Gladiatorial combat was never so much fun. It's your basic boy-meets-rocket, boy-loses-rocket, boy-gets-dragged-along-the-ground-and-crushed-agai nst-wall story.
As it does in IE. I got one of these messages purporting to be from Earthlink (my ISP) asking for updated credit card information. But then I looked at the URL, and said, "that's not right".
See? Mac developers are pretty good about doing the Right Thing.
If you add case sensitivity, then the programmer who designed an object can be sure that people using his object will follow his conventions for capitalization.
This is bad. Code conventions aren't global, they are local. Each shop has their own. Why should I be forced to use your convention? It's the wrong convention! It doesn't match any of my other code!
WTF does the original programmer care if I'm using his converntion or not? Why would he even want to enforce that?
I say: give these slandering, pandering, filibustering, dirty-bird legislators a taste of their own medicine! Let them be tried under the inappropriately harsh laws that snuck into the books under THEIR noses. It'll never happen of course, but it sure would be nice.
Would it be possible for citizens to press charges against the Republicans involved without the consent of the Democratic Party?
Interestingly, a plant getting damaged will emit chemicals into the air. When other plants detect these chemicals, they will up their production of insect- and fungi-deterrents.
This system under discussion is not especially complex, and has nothing to do with other species or with pollinators.
The pollination example you gave is similar to the tired creationist argument of the eye, which asserts that the eye is too complex to have evolved piece by piece. This is, of course, incorrect. Scientists have determined how the eye could have evolved, and have found examples of each stage.
Pollinators could have evolved like this (though IANA botanist):
A plant evolves wind-borne pollination.
A flying insect likes the taste of a plant's sugars. It pierces or chews leaves to get to them.
Pollen happens to catch on the insect's hairs. Since the insect likes this plant, it visits many in the area, of both sexes.
The reproductive success of this accidental pollen-spreading is decent enough so that evolution does not favor getting rid of the sweet sugars or developing a repellent for this insect.
In fact, even sweeter sugar accidentally evolves. That plant branch (no pun intended) attracts more insects and becomes more successful.
Since the food is richer at these plants than at other plants, insects that spend time at other plants get less food for the time invested. They are selected against.
Another branch develops a bit of color near the pollen generation sites. The insects are attracted to the color. This branch has more of its pollen collected, compared to other branches. This branch is selected for.
Etc.
There's no stretch of imagination here. It's a clear progression of small changes, each reinforcing the earlier change.
The attendees that the Sen. Coleman plans to invite are "the technology experts, the computer industry, the peer-to-peer industry, the software industry, the entertainment industry, the privacy experts and the business experts".
Which of these groups are going to argue for less blocking and IP-control technology? Which of these groups will argue that copyright is broken and that technological restrictions will make it harder or impossible to repeal copyright law?
Will any of these attendees even consider P2P as a fair-use technique? Where are the small bands, academia, librarians, and consumer advocates?
This won't be a summit, it'll be a choir preaching to itself, a kangaroo court, a stacked deck.
As I recall, Arabic sound like someone hacking up a hairball in Klingon. That is not a beautiful language, no matter what the mathematical qualities of the syntax are.
Yep, same here. I once dreamed I was on some jungle planet being chased by an endless wave of mini-xenomorphs, and no matter I fast I ran, I couldn't make it back to base. So I made myself a BFG. And suddenly the situation was a whole lot less scary!
Yoda reacting to Alderaan: Bad. Means Yoda gets introduced before the story is ready to handle him.
Chewie gets a medal: Appropriate.
More TIEs and stormtroopers: Excellent. The Death Star was seriously understaffed in the original.
Ep. 5
Vader orders C-3PO to Chewie's cell: Nice touch.
Ep. 6
Vicious Ewoks: Can Ewoks be redeemed? I think so.
Hayden Christenson: This is the correct thing to do, even if it does strike one as Orwellian to begin with.
Vader's death soliloquy: No! Bad! The original makes his redemption clear enough, and leaves Luke as his own man. If Vader tells Luke to rebuild the Jedi, then filial duty kicks in and weakens his subsequent soul-searching and independent decision-making. He stays the Son, instead of becoming the Man.
Jar-Jar and Watto: Would they even be alive? They had no role in the middle trilogy, so it would be out of place to just drop them in for one scene (unless they were presented as extras during the celebration montage).
All:
Clone stormtroopers: Sorry, no dice. Stormtroopers are not clones. This is canon.
Lightsaber cauterization, Aurebesh lettering, etc.: Good. I like numerous, small bug-fixes for the sake of consistency and correctness.
Maybe all stormtroopers were originally intended to be clones, but it is canon now that they are not clones. Though I suppose there may be some 60-year old clone instructors over at Carida (Imperial Academy) during Ep. 4-6.
Slashdot Mirror
Screenshots.
Cue "The Crying Game" music.
Yeah, it solves the problem. In Safari's address field, the URL would show up like this:
o v/
http://www.slashdot.org%00:foo@www.whitehouse.g
Rather than:
http://www.slashdot.org
As it does in IE. I got one of these messages purporting to be from Earthlink (my ISP) asking for updated credit card information. But then I looked at the URL, and said, "that's not right".
See? Mac developers are pretty good about doing the Right Thing.
