You'll be run off the road in many western states if you drive under 70.
People will get mad if you don't speed, and they'll pass you and give you the finger, but I've yet to have anyone jerk their wheel to the right, slamming into my car, shoving it off the road.:-)
Okay, I've only driven a few places, all ease coast US (I-95, I-20, I-75, and various lesser roads), but let me assure you in my naivety: if someone is going 80MPH and you're going 68MPH, you'll be fine. There's no pressure to speed unless you planned your commute poorly or you care what a bunch of strangers in metal boxes think about your inconsiderate decision to travel at a safe (yes, it's safe) and legal speed.
In the case we painted earlier, the difference was that one was public and the other isn't. In the point you bring up, the difference is whether the person sharing it publicly is the owner of the content.
Without Archive.org, she can decide to take down her content, modify her content, add advertising to her content, or change her content to subscription access only. As it is, she can now only do that effectively with new content, because Archive.org already has her old content and is making it available in its original form. It seems reasonable that someone should have control over the content they create, and putting it on a public website should not implicitly relinquish that control.
Putting it on a public website without a robots.txt, however, probably should relinquish to the extent that you're granting anyone permission to archive it. (Seems this relates a bit to the uproar with DejaNews/Google Groups. I always thought people were being nutty, but having an 'X-NoArchive' type directive in the robots.txt standard could be a good idea. Just a simple X-ObeyCacheHeader and then use the standard http headers: 'Cache-Control: private', 'Cache-Control: max-age=2629743', etc.)
If I leave my parked out on the street, doors unlocked and keys in the ignition, and someone steals it, 'That's really stupid' is a correct response. 'That's really stupid and therefore the person who stole didn't do anything as bad as stealing a car that was reasonably-well secured' is not.
Anyway, whether one is a bit worse than the other is irrelevant. So long as you admit it's wrong enough to be criminal. I'm not saying they're equally bad. Having my popular website damaged may be less harmful than having a similarly popular brick-and-mortar store damaged, but it's probably more harmful than having someone paint graffiti all over my garage, so if the latter is wrong and criminal, surely intentionally compromising my website is at least as bad.
Your garage then. You don't live there (though I don't see why you think that's relevant). It just costs you a little time and money to paint over afterwards. I don't see how being on a computer or on the Internet is magically different.
And this is not like taking v. copying. This is doing direct, visible damage v. doing direct, visible damage. If this was a manuscript I was writing you'd (I assume) say 'yeah, it's wrong for them to burn it', but if it's an electronic manuscript, suddenly destroying it is harmless?
Problem is, people say it (the English idiom) backwards, as done in the OP. You can have your cake and eat it. What's tricky is eating your cake and still having it. At some point, people decided to reverse the order so that you could, thereby destroying the point of the idiom. No wonder it confuses people who aren't familiar with the line.
As has been stated before, you save a copy of all websites you visit. It's called cache. Archive.org could be seen as a computer browser with a robotic viewer and a bigass cache folder.
Yes, I save a copy on my computer for my own use. Archive.org doesn't just have a single robotic viewer. It also has thousands of human users. It's a bigass public cache folder.
I do with important projects. But when coding to the standard is harder and means it only works in one browser while using non-standard tags is easier and works all over, I'll go to the easy-and-works method when I'm not doing something of great importance. If I am doing something of great importance, I'll code to the standard and add some needed non-standard hacks. Right now (and, yes, this will change), if a browser doesn't support innerHTML, it probably won't support much ECMAScript at all, so it'll be using the plain HTML page anyway.
Changing the user agent would in effect make me responsible for the success of their business model, and I am not, nor will I ever be. They'll have to find a way to be successful without my cooperation.
Not being responsible for the success of business model means it's okay to try to circumvent their attempts to charge you for their product? If I shoplift, is that okay because I'm not responsible for the success of their bizarre 'put products where I can get to them but charge me money to use or take them' business model? Seriously, grow up.
So, what cool keyword searches do people like to have?
All the obvious ones mentioned by people, of course, plus:
Dozens for a couple small sites I use.
Queries for common DB queries using PhpMyAdmin on box. (for example, 'ecdbqid' for looking up eC user by id; localdb just for PhpMyAdmin on localhost.)
demd5 for a reverse md5 lookup (+ demd5a through demd5c in case it's not found in the first database).
innerHTML is nonstandard, but supported in most modern browsers, so I often do it anyway. There's node.appendChild(document.createRange.setStartBefo re(node).createContextualFragment(HTML)) but last I tried that in IE, it didn't work. Maybe IE7 gets it. Maybe I should use support-sniffing. But innerHTML is just so simple and convenient, so I don't.
