You're absolutely right. Having the code is great in and of itself. Unfortunately, you're also absolutely missing the point. When people here compare android phones and iphones, the "Android is free/open source" argument keeps coming up. Unfortunately, that openness argument goes right out the window when carriers and/or manufacturers lock down the hardware so that you can't compile really overwrite the firmware without a jailbreak. Past that point, the biggest difference between iOS and Android in terms of openness is the app store, not the operating system itself. And that is what's being discussed here.
Yeah, it's not very exciting, no big theory of physics disproven, no shiny new theory neede to explain this phenomenon.
Yet, if you consider the options listed:
1. Black Matter
2. Gravity doesn't quite work like we think it does
3. Heat Loss
1 and 2 are actually pretty far fetched, and when the effect was detected, number 3 was estimated to be not quite enough. Yet
someone though "Those estimates aren't quite good enough", and tried a really simple model that I'd wager a great deal
many people here have some experience with, put it to use in a novel way, and it worked.
This was an a triumph of the standing on the shoulders of giants maxim, and I love it.
The basic Logitech optical mice (of the sort that you get with Dells for example) always suited me fine for gaming
I'll echo your experience. Before I switched to one of those newfangled oodles-of-buttons mouses, I used a run-of-the-mill Microsoft IntelliMouse Explorer 3 as my main gaming mouse. What it has over the most basic of basics is the two thumb buttons, and loving those buttons so much is what led me into the multi-button goodness (which I loved, up until I stopped playing WoW a month later, go figure). I never at any point felt that the mouse lacked accuracy or that the weight was off, or whatever else gaming mice are supposed to provide above regular ones.
Actually, there is a difference. I'm developing a webapp that should support both Android and iOS, and this was one of the first issues I stumbled upon. Position:fixed doesn't work at all in Safari, but does work, if only barely, in Chrome (it only works in Chrome if you set the flag, and even then not so well anyway). It makes sense though: position:fixed sets the position relative to the browser window, and it really isn't very clear how that should interact with the way pages zoom and pan in mobile devices.
So limit what machines see that password. Have your web client hash the password before if goes to the host (even when it's a secure connection)
If the browser hashes the password, then the server only compares that hash with the hash in storage. So I can just look at the hashes on the server and send that exact string. You just turned your server-side hashed passwords into plain-text passwords. So... congratulations, you just made the whole point of hashing passwords invalid!
I thought the requirement to defend only applied to trademarks?
AFAIK, that's correct, but only in the sense that if you don't defend a trademark you lose it. However someone else mentioned something equally important: Under equity law, you can't sit on your claim until it best suits you to bring it forward. If they were to want to quash the mod later on, and the mod authors could make a reasonable claim that Blizzard had known about the mod for a while, that might mean trouble for Blizzard. (IANAL, etc etc)
IMHO if your IDE is typing 2/3rds of what needs to be typed without getting it wrong then there is something fundamentally wrong with the language.
Not really. I can't speak for other IDEs, but at least netbeans is pretty clever with initials. If a java class has a method called getSomeValue, then object.gsv <hit autocomplete> will look for both methods starting with gsv (unlikely there are any), and camelCase methods with g S V as initials (which will, at most, match getSomeValue and getSomeVariable, and show those in a popup for me to pick). You might argue that getSomeValue() is an overly verbose method name (I'd call it explicit), but other than that I fail to see how this highlights anything fundamentally wrong with the language.
If you've managed to find one or two like-minded folk who happen to want to play the same game on the same platform, you have to deal with aligning everyone's schedules so that they can get together. Then, you get to lug some hardware around and rearrange furniture.
You got it completely wrong. If I own a console, a game, and two controllers, and the game supports split-screen (or, more generically, local multiplayer with just one screen -- most beat'em ups don't really split screen), we can play the game together. There's no "happen to want to play the same game on the same platform" here, it's a matter of "people are here, they feel like playing a game, these are the ones I have that work". And this is why the Wii got its reputation for "the console for people who have actual friends": if someone visits me and they enjoy games, Mario Kart, New Super Mario Bros, House of the Dead: Overkill, Super Smash Bros. and Wii Sports are all games we can just pick up and play (and those are the ones I can think of off the top of my head from my own collection, without going into the Guitar Hero or Raving Rabbids sort of games). While not exactly a "hardcore" gaming experience, being able to push the controller off my opponent's hand while I try to overtake them in Mario Kart is a much more satisfying social experience than calling out "owned" over Ventrilo:)
Contrast with Mac's F9, F10, F11 and F12 keys. If your program just happens to use one of those keys, you're shit-out-of-luck (as is the case when trying to debug something in Visual Studio in a virtual machine, for example).
