This provides pretty good support for the claim that liberals think of themselves as being moderate and everyone else as being conservative. Fairly predictable for collusion between a couple of liberal hotspots.
We can't let this discussion pass without a word from Dijkstra (EWD340):
Argument three is based on the constructive approach to the problem of program correctness. Today a usual technique is to make a program and then to test it. But: program testing can be a very effective way to show the presence of bugs, but is hopelessly inadequate for showing their absence. The only effective way to raise the confidence level of a program significantly is to give a convincing proof of its correctness. But one should not first make the program and then prove its correctness, because then the requirement of providing the proof would only increase the poor programmer's burden. On the contrary: the programmer should let correctness proof and program grow hand in hand. Argument three is essentially based on the following observation. If one first asks oneself what the structure of a convincing proof would be and, having found this, then constructs a program satisfying this proof's requirements, then these correctness concerns turn out to be a very effective heuristic guidance. By definition this approach is only applicable when we restrict ourselves to intellectually manageable programs, but it provides us with effective means for finding a satisfactory one among these.
This has to be played with to be appreciated. On request, it delivered a set of interesting papers about US-EPA misrepresentation of science. And, it returned a nul result for "Has any climate model been validated?"
You're a lefty President with a lefty Congress at your beck-and-call. You can stimulate the market economy with research funds or you can nationalize the auto industry. Gee. What a dilemma!
Since this is not the place to find actual engineers, it's not a surprise that no one has pointed out one of the primary rules of engineering: "Minimize Innovation."
FORTRAN and the vast mathematical and physical libraries that come with it have been tested and matured over a period of decades to create an open-source, highly dependable, essentially error-free framework for mathematics, science and engineering computations. We teach FORTRAN because it's the only language that meets that spec and because open-source is useless if you can't understand the source language.
The intent is not to develop programmers but to give mathematicians, scientists and real engineers a working knowledge of a vital tool.
According to the OP this is a software company. They understand perfectly. The OP is exacerbating his situation by rewarding bad behavior--A bad idea with children and dogs--a worse idea with nerds. There is a solution:
Assuming OP can retrieve the cojones, the answer is to prioritize and address each problem in order. Invite the lowest level manager whose staff includes the OP and the offending users to take part in setting priorities. Keep a list of planned and ongoing work where everyone can see it. Have columns for priority, task, effort, benefit, beneficiary, target date and status. Anybody can add a task, only the aforesaid manager can set the priority, and only the OP can set the effort, target date and status. This "let's you and him fight" approach takes the OP out of the line of fire and simplifies his job. It might even cop him an assistant.
Which date? Except for 1200 Zulu, when the whole world is on the same date, any particular UTC represents two dates. Not to make your life more difficult than it already is.
As a related aside: a date without a TZ represents a span of 48 hours and two dates with different TZs can't be meaningfully compared. They are effectively different types.
Ordinary people don't go through all that logic.
They make their choices from what's offered. If I'm an OEM and I can field a Windows netbook that performs well at a marketable price, why would I do anything else? Ideology over profitability is a formula for failure.
1. People don't buy operating systems, they buy applications. Yet another OS is not interesting.
2. Handhelds and netbooks are getting more powerful with every new product. At some point, they can run Windows without sacrificing the "user experience." Small fast OS' have a fleeting advantage.
So a page that comes up fast, delivers a short, sharp message, and backs it up with examples in an attractive video that doesn't suck bandwidth is poor?
Don't quit your day job for a new career in marketing. This page is ideal for its target market. Apple may be wondering whether they've lost their creative director to Microsoft.
If you invented a better mouse trap, your patent wouldn't be denied based on the judgement that trapping mice is old hat. It isn't the what that counts, it's the how.
Chuckle. Waddya think, Corp? I think it's a losing battle. These guys are going to keep on spitting nonsense based on what they assume without evidence the patent is about. It hardly seems worth the trouble.
We need a filter for these dolts: Quote a relevant section of the patent itself or be consigned to oblivion.
Lots of protest that it is ordinary, yet not a single URL to a web form that does it. If it were ordinary, surely there would be dozens! I maintain that it isn't ordinary. I should have realized that adding "in context" would be needed with this bunch.
As to OnChange, it seems this was designed to replace the OnChange and the squirrely logic needed to validate partial strings from the beginning after each character, and handling backspace properly. The problem is maintaining state. You could work the code for the field syntax, but any change would require reworking the code. With this widget, you just supply a new regex string. They use ssn as an example, but more interesting would be a date-time string or email address. How many email addresses would your javascript be wrongly rejecting before you finally got the OnChange code right?
Slashdot Mirror
This provides pretty good support for the claim that liberals think of themselves as being moderate and everyone else as being conservative. Fairly predictable for collusion between a couple of liberal hotspots.
Math may not help you get a job but it will surely help you do it. More to the point, if you have Math+CS, why aren't you doing BI?
Asian students also go to school 250 ten-hour days a year. They not only learn math, they learn the value and satisfaction of hard work.
(a)There's one born every minute.
(b)Half the population has below-average intelligence
Compared to cash:
This is as bad an idea (for the consumer, that is) as debit cards.