The argument that you have put forward in favor of ads (i.e no ads then no content) is a common one among marketers and other people in the advertising business, but my response to them is and will always be, "Welcome to the free market". If people really want your content then they will buy a subscription.
Yeah, but some of us would rather just see the ads. If you use Adblock, please edit your useragent header so websites can require you to pay a subscription while allowing me to continue accessing their content in exchange for viewing a few ads. If you don't change your useragent, they'll have to demand a subscription from both of us, and I don't wanna pay money.
Simple we don't we just work in a different base:
2^10 = 1024 bytes
But if it's merely a change of base, 1 kilobyte should should be 23 bytes, not 210 bytes. You're changing the base to binary and the exponent to something that makes sense in decimal
It's not illogical it makes perfect sense to anyone who programs, well anyone who dose lower level programming. If computers were to work in base 10... Sorry I can not even go there.
I've done Assembly. I use C. I don't think it makes sense. As you pointed out, computers don't work in base 10. My ints are never 210. They're always raised to a power of two. That makes sense to me. But you're using a hybrid system using both and by doing so you're redefining a 212-year-old term that has at least a 2000-year history behind its meaning. Yet for some reason the IEEE and I are the ones people insist are doing the redefining.
The 'morons' are the IEEE and their standards are recognised by the ISO. What you consider 'established usage' was not established enough to be accepted by the hard drive manufacturers, which was the primary place where the prefixes were in use. We're not going to go back to the inconsistent, ambiguous de facto standards just because the new ones annoy you. Do you also reject the redefinition of the foot to a standard length?
Please, go and bitch at the manufacturers. They are the only ones with the specs. Without the specs, all the driver developer can do is guess.
We know. We are. In the meantime, 'That's not our fault' is irrelevant. No one is blaming Linux. He's simply pointing out problems many people have when switching, and it being the fault of the manufacturers doesn't solve the problem--only the blame. The new user doesn't really care whose fault it is that things are broken--he just cares that they're broken.
But you do have the right solution. When the person trying to switch says 'Oh, well if XYZ won't work with Linux, I'll have to stick with Windows', you say 'Okay, but don't forget to email the manufacturer and ask them to release the specs or their own driver. Then you can try again when the problem's fixed.'
Their current ad campaign is 'Hi, I'm a Mac. I'm just a toy.' / 'And I'm a PC. I'm actually useful.'
That's something they might want to consider changing if they want to encourage corporate users. Some people might think 'Oh, boy, I can make photo albums. That sounds like FUN!' but the boss would rather I was programming a GUI using C++ or making silly graphs than making a photo album of me and my friends.
I always use the Heleocentric Theory instead of the Theory of Gravity. How do I know the Earth revolves around the Sun? Not because I hovered above the Solar System and observed the revolution. We observe the revolution from within the system, as well ass its effects, make predictions based on it, work out gravitational theories (beyond *jump* *jump 'Yeah, it works'), and so on.
Similarly, we actually observe evolution, including speciation (usually in the form of hybridisation), we find fossils of transitional species, we reconstruct phylogenic trees from genetic data... The only way to deny evolution (including speciation) is to deny our direct observation of it happening and also deny our basic understanding of genetics (or mathematics itself). Evolution has as strong evidence as the Heleocentric Theory, and as the origin of species it has at least as much as we had of the Heleocentric Theory prior to the space program.
(I suspect you know this and are merely objecting to the use of the gravity itself. But really, our current theories of gravity are more tenuous than the theory of evolution, though that gravity exists is not. It's not a theory, though. It's what we have theories about.)
As for an experiment similar to *jump* *jump* 'Yeah, something's pulling me down', how about *poison* *poison* 'Nope, something's allowing later generations to resist the pesticides'? Or for speciation, *hybridise* *hybridise* 'Hmm...something has causes a new, fertile species'?
Wow. That's just...wow. This is Slashdot. If someone posts 'How do you watch Star Trek?' then it makes sense; Star Trek is not optional. But sports? Seriously, can you not imagine a non-crazy person who doesn't watch sports?
My mom watches figure skating and gymnastics, and sometimes others would watch too, but aside from that, my family of six (mom, dad, three boys, and one girl) didn't watch sports. A lot of people don't.
'Read, watch TV, play games.... but I have a funny feeling you're going to tell me you sit and read magic scrolls together or something.'
We would read, watch TV, play games, use the computer...but never watch sports, and never read magic scrolls. When did watching other people play a game become a required activity? If you can't imagine a normal person living without TV, you need to try doing it yourself. As I said, I have a TV, but, gosh golly gee, I don't need a TV.
