I totally agree with Ron Paul: this should be something the states decide.
Philosophically speaking, that might be the right answer.
Practically
speaking, I live in Texas, which is a good state in a lot of ways, but
ughhhhh, when it comes to telecom legislation, I don't have high hopes
because of the way our state government works and the fact that "the
new AT&T" is headquartered in San Antonio. I predict that if it is
left up to the state government, the lobbyists will push through some
kind of horrible legislation that says something like "internet providers
have the moral responsibility to charge content providers to deliver
their content to subscribers, to make the free market work".
Are you saying small businesses shouldn't have to recycle or pay a recycling tax because they are small businesses?
I'm saying that Dell and HP stand to gain if laws like this are passed,
because they are huge corporations and can achieve massive economies
of scale that the little guys can't match. (Dell is particularly good
at shaving costs down -- they have made it into an art form.)
That's not to say mandatory recycling programs are a bad idea. I'm just
stating what I think the motivations are for making the law.
Not if you read the headline as: "Texas raises barrier to entry for competitors of Dell and HP."
I hate to be cynical, but living in Texas, I know how things work here,
and that is the most likely explanation. Texas government is about as
business-friendly as it gets (that's regarded as a virtue around here
by many people). Plus, you should ask yourself where Dell is headquartered,
and the answer is Texas. Then you should also ask yourself where Compaq
was headquartered before HP bought them, and the answer is also Texas.
So, the world's two largest PC manufacturers have a big presence in
Texas, and "coincidentally" those two companies just got the Texas
legislature to pass a bill that makes life hard for their competitors.
Coincidentally, AMD and Intel also have a huge presence here in Austin,
the capital city of Texas, and I guess they could've/should've opposed
this on the grounds that stifling competition is bad for the industry,
but there is no chance they would've for two reasons: fear of pissing
off Dell and HP, and fear of looking like they're anti-environment.
Speaking as a Frenchman, that such a museum has been conceived and built is mind-boggling, in a bad way. It reflects poorly on the american educational system. It shows how far fundamentalists can go to counter Reason in a way that hasn't been seen in France for centuries.
The thing I never understood was that the fruit was meant to give 'knowledge of good and evil,' allowing them to choose between good and evil.
I always interpreted this to mean, "First-hand knowledge of the difference
between good and evil." That is, think about the abstract knowledge of
what it means to fail a class. Now think about what it's like to know
first hand what it's like to fail a class. You feel like crap, because
you blew it. Or if you've never failed
a class, think about eating the fruit from the tree of the knowledge
of good and bad driving -- sure, it has been explained to you, and
you know the difference between good and bad driving, but you don't
really
know the difference between good and bad driving
until you get in a wreck and smash up the car that you love and/or
have a short stay in the hospital.
Or to put it a bit differently, that fruit isn't about intellectual
knowledge. It's about experiential knowledge of your own loss of
innocence.
Not a very good example, that. I'd hardly call Stalin a humanist.
Depends on which sense of the word "humanist" you want to use.
One definition
of 'humanism' contains two difference senses that might be
relevant for the word:
2 : HUMANITARIANISM
3 : a doctrine, attitude, or way of life centered on human interests or values; especially : a philosophy that usually rejects supernaturalism and stresses an individual's dignity and worth and capacity for self-realization through reason
Stalin definitely wasn't #2, but he could have been considered #3.
I don't know that he "stresse[d] an individual's dignity" so much,
but I
think he did have a "way of life centered on human [... ] values",
and I think he did reject the supernatural.
Granted, the human values his life was centered on were not necessarily
ones we all share, but he did set in motion a long campaign theoretically
aimed at allowing the entire nation to achieve a kind of
"self-realization".
Or to put it all a little more succinctly, "humanist" can simply
mean "human-oriented", as compared to "supernatural-oriented".
It can just mean putting humanity first rather than something else.
Or, given that you have the freedom to modify ZFS itself, since it has
not yet been released as part of Mac OS (and compatibility with on-disk
formats is not required), you could simply add support
into ZFS for making a bootable region on the disk. That is, you could
modify ZFS to have the option to
cater to the needs of the bootloader. If that means making the boot
image contiguous and start at some fixed offset from the beginning of
the disk (or partition), ZFS can easily and safely rearrange data on
the disk anyway, so it could do that if you wanted.
