The last analogy was a reference to the book "Who Moved My Cheese?". But you didn't like it, so let's try another one.
A commercial company is like a large cargo ship loaded with containers, and an Open Source project is like a sail boat. If you want to move a lot of freight reliably in one trip, you use the cargo ship. If you want to be able to change direction quickly to explore a lot of directions and could care less about cargo, you use the sailboat.
But a sailboat that wants to lead a cargo ship around is out of it's fricking little mind if it thinks that the cargo ship is going to be able to turn on a dime like the sailboat. It's up to the sailboat to make the necessary allowances to keep the fleet together.
As to your second point, about one vendors software changes breaking anothers:
The Solaris DDI/DKI has maintained binary backward compatibility for a long time. So Has Mac OS X. Many DOS programs still run on Windows systems, even today. All of those systems have moved forward without leaving swaths of collateral damage by maintaining binary compatibility over at least one major release cycle, usually longer.
Yes, Microsoft has orphaned the occasional product with no notice. Microsoft being assholes isn't a blanket asshole license for everybody who'd like to be one.
"But MOM! She hit me first!" is never a good starting point for winning an argument.
Hyper-V contributions to OpenStack by Microsoft initially worked, or they wouldn't have been accepted.
There's no such thing as "bit rot", there are only people who fail to maintain binary backward compatibility in their products as they move forward, as OpenStack has done here.
Lack of interface contracts is probably one of the biggest barriers to commercial software sales in Open Source environments. I don't blame OpenStack for dropping the support, but I do blame them for breaking binary compatibility, and then saying it's the fault of the software they are no longer compatible with because it failed to field a bunch of engineers to make lock-step changes to accommodate OpenStack's apparently arbitrary interface changes.
Hyper-V is not suddenly a different mouse, OpenStack has moved their cheese.
He didn't say charging the artificially inflated market rates was the war.
That wasn't intentionally against cars, that just naturally came about because all the parking lots are being built into vacant buildings (like the Metreon and surrounding areas) due to the Kaiser family successfully lobbying to get Prop 13 applied to commercial property at the last second before the election that passed it. Then they sell the holding company that owns the parcel rather than the parcel itself, the property never changes hands, and only the rest of us have our property tax ever go up.
He said that some people describe SF as having a war on cars. For the most part, I agree: SF does.
The city is cash-strapped after a bunch of stupid moves by government, such as Willie Brown spending all that money putting actual gold leaf on city hall instead of paying the city's bills, and all the other boondoggles like the road crews starting all the road projects at once when it looked like funding was going to be cut so that they'd have to be paid to complete the repairs on the roads they'd already torn up. One of the other things we say about SF is "the shortest distance between any two points is under construction".
Cars are their way of collecting revenue from people with enough money to afford cars, but not enough to hire a lawyer. If they could have charged people for having noses instead, they would have.
But I think the biggest indicator of SF's war on cars is Critical Ass, where every militant and semimilitant person in the city gets on bikes, intentionally obstructs traffic, and pounds on peoples cars, frequently damaging them, and if the driver defends themselves or their property, the police either do nothing, or they give the ticket to or arrest the car owner. Unless they're not there at all because they're down on Market harassing the Occupy Wall Street crowd.
You can maybe get around your neighborhood on a bike, if you have a lot of time, and happen to work at or near home, and never need to transport anything larger than will fit in your saddlebags.
Oh, and you can forget public transportation... it's not like Europe.
The buses job appears to be pretty evenly split between making sure the rest of traffic moves slowly enough that people can't get where they're going any faster than if they had taken public transportation (job 1), or drunkenly running over pedestrians or bicyclists (job 2), or providing a warm place for a drunks and druggies to hang out until they've ridden the route several times (job 3).
The trains are largely to take people from somewhere they wouldn't be in the first place, if it weren't the only station around, to someplace they don't want to go, except it's also the only station around.
(Yeah, a bit angsty today; maybe I'll join Critical Ass on their next ride and dent on a Ferrari if I can find one).
Even if we accept your argument, despite case and federal law, which makes it a strict Constitutional Constructivist argument, that doesn't change things.
