but yeah, it isnt all that usefull of a key.. but taking it away to "improve the quality of comments" is just stupid
Did it ever occur to you that maybe the "improving the quality of comments" bit was a joke? In fact, I would bet that Google was facetiously mocking the way Apple spins every shortcoming of their products as a "feature".
Besides, the Caps Lock key is merely replaced with a search key, which can be switched back to Caps Lock if desired. Here's Google's comment on the matter:
“If you really need Caps Lock so you can post an INSIGHTFUL COMMENT ON YOUTUBE, click the wrench, click Settings, and then go to the System section to change the Modifier Key from a Search key to a Caps Lock key.”
They aren't saying "submit to a search" which would be a clear violation of your rights. They're saying "submit to a search or you can't get on the plane".
No--they're saying "submit to a search and get on the plane or pay a $10,000 fine and not get on the plane". Once you find out that you're about to be molested, you can't say "on second thought, maybe I won't fly"--well you can, but you'll have to pay 10 grand for the privilege.
I can't say for sure whether or not the new procedures are constitutional (I suspect they're not), but I, for one, am done flying. I'm taking my first ever trip on Amtrak next week to visit my family for Thanksgiving, and am relieved to not have to deal with the TSA's bullshit.
The oldest part of the bible dates from as early as the 13th Century BCE. Quite old, but whether it's ancient depends on your definition of "ancient". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Testament#cite_note-2)
Are you seriously arguing that a hospital should let someone die if they could know up front that that person doesn't have the money to pay for treatment? You are a disgusting, repulsive human being--what you are arguing for is essentially genocide of the poor.
Anyhow, this is a perfect example of why private enterprise is not always a good thing. This is just a volunteer fire department that is trying to cover costs, so imagine the insanity that would ensue if public services were privatized. There would probably be different levels of fire protection subscriptions, where wealthy people would get preferential treatment. Imagine the same thing for the police--there's an intruder in your home, and you call 911, only to find out that burglary isn't covered by your police protection package.
People here in the U.S. seem to have a strong distaste for taxes, but they are necessary for a well-functioning society. Certain services need to be provided by the government and guaranteed to all, such as police, fire protection, and, yes, health care.
Call me a socialist if you like--I don't consider that an insult. In fact, we would do well to tone down our capitalism a bit and include some socialist ideas. Of course, pure socialism is not a good idea, but the thought that socialism=bad and capitalism=good is a gross oversimplification of a more fine-grained continuum, where a certain balance is ideal, and where both extremes are dangerous.
Preemptive correction: that 3.8 trillion attempts by each person in the world would only make for a 50% chance of one of those experiments resulting in an average of 4. Also, I used an estimate of 6 billion people for the population. That's probably low, but it doesn't change the numbers substantially.
And yet all you provided was anecdotal evidence. Food for thought: if 1000 people make 1000 dice rolls, what are the odds that one person has an average dice roll of 4?
By my calculations, the chances of any given 1000 rolls having that result would be 2.15 * 10^-22. If 1000 people rolled, that makes 2.15 * 10^-19. To put it into perspective, every person on Earth would have to do 3.8 trillion attempts of the 1000-roll experiment to see an average of 4 once. That's close enough to zero for me.
Out of curiosity - why would they need to seed the random number generator?
Wouldn't -not- seeding it be better? That way MS don't have to include some seed number in their script and have everybody thinking they're manipulating the results by using seed numbers that they know would generate a certain ordering in various versions of IE.
If you don't seed a random number generator, you get the same sequence of values every time. As it happens, the Javascript random function seeds based on the current system time, which is usually sufficient when you don't need your randomization to be cryptographically secure. So you're right that the programmer should not need to specify a seed in this case, but the fact is that the RNG is seeded behind the scenes (by necessity). Also no competent programmer would ever hard code a "seed number" in their script, as you suggest, as it would be just as bad as having no seed--you'd get the same sequence each time. Ordinarily, if you're manually seeding (and, once again, not doing cryptography), you use the system time just as Javascript automatically does.
That said.. odd method of getting random results out of an array.. I'm sure it's more efficient...
Efficiency doesn't matter when you're doing it wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
No, just speak and listen. I guess I'll have to put it through a text-to-speech system, should I be able to find it.