Simple solution: abandon the product. Drop support not just for the
Expression Edition, but for all editions of
Visual Studio. Develop something equivalently
cool and useful for Eclipse, where there are no worries of this happening.
Alternately, remove all the features that Microsoft has requested to be
removed. Then add as many features as you can legally add. Then change
the license so that your plugin can be used with Express Edition but
so that it is a violation of your product's license to use the code with
the non-free versions of VS.
Alrighty, then. It's been a while since my CS classes. How does that apply to software? Does he mean that instead of increasing transistors on a single chip, the transistors are virtually increasing by using multiple cores?
No, it means that previously, the number of transistors was doubling
every 24 months and the software developer had to do nothing (or very
little) to take advantage of it because the extra transistors were
buying you the ability to process a single instruction stream that
much faster. Now, the number of transistors is still doubling
every 24 months, but what it's buying you is the ability to process
more instruction streams (first 1, then 2, now 4) at the same speed
as before. That means developers have a new burden to make sure their
software has multiple streams of instructions to feed the processor.
There shouldn't even be a reason to protect them like this; artists don't make money on lyrics alone
It was a joke. I don't really think the record companies should bust
those crappy sites; I just think they need to be stopped somehow,
because they're so terribly bad.
So why not just allow sites to archive high-quality transcriptions of the lyrics?
That's just exactly my point. The sites I'm talking about -- the ones that
show up high in Google search results -- are not high-quality archives.
Just as a test, I decided to pick a song at random and compare lyrics. So I just went to azlyrics.com and looked up "Tangled Up in Blue" (by Dylan), which I had never looked up on that site before, and sure enough there is already an error
in the third line. azlyrics has "Wond'ring if she'd changed it all" when the
correct lyric is "Wond'ring if she'd changed at all". It's a minor
difference, but it's just one of many errors.
azlyrics and other junk lyrics sites
are wrong much of the time. And the whole point of going to dig up the lyrics
is often to figure out a part that aren't sure about. If the site is chock
full of errors, after visiting it you still won't be sure whether you have
the lyric right.
Folks, let's please adopt a universal rule for the public Men's room: leave the seat UP.
Oh, as long as we're making rules for the men's room, let's reinstate a once-common
rule that was worthwhile and has fallen out of favor, and that is the silence rule.
When you enter the men's room, you stop talking. Everyone gets to do their
thing in peace. No cell phone conversations. No interruptions to your
concentration if things are not going as smoothly and easily as desired.
And need to try to flip back to a normal tone of voice between grunts because
someone wants to continue a pre-restroom conversation while you're
trying to get rid of last night's greasy dinner.
She is saying that she doesn't feel that she should ever need to put the toilet seat down or up, and that you, the man, are responsible for putting it both up and down.
This is a perfectly reasonable thing to insist on. Men are the
only ones who ever can possibly benefit from the seat being up. In a
woman's house, the seat would always be down, because there would
never be any use at all for it being up.
If you're
speaking of sharing the responsibilities evenly, why should the woman
do work in order to do something whose only purpose is to save work
for the man? That's not fair -- that's the man saying, "If you do
this, that will make it easier for me."
If you want to consider what would be fair, here's the simplest
starting point: if
everyone, both man and woman, always sat down to pee, the toilet seat
would always be down, and that would be an exactly symmetrical situation,
and thus fair and equitable. But the man wants to take a shortcut and
pee standing up, in order to save time. Fine. That shortcut is available
and probably worthwhile. But it would be helpful to realize that if you
leave the seat up, you have just saved yourself some work but also
increased the work for the woman.
For what it's worth, the perspective I'm coming from is that I'm a man
who prefers to sit down anyway, mainly because it's just easier to relax
the appropriate muscles and really finish the job. (I also hate going
through the drive thru at a fast food place and prefer to dine in.)
So I don't view
this as a war of the sexes thing. I fully understand why women
find it irritating. It's not because of some feminine urge to create
a source of conflict over something minor. It's because it is
irritating.
