Did you reply to the wrong comment? 52/48 being much closer to 50/50 than 100/0 is not an individual perception, and nor is the Sun and Mail being pro-Leave.
Living in America and receiving a highly filtered / edited newsfeed on the brexit topic I am going to guess that this isn't the first time something like this has happened, and that Brexit didn't happen for no reason at all. it takes a lot to move an entire nation to agree in the polls against the push of popular media even.
Your newsfeed seems more delusional than filtered. The vote was almost as far from the entire nation agreeing as is possible, and the biggest selling newspapers were pro-Leave.
What's broken is that until Android 5 (I think) there was no fine-grained permission control: either you gave an app all of the permissions it asked for, regardless of whether or not they were needed for its core function, or you didn't install the app. It's true that it was functioning as designed, but that doesn't mean that the design wasn't broken.
The idea of scenes with objects on many different focus planes that are turned into interactive 2D pictures that the viewer can refocus is completely contrived.
Completely agree. But the idea of being able to take a snap shot without any delay to focus and later pick the focus point and depth of field is a genuinely interesting one, and has applications in certain types of photography. Particularly in wildlife and sports photography, where the subject can move fast. Unfortunately, those particular applications also often want long focal lengths, which Lytro didn't offer.
This article has an explicitly international setting: why try to restrict its scope to the USA? FWIW the tap water where I live has so much chlorine added that I can smell it when I come out of the shower, and the supermarket's own brand bottled water costs about 9 Eurocents a litre (about 11 US cents for a bit more than 33 US ounces).
The B has more USB ports, and the 3B has built-in wifi. Not needing to attach hubs, hats, etc. is a reason for people whose projects require those to get a newer model.
Even before GDPR, this looks like a clear breach of the Data Protection Directive. The difference is that the fines might not currently be calculated as percentages of global turnover.
I once wrote a library for (essentially) GIS which was full of comments that were 20 lines or longer. When the correctness of the code depends on theorems in non-Euclidean geometry and you can't assume that the maintainer will know any, I don't think it's a bad idea to make the proofs quite explicit.
The standard for HTML was developed as a way for scientists to communicate with each other, and against a background of Usenet norms which were hostile to advertising. I don't think it's really fair to blame Berners Lee for failing to foresee what the WWW would become.
Just because my browser has a built-in password manager, doesn't mean I use it. I use Keepass instead, and I have no idea how Google would know that, so I wonder what the basis for their statistic is.
Fact is there are no laws or standards to require the content to be accessible without JS and since people who favor browsing the web with JS disabled are in the minority, frankly most companies don't give a shit.
They should, because of SEO, but that's getting too far off-topic.
Like I said, the only reason to complain about JS is if you are paranoid about security, at which point either trust the browser, or run it in a VM.
I'm not sure where you said that, but I disagree.
Simple benefits for the end user of turning JS off are that pages load faster and on many sites they become easier to read (fewer flashing ads). For the security-conscious user security is a many-faceted thing which can't just be delegated like that: if you want a recent example of the problems of that attitude, see Monero; besides which, running the browser in a VM is not practical on low-powered machines such as smartphones.
But even without those kind of direct benefits, I would still complain about sites which are completely brain-dead in their lack of graceful degradation, because they offend my sense of professionalism. The very concept of graceful degradation was falling out of favour, replaced by progressive enhancement, long before most of these sites were made, so there's no excuse for deliberately implementing ungraceful degradation.
... but the truth is that there are a lot of people out there who want to do more than just browse static pages.
That is completely orthogonal to the question of whether or not static pages should render something with JS disabled. The very real existence of pages with no dynamic content which render as white without JS enabled is shameful. I've seen sites which have CSS that sets the body to display: none and then load the real CSS using JS. They're usable in Lynx, but not in any GUI browser with JS disabled. Insane.
It's reasonable to expect people to enable JS if they want to use Google Maps; but it's also reasonable to expect that a page with no interactive elements whatsoever should render its text with JS disabled.
The browser is the most efficient app delivery system today. You no longer have to worry about whether the end user has the latest update of your app, and which OS or version they are running, your app will just work!
Two things: firstly, just because it's possible to make "web apps" nowadays that doesn't mean that vanilla web pages are not the more appropriate approach for many sites. And secondly, that last sentence is equally true if you replace "app" with "JS-less page". There are arguments in favour of JS, but that is not one.
There's a simpler pigeonhole answer: one of (2^n - 1), 2^n, (2^n + 1) is divisible by 3. Clearly it's not 2^n. Therefore if (2^n - 1) is a prime other than 3, (2^n + 1) is the one which is divisible by 3.
No one will be surprised to hear the Venezuelan government isn't too keen on Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies.
I am. In fact I'm astonished, because only last week the Venezuelan government announced that it will develop its own cryptocurrency (backed by natural resources, apparently, although I'm not sure how that will work).
