I sometimes have that with a 1.7GHz box. And even when I don't, reloading the front page of/. makes Firefox sluggish or non-responsive for 5 to 20 seconds.
Just because you're looking for the web to look like a static newspaper doesn't mean the rest of the world wants the same thing.
There are situations where JavaScript is good, but it simply breaks things like the ability to bookmark your page and then restore it as it was from the bookmark. Then you have the sites which really abuse it: for example, you can't book a flight with Ryanair if you have JS disabled (or a browser which doesn't support it: they don't seem to have come across the concept of degrading gracefully).
Are you certain? My understanding is that the time period which must expire for works to enter the public domain begins not when the work is created but when the creator dies. (IANAA).
No, we elected the current Parliament. The government is elected by a constituency of one, the Prime Minister, who is also elected by a constituency of one, the Queen, who takes into account the party distribution within Parliament.
There wasn't a "side of communists [and] anarchists" in the Spanish Civil War. Communists and anarchists fought for the elected Republican government in preference to the fascist rebellion, so it would be accurate to say that he fought alongside communists and anarchists but it was on the side of democracy.
Sanitize all inputs before getting to the database.
I don't know why language / library designers nowadays don't make it harder to use unsanitised input. Make it easy to use prepared statements and hard (or impossible if you don't care about those who say "But I know what I'm doing and don't want to take a performance hit from using features designed to make things safer") to execute SQL directly. For something like PHP which is primarily going to be used as glue between a database and a web server it might even make sense to automatically compile its SQL execution statement into a prepared statement unless an extra package is installed and configured - a hurdle which the average user wouldn't bother with, but which might placate the soi-disant power user.
Are you saying that religious doctrine is logical?
I'm not sure precisely what your question is. Is all religious doctrine logical? No: for starters, some of it is the ramblings of someone who was high on LSD. On the other hand, there are critical religious thinkers (and in this I include agnostics and atheists who have carefully considered their position) who have written long books setting out their doctrine in a reasoned way and making clear what their axioms are.
To use an example, the question, 'What happens when we die?'.
Why not start at the start? Before you can answer that question, you have to answer the question "What are we?", which is really a subset of "What exists?" And before you can answer anything else, you have to answer "How can we know anything?" Your answer to that last question appears to be some variant on "We can know things if we can observe them."
However, if you take the position that observation is by default assumed to be accurate then either you have to add an exception for those people who claim to have observed (in a general sense - i.e. not just visually) their god(s) or you have to accept that for them to believe in that god is as logical as for you to believe in the universe.
Is it at all sensible to build society around a system that may exist, even though there is not an inkling of proof, whatsoever?
Firstly, moving goalposts? In your previous post you were talking about "religious belief". Now you've suddenly moved through "religious doctrine" - which isn't the same thing - to organised religion at the centre of society.
Secondly, if you want proof then you can discard your scientific materialism too. I will assume that you meant "evidence". But even then it would be more accurate to say "not a shred of evidence which I accept" because you cannot reasonably deny that other people accept that there is sufficient evidence.
Religious belief requires the suspension of critical and rational thought. At some point, you have to just accept that God Did It, and stop asking 'why'.
And this makes it different from any other belief how precisely? Epistemologies must be inherently circular: at their root they all say that we can know things because X, but then we can only know X because X. Fundamentally any logical system constructed by critical and rational thought must be built on top of axioms which are not constructed by critical and rational thought.
The security models for medical data which allow your doctor to find out everything he needs to know to treat you without allowing world and dog to find out everything they need to know to discriminate against you have been around for years. I remember them being covered in lectures when I studied CS a decade ago.
Did you even read the grandparent post, or the title of your own post? The fact that he's a cabinet minister is entirely irrelevant. What you should be criticising him for is failing to adequately protect e-mail from and to his constituents.
IANAL, much less an Indian one, but on the assumption that Indian defamation law is based on English defamation law then it's defamation to make claims of fact (as opposed to opinion) which injure a person's good name (so they have to have one) and which you cannot prove to be true. In the case of published defamation the person who made the claim and the publisher would both be liable. I think they're going for the blogger as the "publisher" of comments made by third parties on his blog.
Slashdot Mirror
SCO's price for a "Linux licence".
What about do-gooders anxious to ensure that the prosecution prove their case?
I sometimes have that with a 1.7GHz box. And even when I don't, reloading the front page of /. makes Firefox sluggish or non-responsive for 5 to 20 seconds.
Just because you're looking for the web to look like a static newspaper doesn't mean the rest of the world wants the same thing.
There are situations where JavaScript is good, but it simply breaks things like the ability to bookmark your page and then restore it as it was from the bookmark. Then you have the sites which really abuse it: for example, you can't book a flight with Ryanair if you have JS disabled (or a browser which doesn't support it: they don't seem to have come across the concept of degrading gracefully).
