Then you still need to have a format that allows programmatic parseability when the port is required. I mean, I have no problem with using more DNS records for port numbers, but the format of the URI needs to account for all supported possibilities, not just the common ones. That's why the OP suggested getting rid of the port number ability when getting rid of the double slash, but when suggesting to allow a default but still allowing overriding, you get back to finding a mechanism that can be deterministically parsed whether the optional feature is there or not. Double slashes provide some of that, though it's probably not the only solution.
Nah, that's not breaking the rules. After ten "moves", the eleventh move is simply to reach out and grab the treasure. If you average out his body's movement, you'll find that he has not, actually, traversed farther than half way to the treasure. Only a mathematician would consider the leading edge to be representative of the body, whereas an engineer would consider the centre of gravity to be representative (assume a spherical body... hey, no assumption required!), and thus there'd be no problem in reaching out to grab the treasure as long as his centre of gravity hasn't proceeded more than halfway between his previous location and the treasure. Mind you, if it's very heavy treasure, this may be more difficult.
A private sector company in the same situation as the DSA would behave much worse...
They are a monopoly, no other organization in the UK is permitted to perform driving tests... If you think the government is slow, just see what a for-profit company would do in the same situation...
Why would it have to be the same situation? I call shenanigans: Alberta used to have driving tests done by the province, and now it's done by private registries. There are two competing registries in our community of about 60,000. Monopoly not required when it becomes privately run. (The province still manages the licenses, it's only the tests that are done privately.)
When I took my test, back in 1989, I booked inside our capital, and had a 6-week+ wait time (so I booked before I was 16). I failed, again, not the government's fault. When I rebooked, I booked at an office that was in a small community about an hour's drive away, and only had a 2-week wait time.
When my wife finally took her test this year, she could have gotten a slot only about 3 days ahead of time - and the registry we went to only does tests on Fridays. She choose to book for two weeks later so she'd get more practice in, but the choice was hers, unlike when I got my license under the public system.
Just for the record: I do have a daughter. She's turning three in two days. 13 is far too young. 15 is also too young: at that age, kids don't even know what they don't know, making them think they're not only geniuses, but invincible. Depending on the kid, 17 can still be dangerous, or they can start to grasp the world that is bigger than themselves. I don't believe in "protection, protection, protection, turn 18, complete freedom." It has to be something given slowly from about 10-12 (depending on the kid) all the way through when they're ready to handle the world (which could be 18, though the general US idea of drinking at 21 has some merit here). Of course, there will have to be a gradual changing of that protection, too: at 13, I run the protection for her. By 18-21, I merely am there for her, but by then, she has to learn to be the primary source of her own protection. How to do that, I don't know - I've been scared now for three years already.
If this was our standard, people would not be considered adults until age 25 - that's when the brain finishes making its final connections. I think the onset of menarche (typically 15) is a better point to call someone an adult.
You don't have a daughter, do you. I think 25 is fine.
But we *can* afford prizes up to £1,000 for public citizens that are effectively doing police work ?
If your police officers are earning less than £1,000 a month, that might explain the corruption. Otherwise, this is, economically speaking, a deal vs just one officer. Given that you're going to have dozens or maybe hundreds of snoopers, all vying for the prize, effectively working for nothing unless they actually make it to the top, this is going to be equivalent of at least ten officers, which I'm positive you're paying more than £100 per month.
That's not to say this is a good idea in any other respect. Except for the suggestion to use this to monitor the police (that should be almost the only thing citizens should be doing with this "game"), it's a horrible idea.
It's not whether they were read or not, it's whether they were critically analysed, evaluating our current situation against the utopia/dystopia in the book (sometimes both at the same time), to see what the author is claiming about our own world through his/her fictional one. It's supposed to take the way students read books, even fictional ones, and turn it upside down, from pure entertainment to philosophy, excersising their brain, and, hopefully, turn them into critical thinkers about everything they read, hear, or say.
So, yes, 1984 simply cannot be overlooked for a class like this. In fact, HHGTTG would be a challenging book for such a course - to be able critique the book despite its humour, and analyse the dystopia that is presented therein against the backdrop of our real world.
While you're correct that it's the FTC, you do have to remember that this is slashdot, and the summary and the story it (usually) links to may not be related.
There is a world of difference between "I like this product, and think everyone should have one" and "I like this product, and think everyone should have one. PS: they gave me a free one so I could review it. Oh, and 5 big ones in cold, hard cash, too."
It's important information when deciding credibility of the reviewer. And that means it's important to critically think about what the reviewer is saying.
Correlation is not causation. But it is a reason to look further. So, by all means, take this news with some salt. Just watch your sodium intake, or you'll never live long enough to get a cancer that this correlation may treat.
From the looks of things, getting modded up. Now if we could only reserve up-mods to those who knew what they were talking about, we might encourage more actual knowledge here.
Of course, it'd probably also kill slashdot in the process, so please continue as before.
Oh, no. Mozart put lots of beautiful black dots and lines down on paper. That is the beauty, the art. It becomes suddenly bland when someone tries to use it as if it were an instruction manual on playing music.
