That's very nice, but it's still fucking retarded. The whole world, including the enemy, can read these documents, but not the Navy and USMC! "But it's a long standing policy" isn't a valid excuse, they could just declassify the documents or drop the stupid policy.
Well fuck me, I might be wrong here. Somebody way down the thread posted a link to California registration of "charitable funds". I'm too hungry to decipher the 30 pages right now, but it very well might be a charity, at least legally by California's registration.
IANAL, although I did have an intro course on US business law. The Mozilla foundation appears to be a non-profit, and not a charity, as you claim. There's a difference between the two.
Also, Mozilla Corporation is a for-profit subsidiary of the former, though I'm not sure if they're actually the ones giving out these bounties.
That headline is not too bad, "more than" of course means just that, a>b, but it is often used similarly to "up to". The actual number can be 10.01% and it would be still technically accurate, which is admittedly the best kind of accurate.
Mostly though, it's just the perception that it gives the reader. Would you not say that it makes this result sound good, while, let's say, "More Than 85%* of Mozilla Bug Finders Take the Cash" paint a somewhat different picture?
*Note that this is based on their highest estimate too
As much as I love the (turbo-) brick Volvos, their current cars are going to be way, way, safer, despite obviously not looking like a tank. They're very much still associated with safety, it's just that the others started to take this seriously too.
Renault vs Volvo That Renault is a pretty safe car, but not out of the ordinary, and a modern Volvo can certainly match that performance. Though to be fair, the used car could've been in an accident previously, which would've weakened the frame so who knows how accurate this is.
A few high-end cars already feature pedestrian detection based on video/IR. So far, I think they just highlight them and show a warning, but it's entirely possible to have the car brake if it sees somebody wandering into the path. I don't know if any cars take into account the current weather, but almost all already have temperature sensors, and plenty also have rain sensors for automatic wipers. Combined with perhaps data from the last ABS/TC activation, the car can have a better idea of what the road conditions are than the average driver. I don't think having oil spilled on the road is a common enough occurrence to bother.
And even if the car does end up mowing down the children, it's very unlikely to cause serious damage to the car, let alone a occupant fatality, since, well, they're small kids that just will bounce off the bumper.
They are relative, but not completely meaningless. If you plot "often", "frequently" and perhaps "many times" on a scale from 0 to 100% ("never" to "always"), I, and I'd imagine... most people would expect to find all of the three significantly further to the right than the first tenth or 15%. The article (or the summary, I didn't RTFA) attempts to spin the story to make it sound like a higher number than it actually is.
I suggest some alternative headlines: "Almost 90% of people take money from a non-profit for submitting bugs", or "Only about 10% of bug finders volunteer their effort for free".
I didn't mean the whole 1 vs 2 spaces issue as raised by the article, that's up to somebody with too much time on their hands to debate. This was just to show that the dot and one space in a monospaced font are about as wide as a dot and two spaces in a proportional font. Maybe even more depending on the fonts involved.
Thanks to the magic of HTML, we can see this effect right here!
Here's a monospaced dot. It is followed by another sentence. And here's a proportional dot. That is, unless you changed your browser default to a monospaced font.
Unfortunately slashcode strips out   so I couldn't test the double space here, but I think this demonstrates the issue sufficiently.
I don't know if this is a good solution, mind you. First, the mega-bus has to be able to communicate-with/control the traffic lights. People have expectations about how traffic lights will work, and so adding in a new mode could confuse drivers. Pedestrians especially may start walking as soon as oncoming traffic gets a red light. (Do people in China obey the walk/don't-walk signals? They sure don't in any North American cities I've lived in!)
The fourth one is in Russia, like many of the photos there. You can tell it's Russia when there's little difference between the background and the overlaid photos.
And really, you'll get far better results if you just use an adequately short exposure time and some mechanical stabilization. Brace your shooting arm. If you want to get fancy, use something like Canon IS lenses.
