An activist for the concept of the people all wearing cameras as an answer to CCTV. Who appears to be pretending to have a medical complaint to further his aims.
Funny how the definition of Linux oscillates between a full OS "distribution" and just the kernel, depending on what the person's trying to prove at the time.
I'm beginning to think RMS is right about one thing. The OS should be called GNU/Linux. Or maybe even that's understating it. If Linux with Android on top is called "Android". Linux with GNU on top should be called "GNU".
So, what nerds were using 20 years ago was GNU. And the mainstream still isn't using it.
A pair of camera glasses supposedly invented by Lady Ga Ga 2 years ago. And surprise, surprise, they haven't caught on. And you're using that as a n example FOR camera glasses?
There's a store near where I used to live, that's been selling cameras in glasses, pens, ties, transistor radios, electric plugs, etc for a couple of decades. Clearly there are some private investigators, industrial espionage operatives, stalkers and peeping toms that want this stuff. But it's really niche.
If only people would take bitcoins seriously, so that we could all avoid paying tax, and kill off public services, such as highways. Then we could sit on the stoop all day with our automatic assault rifles, happily calling the neighbor a fucking nigger, whilst the kids get their schooling from the school of life.
And yet they have intermixed. You guys are really hot on preserving what the constitution says about guns and free-speech. Not so good on the rest of it.
then consider that human teeth have been used as currency
The foundations of your beliefs are getting more and more amusing.
Yeah reminds me of what creationists commonly say about evolution.
Your problem with that particular attempt at bizarro association is that I've spent a lot more time making fun of creationist beliefs than I've spent making fun of yours.
No one's saying it is illegal. Plenty of antisocial and even evil things are not illegal. But they are still cheating the people in every country that they do this deceitful practice.
Should be doing? That says more about you than it does about Google.
Bitcoin gains its value for the same reason gold ultimately does: It takes an effort to obtain it, and it is in limited supply.
Bitcoin doesn't take any effort to obtain it. Running a computer program isn't effort.
And as I've already explained that is not the source of gold's value. It has intrinsic value. Scarcity alone does not make something valuable.
For example, pacific nations for a long time used sharks teeth as currency.
This is the kind of crap that members of the bitcoin bubble use to try and convince each other. To some primitive cultures, sharks teeth had a value, as a cutting tool and/or jewellery. That's intrinsic worth. In some cases they might have been bartered because of that. That doesn't make them currency. Again bitcoins have no intrinsic worth.
I don't think you realize just how powerful the drug trade is.
I'm well aware of the size of the drug trade. But the drug trade per se isn't working in bit-coins. They love their traditional bank-notes. You mentioned one drug-dealer with a web-site. Who's clearly also a foolish libertarian who's got caught up in the bubble.
You know in one place, drug dealers were taking jugs of Tide detergent as payment for drugs. Again it has intrinsic worth - but even that wasn't enough to make jugs of Tide into a currency.
Well here's the thing: I'm making money on bitcoins. In addition to actually obtaining more of them at very little cost, I already have realized gains far in excess of what I have put into it (that is, converted the bitcoins into real world valuable items.)
Just like the race-track. Funny how everyone you hear from is a winner! Amazing how these sequences of bits have created value out of thin air! No one's lost any money!
How much money have you made fighting against bitcoin by the way? You've certainly put time into working against it it (for example, the time spent writing these posts.) And further, why are you so interested in seeing it fall? I'll tell you why: because you're afraid of what might happen should the worlds governments lose their titans grip on trade. You're afraid that we might all become free, because if we did, then we'd all be libertarian.
Are you into tin-foil hats as well? Like most people here I argue about all sorts of shit. Especially when people are being dumb.
But as I say, I actually want libertarians to continue with bitcoins. The bigger the stupidity, the more entertaining it is.
I do not know how much profit they should have made, but if you're saying that they made £65m profit and they paid only £157k tax
I'm not saying any such thing. The Telegraph is.
Absolutely no one be they individuals or corporations will pay more tax than is legally required.
That's disingenuous. Corporations such as Google play all the countries and their tax systems off against each other, to dishonestly avoid paying tax. The ordinary person can't do that. Ordinary people should not be paying more tax than rich corporations, it's stupid and immoral.
