Completely undermining?!? You should really look up how standards are made, how many of those there are and why OOXML isn't worse than anything. Really, why is that a problem for you unless you are a rabid MS-hater?
On the contrary, everyone around at the time of MS's corruption of the standards bodies is well aware of the corruption. You didn't need to be a hater, it was everywhere in the tech news.
Now are you denying it because you are too young to remember, or because you're an apologist?
Not in reputable software teams. Generally the flags are set to report warnings as errors. And nothing with a warning would make it into a mainline build.
There are occasions when a warning is unavoidable. But then that requires positive action to use use pragma to turn the warning off and back on again around the offending line. And that should be commented as to why. It can't be ignored.
Either you can read the code and comprehend it or you cant.
If that were true, no competent coder would ever have bugs in his code.
It's like this sentence... Count the number of Fs.
FINISHED FILES ARE THE RE- SULT OF YEARS OF SCIENTIF- IC STUDY COMBINED WITH THE EXPERIENCE OF YEARS.
Most people, despite their fluency of the English language will miscount the number of Fs.
Enforced braces, compilers that are indentation aware, and better detection of unreachable code would would all reduce the number of times that errors of the type in the SSL bug occur. That's an indisputable fact.
Thanks for that. It's even more amusing to see a middle aged fella doing the fool dance.
Rolling on the floor laughing your ass off after something you said yourself, which you didn't intend as a joke might be considered by some to be grounds to call the mental health services. But as part of a fool dance, it's completely apt. Keep it up.
As to "plonk", it refers to the act of putting a usenet user in the kill file. Now back in those days it was often claimed without actually doing. But no one else could tell. Now on Slashdot, it's impossible to do that, though you can make someone a "foe" which effectively hides their posts at -1. But unfortunately for you, slashdot makes that action public, and you didn't do it. So yet more foolishness.
Not really. Taco's summary was "... lame". But the comments were not negative. The Slashdot community as a whole was not against the iPod, and didn't predict it's failure.
It's only AFTER Apple became successful that slashdot started hating on everything Apple. And that intensified after Android was released.
But the Slashdot community is not the mass market, and does not share mass market preferences.
No indeed. But we're talking about the reaction when the product is upcoming or just out. Slashdot have been good at pointing out the hardware products that won't succeed.
Your clarification that the climate scientists were trying to hide the decline of the tree ring data as opposed to hiding the decline of the temperatures isn't very reassuring.
That was neither my clarification, nor a correct summary of the text I posted.
There is no scientific or technical error or fraud here, just as the text says. Just a valid way of joining together temperature data that was collected via a thermometer, with those that are deduced from before thermometer measurements were taken via "proxies", in order to get a longer term trend.
The email leaks revealed the science isn't as clear cut as they would have us believe.
They did nothing of the sort. Deniers hoped they would, but they didn't.
There's only one problem. Google Glass is going to take off like wildfire
Ah, the Nostradamus argument.
You are deluded into thinking that because the Slashdot crowd is anti-Glass as a rule that that will carry over to the general population. We don't like Facebook either. Amazingly, Zuckerburg is still filthy rich. Go figure.
So your argument is that it's always the opposite. That what Slashdot likes, must fail, and what Slashdot dislikes must succeed? If not, you have no argument. Just an example. And I already gave you 3 examples where Slashdot's dislikes have been entirely in like with a new product's failure. All of them being actual hardware that costs money, unlike your example of Facebook.
I'm afraid not sunshine. "Queue" made no grammatical sense as you used it. You'd have to have said "Make a queue..." or ".... should make a queue."
"Cue the..." is a pattern from the theatre, instructing a person or group to start their action. That is clearly the sense you made, and the one that would fit the pattern of words you used.
You can't lie your way out of a grammar error.
Not that it matters, we all make them. It just makes you look pathetic to try and lie your way out of it.
this is the same words I heard from the co-worker I convinced to switch from an iPhone to an Android phone recently. Sounds more like someone not used to a User interface than anything else.
Sounds like someone reacting to being given bad advice.
People here are predisposed to like new technology, and tend to be pro anything connected to Android. The overwhelming flood of negativity even amongst this crowd should clue you in to the fact that Google Glass isn't going to take off.
The reason it's STILL on invite only, "development unit" distribution, is that if sold as normal product, through normal channels, it would tank as surely as The Segway, the Kin, and the various "smart" watches.
This all came out in the Climategate emails. But you never heard about those, did you?
We are well aware of release of emails from the University of East Anglia. The attempt at connecting it with watergate fails, as unlike watergate there is no smoking gun. Nothing in the emails shows any conspiracy. There is no blocking of "anti-AGW" papers. There are no "anti-AGW" papers to block. And nothing in the emails says otherwise
"Hide the decline" ring a bell?
It sure does.
