Ultimate pedantry requires efficiency. Two newlines can be removed, which yields a total reduction of 3-5 bytes depending on the server OS, reducing disk access times and wear in the (very) long run:
Yes. Damn those users, always pressing unexpected buttons!
No really, if you think about it, the proper way to correct a mistake is to go back, correct it, and then continue. Proper does not mean technically proper, it means intuitive. Also, the back button is just as much a "cancel" or "oops!" button as anything else. Remember that the back/forward buttons are the backbone of surfing. If you break them, you break the nice waves. And if you break the nice surfin' waves, you lose good karma. (in life, not on/.)
And btw, please don't tell me you have a screen that tells the user that "You pressed the button twice, the second press will be disregarded, lohoo-ser.". That's one of the most obscene ways to show total disregard for interface design.
"Small woman requires not a big dick." - Ancient Wisdom -
In other words: instead of trying to shoot your offspring into space with a big pale dick plus huge orange ball with boosters attached, try with a more sensible arrangement. Big hunking and cheap cargo goes on the big cheap vessel, the small important stuff, like seme^H^H^H^Hpeople, goes on the smaller, but safer ship.
The window for successful launch from Earth surface into space... is tight.
The global growth rate is about 140 ppm (people per minute). Let's consider that anyone with an IQ of <100 will want or need training weels, that means a growth of at least 70 ppm who need/want training wheels.
If we look at the birth rate instead, which is about 270 ppm, we get a growth figure of 135 ppm who need/want training wheels. If we now guesstimate that 40% of these newborns are persons who will eventually clog up the helpdesk more than usual, we get a figure ot 54ppm.
In other words: One sucker born every second!
I estimate that in a few decades, half of all jobs in the service sector will be helpdesk-related.
How do you tell the drive to store only on one platter? As far as I know, they start at the outer edge, slowly progress through the sectors towards the inner edge with the final sectors innermost, having progressed through all the platters simultaneously.
Yes, I do this same compression for photos that aren't really nice or otherwise interesting. Those photos that fall in between "pointless=>delete" and "hah, this is great!". I do it by reducing the resolution though, instead of by making massive jpeg artifacts, usually to 1280x960 or 1024x768. Still acceptable to print or display on a monitor, but only barely.
I wonder, what specific lens quality is harder to maintain at larger sizes? If you, say, have a 1-meter monster (in diameter) projecting on a tiny 7mpix ccd, wouldn't it be easier to get high quality than using a measly 1 cm lens? I would imagine that tiny irregularities wouldn't matter as much, although on the other hand, manufacturing 500kg arrays of glass isn't easy either.
So, what happens if the lens resolution is higher than the CCD, but at the same time the CCD has lower resolution than the lens? The universe implodes?
My old high school did this. On machines with Windows 95 or 98, too little ram for anything, Quantum Bigfoot drives (slooow), and the encryption was hardware based. On ISA cards. You can imagine the swapping, when a 16mb Windows runs out of memory.
The reason, of course, was that some people *ahem* had been taking the liberty to bring in their own hard drives to put in the computer, in order to use the (then) fat pipe at school to download all kinds of not-safe-for-anywhere stuff, in addition to other interesting things (keylogging peoples passwords, changing their course registrations to fit more noble needs (chicks and or good teachers), generally wreaking teen havoc).
The disk encryption was an effort to weed out the jungle that it was back then:)
It's quite interesting actually. When I watch an American sitcom (here in Finland), I'm amazed at the frequency of fadeouts and breaks in the story for ads, but they're not utilized here which make them stand out quite a bit. Even worse is when the story rewinds a few seconds to make you remember what happened before those 10 ads, the pic fades out, fades back in immediately, and you have to rewatch the last 10 seconds of stuff.
There was an article in Sientific American about making chips much smaller by letting water flow between the imprinting laser lens and the silicon wafer. The water changes the refractive index, so the lens can be better utilized, as I understand it, and apparently it's not particularly difficult either, since existing 193nm lithography can be used, and even surpass the planned 157nm lithography tech. Here's another article with some links.
Same thing. If you log in at slashdot.org, then only slashdot.org will be able to get that cookie. If ask.slashdot.org tries to access it, it won't succeed, unless you allow cookies to be read for the entire domain (usually the default).
Exactly, by visiting a company's website, you have already given them the information that you have visited their website. No information is, or can be stolen. Unless they use some exploit and grab your addressbook, that's stealing.
Slashdot Mirror
Ultimate pedantry requires efficiency. Two newlines can be removed, which yields a total reduction of 3-5 bytes depending on the server OS, reducing disk access times and wear in the (very) long run:
I win.