That does suck -- I'm a 5-button mouse person and thankfully OSX allowed me to map the more useful exposé commands to the thumb buttons, and the F8-F12 bindings are now Shift-F8 to Shift-F12.
Also, that bit of brain-dead keybinding is made up for by having the command key and ctrl key separate. Cmd-C/Cmd-V working on the shell without having conflicts with Ctrl-C is how computers are supposed to work:)
How about this: If I have a full blown laptop that lasts 7 hours on battery power under light usage, then I have a laptop that will work both when I need it for long periods of light usage AND will still have the horsepower to do some serious number crunching when I have it connected to a power outlet. And I only have to carry around one single device.
That's the speed for the whole (loaded) plane to take off. If the pieces are disassembled and reassembled into a house, then the lift created by the wind blowing through might very well be enough to at least rock the roof a fair bit.
I see the appeal of google's choice though - it keeps things simple. "What version are you on?" "3.6.10"... ? Isn't easier to just call it 5?
Oh right, that must be why my Chrome is at version 7.0.517.41...
That's precisely the point. If I ask a random person, "Chrome 7" is a good enough answer. If the discussion is on some technical detail, knowing the exact release or build is relevant. Which is why they advertise "Chrome 7" but post the full version name under "about".
This'll look exactly the same as a real virus, and it will be easy to clean off, but it won't propagate or do nasty things like a real virus.
It's too easy to remove. Delete the file, et voilà. If the point of the exercise is "Viruses aren't that daunting, they're just a bit of work to remove", the EICAR test file is as adequate as telling people "check that 1 + 1 returns 2" to teach them how to properly use a calculator
Android fans here keep on insisting that there isn't only one store for Android Apps; that there isn't one authority that can refuse an Android App. That Android developers are free. You can't have it both ways.
Of course you can. Just not at the same time. If you want, you can restrict yourself to the android market, and be reasonably sure all apps you buy are at least somewhat reviewed. If you don't want to restrict yourself to the android market, you're free not to without some jailbreak process.
Long links with loads of parameters are a bad practice that should be avoided by good site coding conventions.
Provide me an alternative that allows me to share with someone else the exact state I saw a webpage in, and I'll buy into your theory.
Even accepting it's a bad practice, until the upstream vendor fixes the issue, we have to cope with it. And sure, url shortening is a bandaid, but when you're bleeding a bandaid is better than complaining you shouldn't have been cut to begin with.
Great, you just solved the problem for one particular client of one particular protocol by having the client shorten urls, rather than solving the problem for everyone by making sure the url is small in the first place.
As surprising as it may sound to you, there are pretty good use cases for shorteners. I use them plenty in IRC (in a work context), where posting long links with loads of parameters generates loads of visual spam, but I'd still rather post the link publicly. Since everybody knows who the regulars are, there is a fairly high degree of trust involved so the odds of getting some tubgirl or malware are pretty slim.
The important factor is ENERGY efficiency. As an example: A 100 watt power draw from a CPU that takes 1 second to finish a task is more energy efficient than a 10 watt power drawn that takes 12 seconds to finish the same task
What if the task at hand is a continuous, undemanding one, like, say, basic mobile phone functions?
We're not talking about "giving the money back", as in returning it. The OP suggested google was "giving [the money] up", as in no longer accepting it. In stopping this sort of advertiser from posting ads, Google is denying itself a source of revenue.
Slashdot Mirror
You're absolutely right. Having the code is great in and of itself. Unfortunately, you're also absolutely missing the point. When people here compare android phones and iphones, the "Android is free/open source" argument keeps coming up. Unfortunately, that openness argument goes right out the window when carriers and/or manufacturers lock down the hardware so that you can't compile really overwrite the firmware without a jailbreak. Past that point, the biggest difference between iOS and Android in terms of openness is the app store, not the operating system itself. And that is what's being discussed here.