With an attitude like that, the GP probably never showed a passion for the business, or a drive to maximize all synergies, protecting customer value and driving profits. Basically, he has the right attitude for life, automatically excluding any possibility at management whatsoever.
Signed,
Someone told by management he was ineligible for management, and, thus far, pretty happy about that.
Meanwhile, most of the rest of us would have elected to start with lawyers, politicians, and telephone sanitisers before depopulating along ethnic lines.
And when I hit "Reply to This", I was merely surmising it was possible to do, not that someone was dumb/bored enough to do it. Nearly 7 years ago, even.
There is a density difference between salt water and 'regular' frozen water.
Fair enough.
Get some sea wter [sic], put it o [sic] a glace add some ice cubes and mark the line. See where it is after it melts.
Seeing as pure water has a density of 1.000 g/mL while the salt water has a density of approximately 1.025 g/mL (according to Wikipedia - Stephen Colbert may have put in wrong info there, I don't know), if you have 50mL (51.25g) of salt water, add 1mL (1g) of non-salted ice, it'll displace its weight, 1g, in salt water (0.976mL) until melted at which point it's now 1mL of water, or a gain of ~2.4% vs the ice (no, that's not entirely accurate, but is close enough). I'd have to see much bigger numbers to see how significant that really is: how much volume of ice we're talking about vs the area (not volume) of the oceans' surface. And how that would affect salinity (which would also change the percentages). And, honestly, when we're talking about the floating island that is the arctic, how salty it already is. The top is probably pure(ish) from precipitation (I'm guessing largely snow). The bottom is going to be as saline as the ocean was when it froze (which may be more or less saline than the oceans are now). But it's still going to be more dense than pure water, as you point out, which means it's already heavier, displacing more water than the above percentages would imply, which means the coasts are already risen somewhat. So now we're talking somewhere around 1-1.5% growth, even less significant.
Again, I'd be more worried about the antarctic where nearly all the ice is already above sealevel, which means a much larger percentage is going to be affecting sea levels.
Slashdot Mirror
"Loose (sic) 50lbs without dieting, overnight! Just try our patented NegaBelt for the low low cost of only 40 payments of $19.99!"
Um, and if those payments were made in coins, your NegaBelt wouldn't have to do a thing. They'd lose 50lbs right there.
The process of overriding the hardware limit should be conspicuous: nobody should be able to do it without intending to do so.
Simply having the override be on the device rather than behind the lead-lined glass shield should make them think real hard about increasing the dose.
Then you still need to have a format that allows programmatic parseability when the port is required. I mean, I have no problem with using more DNS records for port numbers, but the format of the URI needs to account for all supported possibilities, not just the common ones. That's why the OP suggested getting rid of the port number ability when getting rid of the double slash, but when suggesting to allow a default but still allowing overriding, you get back to finding a mechanism that can be deterministically parsed whether the optional feature is there or not. Double slashes provide some of that, though it's probably not the only solution.
(As an engineer...)
Nah, that's not breaking the rules. After ten "moves", the eleventh move is simply to reach out and grab the treasure. If you average out his body's movement, you'll find that he has not, actually, traversed farther than half way to the treasure. Only a mathematician would consider the leading edge to be representative of the body, whereas an engineer would consider the centre of gravity to be representative (assume a spherical body... hey, no assumption required!), and thus there'd be no problem in reaching out to grab the treasure as long as his centre of gravity hasn't proceeded more than halfway between his previous location and the treasure. Mind you, if it's very heavy treasure, this may be more difficult.
A private sector company in the same situation as the DSA would behave much worse... They are a monopoly, no other organization in the UK is permitted to perform driving tests... If you think the government is slow, just see what a for-profit company would do in the same situation...
Why would it have to be the same situation? I call shenanigans: Alberta used to have driving tests done by the province, and now it's done by private registries. There are two competing registries in our community of about 60,000. Monopoly not required when it becomes privately run. (The province still manages the licenses, it's only the tests that are done privately.)
When I took my test, back in 1989, I booked inside our capital, and had a 6-week+ wait time (so I booked before I was 16). I failed, again, not the government's fault. When I rebooked, I booked at an office that was in a small community about an hour's drive away, and only had a 2-week wait time.
When my wife finally took her test this year, she could have gotten a slot only about 3 days ahead of time - and the registry we went to only does tests on Fridays. She choose to book for two weeks later so she'd get more practice in, but the choice was hers, unlike when I got my license under the public system.
Just for the record: I do have a daughter. She's turning three in two days. 13 is far too young. 15 is also too young: at that age, kids don't even know what they don't know, making them think they're not only geniuses, but invincible. Depending on the kid, 17 can still be dangerous, or they can start to grasp the world that is bigger than themselves. I don't believe in "protection, protection, protection, turn 18, complete freedom." It has to be something given slowly from about 10-12 (depending on the kid) all the way through when they're ready to handle the world (which could be 18, though the general US idea of drinking at 21 has some merit here). Of course, there will have to be a gradual changing of that protection, too: at 13, I run the protection for her. By 18-21, I merely am there for her, but by then, she has to learn to be the primary source of her own protection. How to do that, I don't know - I've been scared now for three years already.