Yeah, this is nifty, especially for smartphone based cameras which may already have built-in sensors to do this. But neither is it exactly revolutionary. You'll get better photos out of learning some basic photography than you will out of fancy sensors and analysis software.
Maybe you should learn more about photography, then you'd know that it's not always possible to use sufficiently short exposure time to get a perfectly sharp result. For example if it's too dark, the lens isn't fast enough, or the conditions changed too quickly to adjust, among countless other scenarios where such a technique could be useful.
I'm generally fine with QWERTY on the desktop/laptop keyboards as I didn't find Dvorak to be significantly better, but QWERTY is completely suboptimal for input when you're using one finger/stylus or, say, two thumbs. I've played around with the FITALY keyboard on my WM PDA, and although there was learning process, it did seem to be a somewhat faster. Also the Metropolis layout, based on a Monte Carlo method of the same name, looked very promising, but I don't recall ever finding an implementation for WM, and I was too lazy to make one myself.
It's kind of sad that all of this seems to be fading now that everyone's trying to reanimate QWERTY for touchscreen use with fat fingers, since if some of the autocorrection methods (which I personally dislike) were applied to these optimized layouts, we could get some amazingly fast and accurate input methods.
Those charts are completely useless as it's impossible to buy Android software in many parts (most?) of Europe as well. Not that I'd want to buy any if everyone starts using this phone-home DRM.
You might've needed to install.net separately on early WM5 devices, but it's certainly wasn't a problem to just install.net apps from a cab or run the exe from wherever you found it. WM6 seemed to have.net support out of the box. Of course, you could also have native applications.
But now, in my opinion, MS fucked up completely with WM7. Not only there is no compatibility with previous versions, but you can't have C/C++ without sucking somebody off at Microsoft, and C# is the only way.
The old UI sure was clunky (that's exactly the word that I always use), but I think it's still better than the ugly monstrosity that is to be found in WM7.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, I thought collective bargaining was supposed to be a good thing! Did they lie to me this whole time?
Of course prices were pretty damn high, the LCD displays was still very new then! Not to mention that 4:3 20" LCD monitors still cost almost as much.
That's very nice, but it's still fucking retarded. The whole world, including the enemy, can read these documents, but not the Navy and USMC! "But it's a long standing policy" isn't a valid excuse, they could just declassify the documents or drop the stupid policy.
Well fuck me, I might be wrong here. Somebody way down the thread posted a link to California registration of "charitable funds". I'm too hungry to decipher the 30 pages right now, but it very well might be a charity, at least legally by California's registration.
IANAL, although I did have an intro course on US business law. The Mozilla foundation appears to be a non-profit, and not a charity, as you claim. There's a difference between the two.
Also, Mozilla Corporation is a for-profit subsidiary of the former, though I'm not sure if they're actually the ones giving out these bounties.
That headline is not too bad, "more than" of course means just that, a>b, but it is often used similarly to "up to". The actual number can be 10.01% and it would be still technically accurate, which is admittedly the best kind of accurate.
Mostly though, it's just the perception that it gives the reader. Would you not say that it makes this result sound good, while, let's say, "More Than 85%* of Mozilla Bug Finders Take the Cash" paint a somewhat different picture?
*Note that this is based on their highest estimate too
As much as I love the (turbo-) brick Volvos, their current cars are going to be way, way, safer, despite obviously not looking like a tank. They're very much still associated with safety, it's just that the others started to take this seriously too.
Renault vs Volvo
That Renault is a pretty safe car, but not out of the ordinary, and a modern Volvo can certainly match that performance. Though to be fair, the used car could've been in an accident previously, which would've weakened the frame so who knows how accurate this is.
Here are a few more with new Volvos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIFKdvuTylc&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XVxVVtincE
>That fatality rate (of zero), while possibly helped a bit by safety features, is helped out quite a bit more by the removal of idiot drivers.
So you haven't seen any of the recent races, have you?
Yeah, you'd think it would be modded "Redundant" instead.