Yeah, it's not very exciting, no big theory of physics disproven, no shiny new theory neede to explain this phenomenon. Yet, if you consider the options listed:
1 and 2 are actually pretty far fetched, and when the effect was detected, number 3 was estimated to be not quite enough. Yet someone though "Those estimates aren't quite good enough", and tried a really simple model that I'd wager a great deal many people here have some experience with, put it to use in a novel way, and it worked.
This was an a triumph of the standing on the shoulders of giants maxim, and I love it.
To add insult to injury, I'm in Portugal and it redirects me to Gizmodo.com.br
The basic Logitech optical mice (of the sort that you get with Dells for example) always suited me fine for gaming
I'll echo your experience. Before I switched to one of those newfangled oodles-of-buttons mouses, I used a run-of-the-mill Microsoft IntelliMouse Explorer 3 as my main gaming mouse. What it has over the most basic of basics is the two thumb buttons, and loving those buttons so much is what led me into the multi-button goodness (which I loved, up until I stopped playing WoW a month later, go figure). I never at any point felt that the mouse lacked accuracy or that the weight was off, or whatever else gaming mice are supposed to provide above regular ones.
Well, anecdotal as it may be, I use a Mac for work exclusively, by choice, and spend half the day working from the CLI.
Actually, there is a difference. I'm developing a webapp that should support both Android and iOS, and this was one of the first issues I stumbled upon. Position:fixed doesn't work at all in Safari, but does work, if only barely, in Chrome (it only works in Chrome if you set the flag, and even then not so well anyway). It makes sense though: position:fixed sets the position relative to the browser window, and it really isn't very clear how that should interact with the way pages zoom and pan in mobile devices.
So limit what machines see that password. Have your web client hash the password before if goes to the host (even when it's a secure connection)
If the browser hashes the password, then the server only compares that hash with the hash in storage. So I can just look at the hashes on the server and send that exact string. You just turned your server-side hashed passwords into plain-text passwords. So... congratulations, you just made the whole point of hashing passwords invalid!
I thought the requirement to defend only applied to trademarks?
AFAIK, that's correct, but only in the sense that if you don't defend a trademark you lose it. However someone else mentioned something equally important: Under equity law, you can't sit on your claim until it best suits you to bring it forward. If they were to want to quash the mod later on, and the mod authors could make a reasonable claim that Blizzard had known about the mod for a while, that might mean trouble for Blizzard. (IANAL, etc etc)
Did you even read the title for the article you're posting on?
IMHO if your IDE is typing 2/3rds of what needs to be typed without getting it wrong then there is something fundamentally wrong with the language.
Not really. I can't speak for other IDEs, but at least netbeans is pretty clever with initials. If a java class has a method called getSomeValue, then object.gsv <hit autocomplete> will look for both methods starting with gsv (unlikely there are any), and camelCase methods with g S V as initials (which will, at most, match getSomeValue and getSomeVariable, and show those in a popup for me to pick). You might argue that getSomeValue() is an overly verbose method name (I'd call it explicit), but other than that I fail to see how this highlights anything fundamentally wrong with the language.
and with that, the co-op I enjoyed most in the series was gone.
You're doing it wrong ;)
If you've managed to find one or two like-minded folk who happen to want to play the same game on the same platform, you have to deal with aligning everyone's schedules so that they can get together. Then, you get to lug some hardware around and rearrange furniture.
You got it completely wrong. If I own a console, a game, and two controllers, and the game supports split-screen (or, more generically, local multiplayer with just one screen -- most beat'em ups don't really split screen), we can play the game together. There's no "happen to want to play the same game on the same platform" here, it's a matter of "people are here, they feel like playing a game, these are the ones I have that work". And this is why the Wii got its reputation for "the console for people who have actual friends": if someone visits me and they enjoy games, Mario Kart, New Super Mario Bros, House of the Dead: Overkill, Super Smash Bros. and Wii Sports are all games we can just pick up and play (and those are the ones I can think of off the top of my head from my own collection, without going into the Guitar Hero or Raving Rabbids sort of games). While not exactly a "hardcore" gaming experience, being able to push the controller off my opponent's hand while I try to overtake them in Mario Kart is a much more satisfying social experience than calling out "owned" over Ventrilo :)
Contrast with Mac's F9, F10, F11 and F12 keys. If your program just happens to use one of those keys, you're shit-out-of-luck (as is the case when trying to debug something in Visual Studio in a virtual machine, for example).
