Yes, it is with mixed emotions that I look forward to this new capability. It will only increase the amount of HTML mail that I get, the vast majority of which uses NONE of HTML's capabilities except in the signature block, but still uses 4 times the disk storage. On the other hand, it probably won't increase such email much; IE users who decide to migrate after this change would be using the HTML already, if they were so inclined. Probably not many people who are already using Firefox will start using the HTML feature once Yahoo[ungrammatical punctuation omitted] turns it on.
In days of old, Yahoo[u.p.o] would let you hand-code your own HTML if you checked a box saying "Allow HTML" or something like that. I guess enough people were scared by the notion of having that much control that they decided to take it away, but I miss that feature from time to time.
Clearly, the devs aren't motivated by much -- hell, the code was handed to them already!
Not exactly. They were given an HTML page and CSS file or two showing how it could be done. This is only the first step; reworking Slashcode to produce this standards-compliant HTML is a different, very non-trivial thing, and the ALA people did not do that. Evidently no one else has, either.
This statement (when the "this is exactly why" part is included) is very illogical. The OP's company evidently has no respect for the GPL and is happy to attempt to copyright/patent anything that comes through its doors. If this were your company's policy, they would have no need for another policy forbidding the use of GPL code, since they would believe their contracts with their employees supersede any license obligations.
However, based on your company's policy, they evidently understand the GPL, and mandate only BSD because they prefer to be able to copyright or patent all their code. So you'll never have one of your coworkers complaining on/. that your company is trying to take possession of GPL'ed code.
My guess is, Knuth sharply corrected him in his pronunciation before the interview, and the interviewer decided that the mere pronunciation of the word on the air would cause listeners to turn their dials.
But no, I didn't HTFI, so I may be making my guess on a wildly wrong idea of what was actually broadcast.
We suffer the tyranny of the majority in the marketplace, too. I wish it were painless to just go out and buy a good, cheap computer where every single component worked under Linux. I wish I weren't expected to choose between MS Word and plain ASCII text for my resume format. I wish I could go to a nearby coffee shop that played classical music all the time. I wish it were easy to find a home in walking distance of a school, town center w/ movie theater, etc., but the marketplace has not seen fit to create these things. Other people's choices constantly limit what is available to me.
Government occasionally acts to make sure that the minority are not limited in their freedom, and have choices. This is why, for example, it costs 37 (cent) to send a letter anywhere in the U.S., regardless of how much more it actually costs to get the letter to a remote area. The policy of the U.S. Postal Service, as a government service, is to provide equal service to all Americans. The marketplace, on the other hand, may choose not to go to those areas at all! Where's the choice for the people who live in those areas?
I don't disagree with your point about democracy, however. I definitely didn't vote for tax cuts, war in Iraq or the Patriot Act, but I'm stuck with them because the majority, indirectly and perhaps after-the-fact, did.
Nice. I noticed the "object code readable by the public" bit, but I simply dismissed it as wildly misinformed. It never dawned on me that this could actually be implemented. Kudos for thinking out of the box!
Amen! Let me add to that an extract from a blog rant I wrote up a while back.
Joel Spolsky suggests that one sign of a good programmer is if he writes something like "if (0==strlen(x)), putting the constant on the left hand side of the ==." The recommendation seems to be to put constants on the left side of equality comparisons in general. That way, if you mistakenly write an "=" instead of a "==", it won't compile. But guess what: if you instead put the strlen() call on the left side of this expression, and mistakenly use an =, it also won't compile (yes, I checked it, on a Linux box, gcc2.96 (one of those Red Hat specials)). This example is one that can't give you a run-time error, no matter how hard you try to fuck it up.
The correct strategy he should be endorsing is: always put variables on the right side of a conditional expression. Of course, this is not possible when both items for comparison are variables. And, as stated above, it's meaningless when neither side is a variable. So I really question the value of acquiring this habit whose use you have to put so much thought into, can't use it all the time, so you have to work even harder to remember to use it; seems you might have better luck simply trying to remember to use == when you mean ==.
If you expand the second "you're" to "you are", it's actually a perfectly good sentence that means "...as you are [likely to find] an old typewriter." It's just not a good place to make that contraction: when spoken, the word "are" in this case would be given at least equal weight to the word "you", so it doesn't really work to shrivel it up to the consonant suffix "'re".
Actually, the/. post clearly implied that we readers are NOT old typewriters ("You're as likely to find a landline in a college dorm as you're an old typewriter"), so cool off and beat your fisticuffs into plowshares (or, better yet, into old typewriters!)