As far as I can see that's still not a best box model. It's mostly just different varieties of patching over what's broken. Those are just sizes, they're not rects.
outerWidth(true) does at least match the same rect as CSS left. But is setting/getting a rect by the outside of an invisible margin (that may or may not be collapsed) anyone's ideal metric?
Stemcor trades steel. Big old fashioned, heavy to transport, unglamorous steel. In a country where British Steel made losses for decades. And 2011 was in the depths of a recession. Just how much profit do you think they should have made? It's admirable that they made any.
Note that the Telegraph article that you are probably referencing, directly or indirectly says: "However. it is not known whether the company â" which made profits of £65m â" used similar controversial tax avoidance measures criticised in the past by Mrs Hodge."
If it's "not known", and based purely on looking at revenue rather than profit, then it is indeed a smear.
Google on the other hand IS KNOWN to use tax avoidance, and we KNOW they made huge profits on which they paid very little tax, cheating people in countries all over the world.
Um, no. MVC is a design pattern (i.e. a set of concepts for programming) that can apply to any language, CSS is declarative style markup (that apparently some people think should be the next programming language) that depends upon another markup language (HTML, XML).
I'm happy that you know that. It's a shame you don't have the comprehension ability to see that nothing in my post said otherwise.
I think you should look up MVC.
I thing you should try teaching your grandmother to suck eggs.
Serious question. I'm doing a specialist graphics app at the moment, and I was just considering this the other day. What's the important rect for a box?
Most graphics app use a rect that is halfway through the border by default, as a result of the concept of "stroking" the rect. CSS is very different, and as you say a bit broken, by default using outside the margin for position, and content rect for size. So there's no concrete rect for layout of a box at all in CSS. And then there's box-sizing, which could allow the concept using the same rect for positioning and size, but doesn't.
How would a designer prefer to think of the primary metrics of a box, for the sake of alignment, snap to grid, proportional resizing etc? 1) Margin rect 2) Outside border 3) Centre of border 4) Inside border (outside padding) 5) Around the content (inside padding).
Of course, "all of them" and "it depends" are rational answers. But not much use when deciding on default or standard behaviour.
A false smear from an AC, repeating the tax cheats excuses.
Margaret Hodge owns shares in Stemcor. Stemcor's effective tax rate over the last 5 years was 32%. Google's effective tax rate was 8%. Google's UK effective tax rate was 0.4%.
CSS alongside 2 basic layers, regular code and HTML document itself, only creates additional unnecessary third layer of shit that eventually may introduce problems, as soon as someone starts playing with it
That's like saying MVC is unnecessary, and not just putting all your code in a single class/module/namespace may introduce problems. There are people that say that, but they are novices.
HTML5/CSS/JS is equivalent to MVC. The "VisualBasic" type people would tend towards trying to put everything in their HTML rather than the other way around.
Look again. He was talking about the easy half and the hard half -- a peak at 50%. And yet we have now used up most of the easy-to-extract oil, and with the finds of new oil shales and deep sea reserves
I'm with you up to that part.
we reckon we haven't used anywhere near half the total reserves.
Who's "we"?
Hubbert's model was an oversimplification, and it made an assumption that new finds would fit previous patterns, rather than be dominated by radically different types of reserves.
No it didn't. "Radically different types of reserves" is part of the "hard to get" category. Oil shale isn't a new discovery, oil has been extracted from it for thousands of years, and the the idea that Hubbert as a geologist working for a oil company wasn't aware of it is just plain ill-informed.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly. Looks like a crank, sounds like a crank.
An activist for the concept of the people all wearing cameras as an answer to CCTV. Who appears to be pretending to have a medical complaint to further his aims.
Andoid is Linux
Funny how the definition of Linux oscillates between a full OS "distribution" and just the kernel, depending on what the person's trying to prove at the time.
I'm beginning to think RMS is right about one thing. The OS should be called GNU/Linux. Or maybe even that's understating it. If Linux with Android on top is called "Android". Linux with GNU on top should be called "GNU".