A few high-end cars already feature pedestrian detection based on video/IR. So far, I think they just highlight them and show a warning, but it's entirely possible to have the car brake if it sees somebody wandering into the path. I don't know if any cars take into account the current weather, but almost all already have temperature sensors, and plenty also have rain sensors for automatic wipers. Combined with perhaps data from the last ABS/TC activation, the car can have a better idea of what the road conditions are than the average driver. I don't think having oil spilled on the road is a common enough occurrence to bother.
And even if the car does end up mowing down the children, it's very unlikely to cause serious damage to the car, let alone a occupant fatality, since, well, they're small kids that just will bounce off the bumper.
They are relative, but not completely meaningless. If you plot "often", "frequently" and perhaps "many times" on a scale from 0 to 100% ("never" to "always"), I, and I'd imagine... most people would expect to find all of the three significantly further to the right than the first tenth or 15%. The article (or the summary, I didn't RTFA) attempts to spin the story to make it sound like a higher number than it actually is.
I suggest some alternative headlines:
"Almost 90% of people take money from a non-profit for submitting bugs",
or
"Only about 10% of bug finders volunteer their effort for free".
I didn't mean the whole 1 vs 2 spaces issue as raised by the article, that's up to somebody with too much time on their hands to debate. This was just to show that the dot and one space in a monospaced font are about as wide as a dot and two spaces in a proportional font. Maybe even more depending on the fonts involved.
Thanks to the magic of HTML, we can see this effect right here!
Here's a monospaced dot. It is followed by another sentence.
And here's a proportional dot. That is, unless you changed your browser default to a monospaced font.
Unfortunately slashcode strips out   so I couldn't test the double space here, but I think this demonstrates the issue sufficiently.
Yeah, they should have called it "The Stranger".
Yeah, I don't think so
The fourth one is in Russia, like many of the photos there. You can tell it's Russia when there's little difference between the background and the overlaid photos.
Maybe you should learn more about photography, then you'd know that it's not always possible to use sufficiently short exposure time to get a perfectly sharp result. For example if it's too dark, the lens isn't fast enough, or the conditions changed too quickly to adjust, among countless other scenarios where such a technique could be useful.
I'm generally fine with QWERTY on the desktop/laptop keyboards as I didn't find Dvorak to be significantly better, but QWERTY is completely suboptimal for input when you're using one finger/stylus or, say, two thumbs. I've played around with the FITALY keyboard on my WM PDA, and although there was learning process, it did seem to be a somewhat faster. Also the Metropolis layout, based on a Monte Carlo method of the same name, looked very promising, but I don't recall ever finding an implementation for WM, and I was too lazy to make one myself.
It's kind of sad that all of this seems to be fading now that everyone's trying to reanimate QWERTY for touchscreen use with fat fingers, since if some of the autocorrection methods (which I personally dislike) were applied to these optimized layouts, we could get some amazingly fast and accurate input methods.
Those charts are completely useless as it's impossible to buy Android software in many parts (most?) of Europe as well. Not that I'd want to buy any if everyone starts using this phone-home DRM.
But there's nothing one could do about her exposure after the tech submitted the pics.
Well, except maybe not post the story on some of the most read sites of the internet.
>If you've got a 500-horsepower, 3.6-liter V-8 under the hood, do you really need a "push to pass" button?
You still need it to pass the other guy with a 500 horsepower V-8 under the hood!
You might've needed to install .net separately on early WM5 devices, but it's certainly wasn't a problem to just install .net apps from a cab or run the exe from wherever you found it. WM6 seemed to have .net support out of the box. Of course, you could also have native applications.
But now, in my opinion, MS fucked up completely with WM7. Not only there is no compatibility with previous versions, but you can't have C/C++ without sucking somebody off at Microsoft, and C# is the only way.
The old UI sure was clunky (that's exactly the word that I always use), but I think it's still better than the ugly monstrosity that is to be found in WM7.
Well, one could say that by not being the right tool for the job and not being deployed, it failed its "final test".
going to be called R-square?
Maybe not, but facebook does let you search by email addresses!