We don't seem to be invading North Korea, either. And, to be blunt, what has the DPRK done for us lately? Pakistan under Musharraf is an ally, and that's no small feat in a country where the main foreign policy objective of the man in the street is to assert a religious claim over land that was given to India at the time Pakistan was created.
Where bin Laden is.
At least part of Pakistan wants to get bin Laden. They just don't have a lot of control over that northern region, and not even the greatest control over their own Army officers, so it's tough going.
Which sold the weapons tech.
The government of Pakistan wasn't the one doing the selling, and it doesn't look like a pattern that is likely to continue. Does it actually make any kind of sense to invade them?
I am literally in agreeance with you. The important fling here is that peoples can apprehend what the other is saying. Its not worf the trial to dismiss this. Its like what these ecologists is saying, the marquee will always make the best choice. Peoples what insist to conforming so-called property uselage are waisting there time, everyone else will elect the stile of langwaje what gets there point acrost.
I'm not one to defend the Chinese commies, but this time I think they really had nothing to do with it. As stated above, all their English news releases use the word "astronaut".
The sad thing is, this all started with a Malaysian guy inventing the word, and, somehow, much of the Western press bought into it and began spreading it.
All other things being equal, yes, *IF* a geek has availed himself of this information before buying the ticket, AND the layover and total flight time are about the same, then BWI, which has his service, wins. But all other things rarely are equal. What percentage of the (not terribly big) population of Wi-Fi users will choose a laptop-friendly layover of 3 hours over a non-friendly 2-hour one? If your life is your blog and you need that time, you might take that longer layover, but a laptop user who just wants to kill time probably isn't going to use that as the key factor in how he flies.
Other airports offer convenient power outlets, with the expectation that you'll enjoy your trip through the facility, and will travel there again in the future.
"Hey, Kim, where would you like to go for vacation this year, Rio or Paris?"
"Does Orly have free Wi-Fi and power outlets?"
"Lemme check.... looks like no."
"That sucks. Guess Rio's getting our money this year."
I think this point was sort of made somewhere above where someone suggested that airlines could choose to land in Baghdad rather than London to avoid the huge landing fees.
OK, niceties like Wi-Fi might make a difference for an airport's bottom line in cases where people actually have a choice, say BWI vs. Dulles or Gipper National. But for most places, your choices are using the airport, using a completely different mode of transportation (yeah, I'm sure they have Wi-Fi on the train from Pittsburgh to Philly!) or not going to/leaving the city at all.
For a week or two, I'd been wondering what Linux distro to put on that spare partition on my folks' computer when I go home for the holidays.
Question is, will I order the CD's in time? And, once I'm gone, will my parents *ever* boot up into that Free OS (never mind, already know the answer to that one).
Was where, exactly? I've been trying to figure this out for a while, but the origins are murky. "Cosmonaut" is based on the Russian word for the thing we're talking about, and is arguably a better term, but who was using it first as an English word, and who decided to apply it exclusively to Soviets?
Anyway, starting to call all American, European and Japanese space travelers "cosmonauts" is something I just don't see happening, but letting the word "cosmonaut" fade out could easily happen, just like "lie" is (regrettably) rarely used to mean "recline" or "rest" anymore.
Can't we just let that word die? We really don't need every nation on earth inventing a new English word for "astronaut" the minute they get themselves a space program, especially when the new word involves roots from two completely different languages.
We also need to let the word "cosmonaut" die, while we're at it, but that one seems a little too heavily ingrained in the media.
He warned that if the court upheld the Commission's decision it would "slow innovation" in Europe, raise prices for consumers and privilege some special interests.
Well, we all know better than that of course; why, just yesterday a Harvard professor jumped on the bandwagon warning that the current patent system inhibits, rather than encourages, innovation. How is Microsoft any different? When everyone knows M$ will come out on top in any battle it chooses to fight, the incentive to try to create something Redmond might want to compete against drops to zero. But if the EU succeeds in putting Microsoft in its place, that will tell a lot of software companies (and VCs!) that their products might finally have a chance of competing on their own merits.
Oh, and "privilege some special interests"? It's funny how one company can be so bad if it gets some help from the government (the criterion for "special interest"), but another company is beyond reproach if it has an advantage that everyone is already dependent on its products.
The "Convince any Republican" link in the above sig is extremely NSFW and will take control of your browser. Turn off JavaScript or disable popups before clicking!