So, what nerds were using 20 years ago was GNU. And the mainstream still isn't using it.
Most Anonymous Cowards are so inadequate they don't have any opinions of their own, they cut-n-paste other people's.
http://rawmaterialformisanthropes.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/i-hate-nerds.html
And some twits actually modded it up!
Those weren't just AR goggles, they were an assistive device for the severe vision problem the guy had and were semi-implanted.
Where exactly were they "semi-implanted". What exactly were they connected to? What's the nature of his "severe vision problem"?
I think he has a severe sanity problem.
So the future really does look like Fifth Element. Oh dear.
A pair of camera glasses supposedly invented by Lady Ga Ga 2 years ago. And surprise, surprise, they haven't caught on. And you're using that as a n example FOR camera glasses?
There's a store near where I used to live, that's been selling cameras in glasses, pens, ties, transistor radios, electric plugs, etc for a couple of decades. Clearly there are some private investigators, industrial espionage operatives, stalkers and peeping toms that want this stuff. But it's really niche.
The US is only one country.
Yes, but all politicians in every country use the illusion of religion to oppress there own people
No they don't. Only some countries are like that.
If only people would take bitcoins seriously, so that we could all avoid paying tax, and kill off public services, such as highways. Then we could sit on the stoop all day with our automatic assault rifles, happily calling the neighbor a fucking nigger, whilst the kids get their schooling from the school of life.
Ah Utopia!
And yet they have intermixed. You guys are really hot on preserving what the constitution says about guns and free-speech. Not so good on the rest of it.
On that basis, it shows you don't understand metaphor.
Though I'm sure you do, and just like to pick holes. Oops that was another metaphor.
then consider that human teeth have been used as currency
The foundations of your beliefs are getting more and more amusing.
Yeah reminds me of what creationists commonly say about evolution.
Your problem with that particular attempt at bizarro association is that I've spent a lot more time making fun of creationist beliefs than I've spent making fun of yours.
No one's saying it is illegal. Plenty of antisocial and even evil things are not illegal. But they are still cheating the people in every country that they do this deceitful practice.
Should be doing? That says more about you than it does about Google.
You mean the box-sizing property. I already mentioned that in the post you're answering.
Bitcoin gains its value for the same reason gold ultimately does: It takes an effort to obtain it, and it is in limited supply.
Bitcoin doesn't take any effort to obtain it. Running a computer program isn't effort.
And as I've already explained that is not the source of gold's value. It has intrinsic value. Scarcity alone does not make something valuable.
For example, pacific nations for a long time used sharks teeth as currency.
This is the kind of crap that members of the bitcoin bubble use to try and convince each other. To some primitive cultures, sharks teeth had a value, as a cutting tool and/or jewellery. That's intrinsic worth. In some cases they might have been bartered because of that. That doesn't make them currency. Again bitcoins have no intrinsic worth.
I don't think you realize just how powerful the drug trade is.
I'm well aware of the size of the drug trade. But the drug trade per se isn't working in bit-coins. They love their traditional bank-notes. You mentioned one drug-dealer with a web-site. Who's clearly also a foolish libertarian who's got caught up in the bubble.
You know in one place, drug dealers were taking jugs of Tide detergent as payment for drugs. Again it has intrinsic worth - but even that wasn't enough to make jugs of Tide into a currency.
Well here's the thing: I'm making money on bitcoins. In addition to actually obtaining more of them at very little cost, I already have realized gains far in excess of what I have put into it (that is, converted the bitcoins into real world valuable items.)
Just like the race-track. Funny how everyone you hear from is a winner! Amazing how these sequences of bits have created value out of thin air! No one's lost any money!
How much money have you made fighting against bitcoin by the way? You've certainly put time into working against it it (for example, the time spent writing these posts.) And further, why are you so interested in seeing it fall? I'll tell you why: because you're afraid of what might happen should the worlds governments lose their titans grip on trade. You're afraid that we might all become free, because if we did, then we'd all be libertarian.
Are you into tin-foil hats as well? Like most people here I argue about all sorts of shit. Especially when people are being dumb.
But as I say, I actually want libertarians to continue with bitcoins. The bigger the stupidity, the more entertaining it is.