We can't let this discussion pass without a word from Dijkstra (EWD340):
Argument three is based on the constructive approach to the problem of program correctness. Today a usual technique is to make a program and then to test it. But: program testing can be a very effective way to show the presence of bugs, but is hopelessly inadequate for showing their absence. The only effective way to raise the confidence level of a program significantly is to give a convincing proof of its correctness. But one should not first make the program and then prove its correctness, because then the requirement of providing the proof would only increase the poor programmer's burden. On the contrary: the programmer should let correctness proof and program grow hand in hand. Argument three is essentially based on the following observation. If one first asks oneself what the structure of a convincing proof would be and, having found this, then constructs a program satisfying this proof's requirements, then these correctness concerns turn out to be a very effective heuristic guidance. By definition this approach is only applicable when we restrict ourselves to intellectually manageable programs, but it provides us with effective means for finding a satisfactory one among these.
This has to be played with to be appreciated. On request, it delivered a set of interesting papers about US-EPA misrepresentation of science. And, it returned a nul result for "Has any climate model been validated?"
This is going to be fun
Actually, all these OS' lead back to the Berkeley Timesharing System (1964). So do many of the relevant people.
I guess I'm just not cool enough to get the point of this exercise.
You're a lefty President with a lefty Congress at your beck-and-call. You can stimulate the market economy with research funds or you can nationalize the auto industry. Gee. What a dilemma!
Since this is not the place to find actual engineers, it's not a surprise that no one has pointed out one of the primary rules of engineering: "Minimize Innovation."
FORTRAN and the vast mathematical and physical libraries that come with it have been tested and matured over a period of decades to create an open-source, highly dependable, essentially error-free framework for mathematics, science and engineering computations. We teach FORTRAN because it's the only language that meets that spec and because open-source is useless if you can't understand the source language.
The intent is not to develop programmers but to give mathematicians, scientists and real engineers a working knowledge of a vital tool.
Then stop hiring teenagers.
According to the OP this is a software company. They understand perfectly. The OP is exacerbating his situation by rewarding bad behavior--A bad idea with children and dogs--a worse idea with nerds. There is a solution:
Assuming OP can retrieve the cojones, the answer is to prioritize and address each problem in order. Invite the lowest level manager whose staff includes the OP and the offending users to take part in setting priorities. Keep a list of planned and ongoing work where everyone can see it. Have columns for priority, task, effort, benefit, beneficiary, target date and status. Anybody can add a task, only the aforesaid manager can set the priority, and only the OP can set the effort, target date and status. This "let's you and him fight" approach takes the OP out of the line of fire and simplifies his job. It might even cop him an assistant.
Which date? Except for 1200 Zulu, when the whole world is on the same date, any particular UTC represents two dates. Not to make your life more difficult than it already is.
As a related aside: a date without a TZ represents a span of 48 hours and two dates with different TZs can't be meaningfully compared. They are effectively different types.
True and true, but irrelevant.
Ordinary people don't go through all that logic. They make their choices from what's offered. If I'm an OEM and I can field a Windows netbook that performs well at a marketable price, why would I do anything else? Ideology over profitability is a formula for failure.
Who said "more" applications? The PC had the applications people wanted to buy. A handful of photographers and gamers didn't count.
Two things:
1. People don't buy operating systems, they buy applications. Yet another OS is not interesting.
2. Handhelds and netbooks are getting more powerful with every new product. At some point, they can run Windows without sacrificing the "user experience." Small fast OS' have a fleeting advantage.
Which gave rise to one of the oldest computer jokes: "If it doesn't work, piss on it."
Turing-complete is not enough if you have a user interface.
So a page that comes up fast, delivers a short, sharp message, and backs it up with examples in an attractive video that doesn't suck bandwidth is poor?
Don't quit your day job for a new career in marketing. This page is ideal for its target market. Apple may be wondering whether they've lost their creative director to Microsoft.
If you invented a better mouse trap, your patent wouldn't be denied based on the judgement that trapping mice is old hat. It isn't the what that counts, it's the how.
Chuckle. Waddya think, Corp? I think it's a losing battle. These guys are going to keep on spitting nonsense based on what they assume without evidence the patent is about. It hardly seems worth the trouble.
We need a filter for these dolts: Quote a relevant section of the patent itself or be consigned to oblivion.
delete non-numeric characters and commas onKeyUp
Nothing in the patent does this, or would, in any configuration. One hopes your software designs rely more on evidence than this nonsense.
If that's all that IBM is doing
Why not read the bleeding patent and give the top of your head a break?
Lots of protest that it is ordinary, yet not a single URL to a web form that does it. If it were ordinary, surely there would be dozens! I maintain that it isn't ordinary. I should have realized that adding "in context" would be needed with this bunch.
As to OnChange, it seems this was designed to replace the OnChange and the squirrely logic needed to validate partial strings from the beginning after each character, and handling backspace properly. The problem is maintaining state. You could work the code for the field syntax, but any change would require reworking the code. With this widget, you just supply a new regex string. They use ssn as an example, but more interesting would be a date-time string or email address. How many email addresses would your javascript be wrongly rejecting before you finally got the OnChange code right?