Are you certain? My understanding is that the time period which must expire for works to enter the public domain begins not when the work is created but when the creator dies. (IANAA).
The UK goes a lot further. It's illegal to carry a knife with a blade longer than something like 2" (5 cm) unless you have a good reason.
No, we elected the current Parliament. The government is elected by a constituency of one, the Prime Minister, who is also elected by a constituency of one, the Queen, who takes into account the party distribution within Parliament.
There wasn't a "side of communists [and] anarchists" in the Spanish Civil War. Communists and anarchists fought for the elected Republican government in preference to the fascist rebellion, so it would be accurate to say that he fought alongside communists and anarchists but it was on the side of democracy.
Sanitize all inputs before getting to the database.
I don't know why language / library designers nowadays don't make it harder to use unsanitised input. Make it easy to use prepared statements and hard (or impossible if you don't care about those who say "But I know what I'm doing and don't want to take a performance hit from using features designed to make things safer") to execute SQL directly. For something like PHP which is primarily going to be used as glue between a database and a web server it might even make sense to automatically compile its SQL execution statement into a prepared statement unless an extra package is installed and configured - a hurdle which the average user wouldn't bother with, but which might placate the soi-disant power user.
Are you saying that religious doctrine is logical?
I'm not sure precisely what your question is. Is all religious doctrine logical? No: for starters, some of it is the ramblings of someone who was high on LSD. On the other hand, there are critical religious thinkers (and in this I include agnostics and atheists who have carefully considered their position) who have written long books setting out their doctrine in a reasoned way and making clear what their axioms are.
To use an example, the question, 'What happens when we die?'.
Why not start at the start? Before you can answer that question, you have to answer the question "What are we?", which is really a subset of "What exists?" And before you can answer anything else, you have to answer "How can we know anything?" Your answer to that last question appears to be some variant on "We can know things if we can observe them."
However, if you take the position that observation is by default assumed to be accurate then either you have to add an exception for those people who claim to have observed (in a general sense - i.e. not just visually) their god(s) or you have to accept that for them to believe in that god is as logical as for you to believe in the universe.
Is it at all sensible to build society around a system that may exist, even though there is not an inkling of proof, whatsoever?
Firstly, moving goalposts? In your previous post you were talking about "religious belief". Now you've suddenly moved through "religious doctrine" - which isn't the same thing - to organised religion at the centre of society.
Secondly, if you want proof then you can discard your scientific materialism too. I will assume that you meant "evidence". But even then it would be more accurate to say "not a shred of evidence which I accept" because you cannot reasonably deny that other people accept that there is sufficient evidence.
They exist: sugar pills.
Religious belief requires the suspension of critical and rational thought. At some point, you have to just accept that God Did It, and stop asking 'why'.
And this makes it different from any other belief how precisely? Epistemologies must be inherently circular: at their root they all say that we can know things because X, but then we can only know X because X. Fundamentally any logical system constructed by critical and rational thought must be built on top of axioms which are not constructed by critical and rational thought.
What's your point? Defamation is a general term to cover slander and libel, both of which are and should remain torts rather than offences.
Defamation should be a civil matter.
The security models for medical data which allow your doctor to find out everything he needs to know to treat you without allowing world and dog to find out everything they need to know to discriminate against you have been around for years. I remember them being covered in lectures when I studied CS a decade ago.
I haven't used it myself, but Java Curses is probably worth a try.
Lost sales can't be measured, so I'm not sure how you can test for a correlation between them and any other variable.
Did you even read the grandparent post, or the title of your own post? The fact that he's a cabinet minister is entirely irrelevant. What you should be criticising him for is failing to adequately protect e-mail from and to his constituents.
Actually I was making a joke on your transposition of the words "them" and "stuff" in that sentence, hence the "mildly insane".
Or maybe two days late. TFA contradicts itself on this clearly unimportant point, saying Tuesday in the main article and Monday in the image caption.
But strive to have female friends too, and talk to stuff about them.
Why? Is this a ploy to make them think that you're both interested in them and mildly insane?
There was an Obfuscated PostScript contest, but I think it's now dead.
IANAL, much less an Indian one, but on the assumption that Indian defamation law is based on English defamation law then it's defamation to make claims of fact (as opposed to opinion) which injure a person's good name (so they have to have one) and which you cannot prove to be true. In the case of published defamation the person who made the claim and the publisher would both be liable. I think they're going for the blogger as the "publisher" of comments made by third parties on his blog.
"Without limitation". It may also be the case that this is an important question of federal law not previously ruled upon by the USSC.
BTW, FWIW, although the Wikipedia article doesn't obviously link to a source for this section the actual text is available elsewhere.
It's a great plan. Makes it really easy to remember the anniversary.