You are missing a crucial legal ruling in Denmark. When you have bought something legally you are allowed to take the necessary measures to use it for its intended purpose. This means that it is legal to break the DRM to watch the DVD in Linux for instance. So does backup have the same protection as replay, since both are rights granted by sales-law?
I know exactly what a let form is. The code was not scoped so it was already on global level, declaring variables local in global scope doesn't do much. This did on global level exactly what let would in a procedural language. That is define the value for all following statements (for functional languages, all embedded statements). If you need let-embedding add a lamba expression (called function() in js), and you get nice scoped variables.
Of course I would have gone for something a little more complex than a LET form...
Sure.. but given JS expressive power, I dare you.. Especially compared to LISP.
Lack of block scope (despite the fact the language has blocks).
If you want a scope for your block, then create a scope for your block. In most situationens you will have already have one, but if you suddenly feel the need for a pointless block with its own scope, that is possible as well: function a() {
var b = 1;
function() {
var b = 2;
}();
alert(b); }
I know. I was mostly just pointing out that cloud computing and Google's cloud computing are two separate things, and the Google one doesn't sound like a good idea, atleast not to me.
It would be much easier to breed some very stupid, ugly and disgusting pigs, which nobody would ever think of protecting and defending... our current breeds are way too cute, especially when they are very young.
I guess the old "Cover them in feces and mud" trick is no longer working. But seriously if you find feces-covered proto-sausages cute, then what can we come with that isn't?
Unfortunately for you. This is the EU analysis of a proposal by US to an international body, and thus all the ideas put forward are suggested by the US. So by your word; the US is trying to create a supernational government and are lobbying the EU to support the idea.
No. If you were asked to peer review a paper, would YOU sign off on it without seeing the data that went into it or (usually) the program code that processed the data? Really?
Yes, Really! Programming code takes up to much space and is not very relevant to Computer Science. If parts of the code is relevant those parts will be part of the article text possible in pseudocode. Even claims of benchmark-improvements, will very rarely be documented by actual code.
Also not reviewed is: Raw data, because data is usually copyrighted unless randomly generated.
No, it is not. It is LEGAL because it is private, but the act for censoring is wrong no matter if it happens in a legal or illegal context.
Btw, this is the real difference between (North) European and US attitudes of censorship. In Europe is considered wrong, in the US it is considered illegal, but only if the government does it, while censorship in the US as private entity is the essence of modern political correctness.
If you believe money is the best motivator and a few millions would pursuade all the earth's scientists to side with the hippie catastrophy freaks, then why is the trillions of pounds in fossil fuels companies aiming to disprove them, not succeding?
The dirty truth is a climate sceptic makes more money than a regular climatologist because there are specific grants and positions available to disprove AGW, while there are no grants available specifically to prove or support it, Greenpeace does not fund a research department.
Greenland is called Greenland because Lief Erikson wanted to convince/trick Icelandic settlers to go to this glacier-covered land that he had discovered.
Which is explained fully with the current climate models. The solar activity, cosmit radiation and vulcanic eruptions all explain the climate from year 0 to 1800 perfectly. Unfortunately nothing from before 1800 matches the data collected later, the only difference is a higher concentration of CO2 which hasn't occured in historic times, and even in prehistoric times have never rised this fast.
I don't doubt the anthropogenic basis for climate change - I can take a look at the your latest comments for a persuasive outline of the case. However, once I get past the most basic assertions, you are doing an absolutely terrible job. Most of the time when I read a comment by you I can immediately spot lots of methodological and deductive errors, and, conveniently, you always come out against of anthropogenic climate change. You argue that science is just another religion. This isn't true. However, the sort of 'science' you do nowadays may as well be a religion, basing conclusions on manifestly insufficient data, and inferring causation based on correlation alone.
--- Bullshit is bullshit and has the unique property to make just as much sense when negated.
Ironically this will be used as an anti-EU story by the very same people who let it happen by rejecting the constitution last year. If the parliament had had this power last year, this wouldn't have happened. The people who complained that EU was not democratic enough, caused the EU remain that undemocratic, and rejected the attempts to improve it. At least, things will finally improve on tuesday.
France consumed 447.27 Billion Kilowatt-Hours in 2007, but produced 542.41 Billion Kilowatt-Hours, 430 Billion Kilowatt-Hours were produced by nuclear power plants. They export electricity, but nuclear alone essentially covers their consumption. "France runs on nuclear power" would be an accurate statement.
