I propose a new Slashdot rule: If you describe something as ironic you must accompany that description with an explanation of the irony.
Failing that, just give us a -1, Only Pretending To Be Able To Speak English mod.
What? Oh, yeah, I keep some spare karma for when I post things like this.
XmlHttpRequest is part of the in-development Web Hypertext Applications Technology Working Group (WHAT-WG) Web Forms 2 (aka HTML5) standard, which will be submitted to a number of standards bodies when it's ready. WHAT-WG has members from Opera, MoFo, and Apple. All of those organisations have committed to implementing it.
They should use four factors: Something old, Something new, something borrowed, something blue.
Easy. That's Internet Explorer (not significantly updated in years), whatever new vaporware they're talking about today, the Windows interface ("borrowed" from Apple), and the Screen of Death
Check out this post on Blake Ross's blog for his take on the levels of fun and professionalism in the Mozilla project. He's got some links to some entertaining bugs in Bugzilla too (like "Vending machine prices raised by $0.05").
"Has become"? Slashdot has always had terrible editors. They post pseudo-science articles, they frequently make spelling and grammar errors that would embarrass a pre-schooler, and dupes are nearly as common as new articles. But it's got a huge community, and there's no way a better-implemented tech-news and discussion site will be better by a big enough margin to get us all to move.
Remember when everyone used Napster despite its glaring failures because eveyone else used it and the user base was more important than anything else?
This makes it easy for me to remember trivial information like phone numbers, account numbers, historical dates, and pi (2.141592653589 is how far I remember without looking it up).
You obviously don't remember Pi as well as you think; most people know at least the first digit.
When people say we only use 10% of our brains they are technically most likely correct but very misleading. As you read this you're using the parts of your brain that control eye movement, word recognition, and sentence parsing. As I type I'm using the parts controlling finger movement, eye movement, hand-eye coordination, lexical memory, grammar, syntax.
I'm not using the part that lets me recognise someone's mood from their expression because I'm alone in this room right now. I'm not using the parts that let me plan my route through a location that I have a mental map of in memory as I would when walking to the shop, since I'm ust sitting still.
The brain is composed of many interacting parts with quite specific jobs. We use the parts we need to use at any time. It's a myth to think that we could be more productive if we could somehow harness the unused "brain power" and use 100% of our brains at once. In fact we're more productive when we use only the parts that are directly relevant to the task at hand. There are people who tend to use more of their brains at any one time than the rest of us. We call that phenomenon ADD, attention deficit disorder.
So you send a command in the URL and have it executed, then echo the results to the browser. Fairly simple remote admin isn't it? I know it's insecure. It was a joke.
Why not? It certainly shouldn't be controlled by Google, but it can't be. Wikipedia's content is GFDL-licensed; there's no way Google could ever take control of it.
I was at a technical talk at Google in Dublin only a few months ago and they mentioned the 20% of time on personal projects. It's still very much a part of how the company works.
Unfortunately the words "beg the question" when parsed seperately and then combined do yield a meaning very close to the one in common use, the one described as wrong. I'd rather see the term limited to the older sense, since it doesn't have any other phrase to describe it, but I can't reasonably claim that the newer use is wrong.
My browser rendered that comment with the line break exactly where the missing "of" should have been. I couldn't see the problem at all until I looked at the quoted page and saw it all on one line. I'm going to assume that your appalling English is meant in an ironic sense and isn't just hypocrisy.
Google bombing isn't a problem. If you search for miserable failure you get a result that represents many people's opinions about who is a miserable failure. What's wrong with that? That's how it should work.
It's easier to believe something in the absence of any evidence than it is to believe it in the presence of contrary evidence. Strong experimental evidence against someone's faith is stronger than a simple "there's no reason to believe".
Network traffic is almost always referred to in bits per second because different networks don't necessarily share any concept of octets and bytes. It's just a bit stream, measure it in bits.
None of that is relevant to my comment, particularly the drugs rant. The OP was celebrating the heroic campaigning of Jane Tomlinson. All I said was that it's less heroic than similar campaigning by people who don't stand to gain directly.
I used "machine" in the broad sense, obviously, since humans aren't designed and constructed in the manner we associate with most machinery. I think the most importand properties are there though: interacting parts, a purpose (reproduction can reasonably be regarded as a purpose), the ability to do work. Dictionary.com includes "an intricate natural system or organism" in its definition of "machine".
