Can't someone just tell me what this is all aboot, eh? Yup, I reckon y'all oughta read that 'Merican DMCA hootenanny. Fo shizzle, dem's be dissin your rights like a big nucular bomb! Y'all come back after readin it now, ya hear?
Looks like this is what Mozilla, Apple, Microsoft, etc will need to begin supporting 5 in the future. I think they should hire you for your keen insight.
How long that takes, noone really knows. Another stunning peek into the future.
More importantly, how easy will this be to use and how useful will the semantic bindings be? It'll be as easy to use as a snowboard and as useful as a hammer.
Finally, anyone know if HTML5 mandates any specific version of EMCA/Java-Script? That part seemed vague to me. A three second scan of the linked article yields:
"Implementations that use ECMAScript to implement the APIs defined in this specification must implement them in a manner consistent with the ECMAScript Bindings for DOM Specifications specification, as this specification uses that specification's terminology. [EBFD]"
Their language indicates that ECMAScript isn't a requirement. Essentially, "if you use it, you must implement it in a certain way". They don't mention requirements for implementations that don't use ECMAScript.
Yes, let's roll out another new standard for no reason at all when most of the web still hasn't caught up to the last one.
I can't be the only one who thinks the W3C is annoying as hell... So you're advocating holding back progress because a lot of sites authors don't bother to make their HTML compliant? With the new APIs, this hardly qualifies as "no reason at all".
funny that IBM claims Open Source is more secure, and financially viable, then cites security and business reasons for not opening the source up.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge Open Source fanatic (Note the capitalization), but it makes me doubt where IBM's allegiances lay. Show us where your allegiances are then... start raising funds. When you reach a few hundred dollars, that will pay for one hour of an IBM lawyer's time to review the contracts surrounding the code. Let us know when you've raised at least half a million dollars and post back.
Ah, yes. Seeking to maximize uptime, system reliability, and performance predictabilty is a symptom that I don't think. You're an idiot. Actually you did think of that. What it appears you're missing is that a slow charging battery achieves the exact same characteristics as a quick charge battery. Both will be fully charged at the point they're needed. And if slow charge and quick charge batteries deliver the exact same performance characteristics and longevity with the only difference being charge time, then of course you'd be right... go with quick charge. Since I'm not a telecom engineer nor do I design batteries, I'll shut up now.:)
Think about what you are saying. Think about your boss. Think about your boss making the decision of which batteries to purchase. Consider that he knows next to nothing about technology. Consider that he knows everyone under him knows *everything* about technology. Now tell me which ones he'll choose: The old-fashioned, slow ones or the faster ones labeled as 'advanced'? C'mon, everyone knows that when it comes to technology, faster is *always* better. The marketing folks (with whom your boss identifies more than with you) say so! Lucky for me, my boss isn't an idiot and appreciates solid engineering. Let's see... quick charge, but reduced cycles meaning more frequent replacements, higher cost, and decreased output which overall increases total cost of ownership. Or, slower charge, but longer life, lower cost, and increased output which reduces total cost of ownership. Either way, the batteries will have a full charge in the event of an outage.
What makes you think I didn't think about what I said? It was the contents of your post that indicate you didn't think it through. Yes, you're correct that having a system always charged is the best state to be in. However, having batteries fully charged is independent of how fast they get charged. If the power is going out so frequently that the only way to fully charge the batteries between outages is by having a quick charge battery, then I'll agree with you.
Why wouldn't they be? Quick charge means they constantly (or nearly constantly) have maximum capacity available - which is the ideal state for a backup system (because it makes system performance predictable and maximizes uptime in the event of power outage). Think about what you're saying. These are backup batteries and will ideally never get used. What does it matter if your batteries charge in 30 minutes if they're only used two times a year? You could have batteries which take days to fully charge because at the time of an outage, what difference did it make that the batteries charged in 30 minutes and then sat there at full charge for half a year? Plus, quick charge batteries are likely more expensive, have shorter lifespans, and have worse performance.
Surely you're trolling. Their latest gain was because they made a lot of money and the market responded. If IBM sent out a press release saying they're freely handing out source code to all their software, I bet their stock would tank.
With the volume up: Thank you for buying ansell condoms. People who purchased this product also bought... ... diapers, usually after about a nine month delay.
Speaking of that, when I initially glanced at the title I thought it read "Microsoft Will Stream Ass to Grocery Carts". I don't know whether to be relieved or disappointed.
It's rigged. No one actually *chooses* the CowboyNeal option. Totally... when CmdrTaco asked his girl to marry him, she actually chose the CowboyNeal option instead. He quickly updated the database so that it appeared she chose him.:)
When in doubt, watch a commercial for the product. The manufacturer rarely pronounces their own product's name incorrectly. As someone else mentioned, it's often market specific. Such as Nokia. In some places, they pronounce it "noe-KEE-ya". Other places, it's "NAW-keeya".
It's hard to believe it costs $1000 in the US. How many hours of burgerflipping is that at US salaries, 100 ? At US burgerflipper wages I'm guessing that'd probably be well over 100 unless you're a master flipper.:) I'm another country to the North.
However, price isn't the only factor. One other thing is how much total bandwidth do you really get? I could run an ethernet cable to my neighbor and give them 100Mbps symmetrical from my router, but good luck if they try and shove that much through my cable modem. And it's great if you can get 100Mbps to everybody in Norway though that isn't so useful if a million users get throttled through a 1Gbps pipe on the other side. Also I'm guessing that service would come with a business-level SLA outlining uptime guarantees, etc. However, if you do get those kinds of speeds and you have dedicated bandwidth without it being throttled too much, then... wow! How's the housing prices over there?:)
You can't even get a 12Mbps connection in the US for less than $1000/mo. Max for any reasonable price is around 6Mbps. Why don't you just get 100Mbps for $1000/month instead? Not sure if that deal is still around, but still... your information is woefully outdated.