We avoid:
- Unnecessary length (httprequestblabla)
- That yucky buzzword XML
Though, if we don't use it with superiors, we might also be avoiding:3. ??? :-(
4. Profit!
No really, if you think about it, the proper way to correct a mistake is to go back, correct it, and then continue. Proper does not mean technically proper, it means intuitive. Also, the back button is just as much a "cancel" or "oops!" button as anything else. Remember that the back/forward buttons are the backbone of surfing. If you break them, you break the nice waves. And if you break the nice surfin' waves, you lose good karma. (in life, not on /.)
And btw, please don't tell me you have a screen that tells the user that "You pressed the button twice, the second press will be disregarded, lohoo-ser.". That's one of the most obscene ways to show total disregard for interface design.
- Ancient Wisdom -
In other words: instead of trying to shoot your offspring into space with a big pale dick plus huge orange ball with boosters attached, try with a more sensible arrangement. Big hunking and cheap cargo goes on the big cheap vessel, the small important stuff, like seme^H^H^H^Hpeople, goes on the smaller, but safer ship.
The window for successful launch from Earth surface into space... is tight.
By the women with boxers?
Those are expected to be popular among the higher-ranking officers...
The global growth rate is about 140 ppm (people per minute). Let's consider that anyone with an IQ of <100 will want or need training weels, that means a growth of at least 70 ppm who need/want training wheels.
If we look at the birth rate instead, which is about 270 ppm, we get a growth figure of 135 ppm who need/want training wheels. If we now guesstimate that 40% of these newborns are persons who will eventually clog up the helpdesk more than usual, we get a figure ot 54ppm.
In other words: One sucker born every second!
I estimate that in a few decades, half of all jobs in the service sector will be helpdesk-related.
How do you tell the drive to store only on one platter? As far as I know, they start at the outer edge, slowly progress through the sectors towards the inner edge with the final sectors innermost, having progressed through all the platters simultaneously.
Yes, I do this same compression for photos that aren't really nice or otherwise interesting. Those photos that fall in between "pointless=>delete" and "hah, this is great!". I do it by reducing the resolution though, instead of by making massive jpeg artifacts, usually to 1280x960 or 1024x768. Still acceptable to print or display on a monitor, but only barely.
Yes, and the people taking it too far are actually those who buy the stuff that's sold in auctions. I'd say that's where the real loonies are.
And don't forget the one that switched resolutions continuously, until the monitor simply gave up and died.
I wonder, what specific lens quality is harder to maintain at larger sizes? If you, say, have a 1-meter monster (in diameter) projecting on a tiny 7mpix ccd, wouldn't it be easier to get high quality than using a measly 1 cm lens? I would imagine that tiny irregularities wouldn't matter as much, although on the other hand, manufacturing 500kg arrays of glass isn't easy either.
So, what happens if the lens resolution is higher than the CCD, but at the same time the CCD has lower resolution than the lens? The universe implodes?
Show me how you place your two eyes sequentially in order to zoom.
This one's updated! See, the previous article was a Piquepaille article @primidi.com, but this one is direct to the point.
Generally, one compresses output before encryption, not after.
The offending 10th one will be slaughtered for AIDS vaccine.
The reason, of course, was that some people *ahem* had been taking the liberty to bring in their own hard drives to put in the computer, in order to use the (then) fat pipe at school to download all kinds of not-safe-for-anywhere stuff, in addition to other interesting things (keylogging peoples passwords, changing their course registrations to fit more noble needs (chicks and or good teachers), generally wreaking teen havoc).
The disk encryption was an effort to weed out the jungle that it was back then :)
Well, it's better than ads, anyway.
Yes, and electricity has been flowing in complex formations in the atmosphere for a million years. It hasn't been useful until recently though.
There was an article in Sientific American about making chips much smaller by letting water flow between the imprinting laser lens and the silicon wafer. The water changes the refractive index, so the lens can be better utilized, as I understand it, and apparently it's not particularly difficult either, since existing 193nm lithography can be used, and even surpass the planned 157nm lithography tech. Here's another article with some links.
Same thing. If you log in at slashdot.org, then only slashdot.org will be able to get that cookie. If ask.slashdot.org tries to access it, it won't succeed, unless you allow cookies to be read for the entire domain (usually the default).
monster.com has a server for cookies: cookie.monster.com
Exactly, by visiting a company's website, you have already given them the information that you have visited their website. No information is, or can be stolen. Unless they use some exploit and grab your addressbook, that's stealing.