is pretty clear that its not.
Ha!
The UK labour party decided (*cough* received financial inducements *cough*) to do away with such an arcane system as you subscribe, in favour of enforced postal votes (with no ability to check senders credentials), to be followed by SMS, Email and Digital TV voting systems...
Result... electoral fraud that would disgrace a banana republic
Ha. I also used to think that ATMs would be super secure, well-designed, expertly-coded and superbly-tested beasts.
Then, I got off a train (circa 2000) at Stratford, East London to view a pair of HSBC cashpoint machines, clearly running some WindowsNT embedded (they'd crashed back to "the desktop") showing a modal dialog "WE HAVE FUCKED THE BANK!" (No joke)
The C++ Standard Library : A Tutorial and Reference
by Nicolai M. Josuttis
(Current editions) A good book for sure, but don't try to buy it cheap second hand and end up with an early printing. I have a 3rd printing, January 2000 and the errata runs to 9 solid pages of printed A4.
The mistakes are missing references ('&' symbols) to argument modifying functions (!), completely wrong syntax for template defintions, and classics such as replace "getline() ignores leading whitespace" with "getline() does not ignore leading whitespace".
Terrible really if you were coming to this stuff new and trying to use it as a reference.
No, what you are missing is that the order in which the right hand side of the expression is evaluated is undefined.
A compiler may perform the c++ before the ++c.
A different compiler may perform the ++c before the c++
Another compiler could switch between either method, dependent on optimisation settings or even something as ridiculous as the day of the week
Any of the above would be deemed to be correct interpretation of the language.
Do not base your knowledge on how your favourite compiler operates.
Ooops, the mozilla extensions...
(Mozilla extension) forEach
(Mozilla extension) map
Belong within ArrayPrototypeObject, not StringPrototypeObject.
Obviously.
A fully conforming Javascript implentation provides singleton objects (silently instantiated) such as "String-Prototype object", "Object-Prototype object", "Number-Prototype object", "Function-Prototype object"...
.
.
.
All Javascript objects contain a property "prototype" that references another object. When you invoke a method on a object, the prototype property chain is searched for a matching definition.
When a JavaScript String is created, its "prototype" property references the "String-Prototype object".
The String-Prototype object contains definition for functions such as "indexOf", "toUpperCase"...
The String-Prototype object's prototype property references the Object-Prototype object, containing definitions such as "valueOf", "hasOwnProperty"
A Javascript Array has a prototype property referencing the Array-Prototype object (which itself references the Object-Prototype object). (NOTE: a String or the String-Prototype object not involved in the chain)
Thus a method call on a JavaScript Array cannot reference String-Prototype object methods.
String : StringPrototypeObject
StringPrototypeObject: ObjectPrototypeObject
Array : ArrayPrototypeObject
ArrayPrototypeObject : ObjectPrototypeObject
StringPrototypeObject {
toUpperCase()
toLowerCase()
indexOf()
(Mozilla extension) forEach
(Mozilla extension) map
. .
}
ArrayPrototypeObject {
concat()
join()
push()
pop()
. .
}
ObjectPrototypeObject {
toString()
valueOf()
. .
}
A C/C++ char* string, however, is just a convention - a sequence of characters, terminated by a (char)0.
C/C++ arrays and strings bare no resemblance to JavaScript String and Array objects.
To be fair, your problems are nothing to do with Javascript. It is the differences in the DOM provided by each browser that is giving you strife.
Mozilla, Opera and Internet Explorer all implement Javascript remarkably well.
(As a C/C++ developer) would you call differences/bugs in some "commonly expected to be present" 3rd party library a problem with the C/C++ language?
Heh, this guy developed his own cross-platform JavaScript VectorGraphics library, that outputs everything as DHTML statically positioned DIV blocks...
Does lines, circle, elipses...
Impressive, but tends to slow down your browser, somewhat.
Slashdot filter stole the less than comparison within the for loops...
ECMA spec allows you to add in anything you want...
A conforming implementation of ECMAScript is permitted to provide additional types, values, objects,
properties, and functions beyond those described in this specification. In particular, a conforming
implementation of ECMAScript is permitted to provide properties not described in this specification, and
values for those properties, for objects that are described in this specification.
Strings don't inherit from Arrays.
Strings call chain is "String prototype object" --> "Object prototype object"
But anything with a call chain ending in the Array prototype object would be affected.
Ditto for "map". Actually I didn't notice they also specified an optional "this object" for forEach()...
Array.prototype.map = function(fn, array) {
var thisObject = array == undefined ? this : array;
var result = [];
for(var i =0; i thisObject.length; ++i) {
result.push(fn(thisObject[i]));
}
return result;
}
function makeUpperCase(obj) {
return obj.toUpperCase();
}
strings = [ "hello", "Array", "WORLD" ];
uppers = strings.map(makeUpperCase);
alert(uppers);
alert(strings);
Well, I only had a quick look, but these extensions don't appear to be very difficult to reproduce in other browsers...
The following mimics the forEach extension - and works in Mozilla, Opera and IE
Array.prototype.forEach = function(fn) {
for(var i =0; i this.length; ++i) {
fn(this[i], i, this);
}
}
function foo(obj, index, array) {
alert("index " + index + " is " + obj);
}
[4,5,6].forEach(foo);
(Only had a quick look at the Mozilla article and 5 mins knocking the source up, so excuse any silly errors)
There is also a second VAT rate of 5% for certain items within the UK, such as domestic heating fuel.
Many items are also oddly exempt, such as cakes - whilst biscuit are not. This lead to an expensive court case arguing over the very biscuit-like "Jaffa-cake" actually was. After many, many years it was declared "cake".
I seem to recall the owners of the Blackpool "Big-one" (the UK's largest roller coaster) successfully argued that it was "a form of public transport" to avoid the tax.
Well, I have learnt something new tonight if the norm is to get such large paid leave in France.
But I'm not sure what you mean by "paid through employer subsidies". Surely if it (benefits) come from the state, it comes through general taxation (both employer and employee)?
My business would vault in profits if I could just pick and choose
which labour laws to obey or not, at a moments whim.
There is nothing stopping Ford reducing their workforce, it's just
that they will have to (and this is the stickler) cough up funds, rightfully
due to that said workforce, enshrined by their contracts or law - the very
same contracts and law that the CEO would be bitching like a baby about
if the violation concerned him losing cash.
Damm workers "rights"...