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, it is with mixed emotions that I look forward to this new capability. It will only increase the amount of HTML mail that I get, the vast majority of which uses NONE of HTML's capabilities except in the signature block, but still uses 4 times the disk storage. On the other hand, it probably won't increase such email much; IE users who decide to migrate after this change would be using the HTML already, if they were so inclined. Probably not many people who are already using Firefox will start using the HTML feature once Yahoo[ungrammatical punctuation omitted] turns it on.
In days of old, Yahoo[u.p.o] would let you hand-code your own HTML if you checked a box saying "Allow HTML" or something like that. I guess enough people were scared by the notion of having that much control that they decided to take it away, but I miss that feature from time to time.
Not exactly. They were given an HTML page and CSS file or two showing how it could be done. This is only the first step; reworking Slashcode to produce this standards-compliant HTML is a different, very non-trivial thing, and the ALA people did not do that. Evidently no one else has, either.
This statement (when the "this is exactly why" part is included) is very illogical. The OP's company evidently has no respect for the GPL and is happy to attempt to copyright/patent anything that comes through its doors. If this were your company's policy, they would have no need for another policy forbidding the use of GPL code, since they would believe their contracts with their employees supersede any license obligations.
/. that your company is trying to take possession of GPL'ed code.
However, based on your company's policy, they evidently understand the GPL, and mandate only BSD because they prefer to be able to copyright or patent all their code. So you'll never have one of your coworkers complaining on
My guess is, Knuth sharply corrected him in his pronunciation before the interview, and the interviewer decided that the mere pronunciation of the word on the air would cause listeners to turn their dials.
But no, I didn't HTFI, so I may be making my guess on a wildly wrong idea of what was actually broadcast.
Mmmmm.... open-faced club: sand wedge.... Ghraaaalhhgh.
We suffer the tyranny of the majority in the marketplace, too. I wish it were painless to just go out and buy a good, cheap computer where every single component worked under Linux. I wish I weren't expected to choose between MS Word and plain ASCII text for my resume format. I wish I could go to a nearby coffee shop that played classical music all the time. I wish it were easy to find a home in walking distance of a school, town center w/ movie theater, etc., but the marketplace has not seen fit to create these things. Other people's choices constantly limit what is available to me.
Government occasionally acts to make sure that the minority are not limited in their freedom, and have choices. This is why, for example, it costs 37 (cent) to send a letter anywhere in the U.S., regardless of how much more it actually costs to get the letter to a remote area. The policy of the U.S. Postal Service, as a government service, is to provide equal service to all Americans. The marketplace, on the other hand, may choose not to go to those areas at all! Where's the choice for the people who live in those areas?
I don't disagree with your point about democracy, however. I definitely didn't vote for tax cuts, war in Iraq or the Patriot Act, but I'm stuck with them because the majority, indirectly and perhaps after-the-fact, did.
Did you mean "shellpecker"?
Getm watcg tiyr fycjubg niytg/1
Nice. I noticed the "object code readable by the public" bit, but I simply dismissed it as wildly misinformed. It never dawned on me that this could actually be implemented. Kudos for thinking out of the box!
Amen! Let me add to that an extract from a blog rant I wrote up a while back.
Joel Spolsky suggests that one sign of a good programmer is if he writes something like "if (0==strlen(x)), putting the constant on the left hand side of the ==." The recommendation seems to be to put constants on the left side of equality comparisons in general. That way, if you mistakenly write an "=" instead of a "==", it won't compile. But guess what: if you instead put the strlen() call on the left side of this expression, and mistakenly use an =, it also won't compile (yes, I checked it, on a Linux box, gcc2.96 (one of those Red Hat specials)). This example is one that can't give you a run-time error, no matter how hard you try to fuck it up.
The correct strategy he should be endorsing is: always put variables on the right side of a conditional expression. Of course, this is not possible when both items for comparison are variables. And, as stated above, it's meaningless when neither side is a variable. So I really question the value of acquiring this habit whose use you have to put so much thought into, can't use it all the time, so you have to work even harder to remember to use it; seems you might have better luck simply trying to remember to use == when you mean ==.
If you expand the second "you're" to "you are", it's actually a perfectly good sentence that means "...as you are [likely to find] an old typewriter." It's just not a good place to make that contraction: when spoken, the word "are" in this case would be given at least equal weight to the word "you", so it doesn't really work to shrivel it up to the consonant suffix "'re".
You're an old typewriter. :-P
/. post clearly implied that we readers are NOT old typewriters ("You're as likely to find a landline in a college dorm as you're an old typewriter"), so cool off and beat your fisticuffs into plowshares (or, better yet, into old typewriters!)
Actually, the
We don't seem to be invading Pakistan.