The petition is a public petition, and all you are arguing at that point is that it should be presented to the House, rather than presenting it to the Executive, when it fact it was presented publicly, which means that it already meets your additional criteria.
My point is, bribery is impeachable, and impeachment is the correct legal road forward for dealing with bribery. The point is to get someone to act on the correct legal road forward without being able to dodge the issue again.
The Obama administration neatly sidestepped the intent of the petition on a legal technicality based on form. You're now trying to do the same thing based on presentation. Both approaches are disingenuous dodges with regards to elected officials being responsible for carrying out the will of the people.
The investigation petition did not specify when the bribes may have taken place.
I suspect, as do many others, that his position with the MPAA after leaving office may have had some connection to his voting record on legislation impacting the MPAA before he left office, and that campaign contributions, and perhaps the promise of such a position, may have played a role in such decisions.
So the investigation was, in the collective opinion of those who signed the petition, warranted to determine whether or no those suspicions were backed by evidence, or merely suspicions.
Let's be very clear: anyone against SOPA or PIPA is an idiot if they fail to dislike the man. Whether or not there's something that can be legally done about that dislike, or to send a message to other SOPA/PIPA supporters, or supporters of similar future attempts at legislation remains to be seen.
Legal will? What are you talking about? Go read TFA. It clearly states that the "Science Panel" recommended the papers be published with the methodology removed.
The Slashdot headline implies they are a science panel, but in fact they are a security panel with scientists on it. Their purpose in life, like lawyers, is to be professionally risk averse, error on the side of saying "no", and censoring any and all information that falls into their domain of knowledge which could potentially be used at some point in the future to do anything risky.
We need people like this, but we don't need them to be the judge, jury, and executioner on what science does or does not get done, or we are sending ourselves back to the time of the Inquisition, who was not so pissed off at Galileo for observing, or for reporting those observations, as they were that he reported them in Italian so that common people had access to the information.
Apple cancelled the X-Serve, and it pissed a bunch of us off, but to be honest, Apple abandoned the server market before I started there in 2003. Many people tried in the intervening years to get Apple interested in building a server class OS, and there was never any interest by management, because, frankly, the market just wasn't there.
Apple in the enterprise these days is about individual devices, with back end services running mostly on Linux, and mostly on Dell and similar hardware. They are about the UI and the very nice devices that present that UI between the back end and the human at the device. The point of sale system in Apple stores is one great example of how well this works.
Frankly, the OP sounded like sour grapes: they paid to got to an Apple-themed show, MacIT, put on by IDG, with not a single Apple speaker, and not supported by Apple since Steve decided MacWorld wasn't relevant...and immediately following that same MacWorld, another IDG show that also didn't have a single Apple speaker or even booth.
I can understand IDG putting on the show, don't get me wrong; reflected glory can be as useful as the real thing when you are trying to put on a show for people who want a show. It'd be great if the post-Steve Apple decided to participate a bit more at one or both of them, instead of letting non-information leave a bad taste in people's mouths..
But an IDG MacWorld with no real Apple participation isn't going to be able to communicate Apple information better than an Apple sponsored WWDC. And maybe an Apple sponsored WWDC isn't going to be much better, without Steve to take the stage.
But then the writer wondered why people were unable to answer questions about enterprise deployment for Apple products. The answer is that obviously, they were not trained to be able to do so, and in the cases where the people knew what they were talking about, they were unable to deliver the Apple message effectively or communicate it clearly, even if it weren't palatable.
The answer they were looking for according to the article? http://manuals.info.apple.com/en_US/Enterprise_Deployment_Guide.pdf There it is: How to run the software you use to deploy the same set of applications, certificates, and security profiles to a bunch of iPods, iPhones, and iPads. MacBook Air and iMacs and MacPros? Those are just desktop machines and laptops; very pretty ones. Manage them like any other.
The correct request for a petition would be to impeach Dodd for high crimes and misdemeanors.
The impeachment process may be triggered by non-members. For example, when the Judicial Conference of the United States suggests a federal judge be impeached, a charge of what actions constitute grounds for impeachment may come from a special prosecutor, the President, a state or territorial legislature, grand jury, or by petition.