That does suck -- I'm a 5-button mouse person and thankfully OSX allowed me to map the more useful exposé commands to the thumb buttons, and the F8-F12 bindings are now Shift-F8 to Shift-F12.
Also, that bit of brain-dead keybinding is made up for by having the command key and ctrl key separate. Cmd-C/Cmd-V working on the shell without having conflicts with Ctrl-C is how computers are supposed to work :)
How about this: If I have a full blown laptop that lasts 7 hours on battery power under light usage, then I have a laptop that will work both when I need it for long periods of light usage AND will still have the horsepower to do some serious number crunching when I have it connected to a power outlet. And I only have to carry around one single device.
You joke, but I remember when I watched an IMAX documentary on Mt. Everest.
Wow, I didn't know they'd built an IMAX all the way up there!
That's the speed for the whole (loaded) plane to take off. If the pieces are disassembled and reassembled into a house, then the lift created by the wind blowing through might very well be enough to at least rock the roof a fair bit.
I see the appeal of google's choice though - it keeps things simple. "What version are you on?" "3.6.10"... ? Isn't easier to just call it 5?
Oh right, that must be why my Chrome is at version 7.0.517.41...
That's precisely the point. If I ask a random person, "Chrome 7" is a good enough answer. If the discussion is on some technical detail, knowing the exact release or build is relevant. Which is why they advertise "Chrome 7" but post the full version name under "about".
This'll look exactly the same as a real virus, and it will be easy to clean off, but it won't propagate or do nasty things like a real virus.
It's too easy to remove. Delete the file, et voilà. If the point of the exercise is "Viruses aren't that daunting, they're just a bit of work to remove", the EICAR test file is as adequate as telling people "check that 1 + 1 returns 2" to teach them how to properly use a calculator
Android fans here keep on insisting that there isn't only one store for Android Apps; that there isn't one authority that can refuse an Android App. That Android developers are free. You can't have it both ways.
Of course you can. Just not at the same time. If you want, you can restrict yourself to the android market, and be reasonably sure all apps you buy are at least somewhat reviewed. If you don't want to restrict yourself to the android market, you're free not to without some jailbreak process.
Long links with loads of parameters are a bad practice that should be avoided by good site coding conventions.
Provide me an alternative that allows me to share with someone else the exact state I saw a webpage in, and I'll buy into your theory.
Even accepting it's a bad practice, until the upstream vendor fixes the issue, we have to cope with it. And sure, url shortening is a bandaid, but when you're bleeding a bandaid is better than complaining you shouldn't have been cut to begin with.
Great, you just solved the problem for one particular client of one particular protocol by having the client shorten urls, rather than solving the problem for everyone by making sure the url is small in the first place.
As surprising as it may sound to you, there are pretty good use cases for shorteners. I use them plenty in IRC (in a work context), where posting long links with loads of parameters generates loads of visual spam, but I'd still rather post the link publicly. Since everybody knows who the regulars are, there is a fairly high degree of trust involved so the odds of getting some tubgirl or malware are pretty slim.
[citation needed]
Fair enough. Here you go. It's a bit outdated (being from March and all), but I doubt the situation changed significatively in the last 6 months.
The important factor is ENERGY efficiency. As an example: A 100 watt power draw from a CPU that takes 1 second to finish a task is more energy efficient than a 10 watt power drawn that takes 12 seconds to finish the same task
What if the task at hand is a continuous, undemanding one, like, say, basic mobile phone functions?
We're not talking about "giving the money back", as in returning it. The OP suggested google was "giving [the money] up", as in no longer accepting it. In stopping this sort of advertiser from posting ads, Google is denying itself a source of revenue.