Nope, it is not even close. Nuclear power produces base-power, it can not produce peak-power. Most electricity is used during peak hours where you need electricity produced from sources than can be turned on and off during the day. Currently only oil and coal have that ability. Some nuclear plants can at best have the turbines disengaged letting power waste, but you can't just turn them off.
Sweden similarly produces more electricity than they consume, but if Denmark replaced their coal-plants with windmills and nuclear power, major parts of Sweden would have a brownouts every single day during peak-hour, because in reality Sweden is buying coal-based electricity to fill the holes hydro and nuclear power can not, and due to an environmental policy of not building power-plants based on fossil-fuels they are entirely at the mercy of more pragmatic neighbours.
Everywhere. The protocols used don't provide for guaranteed delivery.
What? Are you talking about pagers now??
SMS are always deliveried, if it can't be delivered now it is buffered and sent at first opportunity. The actually reliability depends on what you demand of your provider. The protocol has error-detection, acknowledgement, retransmission and offline storage.
Pagers on the other hand have no ability to acknowledge or ask for retransmision, which means any error is a loss of message and there is nothing that can be done about it, because the protocol and hardware does not have the capability.
It's not a arguement at all, but I've seen it repeated here a lot of times. I am assuming it is a memory tool, used to teach small children, not something anyone actually believes.
Comma has always been the decimal separator, was it before computer was it before typesetting, it even was the decimal separator in America. A vertical comma for decimal a smaller tilted one to separate thousands. Americans choose a standard for thousand separators first and chose comma, leaving them with no other option than dot for the decimal, even though it neither made any sense nor matched common practise. The English copied that error much later.
It's because the rules of noteworthiness are not applied to subjects that are not noteworthy, only to subjects which the compete with the personal turf of the deletionist. This means articles about subjects which are involved in a bit of fan-infight especially if they have a more popular competitor are more likely to be deleted than something that no one has personal feelings attached to.
Obviously this depends on culture. I've never met anyone who had a pager, I've never seen a pager in real life or heard of anyone using one outside the US. Text messaging on the other hand have been in common use since early 2001, and everyone has a mobile phone, if not for any other reason, then because it is many times cheaper than a fixed phone if you don't use a phone often.
Slashdot Mirror
You are missing a crucial legal ruling in Denmark. When you have bought something legally you are allowed to take the necessary measures to use it for its intended purpose. This means that it is legal to break the DRM to watch the DVD in Linux for instance. So does backup have the same protection as replay, since both are rights granted by sales-law?
If he lives in his mothers basement and has a gasmask permanently fused to his face, I think he has issues.
I know exactly what a let form is. The code was not scoped so it was already on global level, declaring variables local in global scope doesn't do much. This did on global level exactly what let would in a procedural language. That is define the value for all following statements (for functional languages, all embedded statements). If you need let-embedding add a lamba expression (called function() in js), and you get nice scoped variables.
Sure.. but given JS expressive power, I dare you.. Especially compared to LISP.
If you ask for threading though, I yield ;)
If you want a scope for your block, then create a scope for your block. In most situationens you will have already have one, but if you suddenly feel the need for a pointless block with its own scope, that is possible as well:
function a() {
var b = 1;
function() {
var b = 2;
}();
alert(b);
}
Will alert 1.
Okay... let a equal 3 in javascript:
a = 3;
I know. I was mostly just pointing out that cloud computing and Google's cloud computing are two separate things, and the Google one doesn't sound like a good idea, atleast not to me.
Rule #1 of cloud computing: "Do not trust the cloud".
Why is Google even able to review the content? Content should be encrypted.
So the fact that Apple computers are consistently the first to be hacked in pwn2own contests, have completely passed you by?
I guess the old "Cover them in feces and mud" trick is no longer working. But seriously if you find feces-covered proto-sausages cute, then what can we come with that isn't?
He is not challenging the numbers. He is saying they are pointless. And this comment supported that claim
Unfortunately for you. This is the EU analysis of a proposal by US to an international body, and thus all the ideas put forward are suggested by the US. So by your word; the US is trying to create a supernational government and are lobbying the EU to support the idea.
Yes, Really! Programming code takes up to much space and is not very relevant to Computer Science. If parts of the code is relevant those parts will be part of the article text possible in pseudocode. Even claims of benchmark-improvements, will very rarely be documented by actual code.