A high crime is one which seeks the overthrow of the country, which gives aid or comfort to its enemies, or which injures the country to the profit of an individual or group.
Despite that he left office on 3 Jan 2011 and went on to head the MPAA in March 2011, and therefore was not in office, there is precedent for impeaching a government official after leaving office. That precedent is the 1876 case of General William Belknap, who was impeached by a unanimous vote of the House of Representatives shortly after he had resigned for allegedly having received money in return for post tradership appointments (bribery).
Other precedents also exist. Feel free to consult a real lawyer before submitting the next petition so that a stronger case can be made and actually trigger action.
If you read the actual congressional testimony, you would have seen that Schwartz didn't say that it wasn't repairable for ~$25M, which is 10% of the cost of the whole system, he bemoaned his budget constraints, and said they wouldn't repair it as an example answer to the question "Is there any sacrifice you're seeing in ISR...?". Also note that they're only not repairing *the platform*.
The title of the press release from the Public Affairs office more or less says it all: "Air Force Strategic Choices and Budget Priorities Brief at the Pentagon".
I am a self-described physicist. I take a lot of things into account that "the Internet generation" does not. I do not have a covert channel so ignore that, if you can.
Lenticular printing: allows a small number of frames of animation or different images. 4x4 inches can be had for ~$1.20 per sticker, custom, quantity 50 minimum order. Can also be used with two alternating images to achieve 3D using parallax differences in eye location. Basically, it's a plastic lens bonded to an image layer with an adhesive backing on the image.
Include a neon novelty lapel button with a little pink bride or blue groom (or groom and groom or bride and bride, if that's your thing) for them to weare; reduces strain on your ushers, LEDs are everywhere, but I'm talking actual real neon lights on about 2 inch diameter black background buttons. Such things typically go for ~$6 a piece (12 if they are friends and you include both figures); also qty 100.
USB business card flash drive; I'd recommend it being glued to the invitation, but you could also just have it printed with a picture of the two of you together and a "You're invited! Plug me in!" caption, or something like that.
Use an LED logo projector keychain; repurpose it to put up a URL instead.
8-bit wedding invitations (Achievement unlocked!)
Not tech-geeky, but look up "cootie catcher invitation".
--At the wedding--
Wine glass ID badge lanyards (except they hold wine glasses instead of ID badges).
Disposable cameras for the wedding. Cheap for $3.49 each with custom paper sleeves (including photos of you, or whatever). You should probably include regular invitations with these, or only pass them out at the wedding.
Custom superhero action figures for the wedding cake.
Google "star wars ice cube tray"; trust me, you'll be happy you did. They also work for chocolate (think "carbonite"...).
--After the wedding--
How about an after the wedding gift, instead? There are plenty of places that will let you take some number of wedding photos of your choice, and turn them into outline drawings and bind them up into coloring book form; send them with a small box of crayons.
Luckily, I had a document retention order. The email is retrievable because of a number of court orders regarding certain disputes before the court which were not very narrowly scoped to specifically case-relevant content. All it needs is another court order.
The developer agreement allows interpreters that don't download content from the web (5 BASIC interpreters in the App store, but you have to type in the programs yourself to use them). It also allows interpreted downloaded content in JavaScript -- in a UIWebview: meaning in Safari,
From my reading of things, they are implementing their own JavaScript interpreter ("chromeless") which is not a UIWebview, and therefore in violation of the developers agreement.
Not that I agree that this should be the case, mind you, but Apple doesn't trust sandboxing they didn't write.
Oh great - just what we need - yet another programming language
Not all languages are the same. Maybe your criticism is valid for C# / Java, but the other languages you list are all pretty different. Rust has some features, and certainly a unique combination of features (e.g. modern, and not garbage collected).
Sorry... failed to read the article?
"Rust GC is optional and per-task"
This is the same bill of goods Objective C recently sold us... the cake is a lie.
The problem with optional garbage collection is that someone "optionally" depends on it in their library, and you are stuck turning it on for everything thereafter you link with that library.