Anyone here ever heard of the Real Book? It's a fake book of jazz standards that has been around for decades.
For fear of copyright, it was semi-illegal (definitely unauthorized) and was
passed around from person to person (via xerox machine) for most of that
time rather than being published. Because you could not buy it in stores
anywhere and because it was hard to get, being given a copy was sort of a
rite of passage for jazz players -- somebody thinks you're worth bothering
with if they help you get a copy of it. This was before the days of the
internet, of course.
As a disclaimer, although I play a little bit of music, I am definitely not
worthy of being called a jazz musician, and nobody has offered me a copy of
the Real Book. Well, one person did, but only because he had it on CD-ROM
and it wasn't hard to do, which is not nearly the same thing as really being
offered it once was.
now google will stop listing guitartabs.com as the highest rated response when i look for music
Great, now can they just go after those stupid song lyrics sites that always
somehow inexplicably get top Google rankings as well? You know, the ones
with names like "lyricsfreak", "lyricmania", or "azlyrics" which always
inevitably have the wrong lyrics with bad spelling and don't even have the
titles or artists right? No, "Only the Good Die Young" is NOT an Elton
John song, "Leader of the Band" was not written by Christopher Cross,
and for the love of God, "BARRACUDA" IS NOT A SONG BY PAT BENATAR. SHEESH.
The worst part about these sites is that just about any worthwhile musical
group or artist has a fan page where devoted fans carefully put
together correct
versions of the lyrics and discography, or even an official page with all
the good info. For example bobdylan.com
is excellent about that -- full lyrics for everything. But you can't get
to them because lyricsbymorons.com and incorrectlyrics.net are crowding them
out.
Because some servers violate the protocol by responding incorrectly to pipelined requests. At least, that was the reason 2 years ago.
That was the reason something like 5 years ago. Or maybe even longer.
Browsers have had support for pipelining for quite some time, and it's
always been labeled as "experimental". The odd thing about this is,
it is always claimed this is a really beneficial optimization, but
based purely on what browsers recommend, it appears we are not converging
towards ever putting it in common use.
I really don't know much about this, but I'm curious: Is server
support better than it used to be? Or has it not made much progress?
Does the "experimental" warning exist because there are still some
servers out there running really old HTTP servers (NCSA httpd 1.4
or something), or are there current versions of mainstream servers
that still have issues with it? Or (worse), is there a way web
apps themselves could have issues with it? In short, does anyone
know what the real status is with HTTP pipelining?
A while back, I went to work at a new place, and they gave me a Samsung
cell phone. I carried it around in my pocket. One day it rang. I
answered, and the person on the other end wanted to know if everything
was OK. I was confused and asked them who they were. Turns out they
were the 911
(emergency services) operator, and they claimed I'd called them and
hung up. I told
them I certainly didn't do it on purpose, that I was OK, and that I was
sorry for disturbing them.
Then the same thing happened a few more times, and there were
other occasions on which
I took the phone out of my pocket and saw a display asking me to confirm
whether I wanted to dial 911.
After several calls to the carrier, I talked to someone who tracked
down the
problem.
Seems that Samsung had put in a feature where if you hold down the
"9" button for several seconds, it dials 911. And in their infinite
wisdom, they were concerned about what might happen if you had an
emergency while key lock was on. So they made it so holding down "9"
dials 911 even while key lock is on.
Thanks, Samsung. I love "features" that might get me fined
or imprisoned when someone concludes I'm making repeated prank
calls to 911.
But with subversion, I just found it disgusting (and hard to manage) how it left all these invisible files all over my system
It only puts them in your working copy. Most development practices
include the assumption that you wouldn't deploy your working copy
simply by copying it directly. There are several models of how
to generate something to be deployed. One of the most common ones
is to have a script or build tool that operates on the working copy
and generates something that can be deployed. That something
could be a tarball, or it could be an RPM, or it could be a directory
tree that can be used directly, or it could be a source distribution.
Another common way to do it is to have a script that actually
installs directly from the source tree onto a system. But it's
really not very common to simply use the source tree (or a copy
of it) directly.
and if I copied a directory, for example, there would be two copies linked to the same place in the repository
That would only happen if you copied the files directly instead of using
svn copy as the documentation says to do. If you really want to
use a GUI to do it, and you're on Windows,
get TortoiseSVN and use that.
