It was a total non-sequitur. It would have made more sense to mention the M9 which was the military successor to the 1911, but then that would bring up the uncomfortable fact that the US Army is exploring higher power rounds to replace that.
Charts and ballistic gel results are fine in theory, but real world results are more telling.
it is still kind of telling that you call Docker "esoteric".
Esoteric doesn't mean what you think it means. It does not mean unusual or rare, it means "intended for or likely to be understood by only a small number of people with a specialized knowledge or interest." Which it is.
I'm not a developer, and only play a sysadmin at home./. has a wide audience. I'm interested in learning about technologies outside of my bailiwick (which centers on networking). I can usually get an understanding from context in the summaries. But this one was just pure technobabble for anyone outside of very specific fields.
And yet the claim was about cartridges, only giving firearms as an example. Thanks for trying to participate, but you're crippled by your lack of understanding.
Not everyone who reads/. is a software developer, a *nix sysadmin, or whatever other area of specialization would use that./. is "News for Nerds," and that encompasses a wide range of technologies/interests, many non-overlapping.
Perhaps. There's no doubt some subset of/. users who know immediately what the summary is about, but I suspect that's fairly small. Something to do with images and languages and OSs, and shrinking image sizes. It's not hard to reduce the resolution and size of an image, so it's not clear why this is called a "hack," or why it's news.
But, my comment was really in relation to the piss poor submission, and the failure of/. "editors" to fix it. This is one of the worst in recent memory. If the new overlords want to improve the site, make the editors actually edit, instead of simply posting submissions verbatim. Things like spelling out acronyms upon first use, and providing basic descriptions for esoteric technologies/names. Very basic journalism 101 stuff. But, given that virtually all the submissions are being posted by "timothy" now, it seems like they're trying hard to lower expectations even further.
If you want to insist the airspace is not Scottish on a pedantic/semantic/legal basis, then don't use colloquial terms like British in your argument, because you're wrong. If you want to use informal terms, then it's not incorrect to call it "Scottish airspace," and you're still wrong.
Either argue with technically correct terms, or use informal ones. But be consistent. You're trying to win your point by arbitrarily redefining terms to match your argument.
They flew over Scotland. The local officials want answers from the UK government about how this was allowed. That shouldn't be hard to figure out, and isn't any different than things that occur on a regular basis between US States and the federal government, when federal actions occur within state borders.
Additionally, stating "Scottish airspace" provides more detail than simply saying "UK airspace," making the statement more informative, and providing the basis for the Scottish interest in the matter.
What does legal control over the airspace matter? "Scottish airspace" was used in a geographic sense. It provided more specificity than saying "UK airspace," and therefore made the statement more informative.
Britain isn't a country, and doesn't control airspace over Northern Ireland, which is part of the UK, not Britain. You seem confused about the difference between the sovereign country of the UK and the countries of Scotland, Wales, England (which comprise Great Britain), and Northern Ireland (which collectively form the UK).
What's "country" got to do with it? It went over Scotland, in what way is that not Scottish airspace? Are you fine with drones hovering outside your windows, because you're not a country so it's not your airspace?
That makes no sense either, since "telling YouTube" would be meaningless. YouTube would already know that they're getting takedown notices, and whether they were inappropriately sent due to trademark instead of copyright would make no difference to YouTube's obligation to honor them. The Fine bros., though, would be guilty of perjury.
Just wow. You really don't understand the issues involved. YouTube doesn't issue takedown notices - quite the opposite, they receive them from those claiming rights to content. When they do receive one, YouTube does not have any choice in the matter and make no decision about the legitimacy of the notice, they are obligated to take the content down. You seem to have an issue understanding not only the difference between copyright and trademark, but cause and effect. Finally, your claim is unsupported.
Slashdot Mirror
It was a total non-sequitur. It would have made more sense to mention the M9 which was the military successor to the 1911, but then that would bring up the uncomfortable fact that the US Army is exploring higher power rounds to replace that.
Charts and ballistic gel results are fine in theory, but real world results are more telling.
Hint: reading is fundamental. Try it sometime.
Esoteric doesn't mean what you think it means. It does not mean unusual or rare, it means "intended for or likely to be understood by only a small number of people with a specialized knowledge or interest." Which it is.
/. has a wide audience. I'm interested in learning about technologies outside of my bailiwick (which centers on networking). I can usually get an understanding from context in the summaries. But this one was just pure technobabble for anyone outside of very specific fields.