Then memory leaks happen in other code, but the garbage collector spackles over them, and now suddenly because it didn't crash over the leak, you now have more code addicted to the "optional" garbage collector.
Eventually, you give up, and buy into garbage collection being a necessity rather than the pretend "optional" you started out with, and you forget how to scope variables or use explicit retain/release interface, or forget that there was ever such a thing as explicit memory management.
By then, it's too late, and your code is suddenly all crap, and you're now stuck programming in user space.
Steve Jobs sent out an email telling his employees (I was one at the time) to please vote for Obama, and contributed to the Democratic party directly to get around the donation cap for a presidential campaign.
Steve was very much a Democrat, you need to quit painting him as a Republican merely because you disagreed with his take on economics.
China was granted Most Favored Nation status under Clinton, and continued it under Bush, and now Obama, just so you can't call me as playing favorites.
If this status was revoked, 95% of imports from China would be subject to additional tariffs, which in turn could be linked to pollution controls, Carbon emissions, and labor reforms, which would tend to raise the cost of doing business in China, making it more economical to employ American workers to achieve the same results. See also: http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/crs/rl30225.pdf
The U.S. is pricing itself out of certain types of labor by the artificially depressed costs of doing business elsewhere, including government subsidies. If you actually read the article, then you would have noted that the reason China's factories were able to move so quickly on the glass iPhone screens was that there was immediate Chinese government subsidy for a speculative build-out of the factory.
Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats are willing to address the sacred factory cow that's protected by business interests, such as CD and DVD pressing on behalf of RIAA/MPAA member companies -- it's not just Apple. People will pay more for Apple products; they probably wouldn't pay more for another crappy movie retread of a story from the last century whgich had better actors.
Healthcare is a Safety need. It's lower on the list than Physiological needs.
How about we tackle the more immediately problems of food, clothing, and shelter for everyone, and then we can move on to the rest of the hierarchy after those are solved?
It's been my experience that you have a lot more control if it's a phonegap wrapped native app, than a browser app.
My experience differs from yours.
In my experience, phonegap provides JavaScript extension based access to information local to the phone without any controls on its use by a third party, by subclassing UIView and then going to a web page. This includes but is not limited to location information, any history files you have, your contacts, and anything else available to a sandboxed application.
If the software isn't intentionally malicious in the first place, the app developers tend to suck off all your information into their database with no malice, but with about as much thought to security as you would expect from someone who was unable to limit themselves to uploading only the information relevant to the running of the application. That is to say, very little.
Given the lax security already apparent, the sites that show up in the UIView are typically changed by malicious third parties in order to trigger redirection to a site that does then pull the information off for malicious reasons. Whether that's because the originating site's phonegap App web page was attacked through one of any number of security holes which the app developer already proved themselves incompetent to protect against through their use of phonegap in the first place, or it's done via DNS cache poisoning, links in forums in the applications, or a dozen other ways isn't important. What's important is that everything that phonegap exposes to JavaScript is now exposed to the malicious third party.
I understand the reasoning behind phonegap. It unfortunately doesn't apply in an unsafe world.
I hope that people who would perhaps want to use phonegap understand the security implications, and the fact that if you're caught using it, you get kicked off the Apple App store for exposing those APIs to third parties whose URLs happen to get displayed in the UIView on your web site, for whatever reason.
Slashdot Mirror
The last analogy was a reference to the book "Who Moved My Cheese?". But you didn't like it, so let's try another one.
A commercial company is like a large cargo ship loaded with containers, and an Open Source project is like a sail boat. If you want to move a lot of freight reliably in one trip, you use the cargo ship. If you want to be able to change direction quickly to explore a lot of directions and could care less about cargo, you use the sailboat.
But a sailboat that wants to lead a cargo ship around is out of it's fricking little mind if it thinks that the cargo ship is going to be able to turn on a dime like the sailboat. It's up to the sailboat to make the necessary allowances to keep the fleet together.
As to your second point, about one vendors software changes breaking anothers:
The Solaris DDI/DKI has maintained binary backward compatibility for a long time. So Has Mac OS X. Many DOS programs still run on Windows systems, even today. All of those systems have moved forward without leaving swaths of collateral damage by maintaining binary compatibility over at least one major release cycle, usually longer.