Also not reviewed is: Raw data, because data is usually copyrighted unless randomly generated.
Good luck explaining to the coast guards why you opened fire on them(*).
(*)Especially with bullet though your skull.
Pirates are not covered by the Geneva convention.
No, it is not. It is LEGAL because it is private, but the act for censoring is wrong no matter if it happens in a legal or illegal context.
Btw, this is the real difference between (North) European and US attitudes of censorship. In Europe is considered wrong, in the US it is considered illegal, but only if the government does it, while censorship in the US as private entity is the essence of modern political correctness.
He was not critized for being non-black, he was critized for being an idiot!
If you believe money is the best motivator and a few millions would pursuade all the earth's scientists to side with the hippie catastrophy freaks, then why is the trillions of pounds in fossil fuels companies aiming to disprove them, not succeding?
The dirty truth is a climate sceptic makes more money than a regular climatologist because there are specific grants and positions available to disprove AGW, while there are no grants available specifically to prove or support it, Greenpeace does not fund a research department.
Which is explained fully with the current climate models. The solar activity, cosmit radiation and vulcanic eruptions all explain the climate from year 0 to 1800 perfectly. Unfortunately nothing from before 1800 matches the data collected later, the only difference is a higher concentration of CO2 which hasn't occured in historic times, and even in prehistoric times have never rised this fast.
Your point was?
I don't doubt the anthropogenic basis for climate change - I can take a look at the your latest comments for a persuasive outline of the case. However, once I get past the most basic assertions, you are doing an absolutely terrible job. Most of the time when I read a comment by you I can immediately spot lots of methodological and deductive errors, and, conveniently, you always come out against of anthropogenic climate change. You argue that science is just another religion. This isn't true. However, the sort of 'science' you do nowadays may as well be a religion, basing conclusions on manifestly insufficient data, and inferring causation based on correlation alone.
---
Bullshit is bullshit and has the unique property to make just as much sense when negated.
Ironically this will be used as an anti-EU story by the very same people who let it happen by rejecting the constitution last year. If the parliament had had this power last year, this wouldn't have happened. The people who complained that EU was not democratic enough, caused the EU remain that undemocratic, and rejected the attempts to improve it. At least, things will finally improve on tuesday.
Nope, it is not even close. Nuclear power produces base-power, it can not produce peak-power. Most electricity is used during peak hours where you need electricity produced from sources than can be turned on and off during the day. Currently only oil and coal have that ability. Some nuclear plants can at best have the turbines disengaged letting power waste, but you can't just turn them off.
Sweden similarly produces more electricity than they consume, but if Denmark replaced their coal-plants with windmills and nuclear power, major parts of Sweden would have a brownouts every single day during peak-hour, because in reality Sweden is buying coal-based electricity to fill the holes hydro and nuclear power can not, and due to an environmental policy of not building power-plants based on fossil-fuels they are entirely at the mercy of more pragmatic neighbours.
What? Are you talking about pagers now??
SMS are always deliveried, if it can't be delivered now it is buffered and sent at first opportunity. The actually reliability depends on what you demand of your provider. The protocol has error-detection, acknowledgement, retransmission and offline storage.
Pagers on the other hand have no ability to acknowledge or ask for retransmision, which means any error is a loss of message and there is nothing that can be done about it, because the protocol and hardware does not have the capability.
It's not a arguement at all, but I've seen it repeated here a lot of times. I am assuming it is a memory tool, used to teach small children, not something anyone actually believes.
Comma has always been the decimal separator, was it before computer was it before typesetting, it even was the decimal separator in America. A vertical comma for decimal a smaller tilted one to separate thousands. Americans choose a standard for thousand separators first and chose comma, leaving them with no other option than dot for the decimal, even though it neither made any sense nor matched common practise. The English copied that error much later.
It's because the rules of noteworthiness are not applied to subjects that are not noteworthy, only to subjects which the compete with the personal turf of the deletionist. This means articles about subjects which are involved in a bit of fan-infight especially if they have a more popular competitor are more likely to be deleted than something that no one has personal feelings attached to.
Obviously this depends on culture. I've never met anyone who had a pager, I've never seen a pager in real life or heard of anyone using one outside the US. Text messaging on the other hand have been in common use since early 2001, and everyone has a mobile phone, if not for any other reason, then because it is many times cheaper than a fixed phone if you don't use a phone often.