I'm not a developer, and only play a sysadmin at home.
And yet the claim was about cartridges, only giving firearms as an example. Thanks for trying to participate, but you're crippled by your lack of understanding.
"Hence the BHP in 9mm following the 1911"
Except for the fact that the 9mm (Luger) was introduce in 1902, two years before the 45acp used by the 1911.
So, just like Java, only different?
Not everyone who reads /. is a software developer, a *nix sysadmin, or whatever other area of specialization would use that. /. is "News for Nerds," and that encompasses a wide range of technologies/interests, many non-overlapping.
Perhaps. There's no doubt some subset of /. users who know immediately what the summary is about, but I suspect that's fairly small. Something to do with images and languages and OSs, and shrinking image sizes. It's not hard to reduce the resolution and size of an image, so it's not clear why this is called a "hack," or why it's news.
/. "editors" to fix it. This is one of the worst in recent memory. If the new overlords want to improve the site, make the editors actually edit, instead of simply posting submissions verbatim. Things like spelling out acronyms upon first use, and providing basic descriptions for esoteric technologies/names. Very basic journalism 101 stuff. But, given that virtually all the submissions are being posted by "timothy" now, it seems like they're trying hard to lower expectations even further.
But, my comment was really in relation to the piss poor submission, and the failure of
What are they talking about, and why do I care about the size of the container Levi's ships my Docker khakis in?
Apparently, timothy also has a pair of those glasses.
Right, and "While there remain hurdles to overcome, such as sustaining the fusion reaction long enough to achieve a net power return..."
Which is a long way to say it doesn't even work for power generation.
If you want to insist the airspace is not Scottish on a pedantic/semantic/legal basis, then don't use colloquial terms like British in your argument, because you're wrong. If you want to use informal terms, then it's not incorrect to call it "Scottish airspace," and you're still wrong.
Either argue with technically correct terms, or use informal ones. But be consistent. You're trying to win your point by arbitrarily redefining terms to match your argument.
They flew over Scotland. The local officials want answers from the UK government about how this was allowed. That shouldn't be hard to figure out, and isn't any different than things that occur on a regular basis between US States and the federal government, when federal actions occur within state borders.
Additionally, stating "Scottish airspace" provides more detail than simply saying "UK airspace," making the statement more informative, and providing the basis for the Scottish interest in the matter.
What does legal control over the airspace matter? "Scottish airspace" was used in a geographic sense. It provided more specificity than saying "UK airspace," and therefore made the statement more informative.
Britain isn't a country, and doesn't control airspace over Northern Ireland, which is part of the UK, not Britain. You seem confused about the difference between the sovereign country of the UK and the countries of Scotland, Wales, England (which comprise Great Britain), and Northern Ireland (which collectively form the UK).
Strange how the UK itself disagrees with you. "The United Kingdom is made up of four countries: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Its full name is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Great Britain, however, comprises only England, Scotland and Wales..."
What's "country" got to do with it? It went over Scotland, in what way is that not Scottish airspace? Are you fine with drones hovering outside your windows, because you're not a country so it's not your airspace?
"Or to drink at 20 and a few months instead of 21?"
Well if you're someone who believes that life begins at conception, then you're 21 years old when it's 20 years and 3 months after your birthdate.
That makes no sense either, since "telling YouTube" would be meaningless. YouTube would already know that they're getting takedown notices, and whether they were inappropriately sent due to trademark instead of copyright would make no difference to YouTube's obligation to honor them. The Fine bros., though, would be guilty of perjury.
Just wow. You really don't understand the issues involved. YouTube doesn't issue takedown notices - quite the opposite, they receive them from those claiming rights to content. When they do receive one, YouTube does not have any choice in the matter and make no decision about the legitimacy of the notice, they are obligated to take the content down. You seem to have an issue understanding not only the difference between copyright and trademark, but cause and effect. Finally, your claim is unsupported.
Copyright != Trademark. Understanding the difference is crucial to understanding the issue.
"Obsolescence is DELIBERATLEY limiting the lifetime of an object through design."
Like making components known to have a limited lifespan (batteries) non-replaceable for all practical purposes?
"The lawyer very specifically said ... it takes forever"
Hint: they're paid by the hour, win or lose.
Dingbats is the official typeface of Congress.
Yes, they are.