Yes, Microsoft has orphaned the occasional product with no notice. Microsoft being assholes isn't a blanket asshole license for everybody who'd like to be one.
"But MOM! She hit me first!" is never a good starting point for winning an argument.
-- Terry
Hyper-V contributions to OpenStack by Microsoft initially worked, or they wouldn't have been accepted.
There's no such thing as "bit rot", there are only people who fail to maintain binary backward compatibility in their products as they move forward, as OpenStack has done here.
Lack of interface contracts is probably one of the biggest barriers to commercial software sales in Open Source environments. I don't blame OpenStack for dropping the support, but I do blame them for breaking binary compatibility, and then saying it's the fault of the software they are no longer compatible with because it failed to field a bunch of engineers to make lock-step changes to accommodate OpenStack's apparently arbitrary interface changes.
Hyper-V is not suddenly a different mouse, OpenStack has moved their cheese.
-- Terry
He didn't say charging the artificially inflated market rates was the war.
That wasn't intentionally against cars, that just naturally came about because all the parking lots are being built into vacant buildings (like the Metreon and surrounding areas) due to the Kaiser family successfully lobbying to get Prop 13 applied to commercial property at the last second before the election that passed it. Then they sell the holding company that owns the parcel rather than the parcel itself, the property never changes hands, and only the rest of us have our property tax ever go up.
He said that some people describe SF as having a war on cars. For the most part, I agree: SF does.
The city is cash-strapped after a bunch of stupid moves by government, such as Willie Brown spending all that money putting actual gold leaf on city hall instead of paying the city's bills, and all the other boondoggles like the road crews starting all the road projects at once when it looked like funding was going to be cut so that they'd have to be paid to complete the repairs on the roads they'd already torn up. One of the other things we say about SF is "the shortest distance between any two points is under construction".
Cars are their way of collecting revenue from people with enough money to afford cars, but not enough to hire a lawyer. If they could have charged people for having noses instead, they would have.
But I think the biggest indicator of SF's war on cars is Critical Ass, where every militant and semimilitant person in the city gets on bikes, intentionally obstructs traffic, and pounds on peoples cars, frequently damaging them, and if the driver defends themselves or their property, the police either do nothing, or they give the ticket to or arrest the car owner. Unless they're not there at all because they're down on Market harassing the Occupy Wall Street crowd.
You can maybe get around your neighborhood on a bike, if you have a lot of time, and happen to work at or near home, and never need to transport anything larger than will fit in your saddlebags.
Oh, and you can forget public transportation... it's not like Europe.
The buses job appears to be pretty evenly split between making sure the rest of traffic moves slowly enough that people can't get where they're going any faster than if they had taken public transportation (job 1), or drunkenly running over pedestrians or bicyclists (job 2), or providing a warm place for a drunks and druggies to hang out until they've ridden the route several times (job 3).
The trains are largely to take people from somewhere they wouldn't be in the first place, if it weren't the only station around, to someplace they don't want to go, except it's also the only station around.
(Yeah, a bit angsty today; maybe I'll join Critical Ass on their next ride and dent on a Ferrari if I can find one).
-- Terry
Even if we accept your argument, despite case and federal law, which makes it a strict Constitutional Constructivist argument, that doesn't change things.
The petition is a public petition, and all you are arguing at that point is that it should be presented to the House, rather than presenting it to the Executive, when it fact it was presented publicly, which means that it already meets your additional criteria.
My point is, bribery is impeachable, and impeachment is the correct legal road forward for dealing with bribery. The point is to get someone to act on the correct legal road forward without being able to dodge the issue again.
The Obama administration neatly sidestepped the intent of the petition on a legal technicality based on form. You're now trying to do the same thing based on presentation. Both approaches are disingenuous dodges with regards to elected officials being responsible for carrying out the will of the people.
-- Terry
The investigation petition did not specify when the bribes may have taken place.