There are probably other similar tools for other systems.
This whole.bank idea is still asinine, and there's already
a better solution.
Abusing the DNS system to solve a specific non-technical problem is
stupid. It's stupid because it's a piss-poor design from a technical
perspective to solve an application-level problem by mucking with the
very foundations of the Internet. It's stupid from a practical
perspective because.bank doesn't cover credit unions,
savings and loans, mortgage lenders, stock brokers, investment
companies (a/k/a mutual funds), or insurance companies (through whom
you can buy cash value insurance policies that earn interest).
And, it's stupid from a functional perspective because it won't
work (DNS spoofing, etc.).
Now, here's something that will work and will provide the same
benefits that this DNS stuff would, without the stupid $50,000
registration fee requirement: certificate signing authorities.
SSL/TLS certificates are already signed by people with root
certificates. The root certificates offer various levels of
verification, but as of now, browser user interfaces just show
whether a certificate is signed by an authority or not. However,
there is no reason they must be limited in this way. The state
agencies that are in charge of issuing licenses to banks (and
credit unions, and so on) could also sign banks' SSL certificates.
And someone else could sign the state agencies' SSL certificates
to create an umbrella that all financial institutions can fall
under. Then a browser can display an icon (maybe a green dollar
sign) indicating "such and such organization vouches for the fact
that this web page is in fact a bank", or some statement along
those lines.
This delivers everything that.bank is offering, and it
doesn't require setting up a new registrar. Plus it's DNS-spoof-proof
and more flexible. (I live in Texas, so if whatever department in
the State of Texas that issues license wants to, they can say,
"Hey, this is the web site of a company we've issued a license to.")
Hmm, I was going to say that you're right, because I recall having heard a
news story where regulators stepped in severals ago and basically claimed
that PayPal was too bank-like to get away with not calling itself
a bank (and therefore not having to follow the rules that banks do).
Then I just googled some, and it turns out
that you're right.
Now that it's finally becoming a reality several years behind schedule, and is going to cost approximately $1500, I don't know how anybody can really still be looking foward to it.
Yeah, it's a lot of money, but
on the other hand, there are plenty of people, thousands and thousands,
maybe hundreds of thousands of people who spend $300 on a new video card
every year, or even every six months. People routinely spend way more
than $1500 in a year just modding their own computer to do nothing but
achieve higher frame rates on a game (getting the "extreme edition" of
some processor, buy water cooling rigs, etc., etc.). So how is this
all that different?
It is, at least, a new thing that the computer is doing, rather
than a case of it doing something that it already did but doing it
better.
Don't get me wrong -- I'm not buying one. But the reason I'm not
buying one is that it doesn't seem like a good use of $1500. But
then that's the same reason I don't spend thousands of dollars on
overclocking or fancy new rims for my car either.
"Expiry" and "it's" were two of the grammar errors, but there is a
third. The phrase should not be "some coupons will be turned into
Novell in return for software". Instead, it should be "turned in
to Novell".
It's hard to give a formal justification for this
(it's not a grammar rule taught in school, but it is nevertheless
followed in real-world writing), but the best I can explain it is
that "turned in" is one underlying structure in the sentence and
"to Novell" is another. So uniting the "in" from one structure
and the "to" from the other implies a tie between the two
structures that does not exist. And that makes it unclear and
confusing.
Or to put it more simply, "turned into Novell" makes it sound
like the coupons are becoming the company.
There is sort of a larger point here. Others have rightly pointed out
that a bit of tape covering an LED does the job of blocking light. But
the
thing that most resonated me when I read the original article was this:
Dell's XPS gaming laptops cast the most hideous red lights through vents, which you can dim but not turn off. Clearly, the vendor thinks bright, decorative lights are cool. You know what would be cool? Hire a case designer with good taste. That would be cool.
To me, that's what it's really about. A case designer with good
taste. What an idea. This putting lights everywhere
thing is a classic example of people doing something because they
can, never bothering to consider whether they should.
