In what way is Google trying to discriminate against those who actually have faith (whatever that may mean)? By opposing those that are trying to discriminate against another group?
It makes perfect sense. UTF-8 is designed to that a file encoded in ASCII is also encoded in UTF-8, and a file encoded in UTF-8 which uses no codepoint which is not in ASCII does not change interpretation when interpreted as an ASCII-encoded file. That is the backwards compatibility of UTF-8. But, as I stated, this only works with ASCII. *Any* other encoding is not binary compatible with UTF-8.
The apps you refer to which were "written to assume ASCII input" and which "can be used to process UTF-8 files" are precisely those that do not need to know what the semantic value of the encoded text (for example, they must not try to count words, or paragraphs, or distinguish between case, or distinguish digits from letters, and so on) nor need any of a few other properties (like the number of glyphs, the length of the text, and so on), which do not ever need to compare strings of text for equality (for they do not know anything about normalization) or collate them (in any order which is not numerical order of the bytes) and which are subject to a few other restrictions. The range of apps which satisfy these conditions is pretty limited, and mostly restricted to shuffling around binary blobs---and clearly they could pretty much do the same thing with text encoded in any other encoding which satisfies a very short list of conditions.
You tell me that out needs aren't covered by ASCII. I know that: my last name has two diacritics which are not available in ASCII, and which are represented differently in pretty much
every encoding out there.
But using shifts uses one addition per bit (or one addition or one conditional per bit) while repeated addition uses as many additins as the smaller number (if you are smart to do it that way)!
If your idea of implementing multiplication was using serial addition, it becomes quite hard to believe you wrote a game or anything functional, really...
If the OLPC project were really serious about using open source software to help the third world, it would start hiring some of the people there to work on open source projects.
But you do not need to convince "the vast majority of people", only those that matter with respect to the kind of decisions you are trying to modify. The fact that most people do not know what Linux is is pretty irrelevant: it is quite obvious that they do not know what Windows is, either.
it's fairly immaterial. 99.9% of computer users will look at what I just wrote and say "oh look, letters." They don't care.
That's absolutely irrelevant. Majorities have never been worried with the very most important issues and often, when presented with choices (from beta-vs-vhs to reelecting Bush) make the most irrational, wrong one. Arguments involving "most people" regarding software are broken from the start... How seriously would you take an argument regarding, say, quantum chromodynamics which is based on what 99.9% of the people have to say on the subject?
Well. The few who ask for documentation want to write open source drives which will provide drivers to the first group.
You present the last group as a fringe group of fanatics... It is quite understandable that very few people will want documentation on graphic cards, for there are in fact very few people in the world who can understand it. And youseem to imply that because they are few, they are mostly negligible: that's a pretty absurd position.
Slashdot Mirror
In what way is Google trying to discriminate against those who actually have faith (whatever that may mean)? By opposing those that are trying to discriminate against another group?
So those rights should also be not given to heterosexual couples which cannot produce offspring?
It hasn't been legal in most societies throughout thousands of years of history
You should really read some history, you know...
But there is history. This is not new, by any means: it has already happened many times---it is only the technical aspect that is new...
There is no right to harm others purposefully.
Thats the american way though, throw a bunch of money at a lawyer, rather than look for a solution to the problem.
I thought you were going to say: That's the American way, being lost.
Pretending that Obama is indistinguisable from, say, Bush is simply dishonest.
It makes perfect sense. UTF-8 is designed to that a file encoded in ASCII is also encoded in UTF-8, and a file encoded in UTF-8 which uses no codepoint which is not in ASCII does not change interpretation when interpreted as an ASCII-encoded file. That is the backwards compatibility of UTF-8. But, as I stated, this only works with ASCII. *Any* other encoding is not binary compatible with UTF-8.
The apps you refer to which were "written to assume ASCII input" and which "can be used to process UTF-8 files" are precisely those that do not need to know what the semantic value of the encoded text (for example, they must not try to count words, or paragraphs, or distinguish between case, or distinguish digits from letters, and so on) nor need any of a few other properties (like the number of glyphs, the length of the text, and so on), which do not ever need to compare strings of text for equality (for they do not know anything about normalization) or collate them (in any order which is not numerical order of the bytes) and which are subject to a few other restrictions. The range of apps which satisfy these conditions is pretty limited, and mostly restricted to shuffling around binary blobs---and clearly they could pretty much do the same thing with text encoded in any other encoding which satisfies a very short list of conditions.
You tell me that out needs aren't covered by ASCII. I know that: my last name has two diacritics which are not available in ASCII, and which are represented differently in pretty much every encoding out there.
No one as used ASCII in years, really. And UTF-8 is only backwards compatible if all your needs were covered by ASCII.
It is the way forward, though.
It's a matter of pride, really ;-) Even doing 24 times 40 by adding 24 times really, really hurts.
I simply cannot believe anyone can think that multiplying 11500 by 22300 by doing 11500 sums is acceptable :)
We all know about early optimization and other evils, but... come on: 11500 sums?!
What does 'innovate' mean in this case?
But using shifts uses one addition per bit (or one addition or one conditional per bit) while repeated addition uses as many additins as the smaller number (if you are smart to do it that way)!
If your idea of implementing multiplication was using serial addition, it becomes quite hard to believe you wrote a game or anything functional, really...
Since it is open source it is harder for us to get timely issue resolution.
What kind of timeliness in issue resolution were you getting from MS?
"there for"? Maybe you should let long words alone for a few years...
If the OLPC project were really serious about using open source software to help the third world, it would start hiring some of the people there to work on open source projects.
That's simply absurd.
"g2g"? *sigh*
Passenger rail is not profitabe in any country, as far as I know. That does not mean it is not a good thing to have it.
Is its purpose to turn a profit?
But you do not need to convince "the vast majority of people", only those that matter with respect to the kind of decisions you are trying to modify. The fact that most people do not know what Linux is is pretty irrelevant: it is quite obvious that they do not know what Windows is, either.
it's fairly immaterial. 99.9% of computer users will look at what I just wrote and say "oh look, letters." They don't care.
That's absolutely irrelevant. Majorities have never been worried with the very most important issues and often, when presented with choices (from beta-vs-vhs to reelecting Bush) make the most irrational, wrong one. Arguments involving "most people" regarding software are broken from the start... How seriously would you take an argument regarding, say, quantum chromodynamics which is based on what 99.9% of the people have to say on the subject?
Pluginize, git them out, outfactor. You are kidding, right?
You surely managed to make it sound important... ;-)
Well. The few who ask for documentation want to write open source drives which will provide drivers to the first group.
You present the last group as a fringe group of fanatics... It is quite understandable that very few people will want documentation on graphic cards, for there are in fact very few people in the world who can understand it. And youseem to imply that because they are few, they are mostly negligible: that's a pretty absurd position.