I suspect, as do many others, that his position with the MPAA after leaving office may have had some connection to his voting record on legislation impacting the MPAA before he left office, and that campaign contributions, and perhaps the promise of such a position, may have played a role in such decisions.
So the investigation was, in the collective opinion of those who signed the petition, warranted to determine whether or no those suspicions were backed by evidence, or merely suspicions.
Let's be very clear: anyone against SOPA or PIPA is an idiot if they fail to dislike the man. Whether or not there's something that can be legally done about that dislike, or to send a message to other SOPA/PIPA supporters, or supporters of similar future attempts at legislation remains to be seen.
-- Terry
Legal will? What are you talking about? Go read TFA. It clearly states that the "Science Panel" recommended the papers be published with the methodology removed.
The Slashdot headline implies they are a science panel, but in fact they are a security panel with scientists on it. Their purpose in life, like lawyers, is to be professionally risk averse, error on the side of saying "no", and censoring any and all information that falls into their domain of knowledge which could potentially be used at some point in the future to do anything risky.
We need people like this, but we don't need them to be the judge, jury, and executioner on what science does or does not get done, or we are sending ourselves back to the time of the Inquisition, who was not so pissed off at Galileo for observing, or for reporting those observations, as they were that he reported them in Italian so that common people had access to the information.
-- Terry
He can be impeached after the fact. This is the same legal argument that certain groups have been trying to apply to Bush and Cheney.
-- Terry
Apple cancelled the X-Serve, and it pissed a bunch of us off, but to be honest, Apple abandoned the server market before I started there in 2003. Many people tried in the intervening years to get Apple interested in building a server class OS, and there was never any interest by management, because, frankly, the market just wasn't there.
Apple in the enterprise these days is about individual devices, with back end services running mostly on Linux, and mostly on Dell and similar hardware. They are about the UI and the very nice devices that present that UI between the back end and the human at the device. The point of sale system in Apple stores is one great example of how well this works.
Frankly, the OP sounded like sour grapes: they paid to got to an Apple-themed show, MacIT, put on by IDG, with not a single Apple speaker, and not supported by Apple since Steve decided MacWorld wasn't relevant ...and immediately following that same MacWorld, another IDG show that also didn't have a single Apple speaker or even booth.
I can understand IDG putting on the show, don't get me wrong; reflected glory can be as useful as the real thing when you are trying to put on a show for people who want a show. It'd be great if the post-Steve Apple decided to participate a bit more at one or both of them, instead of letting non-information leave a bad taste in people's mouths..
But an IDG MacWorld with no real Apple participation isn't going to be able to communicate Apple information better than an Apple sponsored WWDC. And maybe an Apple sponsored WWDC isn't going to be much better, without Steve to take the stage.
But then the writer wondered why people were unable to answer questions about enterprise deployment for Apple products. The answer is that obviously, they were not trained to be able to do so, and in the cases where the people knew what they were talking about, they were unable to deliver the Apple message effectively or communicate it clearly, even if it weren't palatable.
The answer they were looking for according to the article? http://manuals.info.apple.com/en_US/Enterprise_Deployment_Guide.pdf There it is: How to run the software you use to deploy the same set of applications, certificates, and security profiles to a bunch of iPods, iPhones, and iPads. MacBook Air and iMacs and MacPros? Those are just desktop machines and laptops; very pretty ones. Manage them like any other.
-- Terry
The correct request for a petition would be to impeach Dodd for high crimes and misdemeanors.
The impeachment process may be triggered by non-members. For example, when the Judicial Conference of the United States suggests a federal judge be impeached, a charge of what actions constitute grounds for impeachment may come from a special prosecutor, the President, a state or territorial legislature, grand jury, or by petition.
.
hhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States#The_federal_impeachment_procedure
A high crime is one which seeks the overthrow of the country, which gives aid or comfort to its enemies, or which injures the country to the profit of an individual or group.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_crimes_and_misdemeanours
Despite that he left office on 3 Jan 2011 and went on to head the MPAA in March 2011, and therefore was not in office, there is precedent for impeaching a government official after leaving office. That precedent is the 1876 case of General William Belknap, who was impeached by a unanimous vote of the House of Representatives shortly after he had resigned for allegedly having received money in return for post tradership appointments (bribery).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_W._Belknap
Other precedents also exist. Feel free to consult a real lawyer before submitting the next petition so that a stronger case can be made and actually trigger action.