You may find some people watching streaming video or using P2P all day, but at an office, most people don't. They read email with the occasional large attachment. They check the news and weather. They'll look things up online. You seem to be forgetting that at work, some people do work. It's not if every just surfed it would be fine. It's if a non-negligible portion usually surf (or read email or just do nothing over the network) and they do.
People use their connection in bursts. Right now, I'm sending and receiving a very small amount of data over my IC. In a moment I'll send this post + headers and receive a response. (Then send a few more requests for the banners and receive responses.) Then I'll sit around not sending or receiving much for a while while I read the other posts. Sure, some data will be transmitted in the background as I read, but not nearly 5/6 of a dial-up connection's max. There may be brief times when everyone on a network are all trying to use a sizable portion of the capacity, but that's not going to happen a lot.
Slashdot Mirror
In Britain, they say 'series' where Americans say 'season'.
People will get mad if you don't speed, and they'll pass you and give you the finger, but I've yet to have anyone jerk their wheel to the right, slamming into my car, shoving it off the road. :-)
Okay, I've only driven a few places, all ease coast US (I-95, I-20, I-75, and various lesser roads), but let me assure you in my naivety: if someone is going 80MPH and you're going 68MPH, you'll be fine. There's no pressure to speed unless you planned your commute poorly or you care what a bunch of strangers in metal boxes think about your inconsiderate decision to travel at a safe (yes, it's safe) and legal speed.
In the case we painted earlier, the difference was that one was public and the other isn't. In the point you bring up, the difference is whether the person sharing it publicly is the owner of the content.
Without Archive.org, she can decide to take down her content, modify her content, add advertising to her content, or change her content to subscription access only. As it is, she can now only do that effectively with new content, because Archive.org already has her old content and is making it available in its original form. It seems reasonable that someone should have control over the content they create, and putting it on a public website should not implicitly relinquish that control.
Putting it on a public website without a robots.txt, however, probably should relinquish to the extent that you're granting anyone permission to archive it. (Seems this relates a bit to the uproar with DejaNews/Google Groups. I always thought people were being nutty, but having an 'X-NoArchive' type directive in the robots.txt standard could be a good idea. Just a simple X-ObeyCacheHeader and then use the standard http headers: 'Cache-Control: private', 'Cache-Control: max-age=2629743', etc.)
If I leave my parked out on the street, doors unlocked and keys in the ignition, and someone steals it, 'That's really stupid' is a correct response. 'That's really stupid and therefore the person who stole didn't do anything as bad as stealing a car that was reasonably-well secured' is not.
Anyway, whether one is a bit worse than the other is irrelevant. So long as you admit it's wrong enough to be criminal. I'm not saying they're equally bad. Having my popular website damaged may be less harmful than having a similarly popular brick-and-mortar store damaged, but it's probably more harmful than having someone paint graffiti all over my garage, so if the latter is wrong and criminal, surely intentionally compromising my website is at least as bad.
Your garage then. You don't live there (though I don't see why you think that's relevant). It just costs you a little time and money to paint over afterwards. I don't see how being on a computer or on the Internet is magically different.
And this is not like taking v. copying. This is doing direct, visible damage v. doing direct, visible damage. If this was a manuscript I was writing you'd (I assume) say 'yeah, it's wrong for them to burn it', but if it's an electronic manuscript, suddenly destroying it is harmless?
Problem is, people say it (the English idiom) backwards, as done in the OP. You can have your cake and eat it. What's tricky is eating your cake and still having it. At some point, people decided to reverse the order so that you could, thereby destroying the point of the idiom. No wonder it confuses people who aren't familiar with the line.
It's fun.
If that's not a good motivator, I don't know what is. (And, actually, DDR is often done multiplayerly.)
I do with important projects. But when coding to the standard is harder and means it only works in one browser while using non-standard tags is easier and works all over, I'll go to the easy-and-works method when I'm not doing something of great importance. If I am doing something of great importance, I'll code to the standard and add some needed non-standard hacks. Right now (and, yes, this will change), if a browser doesn't support innerHTML, it probably won't support much ECMAScript at all, so it'll be using the plain HTML page anyway.
- Dozens for a couple small sites I use.
- Queries for common DB queries using PhpMyAdmin on box. (for example, 'ecdbqid' for looking up eC user by id; localdb just for PhpMyAdmin on localhost.)
- demd5 for a reverse md5 lookup (+ demd5a through demd5c in case it's not found in the first database).
- de for http://www.dict.cc/?s=%25s
- e2 for Everything2
- ol for Onelook
- anagram for http://www.wordsmith.org/anagram/anagram.cgi?anag
r am=%25s
- dns for http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/ptr.ch?ip=%25s
- Shortcuts for numerous Google searches, of course.
