From the summary (not even the article!) they want to "understand more about what triggers the body to build and lose muscle". Funnily enough, they're trying to understand processes critical to space travel. Those crazy NASA bastards.
Hey, nothing's wrong with worms. You want some worms? Have worms. Glory to the many! I mean, we can feel your fear! I mean, what is a voice, to the choir?!!? Worms! Worms do a body good!
So, you just have it assume that it's compatible in perpetuity? Even though it might not be? Surely you can see why Mozilla thinks that defeats the whole purpose of having add-ons declare compatibility.
Who said it was? The article explains that he lured away one of Blumenthal's own research chefs for the book project, and even the summary is pretty clear on the matter.
That's a wonderful notion, but I can't think of a time when a corporation patented something bad soley as a way of preventing someone from using it. Maybe they won't bother using it, but if somebody else does, you can bet they'll meet them at the licencing table rather than sue them into non-existence.
It's still call it science fiction, or a science movie, of the best kind. It's one thing to use a scientific plot device, another to really get to grips with the philosophy and morality of science.
I'm not so sure. The behavior of electrons is not well-known: it's not even certain whether they have internal structure or not. However their behavior in an electric circuit is well-described by very old physics. Likewise the formation and evaporation of micro-black-holes is not very well theorised, however their essential and most threatening property - their gravitational attraction - is very well-defined, even at masses as low as those of protons. Whether these black holes would mass less than that, I don't know.
Actually it's freshman-level physics. Calculating how quickly a micro-black-hole would accumulate mass strikes me as a great undergrad tutorial question.
Your wholly invented figures have surely disproven his claim. And your specious* reference to parable of the broken window hammers it home.
*The point of the parable is that net economic gain of an action is the sum of the gross economic gain (work for the glazier) and the economic cost (reduced spending power of the cobbler), and therefore an action with an economic cost equal or greater than its gross gain is a net loss. Outside of your invented figures, you have not demonstrated this.
Such a response doesn't render it understandable, it simply returns an opinion. It's the equivalent of pointing at a rock and going "SHIT FALLS DOWN" as an attempt to render gravity understandable.
So your argument is sometimes, therefore always? Jumping at shadows and concocting specious justifications post hoc makes Microsoft's opponents look like quacks.
I don't think that the following, the author's only analysis of the claims of the patent, is really an air-tight disassembly of its value:
"Etc. blah, blah. Dude. It's sudo. With a gui. Sudo for Dummies. That's what it is. Software and patents need to get a divorce, before all the geeks in the world either stop coding in disgust or die laughing."
Slashdot Mirror
I suspect that the article author paraphrased beyond his competence, to coin a phrase. Subpixel rendering's been in IE for a long while.
Presumably the standards were written with comprehensibility in mind: that HTML, CSS and so on would be easy to write and interpret.
From the summary (not even the article!) they want to "understand more about what triggers the body to build and lose muscle". Funnily enough, they're trying to understand processes critical to space travel. Those crazy NASA bastards.
Hey, nothing's wrong with worms. You want some worms? Have worms. Glory to the many! I mean, we can feel your fear! I mean, what is a voice, to the choir?!!? Worms! Worms do a body good!
First post, and you still got modded redundant. :(
So, you just have it assume that it's compatible in perpetuity? Even though it might not be? Surely you can see why Mozilla thinks that defeats the whole purpose of having add-ons declare compatibility.
Cooking is applied chemistry. Ergo, understanding the chemistry of food can be useful for a chef, especially an experimental one.
What's molecular chemistry? More to the point, what's nonmolecular chemistry?
Who said it was? The article explains that he lured away one of Blumenthal's own research chefs for the book project, and even the summary is pretty clear on the matter.
They've got a good parity in features and interface for the beta versions of Mobile and Mini, which suggests things are going to improve a lot.
The internet interprets censorship as damage, and routes around it.
"Bad", delire. "patented something bad".
Of course, but the phrasing is a little hyperbolic for a restorative action that Windows is synonymous with.
That's a wonderful notion, but I can't think of a time when a corporation patented something bad soley as a way of preventing someone from using it. Maybe they won't bother using it, but if somebody else does, you can bet they'll meet them at the licencing table rather than sue them into non-existence.
It's still call it science fiction, or a science movie, of the best kind. It's one thing to use a scientific plot device, another to really get to grips with the philosophy and morality of science.
A maliciously crafted URI could hard-crash affected machines beyond any remedy
Oh no! A PC-killer!
besides pushing the white button
A reboot? Well, it's an unorthodox and extreme solution to a machine crashing, we'll have a hard time convincing Windows users to do that.
It would help if you demonstrated "always" before concluding it.
War? This isn't fucking Hackers.
I'm not so sure. The behavior of electrons is not well-known: it's not even certain whether they have internal structure or not. However their behavior in an electric circuit is well-described by very old physics. Likewise the formation and evaporation of micro-black-holes is not very well theorised, however their essential and most threatening property - their gravitational attraction - is very well-defined, even at masses as low as those of protons. Whether these black holes would mass less than that, I don't know.
Actually it's freshman-level physics. Calculating how quickly a micro-black-hole would accumulate mass strikes me as a great undergrad tutorial question.
Your wholly invented figures have surely disproven his claim. And your specious* reference to parable of the broken window hammers it home.
*The point of the parable is that net economic gain of an action is the sum of the gross economic gain (work for the glazier) and the economic cost (reduced spending power of the cobbler), and therefore an action with an economic cost equal or greater than its gross gain is a net loss. Outside of your invented figures, you have not demonstrated this.
Khaaaaaaaaan!
This part?
"I expect them to gather the news, not act as a clearinghouse for any bonehead with a computer, a cable modem and a half-baked opinion."
Yes, that's Slashdot's job.
Such a response doesn't render it understandable, it simply returns an opinion. It's the equivalent of pointing at a rock and going "SHIT FALLS DOWN" as an attempt to render gravity understandable.
So your argument is sometimes, therefore always? Jumping at shadows and concocting specious justifications post hoc makes Microsoft's opponents look like quacks.
I don't think that the following, the author's only analysis of the claims of the patent, is really an air-tight disassembly of its value:
"Etc. blah, blah. Dude. It's sudo. With a gui. Sudo for Dummies. That's what it is. Software and patents need to get a divorce, before all the geeks in the world either stop coding in disgust or die laughing."