We don't seem to be invading North Korea, either. And, to be blunt, what has the DPRK done for us lately? Pakistan under Musharraf is an ally, and that's no small feat in a country where the main foreign policy objective of the man in the street is to assert a religious claim over land that was given to India at the time Pakistan was created.
Where bin Laden is.
At least part of Pakistan wants to get bin Laden. They just don't have a lot of control over that northern region, and not even the greatest control over their own Army officers, so it's tough going.
Which sold the weapons tech.
The government of Pakistan wasn't the one doing the selling, and it doesn't look like a pattern that is likely to continue. Does it actually make any kind of sense to invade them?
I am literally in agreeance with you. The important fling here is that peoples can apprehend what the other is saying. Its not worf the trial to dismiss this. Its like what these ecologists is saying, the marquee will always make the best choice. Peoples what insist to conforming so-called property uselage are waisting there time, everyone else will elect the stile of langwaje what gets there point acrost.
I'm not one to defend the Chinese commies, but this time I think they really had nothing to do with it. As stated above, all their English news releases use the word "astronaut".
The sad thing is, this all started with a Malaysian guy inventing the word, and, somehow, much of the Western press bought into it and began spreading it.
"Astro", "cosmo" and "naut" are all from Greek, but I agree with everything else.
All other things being equal, yes, *IF* a geek has availed himself of this information before buying the ticket, AND the layover and total flight time are about the same, then BWI, which has his service, wins. But all other things rarely are equal. What percentage of the (not terribly big) population of Wi-Fi users will choose a laptop-friendly layover of 3 hours over a non-friendly 2-hour one? If your life is your blog and you need that time, you might take that longer layover, but a laptop user who just wants to kill time probably isn't going to use that as the key factor in how he flies.
Other airports offer convenient power outlets, with the expectation that you'll enjoy your trip through the facility, and will travel there again in the future.
"Hey, Kim, where would you like to go for vacation this year, Rio or Paris?"
"Does Orly have free Wi-Fi and power outlets?"
"Lemme check.... looks like no."
"That sucks. Guess Rio's getting our money this year."
I think this point was sort of made somewhere above where someone suggested that airlines could choose to land in Baghdad rather than London to avoid the huge landing fees.
OK, niceties like Wi-Fi might make a difference for an airport's bottom line in cases where people actually have a choice, say BWI vs. Dulles or Gipper National. But for most places, your choices are using the airport, using a completely different mode of transportation (yeah, I'm sure they have Wi-Fi on the train from Pittsburgh to Philly!) or not going to/leaving the city at all.
For a week or two, I'd been wondering what Linux distro to put on that spare partition on my folks' computer when I go home for the holidays.
Question is, will I order the CD's in time? And, once I'm gone, will my parents *ever* boot up into that Free OS (never mind, already know the answer to that one).
I thought that that "that that" that that poster used was perfectly OK.
Sorry, but the word "Cosmonaut" was there first.
Was where, exactly? I've been trying to figure this out for a while, but the origins are murky. "Cosmonaut" is based on the Russian word for the thing we're talking about, and is arguably a better term, but who was using it first as an English word, and who decided to apply it exclusively to Soviets?
Anyway, starting to call all American, European and Japanese space travelers "cosmonauts" is something I just don't see happening, but letting the word "cosmonaut" fade out could easily happen, just like "lie" is (regrettably) rarely used to mean "recline" or "rest" anymore.
Can't we just let that word die? We really don't need every nation on earth inventing a new English word for "astronaut" the minute they get themselves a space program, especially when the new word involves roots from two completely different languages.
We also need to let the word "cosmonaut" die, while we're at it, but that one seems a little too heavily ingrained in the media.
Well, we all know better than that of course; why, just yesterday a Harvard professor jumped on the bandwagon warning that the current patent system inhibits, rather than encourages, innovation. How is Microsoft any different? When everyone knows M$ will come out on top in any battle it chooses to fight, the incentive to try to create something Redmond might want to compete against drops to zero. But if the EU succeeds in putting Microsoft in its place, that will tell a lot of software companies (and VCs!) that their products might finally have a chance of competing on their own merits.
Oh, and "privilege some special interests"? It's funny how one company can be so bad if it gets some help from the government (the criterion for "special interest"), but another company is beyond reproach if it has an advantage that everyone is already dependent on its products.
The "Convince any Republican" link in the above sig is extremely NSFW and will take control of your browser. Turn off JavaScript or disable popups before clicking!
I think IHBT.
Dunno. You think there's enough room to file a suit under there?