Slashdot Mirror
I propose a new Slashdot rule: If you describe something as ironic you must accompany that description with an explanation of the irony.
Failing that, just give us a -1, Only Pretending To Be Able To Speak English mod.
What? Oh, yeah, I keep some spare karma for when I post things like this.
XmlHttpRequest is part of the in-development Web Hypertext Applications Technology Working Group (WHAT-WG) Web Forms 2 (aka HTML5) standard, which will be submitted to a number of standards bodies when it's ready. WHAT-WG has members from Opera, MoFo, and Apple. All of those organisations have committed to implementing it.
Easy. That's Internet Explorer (not significantly updated in years), whatever new vaporware they're talking about today, the Windows interface ("borrowed" from Apple), and the Screen of Death
Check out this post on Blake Ross's blog for his take on the levels of fun and professionalism in the Mozilla project. He's got some links to some entertaining bugs in Bugzilla too (like "Vending machine prices raised by $0.05").
It seems all the good Netscape people ended up with Mozilla (or at least not in Netscape anymore)
"Has become"? Slashdot has always had terrible editors. They post pseudo-science articles, they frequently make spelling and grammar errors that would embarrass a pre-schooler, and dupes are nearly as common as new articles. But it's got a huge community, and there's no way a better-implemented tech-news and discussion site will be better by a big enough margin to get us all to move.
Remember when everyone used Napster despite its glaring failures because eveyone else used it and the user base was more important than anything else?
I'm not using the part that lets me recognise someone's mood from their expression because I'm alone in this room right now. I'm not using the parts that let me plan my route through a location that I have a mental map of in memory as I would when walking to the shop, since I'm ust sitting still.
The brain is composed of many interacting parts with quite specific jobs. We use the parts we need to use at any time. It's a myth to think that we could be more productive if we could somehow harness the unused "brain power" and use 100% of our brains at once. In fact we're more productive when we use only the parts that are directly relevant to the task at hand. There are people who tend to use more of their brains at any one time than the rest of us. We call that phenomenon ADD, attention deficit disorder.
So you send a command in the URL and have it executed, then echo the results to the browser. Fairly simple remote admin isn't it? I know it's insecure. It was a joke.
As I understand it it's not difficult to download a database dump of the entire Wikipedia. It's only a few gigabytes.
We need a +1 WTF!? mod
Why not? It certainly shouldn't be controlled by Google, but it can't be. Wikipedia's content is GFDL-licensed; there's no way Google could ever take control of it.
I was at a technical talk at Google in Dublin only a few months ago and they mentioned the 20% of time on personal projects. It's still very much a part of how the company works.
Unfortunately the words "beg the question" when parsed seperately and then combined do yield a meaning very close to the one in common use, the one described as wrong. I'd rather see the term limited to the older sense, since it doesn't have any other phrase to describe it, but I can't reasonably claim that the newer use is wrong.
My browser rendered that comment with the line break exactly where the missing "of" should have been. I couldn't see the problem at all until I looked at the quoted page and saw it all on one line. I'm going to assume that your appalling English is meant in an ironic sense and isn't just hypocrisy.
Google bombing isn't a problem. If you search for miserable failure you get a result that represents many people's opinions about who is a miserable failure. What's wrong with that? That's how it should work.
You're right; I meant to say that it's true of some people, but obviously not all.
Yet another reason why the Christian God wouldn't deserve our love even if he did exist.
It's easier to believe something in the absence of any evidence than it is to believe it in the presence of contrary evidence. Strong experimental evidence against someone's faith is stronger than a simple "there's no reason to believe".
Network traffic is almost always referred to in bits per second because different networks don't necessarily share any concept of octets and bytes. It's just a bit stream, measure it in bits.
None of that is relevant to my comment, particularly the drugs rant. The OP was celebrating the heroic campaigning of Jane Tomlinson. All I said was that it's less heroic than similar campaigning by people who don't stand to gain directly.
I'd be more impressed if someone who wasn't suffering from cancer raised that money.
I used "machine" in the broad sense, obviously, since humans aren't designed and constructed in the manner we associate with most machinery. I think the most importand properties are there though: interacting parts, a purpose (reproduction can reasonably be regarded as a purpose), the ability to do work. Dictionary.com includes "an intricate natural system or organism" in its definition of "machine".