Damn. There goes my joke about "Spirit is willing, but the dish is weak."
:)
Ah well. Maybe that is for the best...
The Dylan language allows the hyphen in names:
my-steadfast-object.do-some-bizarre-parsing
It is very readable. You have to put spaces around the hyphen in expressions, but most people do that anyway.
Dylan is case-insensitive, by the way. It distinguishes "constant" versus "class" versus "instance" like so:
$pi-squared
<string>
foobaz
Xconfig and xconfig are two very distinct utilities... ...and this is a bad thing.
It is not good practice to name an instance the same as the class. Instances should be named for their purpose.
"Point translatedPoint" instead of "Point point".
Languages should be case-insensitive to enforce good practice.
If you add case sensitivity, then the programmer who designed an object can be sure that people using his object will follow his conventions for capitalization.
This is bad. Code conventions aren't global, they are local. Each shop has their own. Why should I be forced to use your convention? It's the wrong convention! It doesn't match any of my other code!
WTF does the original programmer care if I'm using his converntion or not? Why would he even want to enforce that?
I say: give these slandering, pandering, filibustering, dirty-bird legislators a taste of their own medicine! Let them be tried under the inappropriately harsh laws that snuck into the books under THEIR noses. It'll never happen of course, but it sure would be nice.
Would it be possible for citizens to press charges against the Republicans involved without the consent of the Democratic Party?
I seem to remember that wanted to jump on the deal before Napoleon recovered from his delirium and came to his senses.
And if there ever was a negative vote, I think there would be rioting if a candidate won with a net negative.
And this is bad, because...?
If the winning candidate has a net negative vote, it's time to pick new candidates.
So we should send Alice or Charlie?
Frist Post!
Wait a sec, I just read what you said. Does that apply to me? Hey, I think it does! Curse you, TheLoneDanger!
Interestingly, a plant getting damaged will emit chemicals into the air. When other plants detect these chemicals, they will up their production of insect- and fungi-deterrents.
The pollination example you gave is similar to the tired creationist argument of the eye, which asserts that the eye is too complex to have evolved piece by piece. This is, of course, incorrect. Scientists have determined how the eye could have evolved, and have found examples of each stage.
Pollinators could have evolved like this (though IANA botanist):
There's no stretch of imagination here. It's a clear progression of small changes, each reinforcing the earlier change.
It takes a legal expert to know that naming a price at which you would sell is "bad faith".
People shouldn't need lawyers. Sigh.
You didn't feel like putting in much effort today, did you? :)
The attendees that the Sen. Coleman plans to invite are "the technology experts, the computer industry, the peer-to-peer industry, the software industry, the entertainment industry, the privacy experts and the business experts".
Which of these groups are going to argue for less blocking and IP-control technology? Which of these groups will argue that copyright is broken and that technological restrictions will make it harder or impossible to repeal copyright law?
Will any of these attendees even consider P2P as a fair-use technique? Where are the small bands, academia, librarians, and consumer advocates?
This won't be a summit, it'll be a choir preaching to itself, a kangaroo court, a stacked deck.
Hey, you Minnesota slashdotters, get writing!
As I recall, Arabic sound like someone hacking up a hairball in Klingon. That is not a beautiful language, no matter what the mathematical qualities of the syntax are.
Yep, same here. I once dreamed I was on some jungle planet being chased by an endless wave of mini-xenomorphs, and no matter I fast I ran, I couldn't make it back to base. So I made myself a BFG. And suddenly the situation was a whole lot less scary!
Aww, I was hoping "one-dimensional" really meant "one-dimensional". Damn.
Ep. 4
Dissolving of the Senate: Cool.
Original shooting scene: About damn time.
Yoda reacting to Alderaan: Bad. Means Yoda gets introduced before the story is ready to handle him.
Chewie gets a medal: Appropriate.
More TIEs and stormtroopers: Excellent. The Death Star was seriously understaffed in the original.
Ep. 5
Vader orders C-3PO to Chewie's cell: Nice touch.
Ep. 6
Vicious Ewoks: Can Ewoks be redeemed? I think so.
Hayden Christenson: This is the correct thing to do, even if it does strike one as Orwellian to begin with.
Vader's death soliloquy: No! Bad! The original makes his redemption clear enough, and leaves Luke as his own man. If Vader tells Luke to rebuild the Jedi, then filial duty kicks in and weakens his subsequent soul-searching and independent decision-making. He stays the Son, instead of becoming the Man.
Jar-Jar and Watto: Would they even be alive? They had no role in the middle trilogy, so it would be out of place to just drop them in for one scene (unless they were presented as extras during the celebration montage).
All:
Clone stormtroopers: Sorry, no dice. Stormtroopers are not clones. This is canon.
Lightsaber cauterization, Aurebesh lettering, etc.: Good. I like numerous, small bug-fixes for the sake of consistency and correctness.
Tie-ins to earlier trilogy: Acceptable.
Maybe all stormtroopers were originally intended to be clones, but it is canon now that they are not clones. Though I suppose there may be some 60-year old clone instructors over at Carida (Imperial Academy) during Ep. 4-6.
Oooh, burn! Mod parent up!
Oh whatever. Just go to a toy store, and you can buy a bucket o' pieces, cheap.