"Many commentators quoted one email in which Phil Jones said he had used "Mike's Nature trick" in a 1999 graph for the World Meteorological Organization "to hide the decline" in proxy temperatures derived from tree ring analyses when measured temperatures were actually rising. This 'decline' referred to the well-discussed tree ring divergence problem, but these two phrases were taken out of context by climate change sceptics, including US Senator Jim Inhofe and former Governor of Alaska Sarah Palin, as though they referred to some decline in measured global temperatures, even though they were written when temperatures were at a record high.[32] John Tierney, writing in the New York Times in November 2009, said that the claims by sceptics of "hoax" or "fraud" were incorrect, but that the graph on the cover of a report for policy makers and journalists did not show these non-experts where proxy measurements changed to measured temperatures.[33] The final analyses from various subsequent inquiries concluded that in this context 'trick' was normal scientific or mathematical jargon for a neat way of handling data, in this case a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion.[34][35] The EPA notes that in fact, the evidence shows that the research community was fully aware of these issues and that no one was hiding or concealing them.[36]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...
Well you certainly didn't. Predictions require statements about the future. The selecting of 1998 as a start year by you and the other denialist morons is due to the fact that 1998 was the hottest year on record. Starting from that fact and ignoring all data before is a thing called "cherry-picking" and is only possible in retrospect.
It also requires complete ignorance of the fact that the normal period of averaging is 30 years. Making it impossible to judge a climate trend on anything as short as 15 (10? 11? 12? 13? 14?16? 17?) years.
Finally one notes that if you do ignore the definition of climate and just consider a start year and a finish year, all within the last 30 years, nearly all such lines are warming.
The scientists in the the 1970s were making predictions. You're just being a backwards looking moron.
No scientist says humans are the only cause. There are other forcings, positive and negative. The very likely (95%-100%) in the IPCC is to the contention that "most" of the rise in temperature is caused by human forcings. Not "all".
No scientist has told you they can accurately predict the temperature in 100 years. But they can give a range of predictions for climate for various future time frames.
Because unlike you, they understand the difference between weather and climate.
Slashdot Mirror
Comparing genocide with doing business? Only on the Internet!
Not at all, here's a billionaire comparing the treatment of the 1% to the Holocaust. Written in a letter, published in the WSJ. Internet not required.
http://www.independent.co.uk/n...
Completely undermining?!? You should really look up how standards are made, how many of those there are and why OOXML isn't worse than anything. Really, why is that a problem for you unless you are a rabid MS-hater?
On the contrary, everyone around at the time of MS's corruption of the standards bodies is well aware of the corruption. You didn't need to be a hater, it was everywhere in the tech news.
Now are you denying it because you are too young to remember, or because you're an apologist?
Not in reputable software teams. Generally the flags are set to report warnings as errors. And nothing with a warning would make it into a mainline build.
There are occasions when a warning is unavoidable. But then that requires positive action to use use pragma to turn the warning off and back on again around the offending line. And that should be commented as to why. It can't be ignored.
Either you can read the code and comprehend it or you cant.
If that were true, no competent coder would ever have bugs in his code.
It's like this sentence... Count the number of Fs.
FINISHED FILES ARE THE RE-
SULT OF YEARS OF SCIENTIF-
IC STUDY COMBINED WITH
THE EXPERIENCE OF YEARS.
Most people, despite their fluency of the English language will miscount the number of Fs.
Enforced braces, compilers that are indentation aware, and better detection of unreachable code would would all reduce the number of times that errors of the type in the SSL bug occur. That's an indisputable fact.
Nobody does intentionally. Because there's no such thing.
It's single statement if blocks without braces that people should be avoiding as a matter of style.
Thanks for that. It's even more amusing to see a middle aged fella doing the fool dance.
Rolling on the floor laughing your ass off after something you said yourself, which you didn't intend as a joke might be considered by some to be grounds to call the mental health services. But as part of a fool dance, it's completely apt. Keep it up.
As to "plonk", it refers to the act of putting a usenet user in the kill file. Now back in those days it was often claimed without actually doing. But no one else could tell. Now on Slashdot, it's impossible to do that, though you can make someone a "foe" which effectively hides their posts at -1. But unfortunately for you, slashdot makes that action public, and you didn't do it. So yet more foolishness.
Dance on fool.
As I said, you're just making yourself look a bigger and bigger fool as every other poster drops in to point out your error. Dance fool!
If you're arguing that "queue" is not a verb
What would be the point of that? Both "queue" and "cue" exist as both noun and verbs. So no.
That's why I wrote about word patterns, not verbs.
Uh, no. 'No wireless, less space than a Nomad, lame".
That was Taco in the summary. The community itself did not dismiss the iPod.
(It was only after Apple because successful that slashdotters started hating on it.)
See also: the iPod.
Not really. Taco's summary was "... lame". But the comments were not negative. The Slashdot community as a whole was not against the iPod, and didn't predict it's failure.
It's only AFTER Apple became successful that slashdot started hating on everything Apple. And that intensified after Android was released.
But the Slashdot community is not the mass market, and does not share mass market preferences.
No indeed. But we're talking about the reaction when the product is upcoming or just out. Slashdot have been good at pointing out the hardware products that won't succeed.
Your clarification that the climate scientists were trying to hide the decline of the tree ring data as opposed to hiding the decline of the temperatures isn't very reassuring.
That was neither my clarification, nor a correct summary of the text I posted.