I do not know how much profit they should have made, but if you're saying that they made £65m profit and they paid only £157k tax
I'm not saying any such thing. The Telegraph is.
Absolutely no one be they individuals or corporations will pay more tax than is legally required.
That's disingenuous. Corporations such as Google play all the countries and their tax systems off against each other, to dishonestly avoid paying tax. The ordinary person can't do that. Ordinary people should not be paying more tax than rich corporations, it's stupid and immoral.
As far as I can see that's still not a best box model. It's mostly just different varieties of patching over what's broken. Those are just sizes, they're not rects.
outerWidth(true) does at least match the same rect as CSS left. But is setting/getting a rect by the outside of an invisible margin (that may or may not be collapsed) anyone's ideal metric?
Stemcor trades steel. Big old fashioned, heavy to transport, unglamorous steel. In a country where British Steel made losses for decades. And 2011 was in the depths of a recession. Just how much profit do you think they should have made? It's admirable that they made any.
Note that the Telegraph article that you are probably referencing, directly or indirectly says: "However. it is not known whether the company â" which made profits of £65m â" used similar controversial tax avoidance measures criticised in the past by Mrs Hodge."
If it's "not known", and based purely on looking at revenue rather than profit, then it is indeed a smear.
Google on the other hand IS KNOWN to use tax avoidance, and we KNOW they made huge profits on which they paid very little tax, cheating people in countries all over the world.
Um, no. MVC is a design pattern (i.e. a set of concepts for programming) that can apply to any language, CSS is declarative style markup (that apparently some people think should be the next programming language) that depends upon another markup language (HTML, XML).
I'm happy that you know that. It's a shame you don't have the comprehension ability to see that nothing in my post said otherwise.
I think you should look up MVC.
I thing you should try teaching your grandmother to suck eggs.
I'm so glad I don't get involved in the sharp end of selling things.
What box model would be best?
Serious question. I'm doing a specialist graphics app at the moment, and I was just considering this the other day. What's the important rect for a box?
Most graphics app use a rect that is halfway through the border by default, as a result of the concept of "stroking" the rect. CSS is very different, and as you say a bit broken, by default using outside the margin for position, and content rect for size. So there's no concrete rect for layout of a box at all in CSS. And then there's box-sizing, which could allow the concept using the same rect for positioning and size, but doesn't.
How would a designer prefer to think of the primary metrics of a box, for the sake of alignment, snap to grid, proportional resizing etc?
1) Margin rect
2) Outside border
3) Centre of border
4) Inside border (outside padding)
5) Around the content (inside padding).
Of course, "all of them" and "it depends" are rational answers. But not much use when deciding on default or standard behaviour.
Did it change? Last time I looked it was 20%. Or are you averaging with non-VATable items?
A false smear from an AC, repeating the tax cheats excuses.
Margaret Hodge owns shares in Stemcor. Stemcor's effective tax rate over the last 5 years was 32%. Google's effective tax rate was 8%. Google's UK effective tax rate was 0.4%.
CSS alongside 2 basic layers, regular code and HTML document itself, only creates additional unnecessary third layer of shit that eventually may introduce problems, as soon as someone starts playing with it
That's like saying MVC is unnecessary, and not just putting all your code in a single class/module/namespace may introduce problems. There are people that say that, but they are novices.
HTML5/CSS/JS is equivalent to MVC. The "VisualBasic" type people would tend towards trying to put everything in their HTML rather than the other way around.
Look again. He was talking about the easy half and the hard half -- a peak at 50%. And yet we have now used up most of the easy-to-extract oil, and with the finds of new oil shales and deep sea reserves
I'm with you up to that part.
we reckon we haven't used anywhere near half the total reserves.
Who's "we"?
Hubbert's model was an oversimplification, and it made an assumption that new finds would fit previous patterns, rather than be dominated by radically different types of reserves.
No it didn't. "Radically different types of reserves" is part of the "hard to get" category. Oil shale isn't a new discovery, oil has been extracted from it for thousands of years, and the the idea that Hubbert as a geologist working for a oil company wasn't aware of it is just plain ill-informed.