- rot13 for http://rot13.com/index.php?text=%25s
- ensv for http://www.tranexp.com:2000/InterTran?type=text&f
r om=eng&to=swe&text=%25s (At some point, I intend to define keywords for all the combos, but I think I have to edit bookmarks.html directly to do that en masse.)
And some others.innerHTML is nonstandard, but supported in most modern browsers, so I often do it anyway. There's node.appendChild(document.createRange.setStartBefo re(node).createContextualFragment(HTML)) but last I tried that in IE, it didn't work. Maybe IE7 gets it. Maybe I should use support-sniffing. But innerHTML is just so simple and convenient, so I don't.
Jokes that make a very good point. Something doesn't stop being insightful simply because it's also funny.
The 'morons' are the IEEE and their standards are recognised by the ISO. What you consider 'established usage' was not established enough to be accepted by the hard drive manufacturers, which was the primary place where the prefixes were in use. We're not going to go back to the inconsistent, ambiguous de facto standards just because the new ones annoy you. Do you also reject the redefinition of the foot to a standard length?
We know. We are. In the meantime, 'That's not our fault' is irrelevant. No one is blaming Linux. He's simply pointing out problems many people have when switching, and it being the fault of the manufacturers doesn't solve the problem--only the blame. The new user doesn't really care whose fault it is that things are broken--he just cares that they're broken.
But you do have the right solution. When the person trying to switch says 'Oh, well if XYZ won't work with Linux, I'll have to stick with Windows', you say 'Okay, but don't forget to email the manufacturer and ask them to release the specs or their own driver. Then you can try again when the problem's fixed.'
Their current ad campaign is 'Hi, I'm a Mac. I'm just a toy.' / 'And I'm a PC. I'm actually useful.'
That's something they might want to consider changing if they want to encourage corporate users. Some people might think 'Oh, boy, I can make photo albums. That sounds like FUN!' but the boss would rather I was programming a GUI using C++ or making silly graphs than making a photo album of me and my friends.
I always use the Heleocentric Theory instead of the Theory of Gravity. How do I know the Earth revolves around the Sun? Not because I hovered above the Solar System and observed the revolution. We observe the revolution from within the system, as well ass its effects, make predictions based on it, work out gravitational theories (beyond *jump* *jump 'Yeah, it works'), and so on.
Similarly, we actually observe evolution, including speciation (usually in the form of hybridisation), we find fossils of transitional species, we reconstruct phylogenic trees from genetic data... The only way to deny evolution (including speciation) is to deny our direct observation of it happening and also deny our basic understanding of genetics (or mathematics itself). Evolution has as strong evidence as the Heleocentric Theory, and as the origin of species it has at least as much as we had of the Heleocentric Theory prior to the space program.
(I suspect you know this and are merely objecting to the use of the gravity itself. But really, our current theories of gravity are more tenuous than the theory of evolution, though that gravity exists is not. It's not a theory, though. It's what we have theories about.)
As for an experiment similar to *jump* *jump* 'Yeah, something's pulling me down', how about *poison* *poison* 'Nope, something's allowing later generations to resist the pesticides'? Or for speciation, *hybridise* *hybridise* 'Hmm...something has causes a new, fertile species'?
Wow. That's just...wow. This is Slashdot. If someone posts 'How do you watch Star Trek?' then it makes sense; Star Trek is not optional. But sports? Seriously, can you not imagine a non-crazy person who doesn't watch sports?
My mom watches figure skating and gymnastics, and sometimes others would watch too, but aside from that, my family of six (mom, dad, three boys, and one girl) didn't watch sports. A lot of people don't.
We would read, watch TV, play games, use the computer...but never watch sports, and never read magic scrolls. When did watching other people play a game become a required activity? If you can't imagine a normal person living without TV, you need to try doing it yourself. As I said, I have a TV, but, gosh golly gee, I don't need a TV.
'What should the default for this nonstandard tag be?'
Your objection is that the standard doesn't specify defaults for non-standard tags? How about no default, because it's not part of HTML?
You may find some people watching streaming video or using P2P all day, but at an office, most people don't. They read email with the occasional large attachment. They check the news and weather. They'll look things up online. You seem to be forgetting that at work, some people do work. It's not if every just surfed it would be fine. It's if a non-negligible portion usually surf (or read email or just do nothing over the network) and they do.
People use their connection in bursts. Right now, I'm sending and receiving a very small amount of data over my IC. In a moment I'll send this post + headers and receive a response. (Then send a few more requests for the banners and receive responses.) Then I'll sit around not sending or receiving much for a while while I read the other posts. Sure, some data will be transmitted in the background as I read, but not nearly 5/6 of a dial-up connection's max. There may be brief times when everyone on a network are all trying to use a sizable portion of the capacity, but that's not going to happen a lot.