*WHOOSH*
(I wondered if the smiley was required or not... apparently it was.)
If this was our standard, people would not be considered adults until age 25 - that's when the brain finishes making its final connections. I think the onset of menarche (typically 15) is a better point to call someone an adult.
You don't have a daughter, do you. I think 25 is fine.
But we *can* afford prizes up to £1,000 for public citizens that are effectively doing police work ?
If your police officers are earning less than £1,000 a month, that might explain the corruption. Otherwise, this is, economically speaking, a deal vs just one officer. Given that you're going to have dozens or maybe hundreds of snoopers, all vying for the prize, effectively working for nothing unless they actually make it to the top, this is going to be equivalent of at least ten officers, which I'm positive you're paying more than £100 per month.
That's not to say this is a good idea in any other respect. Except for the suggestion to use this to monitor the police (that should be almost the only thing citizens should be doing with this "game"), it's a horrible idea.
A warning to those with [...] or good sense. Do not watch the trailer!
At least that doesn't eliminate anyone here.
What are you talking about? There is nothing like New Hope in its original Klingon!
Of course, Episode VI really was called "Revenge of the Jedi" in its original Klingon release, and merely toned down for us humans to "Return".
It's not whether they were read or not, it's whether they were critically analysed, evaluating our current situation against the utopia/dystopia in the book (sometimes both at the same time), to see what the author is claiming about our own world through his/her fictional one. It's supposed to take the way students read books, even fictional ones, and turn it upside down, from pure entertainment to philosophy, excersising their brain, and, hopefully, turn them into critical thinkers about everything they read, hear, or say.
So, yes, 1984 simply cannot be overlooked for a class like this. In fact, HHGTTG would be a challenging book for such a course - to be able critique the book despite its humour, and analyse the dystopia that is presented therein against the backdrop of our real world.
While you're correct that it's the FTC, you do have to remember that this is slashdot, and the summary and the story it (usually) links to may not be related.
There is a world of difference between "I like this product, and think everyone should have one" and "I like this product, and think everyone should have one. PS: they gave me a free one so I could review it. Oh, and 5 big ones in cold, hard cash, too."
It's important information when deciding credibility of the reviewer. And that means it's important to critically think about what the reviewer is saying.
Correlation is not causation. But it is a reason to look further. So, by all means, take this news with some salt. Just watch your sodium intake, or you'll never live long enough to get a cancer that this correlation may treat.
From the looks of things, getting modded up. Now if we could only reserve up-mods to those who knew what they were talking about, we might encourage more actual knowledge here.
Of course, it'd probably also kill slashdot in the process, so please continue as before.
You wouldn't let your toddler play in traffic, would you?
/me goes out to retrieve toddler.
Oh, no. Mozart put lots of beautiful black dots and lines down on paper. That is the beauty, the art. It becomes suddenly bland when someone tries to use it as if it were an instruction manual on playing music.
Was it really porn that they were viewing? Maybe they should post the URLs (and users/passwords) so we can judge for ourselves.
"Not anymore!" *snicker*
With an attitude like that, the GP probably never showed a passion for the business, or a drive to maximize all synergies, protecting customer value and driving profits. Basically, he has the right attitude for life, automatically excluding any possibility at management whatsoever.
Signed,
Someone told by management he was ineligible for management, and, thus far, pretty happy about that.
Meanwhile, most of the rest of us would have elected to start with lawyers, politicians, and telephone sanitisers before depopulating along ethnic lines.
Excel is an SQL-queryable database.
And when I hit "Reply to This", I was merely surmising it was possible to do, not that someone was dumb/bored enough to do it. Nearly 7 years ago, even.
There is a density difference between salt water and 'regular' frozen water.
Fair enough.
Get some sea wter [sic], put it o [sic] a glace add some ice cubes and mark the line. See where it is after it melts.
Seeing as pure water has a density of 1.000 g/mL while the salt water has a density of approximately 1.025 g/mL (according to Wikipedia - Stephen Colbert may have put in wrong info there, I don't know), if you have 50mL (51.25g) of salt water, add 1mL (1g) of non-salted ice, it'll displace its weight, 1g, in salt water (0.976mL) until melted at which point it's now 1mL of water, or a gain of ~2.4% vs the ice (no, that's not entirely accurate, but is close enough). I'd have to see much bigger numbers to see how significant that really is: how much volume of ice we're talking about vs the area (not volume) of the oceans' surface. And how that would affect salinity (which would also change the percentages). And, honestly, when we're talking about the floating island that is the arctic, how salty it already is. The top is probably pure(ish) from precipitation (I'm guessing largely snow). The bottom is going to be as saline as the ocean was when it froze (which may be more or less saline than the oceans are now). But it's still going to be more dense than pure water, as you point out, which means it's already heavier, displacing more water than the above percentages would imply, which means the coasts are already risen somewhat. So now we're talking somewhere around 1-1.5% growth, even less significant.
Again, I'd be more worried about the antarctic where nearly all the ice is already above sealevel, which means a much larger percentage is going to be affecting sea levels.
A slashdotter?