-- Terry
The local Techshop just got a reflow machine; also a reballer.
It also has an Acuna Lathe with full CNC, you know, in case you need to carve a full size Darth Vader mask out of aluminum for some reason.
You join for a monthly fee, and then play with things that can cause you to lose fingers to you hearts content.
-- Terry
If you read the actual congressional testimony, you would have seen that Schwartz didn't say that it wasn't repairable for ~$25M, which is 10% of the cost of the whole system, he bemoaned his budget constraints, and said they wouldn't repair it as an example answer to the question "Is there any sacrifice you're seeing in ISR...?". Also note that they're only not repairing *the platform*.
The title of the press release from the Public Affairs office more or less says it all: "Air Force Strategic Choices and Budget Priorities Brief at the Pentagon".
-- Terry
Sorry, but we couldn't sustainably live there.
At least not without violating Article 4 of the Antarctic Treaty:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_Treaty_System
And the Madrid Protocol:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_on_Environmental_Protection_to_the_Antarctic_Treaty
Luckily, we never ratified the Moon Treaty:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_Treaty
-- Terry
You can pretty much get any tolerance you want.
-- Terry
I wish you were tagged and still anonymous.
Normative construction is a fault
Contact me me via third channel.
-T
First priorities:
I am a self-described physicist. I take a lot of things into account that "the Internet generation" does not. I do not have a covert channel so ignore that, if you can.
PS: Math wins, universe does not.
PPS: Not the bloom.
Really, the amount of time between a delta and an event is small.
Please define "social problems"
Please do it in terms of something other than "the old farts say it was always done this way, so it should always be done this way".
Welcome to your children's world.
-- Terry
latency.
-- Terry
-- Before the wedding --
Lenticular printing: allows a small number of frames of animation or different images. 4x4 inches can be had for ~$1.20 per sticker, custom, quantity 50 minimum order. Can also be used with two alternating images to achieve 3D using parallax differences in eye location. Basically, it's a plastic lens bonded to an image layer with an adhesive backing on the image.
Include a neon novelty lapel button with a little pink bride or blue groom (or groom and groom or bride and bride, if that's your thing) for them to weare; reduces strain on your ushers, LEDs are everywhere, but I'm talking actual real neon lights on about 2 inch diameter black background buttons. Such things typically go for ~$6 a piece (12 if they are friends and you include both figures); also qty 100.
USB business card flash drive; I'd recommend it being glued to the invitation, but you could also just have it printed with a picture of the two of you together and a "You're invited! Plug me in!" caption, or something like that.
Use an LED logo projector keychain; repurpose it to put up a URL instead.
8-bit wedding invitations (Achievement unlocked!)
Not tech-geeky, but look up "cootie catcher invitation".
--At the wedding--
Wine glass ID badge lanyards (except they hold wine glasses instead of ID badges).
Disposable cameras for the wedding. Cheap for $3.49 each with custom paper sleeves (including photos of you, or whatever). You should probably include regular invitations with these, or only pass them out at the wedding.
Custom superhero action figures for the wedding cake.
Google "star wars ice cube tray"; trust me, you'll be happy you did. They also work for chocolate (think "carbonite"...).
--After the wedding--
How about an after the wedding gift, instead? There are plenty of places that will let you take some number of wedding photos of your choice, and turn them into outline drawings and bind them up into coloring book form; send them with a small box of crayons.
-- Terry
Luckily, I had a document retention order. The email is retrievable because of a number of court orders regarding certain disputes before the court which were not very narrowly scoped to specifically case-relevant content. All it needs is another court order.
-- Terry
It violates the developer agreement.
The developer agreement allows interpreters that don't download content from the web (5 BASIC interpreters in the App store, but you have to type in the programs yourself to use them). It also allows interpreted downloaded content in JavaScript -- in a UIWebview: meaning in Safari,
From my reading of things, they are implementing their own JavaScript interpreter ("chromeless") which is not a UIWebview, and therefore in violation of the developers agreement.