The thing is, virtually all computer cases are completely
hideous from an aesthetic point of view. Apple is the only company
that tries to do something decent with their cases, and even they
don't have very good taste sometimes. Yeah, they do something
which is interesting and maybe even artistic, but that's not the
same thing as tasteful. Apple realizes that aesthetics
matter to some people, but they've got their knob turned way over
towards the "bold" side of the bold/understated continuum.
So yes, I can ugly things up by putting tape over the LEDs, but
wouldn't it be nicer if I could just buy a computer that was
pleasant to look at in the first place?
I've found out by experience though, that electrical tape isn't 100% opaque; put a bright enough LED under it, and stretch the tape a bit (as you might if you're putting it tightly over an protruding LED), and it'll shine through.
Conveniently for you, you are not the first person to have faced this
problem. People who wanted to crop slide photos (remember slide
projectors and slide shows?) had the exact same issue: they needed
tape that would block as much light as possible, because they were
shining hundreds of watts of light through a little piece of film
maybe 2 square inches in area, and they wanted the tape to completely
block out part of it. And that is why they invented
tape
that is specifically designed to block as much light as possible
from passing through it.
From what I can tell, there is also apparently, or was at one time,
such a thing as black opaque paint meant to be applied to film. This
was used for touching up negatives by hand. It doesn't seem to be
very easy to get anymore.
Slashdot Mirror
HD-DVD and Blu-Ray are digital distribution. Did you mean network distribution?
Philosophically speaking, that might be the right answer.
Practically speaking, I live in Texas, which is a good state in a lot of ways, but ughhhhh, when it comes to telecom legislation, I don't have high hopes because of the way our state government works and the fact that "the new AT&T" is headquartered in San Antonio. I predict that if it is left up to the state government, the lobbyists will push through some kind of horrible legislation that says something like "internet providers have the moral responsibility to charge content providers to deliver their content to subscribers, to make the free market work".
I'm saying that Dell and HP stand to gain if laws like this are passed, because they are huge corporations and can achieve massive economies of scale that the little guys can't match. (Dell is particularly good at shaving costs down -- they have made it into an art form.)
That's not to say mandatory recycling programs are a bad idea. I'm just stating what I think the motivations are for making the law.
I hate to be cynical, but living in Texas, I know how things work here, and that is the most likely explanation. Texas government is about as business-friendly as it gets (that's regarded as a virtue around here by many people). Plus, you should ask yourself where Dell is headquartered, and the answer is Texas. Then you should also ask yourself where Compaq was headquartered before HP bought them, and the answer is also Texas. So, the world's two largest PC manufacturers have a big presence in Texas, and "coincidentally" those two companies just got the Texas legislature to pass a bill that makes life hard for their competitors.
Coincidentally, AMD and Intel also have a huge presence here in Austin, the capital city of Texas, and I guess they could've/should've opposed this on the grounds that stifling competition is bad for the industry, but there is no chance they would've for two reasons: fear of pissing off Dell and HP, and fear of looking like they're anti-environment.
Yeah, good thing nothing like that ever happens in France. It's a good thing France is free of people who unquestioningly follow religious wackos.
I always interpreted this to mean, "First-hand knowledge of the difference between good and evil." That is, think about the abstract knowledge of what it means to fail a class. Now think about what it's like to know first hand what it's like to fail a class. You feel like crap, because you blew it. Or if you've never failed a class, think about eating the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and bad driving -- sure, it has been explained to you, and you know the difference between good and bad driving, but you don't really know the difference between good and bad driving until you get in a wreck and smash up the car that you love and/or have a short stay in the hospital.
Or to put it a bit differently, that fruit isn't about intellectual knowledge. It's about experiential knowledge of your own loss of innocence.
Depends on which sense of the word "humanist" you want to use. One definition of 'humanism' contains two difference senses that might be relevant for the word:
Stalin definitely wasn't #2, but he could have been considered #3. I don't know that he "stresse[d] an individual's dignity" so much, but I think he did have a "way of life centered on human [ ... ] values",
and I think he did reject the supernatural.
