It's not finding out that the guy is a douche that would get him in trouble; it's going on Facebook in the first place. It would be like asking "What do you like to do on Sunday mornings?" in an interview--it's something that could reveal the applicant's membership in a protected class, and the interviewer should reasonably be aware that it could reveal the applicant's membership in a protected class.
This wouldn't justify an EEOC complaint in itself, but it's another data point that could be used to show a trend.
And furthermore, it's actually less expensive to buy a Newsday print subscription than it is to get just the electronic access, so the article could really be rephrased as "Thirty-five people pay extra to not get a real newspaper."
His phrasing was "They can already turn off the internet at-will," and then he described a proposed bill. How is it correct to say that someone already has a power that might be granted to them in the future?
The more digits that prime numbers have, the further apart adjacent primes are.
That's not actually true. As numbers get larger you'll get longer composite runs, but you'll still find prime constellations between some of those runs. If what you say was true, the twin prime conjecture would be closed with a "Myth: BUSTED!" sticker on it, instead of open with overwhelming evidence in its favor.
Good catch. The other thought that occurs to me now is that the rule could have simply been "if specifying a port number, you must also specify the protocol." Now there's no ambiguity in any case.
It should also be noted that in the alternate universe where URLs look like http:example.com:80/whatever, we'd be having this conversation on colondot.org. That alone is reason enough not to have done things this way.
No, your example just showed that you'd need to remove the:port option if your parser is stupid. Here's how it could work.
1. Are there two ':' in the URL? Then you have protocol:host:port. 2. Are there zero ':' in the URL? Then you have host, assume protocol and port from context (like your web browser does now). 3. Is there one ':' in the URL?
3a. Is the string in front of ':' a known protocol name? Then you have protocol:host.
3b. It's not? Then you have host:port, assume protocol from context.
See how easy that was? Furthermore, you're basing your entire argument on the way things work now, not the way they worked at the time. Sir Tim could have come up with any system he wanted, as evidenced by the fact that he did come up with an arbitrary system in the form of two slashes.
It looks like someone messed up the summary. I'm pretty sure it should be:
Peengdum und Netvurk Vurld ere-a repurteeng thet zee SE tld drupped ooffff zee internet yesterdey dooe-a tu a boog in zee screept thet generetes zee SE zune-a feele-a. Zee SE tld hes cluse-a tu oone-a meelliun dumeeens thet ell vent doon dooe-a tu meessing zee treeeling dut in zee SE zune-a feele-a. Sume-a cecheeng nemeserfers mey steell be-a retoorneeng infeleed DNS respunses fur 24 huoors.
The ones GP mentioned were repealed in 1802, and the most recent sedition act was repealed in 1920. Subsequent Supreme Court cases make it very unlikely that anything similar would survive judicial review today.
Your analogy would work if there was a note in the car saying that you either agree to an additional contract regarding your use of the tires, or the dealer will refund the price of the tires and take them back.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not finding out that the guy is a douche that would get him in trouble; it's going on Facebook in the first place. It would be like asking "What do you like to do on Sunday mornings?" in an interview--it's something that could reveal the applicant's membership in a protected class, and the interviewer should reasonably be aware that it could reveal the applicant's membership in a protected class.
This wouldn't justify an EEOC complaint in itself, but it's another data point that could be used to show a trend.
That's ammo for an EEOC complaint, right there.
It could be a random number base64 encoded.
And furthermore, it's actually less expensive to buy a Newsday print subscription than it is to get just the electronic access, so the article could really be rephrased as "Thirty-five people pay extra to not get a real newspaper."
Yahoo?
The phrase uses "imply" in the sense in which it is used in logical proofs; "If A then B" is logically equivalent to "A implies B."
Don't worry, as long as you don't post the exact same comment tomorrow you should be fine.
A good point, except what you mean is that New York has the "gall", as in bile. Just trying to keep things humorous.
Except for Jefferson it would have been six or seven old men that run the country.
His phrasing was "They can already turn off the internet at-will," and then he described a proposed bill. How is it correct to say that someone already has a power that might be granted to them in the future?
A proposed bill doesn't give anybody the power to do anything except debate the bill in Congress. You might need to watch this again.
Even somewhat technical people fail to realize this frequently.
Do you have some kind of number that would describe exactly how frequently?
The more digits that prime numbers have, the further apart adjacent primes are.
That's not actually true. As numbers get larger you'll get longer composite runs, but you'll still find prime constellations between some of those runs. If what you say was true, the twin prime conjecture would be closed with a "Myth: BUSTED!" sticker on it, instead of open with overwhelming evidence in its favor.
Good catch. The other thought that occurs to me now is that the rule could have simply been "if specifying a port number, you must also specify the protocol." Now there's no ambiguity in any case.
It should also be noted that in the alternate universe where URLs look like http:example.com:80/whatever, we'd be having this conversation on colondot.org. That alone is reason enough not to have done things this way.
No, your example just showed that you'd need to remove the :port option if your parser is stupid. Here's how it could work.
1. Are there two ':' in the URL? Then you have protocol:host:port.
2. Are there zero ':' in the URL? Then you have host, assume protocol and port from context (like your web browser does now).
3. Is there one ':' in the URL?
3a. Is the string in front of ':' a known protocol name? Then you have protocol:host.
3b. It's not? Then you have host:port, assume protocol from context.
See how easy that was? Furthermore, you're basing your entire argument on the way things work now, not the way they worked at the time. Sir Tim could have come up with any system he wanted, as evidenced by the fact that he did come up with an arbitrary system in the form of two slashes.
It looks like someone messed up the summary. I'm pretty sure it should be:
Peengdum und Netvurk Vurld ere-a repurteeng thet zee SE tld drupped ooffff zee internet yesterdey dooe-a tu a boog in zee screept thet generetes zee SE zune-a feele-a. Zee SE tld hes cluse-a tu oone-a meelliun dumeeens thet ell vent doon dooe-a tu meessing zee treeeling dut in zee SE zune-a feele-a. Sume-a cecheeng nemeserfers mey steell be-a retoorneeng infeleed DNS respunses fur 24 huoors.
As long as none of your references are named Guido, you should be fine.
I guess Python isn't used much in the gambling industry.
Can't troll in daylight.
Was it ever supposed to be anything more than that?
But isn't a large supply of systems capable of running IPv6 a prerequisite for actually running IPv6?
The ones GP mentioned were repealed in 1802, and the most recent sedition act was repealed in 1920. Subsequent Supreme Court cases make it very unlikely that anything similar would survive judicial review today.
Stop telling the Isle of Man what to do with their TLD.
Your analogy would work if there was a note in the car saying that you either agree to an additional contract regarding your use of the tires, or the dealer will refund the price of the tires and take them back.
Yes, but you'd need to fire up your Mac in order to upload a virus to the mothership.
Um, the National Snow and Ice Data Center disagrees.