Slashdot Mirror
Did you reply to the wrong comment? 52/48 being much closer to 50/50 than 100/0 is not an individual perception, and nor is the Sun and Mail being pro-Leave.
Your newsfeed seems more delusional than filtered. The vote was almost as far from the entire nation agreeing as is possible, and the biggest selling newspapers were pro-Leave.
What's broken is that until Android 5 (I think) there was no fine-grained permission control: either you gave an app all of the permissions it asked for, regardless of whether or not they were needed for its core function, or you didn't install the app. It's true that it was functioning as designed, but that doesn't mean that the design wasn't broken.
Completely agree. But the idea of being able to take a snap shot without any delay to focus and later pick the focus point and depth of field is a genuinely interesting one, and has applications in certain types of photography. Particularly in wildlife and sports photography, where the subject can move fast. Unfortunately, those particular applications also often want long focal lengths, which Lytro didn't offer.
TFA (don't judge me, I read it before coming to /.) says that
Although unlikely, that could theoretically mean charges of contempt of parliament, leading to imprisonment.
This article has an explicitly international setting: why try to restrict its scope to the USA? FWIW the tap water where I live has so much chlorine added that I can smell it when I come out of the shower, and the supermarket's own brand bottled water costs about 9 Eurocents a litre (about 11 US cents for a bit more than 33 US ounces).
The B has more USB ports, and the 3B has built-in wifi. Not needing to attach hubs, hats, etc. is a reason for people whose projects require those to get a newer model.
Even before GDPR, this looks like a clear breach of the Data Protection Directive. The difference is that the fines might not currently be calculated as percentages of global turnover.
Huh? The threat model is physical access to the client by e.g. an employer or a detective. It is described as
Point 5 could be strengthened. Don Knuth doesn't act like he knows it all (source: personal experience), so certainly no-one else should.
I once wrote a library for (essentially) GIS which was full of comments that were 20 lines or longer. When the correctness of the code depends on theorems in non-Euclidean geometry and you can't assume that the maintainer will know any, I don't think it's a bad idea to make the proofs quite explicit.
The standard for HTML was developed as a way for scientists to communicate with each other, and against a background of Usenet norms which were hostile to advertising. I don't think it's really fair to blame Berners Lee for failing to foresee what the WWW would become.
My first thought was, "You must be kidding". My second thought was, "Who said that?"
Explanation found. As far as the quoted individual is concerned, if it wasn't Apple it doesn't count.
Many British drivers park in a drive when they're at home.
GP's only point was that it's a VIN, not a VIN number.
Just because my browser has a built-in password manager, doesn't mean I use it. I use Keepass instead, and I have no idea how Google would know that, so I wonder what the basis for their statistic is.
Microsoft uses P2P for large updates: have you explicitly disabled that?
They should, because of SEO, but that's getting too far off-topic.
I'm not sure where you said that, but I disagree.
Simple benefits for the end user of turning JS off are that pages load faster and on many sites they become easier to read (fewer flashing ads). For the security-conscious user security is a many-faceted thing which can't just be delegated like that: if you want a recent example of the problems of that attitude, see Monero; besides which, running the browser in a VM is not practical on low-powered machines such as smartphones.
But even without those kind of direct benefits, I would still complain about sites which are completely brain-dead in their lack of graceful degradation, because they offend my sense of professionalism. The very concept of graceful degradation was falling out of favour, replaced by progressive enhancement, long before most of these sites were made, so there's no excuse for deliberately implementing ungraceful degradation.
That is completely orthogonal to the question of whether or not static pages should render something with JS disabled. The very real existence of pages with no dynamic content which render as white without JS enabled is shameful. I've seen sites which have CSS that sets the body to display: none and then load the real CSS using JS. They're usable in Lynx, but not in any GUI browser with JS disabled. Insane.
It's reasonable to expect people to enable JS if they want to use Google Maps; but it's also reasonable to expect that a page with no interactive elements whatsoever should render its text with JS disabled.
Two things: firstly, just because it's possible to make "web apps" nowadays that doesn't mean that vanilla web pages are not the more appropriate approach for many sites. And secondly, that last sentence is equally true if you replace "app" with "JS-less page". There are arguments in favour of JS, but that is not one.
There's a simpler pigeonhole answer: one of (2^n - 1), 2^n, (2^n + 1) is divisible by 3. Clearly it's not 2^n. Therefore if (2^n - 1) is a prime other than 3, (2^n + 1) is the one which is divisible by 3.
Number Theory 101 exercise: why is 3 the only Mersenne number to be the smaller half of a prime pair?
Wouldn't more editor input be the way to improve /. or is improving it not the aim?
I am. In fact I'm astonished, because only last week the Venezuelan government announced that it will develop its own cryptocurrency (backed by natural resources, apparently, although I'm not sure how that will work).
I do. Can't see the bottle without them.
"A chicken in every pot"? What a plagiarist. Henri IV of France said the same thing centuries earlier.