Granted, the human values his life was centered on were not necessarily
ones we all share, but he did set in motion a long campaign theoretically
aimed at allowing the entire nation to achieve a kind of
"self-realization".
Or to put it all a little more succinctly, "humanist" can simply mean "human-oriented", as compared to "supernatural-oriented". It can just mean putting humanity first rather than something else.
Or, given that you have the freedom to modify ZFS itself, since it has not yet been released as part of Mac OS (and compatibility with on-disk formats is not required), you could simply add support into ZFS for making a bootable region on the disk. That is, you could modify ZFS to have the option to cater to the needs of the bootloader. If that means making the boot image contiguous and start at some fixed offset from the beginning of the disk (or partition), ZFS can easily and safely rearrange data on the disk anyway, so it could do that if you wanted.
Simple solution: abandon the product. Drop support not just for the Expression Edition, but for all editions of Visual Studio. Develop something equivalently cool and useful for Eclipse, where there are no worries of this happening.
Alternately, remove all the features that Microsoft has requested to be removed. Then add as many features as you can legally add. Then change the license so that your plugin can be used with Express Edition but so that it is a violation of your product's license to use the code with the non-free versions of VS.
No, it means that previously, the number of transistors was doubling every 24 months and the software developer had to do nothing (or very little) to take advantage of it because the extra transistors were buying you the ability to process a single instruction stream that much faster. Now, the number of transistors is still doubling every 24 months, but what it's buying you is the ability to process more instruction streams (first 1, then 2, now 4) at the same speed as before. That means developers have a new burden to make sure their software has multiple streams of instructions to feed the processor.
It was a joke. I don't really think the record companies should bust those crappy sites; I just think they need to be stopped somehow, because they're so terribly bad.
That's just exactly my point. The sites I'm talking about -- the ones that show up high in Google search results -- are not high-quality archives. Just as a test, I decided to pick a song at random and compare lyrics. So I just went to azlyrics.com and looked up "Tangled Up in Blue" (by Dylan), which I had never looked up on that site before, and sure enough there is already an error in the third line. azlyrics has "Wond'ring if she'd changed it all" when the correct lyric is "Wond'ring if she'd changed at all". It's a minor difference, but it's just one of many errors.
azlyrics and other junk lyrics sites are wrong much of the time. And the whole point of going to dig up the lyrics is often to figure out a part that aren't sure about. If the site is chock full of errors, after visiting it you still won't be sure whether you have the lyric right.
Oh, as long as we're making rules for the men's room, let's reinstate a once-common rule that was worthwhile and has fallen out of favor, and that is the silence rule. When you enter the men's room, you stop talking. Everyone gets to do their thing in peace. No cell phone conversations. No interruptions to your concentration if things are not going as smoothly and easily as desired. And need to try to flip back to a normal tone of voice between grunts because someone wants to continue a pre-restroom conversation while you're trying to get rid of last night's greasy dinner.
This is a perfectly reasonable thing to insist on. Men are the only ones who ever can possibly benefit from the seat being up. In a woman's house, the seat would always be down, because there would never be any use at all for it being up.
If you're speaking of sharing the responsibilities evenly, why should the woman do work in order to do something whose only purpose is to save work for the man? That's not fair -- that's the man saying, "If you do this, that will make it easier for me."
If you want to consider what would be fair, here's the simplest starting point: if everyone, both man and woman, always sat down to pee, the toilet seat would always be down, and that would be an exactly symmetrical situation, and thus fair and equitable. But the man wants to take a shortcut and pee standing up, in order to save time. Fine. That shortcut is available and probably worthwhile. But it would be helpful to realize that if you leave the seat up, you have just saved yourself some work but also increased the work for the woman.
For what it's worth, the perspective I'm coming from is that I'm a man who prefers to sit down anyway, mainly because it's just easier to relax the appropriate muscles and really finish the job. (I also hate going through the drive thru at a fast food place and prefer to dine in.) So I don't view this as a war of the sexes thing. I fully understand why women find it irritating. It's not because of some feminine urge to create a source of conflict over something minor. It's because it is irritating.