There is no scientific or technical error or fraud here, just as the text says. Just a valid way of joining together temperature data that was collected via a thermometer, with those that are deduced from before thermometer measurements were taken via "proxies", in order to get a longer term trend.
The email leaks revealed the science isn't as clear cut as they would have us believe.
They did nothing of the sort. Deniers hoped they would, but they didn't.
There's only one problem. Google Glass is going to take off like wildfire
Ah, the Nostradamus argument.
You are deluded into thinking that because the Slashdot crowd is anti-Glass as a rule that that will carry over to the general population. We don't like Facebook either. Amazingly, Zuckerburg is still filthy rich. Go figure.
So your argument is that it's always the opposite. That what Slashdot likes, must fail, and what Slashdot dislikes must succeed? If not, you have no argument. Just an example. And I already gave you 3 examples where Slashdot's dislikes have been entirely in like with a new product's failure. All of them being actual hardware that costs money, unlike your example of Facebook.
Try again.
I'm afraid not sunshine. "Queue" made no grammatical sense as you used it. You'd have to have said "Make a queue..." or ".... should make a queue."
"Cue the..." is a pattern from the theatre, instructing a person or group to start their action. That is clearly the sense you made, and the one that would fit the pattern of words you used.
You can't lie your way out of a grammar error.
Not that it matters, we all make them. It just makes you look pathetic to try and lie your way out of it.
No, not a dork, a glasshole. That's the label you're going to get, not dork.
this is the same words I heard from the co-worker I convinced to switch from an iPhone to an Android phone recently. Sounds more like someone not used to a User interface than anything else.
Sounds like someone reacting to being given bad advice.
It might be a pathetic grammar post, but he's not wrong. The word you were looking for is cue.
People here are predisposed to like new technology, and tend to be pro anything connected to Android. The overwhelming flood of negativity even amongst this crowd should clue you in to the fact that Google Glass isn't going to take off.
The reason it's STILL on invite only, "development unit" distribution, is that if sold as normal product, through normal channels, it would tank as surely as The Segway, the Kin, and the various "smart" watches.
It's equally stupid to like technology just because it's new.
I suspect like most people who've heard about it he dislikes the idea of Google Glass on it's own terms. Not just because it's new.
This all came out in the Climategate emails. But you never heard about those, did you?
We are well aware of release of emails from the University of East Anglia. The attempt at connecting it with watergate fails, as unlike watergate there is no smoking gun. Nothing in the emails shows any conspiracy. There is no blocking of "anti-AGW" papers. There are no "anti-AGW" papers to block. And nothing in the emails says otherwise
"Hide the decline" ring a bell?
It sure does.
"Many commentators quoted one email in which Phil Jones said he had used "Mike's Nature trick" in a 1999 graph for the World Meteorological Organization "to hide the decline" in proxy temperatures derived from tree ring analyses when measured temperatures were actually rising. This 'decline' referred to the well-discussed tree ring divergence problem, but these two phrases were taken out of context by climate change sceptics, including US Senator Jim Inhofe and former Governor of Alaska Sarah Palin, as though they referred to some decline in measured global temperatures, even though they were written when temperatures were at a record high.[32] John Tierney, writing in the New York Times in November 2009, said that the claims by sceptics of "hoax" or "fraud" were incorrect, but that the graph on the cover of a report for policy makers and journalists did not show these non-experts where proxy measurements changed to measured temperatures.[33] The final analyses from various subsequent inquiries concluded that in this context 'trick' was normal scientific or mathematical jargon for a neat way of handling data, in this case a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion.[34][35] The EPA notes that in fact, the evidence shows that the research community was fully aware of these issues and that no one was hiding or concealing them.[36]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...
You have nothing.
MoronBob,
There is no such decision and no such change. They are two different phrases, both in long time use, and both still in use.
Well you certainly didn't. Predictions require statements about the future. The selecting of 1998 as a start year by you and the other denialist morons is due to the fact that 1998 was the hottest year on record. Starting from that fact and ignoring all data before is a thing called "cherry-picking" and is only possible in retrospect.
It also requires complete ignorance of the fact that the normal period of averaging is 30 years. Making it impossible to judge a climate trend on anything as short as 15 (10? 11? 12? 13? 14?16? 17?) years.
Finally one notes that if you do ignore the definition of climate and just consider a start year and a finish year, all within the last 30 years, nearly all such lines are warming.
The scientists in the the 1970s were making predictions. You're just being a backwards looking moron.
http://www.skepticalscience.co...
No scientist says humans are the only cause. There are other forcings, positive and negative. The very likely (95%-100%) in the IPCC is to the contention that "most" of the rise in temperature is caused by human forcings. Not "all".
MoronBob,
No scientist has told you they can accurately predict the temperature in 100 years. But they can give a range of predictions for climate for various future time frames.
Because unlike you, they understand the difference between weather and climate.
Yes global warming predictions were made in the 1970s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...
Amazon just needs to be able to import your Play Store Sales, and Apple Sales so that you can get those apps from them.
Huh? What does that mean? There is no mechanism by which Amazon can sell iOS apps. Apart from to jailbroken phones.
Ah, a balanced and reasonable post at last.