I think tortious interference may cover it though I'm not a lawyer and, from what I read, it's probably a stretch as the acts didn't seem to have malicious intent though there could definitely have been a financial impact to the companies.
I waist far less of my life [...] and thus waist your time [...]
Books > Movies as they stir creative portions of the brain and never have ads to begin with. Perhaps if you read more books you'd learn that the word is spelled "waste".
If I weren't heading off to work, I'd tell you the story of Dick (matter) and Jane (antimatter) whose sordid love affair resulted in their eventual meeting and annihilation of their corporeal forms, converting the sum of their body mass into pure energy. Alas, if I were to continue the tale I'd be late for work.
In other words, in real life, the most optimal route is rarely going to be the shortest route except in the simplest of cases. Very true. For a traveling cold call salesman who has no life, this could be applicable. More suitable examples might be the traveling archaeologist looking at potential dig sites, or a contest where someone had to visit 200 pubs and collect coasters from each in the least amount of time possible... the traveling drunkard perhaps.
I think it's more like bookcrossing You've already paid for it, now you're letting someone else use it. With books, publishers might not like it because they sell fewer books. With wifi, ISPs may sell fewer connections. Either way it's not stealing. I bet you're a popular guy at the all-you-can-eat places.
Maybe I misunderstand the question. Here's a good example. Let's say you're hired by a company to market to beer breweries and brewpubs, and you were arranging personal visits in order to demonstrate your new beer widget to them. Take a look at this map:
Now quickly find the most optimal route to visit all those locations in the least amount of time. The number of permutations are basically n! (that's n factorial: n * n-1 * n-2 *... * 3 * 2 * 1) where n is the number of locations. Basically impossible to solve algorithmically for what looks to be well over 100 locations on that map.
The whole shifting port knocking pattern is to protect from flaws found in whatever implementation of SSH, not to replace a login. And what's protecting against flaws in your implementation of a port knocking daemon?
1) They are going to "use heat from equipment to manage temperature on board the ships"? Huh? Unless these things are parked in the Arctic, "temperature management" in a data center always involves getting rid of the heat, not using it. The heat is a problem, not a solution. Unless you're human, in which case you might appreciate a little bit of heat on a cold winter day to warm up the water you shower with or the temperature in your office.
Slashdot Mirror
"Implementations that use ECMAScript to implement the APIs defined in this specification must implement them in a manner consistent with the ECMAScript Bindings for DOM Specifications specification, as this specification uses that specification's terminology. [EBFD]"
Their language indicates that ECMAScript isn't a requirement. Essentially, "if you use it, you must implement it in a certain way". They don't mention requirements for implementations that don't use ECMAScript.
I can't be the only one who thinks the W3C is annoying as hell... So you're advocating holding back progress because a lot of sites authors don't bother to make their HTML compliant? With the new APIs, this hardly qualifies as "no reason at all".
Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge Open Source fanatic (Note the capitalization), but it makes me doubt where IBM's allegiances lay. Show us where your allegiances are then... start raising funds. When you reach a few hundred dollars, that will pay for one hour of an IBM lawyer's time to review the contracts surrounding the code. Let us know when you've raised at least half a million dollars and post back.
Surely you're trolling. Their latest gain was because they made a lot of money and the market responded. If IBM sent out a press release saying they're freely handing out source code to all their software, I bet their stock would tank.
Speaking of that, when I initially glanced at the title I thought it read "Microsoft Will Stream Ass to Grocery Carts". I don't know whether to be relieved or disappointed.
When in doubt, watch a commercial for the product. The manufacturer rarely pronounces their own product's name incorrectly. As someone else mentioned, it's often market specific. Such as Nokia. In some places, they pronounce it "noe-KEE-ya". Other places, it's "NAW-keeya".
However, price isn't the only factor. One other thing is how much total bandwidth do you really get? I could run an ethernet cable to my neighbor and give them 100Mbps symmetrical from my router, but good luck if they try and shove that much through my cable modem. And it's great if you can get 100Mbps to everybody in Norway though that isn't so useful if a million users get throttled through a 1Gbps pipe on the other side. Also I'm guessing that service would come with a business-level SLA outlining uptime guarantees, etc. However, if you do get those kinds of speeds and you have dedicated bandwidth without it being throttled too much, then... wow! How's the housing prices over there?
(well other than pizza and coffee
I think tortious interference may cover it though I'm not a lawyer and, from what I read, it's probably a stretch as the acts didn't seem to have malicious intent though there could definitely have been a financial impact to the companies.
Books > Movies as they stir creative portions of the brain and never have ads to begin with. Perhaps if you read more books you'd learn that the word is spelled "waste".
If I weren't heading off to work, I'd tell you the story of Dick (matter) and Jane (antimatter) whose sordid love affair resulted in their eventual meeting and annihilation of their corporeal forms, converting the sum of their body mass into pure energy. Alas, if I were to continue the tale I'd be late for work.
Maybe I misunderstand the question. Here's a good example. Let's say you're hired by a company to market to beer breweries and brewpubs, and you were arranging personal visits in order to demonstrate your new beer widget to them. Take a look at this map:
http://beermapping.com/maps/maps.php?m=northcentral
Now quickly find the most optimal route to visit all those locations in the least amount of time. The number of permutations are basically n! (that's n factorial: n * n-1 * n-2 *
Then clearly this is proof of Intelligent Deception.
Their denial is the equivalent of: "Drop HD-DVD support? But we haven't announced that yet!"