Not that I agree that this should be the case, mind you, but Apple doesn't trust sandboxing they didn't write.
-- Terry
Oh great - just what we need - yet another programming language
Not all languages are the same. Maybe your criticism is valid for C# / Java, but the other languages you list are all pretty different. Rust has some features, and certainly a unique combination of features (e.g. modern, and not garbage collected).
Sorry... failed to read the article?
"Rust GC is optional and per-task"
This is the same bill of goods Objective C recently sold us... the cake is a lie.
The problem with optional garbage collection is that someone "optionally" depends on it in their library, and you are stuck turning it on for everything thereafter you link with that library.
Then memory leaks happen in other code, but the garbage collector spackles over them, and now suddenly because it didn't crash over the leak, you now have more code addicted to the "optional" garbage collector.
Eventually, you give up, and buy into garbage collection being a necessity rather than the pretend "optional" you started out with, and you forget how to scope variables or use explicit retain/release interface, or forget that there was ever such a thing as explicit memory management.
By then, it's too late, and your code is suddenly all crap, and you're now stuck programming in user space.
-- Terry
Steve Jobs sent out an email telling his employees (I was one at the time) to please vote for Obama, and contributed to the Democratic party directly to get around the donation cap for a presidential campaign.
Steve was very much a Democrat, you need to quit painting him as a Republican merely because you disagreed with his take on economics.
China was granted Most Favored Nation status under Clinton, and continued it under Bush, and now Obama, just so you can't call me as playing favorites.
If this status was revoked, 95% of imports from China would be subject to additional tariffs, which in turn could be linked to pollution controls, Carbon emissions, and labor reforms, which would tend to raise the cost of doing business in China, making it more economical to employ American workers to achieve the same results. See also: http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/crs/rl30225.pdf
The U.S. is pricing itself out of certain types of labor by the artificially depressed costs of doing business elsewhere, including government subsidies. If you actually read the article, then you would have noted that the reason China's factories were able to move so quickly on the glass iPhone screens was that there was immediate Chinese government subsidy for a speculative build-out of the factory.
Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats are willing to address the sacred factory cow that's protected by business interests, such as CD and DVD pressing on behalf of RIAA/MPAA member companies -- it's not just Apple. People will pay more for Apple products; they probably wouldn't pay more for another crappy movie retread of a story from the last century whgich had better actors.
-- Terry
Maslow's hierarchy of needs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs
Healthcare is a Safety need. It's lower on the list than Physiological needs.
How about we tackle the more immediately problems of food, clothing, and shelter for everyone, and then we can move on to the rest of the hierarchy after those are solved?
-- Terry
It's been my experience that you have a lot more control if it's a phonegap wrapped native app, than a browser app.
My experience differs from yours.
In my experience, phonegap provides JavaScript extension based access to information local to the phone without any controls on its use by a third party, by subclassing UIView and then going to a web page. This includes but is not limited to location information, any history files you have, your contacts, and anything else available to a sandboxed application.
If the software isn't intentionally malicious in the first place, the app developers tend to suck off all your information into their database with no malice, but with about as much thought to security as you would expect from someone who was unable to limit themselves to uploading only the information relevant to the running of the application. That is to say, very little.
Given the lax security already apparent, the sites that show up in the UIView are typically changed by malicious third parties in order to trigger redirection to a site that does then pull the information off for malicious reasons. Whether that's because the originating site's phonegap App web page was attacked through one of any number of security holes which the app developer already proved themselves incompetent to protect against through their use of phonegap in the first place, or it's done via DNS cache poisoning, links in forums in the applications, or a dozen other ways isn't important. What's important is that everything that phonegap exposes to JavaScript is now exposed to the malicious third party.
I understand the reasoning behind phonegap. It unfortunately doesn't apply in an unsafe world.
I hope that people who would perhaps want to use phonegap understand the security implications, and the fact that if you're caught using it, you get kicked off the Apple App store for exposing those APIs to third parties whose URLs happen to get displayed in the UIView on your web site, for whatever reason.
-- Terry