Anyone here ever heard of the Real Book? It's a fake book of jazz standards that has been around for decades. For fear of copyright, it was semi-illegal (definitely unauthorized) and was passed around from person to person (via xerox machine) for most of that time rather than being published. Because you could not buy it in stores anywhere and because it was hard to get, being given a copy was sort of a rite of passage for jazz players -- somebody thinks you're worth bothering with if they help you get a copy of it. This was before the days of the internet, of course.
As a disclaimer, although I play a little bit of music, I am definitely not worthy of being called a jazz musician, and nobody has offered me a copy of the Real Book. Well, one person did, but only because he had it on CD-ROM and it wasn't hard to do, which is not nearly the same thing as really being offered it once was.
Great, now can they just go after those stupid song lyrics sites that always somehow inexplicably get top Google rankings as well? You know, the ones with names like "lyricsfreak", "lyricmania", or "azlyrics" which always inevitably have the wrong lyrics with bad spelling and don't even have the titles or artists right? No, "Only the Good Die Young" is NOT an Elton John song, "Leader of the Band" was not written by Christopher Cross, and for the love of God, "BARRACUDA" IS NOT A SONG BY PAT BENATAR. SHEESH.
The worst part about these sites is that just about any worthwhile musical group or artist has a fan page where devoted fans carefully put together correct versions of the lyrics and discography, or even an official page with all the good info. For example bobdylan.com is excellent about that -- full lyrics for everything. But you can't get to them because lyricsbymorons.com and incorrectlyrics.net are crowding them out.
I don't know if it's Bayesian or not (maybe some other machine learning technique), but there's MythCollaborative.
That was the reason something like 5 years ago. Or maybe even longer. Browsers have had support for pipelining for quite some time, and it's always been labeled as "experimental". The odd thing about this is, it is always claimed this is a really beneficial optimization, but based purely on what browsers recommend, it appears we are not converging towards ever putting it in common use.
I really don't know much about this, but I'm curious: Is server support better than it used to be? Or has it not made much progress? Does the "experimental" warning exist because there are still some servers out there running really old HTTP servers (NCSA httpd 1.4 or something), or are there current versions of mainstream servers that still have issues with it? Or (worse), is there a way web apps themselves could have issues with it? In short, does anyone know what the real status is with HTTP pipelining?
A while back, I went to work at a new place, and they gave me a Samsung cell phone. I carried it around in my pocket. One day it rang. I answered, and the person on the other end wanted to know if everything was OK. I was confused and asked them who they were. Turns out they were the 911 (emergency services) operator, and they claimed I'd called them and hung up. I told them I certainly didn't do it on purpose, that I was OK, and that I was sorry for disturbing them.
Then the same thing happened a few more times, and there were other occasions on which I took the phone out of my pocket and saw a display asking me to confirm whether I wanted to dial 911.
After several calls to the carrier, I talked to someone who tracked down the problem. Seems that Samsung had put in a feature where if you hold down the "9" button for several seconds, it dials 911. And in their infinite wisdom, they were concerned about what might happen if you had an emergency while key lock was on. So they made it so holding down "9" dials 911 even while key lock is on.
Thanks, Samsung. I love "features" that might get me fined or imprisoned when someone concludes I'm making repeated prank calls to 911.
It only puts them in your working copy. Most development practices include the assumption that you wouldn't deploy your working copy simply by copying it directly. There are several models of how to generate something to be deployed. One of the most common ones is to have a script or build tool that operates on the working copy and generates something that can be deployed. That something could be a tarball, or it could be an RPM, or it could be a directory tree that can be used directly, or it could be a source distribution. Another common way to do it is to have a script that actually installs directly from the source tree onto a system. But it's really not very common to simply use the source tree (or a copy of it) directly.
That would only happen if you copied the files directly instead of using svn copy as the documentation says to do. If you really want to use a GUI to do it, and you're on Windows, get TortoiseSVN and use that. There are probably other similar tools for other systems.
This whole .bank idea is still asinine, and there's already
a better solution.
Abusing the DNS system to solve a specific non-technical problem is stupid. It's stupid because it's a piss-poor design from a technical perspective to solve an application-level problem by mucking with the very foundations of the Internet. It's stupid from a practical perspective because .bank doesn't cover credit unions,
savings and loans, mortgage lenders, stock brokers, investment
companies (a/k/a mutual funds), or insurance companies (through whom
you can buy cash value insurance policies that earn interest).