I can speak Swedish, you insensitive clod (and am thus interested in seeing the document)! I haven't managed to find it yet, though.
but yeah, it isnt all that usefull of a key.. but taking it away to "improve the quality of comments" is just stupid
Did it ever occur to you that maybe the "improving the quality of comments" bit was a joke? In fact, I would bet that Google was facetiously mocking the way Apple spins every shortcoming of their products as a "feature". Besides, the Caps Lock key is merely replaced with a search key, which can be switched back to Caps Lock if desired. Here's Google's comment on the matter:
“If you really need Caps Lock so you can post an INSIGHTFUL COMMENT ON YOUTUBE, click the wrench, click Settings, and then go to the System section to change the Modifier Key from a Search key to a Caps Lock key.”
They aren't saying "submit to a search" which would be a clear violation of your rights. They're saying "submit to a search or you can't get on the plane".
No--they're saying "submit to a search and get on the plane or pay a $10,000 fine and not get on the plane". Once you find out that you're about to be molested, you can't say "on second thought, maybe I won't fly"--well you can, but you'll have to pay 10 grand for the privilege. I can't say for sure whether or not the new procedures are constitutional (I suspect they're not), but I, for one, am done flying. I'm taking my first ever trip on Amtrak next week to visit my family for Thanksgiving, and am relieved to not have to deal with the TSA's bullshit.
Unfortunately, there's no "-1 Really Bad Idea" mod
I don't think "optional" means what you think it does. "Not optional" is the opposite of "not an option".
Citation needed.
The oldest part of the bible dates from as early as the 13th Century BCE. Quite old, but whether it's ancient depends on your definition of "ancient". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Testament#cite_note-2)
Are you seriously arguing that a hospital should let someone die if they could know up front that that person doesn't have the money to pay for treatment? You are a disgusting, repulsive human being--what you are arguing for is essentially genocide of the poor.
Anyhow, this is a perfect example of why private enterprise is not always a good thing. This is just a volunteer fire department that is trying to cover costs, so imagine the insanity that would ensue if public services were privatized. There would probably be different levels of fire protection subscriptions, where wealthy people would get preferential treatment. Imagine the same thing for the police--there's an intruder in your home, and you call 911, only to find out that burglary isn't covered by your police protection package.
People here in the U.S. seem to have a strong distaste for taxes, but they are necessary for a well-functioning society. Certain services need to be provided by the government and guaranteed to all, such as police, fire protection, and, yes, health care.
Call me a socialist if you like--I don't consider that an insult. In fact, we would do well to tone down our capitalism a bit and include some socialist ideas. Of course, pure socialism is not a good idea, but the thought that socialism=bad and capitalism=good is a gross oversimplification of a more fine-grained continuum, where a certain balance is ideal, and where both extremes are dangerous.
Preemptive correction: that 3.8 trillion attempts by each person in the world would only make for a 50% chance of one of those experiments resulting in an average of 4. Also, I used an estimate of 6 billion people for the population. That's probably low, but it doesn't change the numbers substantially.
And yet all you provided was anecdotal evidence. Food for thought: if 1000 people make 1000 dice rolls, what are the odds that one person has an average dice roll of 4?
By my calculations, the chances of any given 1000 rolls having that result would be 2.15 * 10^-22. If 1000 people rolled, that makes 2.15 * 10^-19. To put it into perspective, every person on Earth would have to do 3.8 trillion attempts of the 1000-roll experiment to see an average of 4 once. That's close enough to zero for me.
Out of curiosity - why would they need to seed the random number generator?
Wouldn't -not- seeding it be better? That way MS don't have to include some seed number in their script and have everybody thinking they're manipulating the results by using seed numbers that they know would generate a certain ordering in various versions of IE.
If you don't seed a random number generator, you get the same sequence of values every time. As it happens, the Javascript random function seeds based on the current system time, which is usually sufficient when you don't need your randomization to be cryptographically secure. So you're right that the programmer should not need to specify a seed in this case, but the fact is that the RNG is seeded behind the scenes (by necessity). Also no competent programmer would ever hard code a "seed number" in their script, as you suggest, as it would be just as bad as having no seed--you'd get the same sequence each time. Ordinarily, if you're manually seeding (and, once again, not doing cryptography), you use the system time just as Javascript automatically does.
That said.. odd method of getting random results out of an array.. I'm sure it's more efficient...
Efficiency doesn't matter when you're doing it wrong.
This is obviously not a random distribution curve.
I believe you meant to say uniform rather than random.
Actually, Germany does have a censorship agency: Bundesprüfstelle für jugendgefährdende Medien
Applying your logic, if I rent a house, the landlord has a right to stare through the window all day? I don't think so...