And, it's stupid from a functional perspective because it won't
work (DNS spoofing, etc.).
Now, here's something that will work and will provide the same benefits that this DNS stuff would, without the stupid $50,000 registration fee requirement: certificate signing authorities. SSL/TLS certificates are already signed by people with root certificates. The root certificates offer various levels of verification, but as of now, browser user interfaces just show whether a certificate is signed by an authority or not. However, there is no reason they must be limited in this way. The state agencies that are in charge of issuing licenses to banks (and credit unions, and so on) could also sign banks' SSL certificates. And someone else could sign the state agencies' SSL certificates to create an umbrella that all financial institutions can fall under. Then a browser can display an icon (maybe a green dollar sign) indicating "such and such organization vouches for the fact that this web page is in fact a bank", or some statement along those lines.
This delivers everything that .bank is offering, and it
doesn't require setting up a new registrar. Plus it's DNS-spoof-proof
and more flexible. (I live in Texas, so if whatever department in
the State of Texas that issues license wants to, they can say,
"Hey, this is the web site of a company we've issued a license to.")
Hmm, I was going to say that you're right, because I recall having heard a news story where regulators stepped in severals ago and basically claimed that PayPal was too bank-like to get away with not calling itself a bank (and therefore not having to follow the rules that banks do).
Then I just googled some, and it turns out that you're right.
Yeah, it's a lot of money, but on the other hand, there are plenty of people, thousands and thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of people who spend $300 on a new video card every year, or even every six months. People routinely spend way more than $1500 in a year just modding their own computer to do nothing but achieve higher frame rates on a game (getting the "extreme edition" of some processor, buy water cooling rigs, etc., etc.). So how is this all that different? It is, at least, a new thing that the computer is doing, rather than a case of it doing something that it already did but doing it better.
Don't get me wrong -- I'm not buying one. But the reason I'm not buying one is that it doesn't seem like a good use of $1500. But then that's the same reason I don't spend thousands of dollars on overclocking or fancy new rims for my car either.
"Expiry" and "it's" were two of the grammar errors, but there is a third. The phrase should not be "some coupons will be turned into Novell in return for software". Instead, it should be "turned in to Novell".
It's hard to give a formal justification for this (it's not a grammar rule taught in school, but it is nevertheless followed in real-world writing), but the best I can explain it is that "turned in" is one underlying structure in the sentence and "to Novell" is another. So uniting the "in" from one structure and the "to" from the other implies a tie between the two structures that does not exist. And that makes it unclear and confusing.
Or to put it more simply, "turned into Novell" makes it sound like the coupons are becoming the company.
There is sort of a larger point here. Others have rightly pointed out that a bit of tape covering an LED does the job of blocking light. But the thing that most resonated me when I read the original article was this:
To me, that's what it's really about. A case designer with good taste. What an idea. This putting lights everywhere thing is a classic example of people doing something because they can, never bothering to consider whether they should.
The thing is, virtually all computer cases are completely hideous from an aesthetic point of view. Apple is the only company that tries to do something decent with their cases, and even they don't have very good taste sometimes. Yeah, they do something which is interesting and maybe even artistic, but that's not the same thing as tasteful. Apple realizes that aesthetics matter to some people, but they've got their knob turned way over towards the "bold" side of the bold/understated continuum.
So yes, I can ugly things up by putting tape over the LEDs, but wouldn't it be nicer if I could just buy a computer that was pleasant to look at in the first place?
Conveniently for you, you are not the first person to have faced this problem. People who wanted to crop slide photos (remember slide projectors and slide shows?) had the exact same issue: they needed tape that would block as much light as possible, because they were shining hundreds of watts of light through a little piece of film maybe 2 square inches in area, and they wanted the tape to completely block out part of it. And that is why they invented tape that is specifically designed to block as much light as possible from passing through it.
From what I can tell, there is also apparently, or was at one time, such a thing as black opaque paint meant to be applied to film. This was used for touching up negatives by hand. It doesn't seem to be very easy to get anymore.