Chromium is a hugely complex project; if the people that are currently being paid to work on it stop, it's questionable how much could be done by "the community", meaning unpaid volunteers.
pop up a thing saying 'You are trying to run a program downloaded from the Internet, do you really want to?', which isn't normally something that happens when people try to open a file so ought to trigger them to avoid it (if it doesn't, then seeing the.exe extension probably won't either).
In most situations that downloaded file confirmation dialog is just a nagging thing you need to click through, so its usefulness in preventing users from executing disguised.exe files is limited, especially because you need to understand the significance of the dialog in the first place, which most users probably don't. The users might as well just think that it's a glitch that the image viewer is suddenly displaying a confirmation dialog. Showing the file extension would help about as much as having this confirmation dialog, if not more, but the real solution would be not making the files executable by default in the first place. You should have to right click and click 'Run' or something along those lines to run downloaded executable files.
Radiometric dating is a tool of the devil, clearly. How can anyone believe the absurd idea that decay rates of radioactive elements could be used to date materials. All these so-called scientists are either brainwashed or satanist atheists. We need more clear-headed people like you to explain that the real truth is found in the creation science literature, not in the manufactured lies of geochemistry or just about any other accepted scientific discipline. They'll see when the Rapture comes, though...
But it didn't work out that way, did it? His solid intentions are why I have sympathy for him. But his actions did, in the end, result in the unfiltered release of all the documents.
The unredacted cables got released because of a stupid blunder by David Leigh from The Guardian, who published the cable's encryption key in a book. Manning acted responsibly and let the disclosure be handled by major newspapers, and it "didn't work out" only because of something he couldn't predict or influence.
His mistake was not what he disclosed, nor was his mistake disclosing it to the press. His mistake was disclosing it through a dubious organization that operates on the fringes of the law rather than going directly to a reporter at a major news organization.
Your mistake is that you don't have the slightest idea of what you're talking about. Manning went to mainstream media like NYT and WaPo first and they turned him down. Only then he went to WikiLeaks, and WikiLeaks arranged a consortium of major newspapers to disclose the information responsibly, and the only reason the cables got leaked wholesale was because of the gross negligence/incompetence of a Guardian journalist, i.e., "a reporter at a major news organization".
Using that criteria clearly you believe the kinetic military action taken in Libya by Pres. Obama(without authorization from Congress) was a war of aggression?
I don't think it counts as a war; it could count as an act of aggression, but I wouldn't know, the situation is not as clear as with Iraq War, which was an invasion followed by an occupation.
Both houses of the United States Congress passed a joint resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq.
The decision making of Congress was driven by the faulty and/or fabricated evidence coming from the Bush administration, however.
The 'war of aggression' charge in the Nuremburg trials had to do with wars of conquest, i.e. territorial annexation. That is quite a stretch, even for a Euro liberal.
Wars of aggression are typically wars of conquest, but the international treaties defining crime of agression do not make annexation a necessary condition. A war of aggression is basically a war without the justification of self-defense.
You first talk about the scientists' "very public statements", but now you admit that none of the scientists actually made such statements, because in reality the scientists just failed to correct a public official who talked about "no danger". It's misleading that you keep talking about the scientists' "actions", since at most the charge can be about inaction. Moreover, even if the scientists had corrected the official, they would still have had no grounds to recommend evacuation. The main responsibility for avoidable deaths in this case should go to the people who failed to implement adequate building standards in an area with a known earthquake risk.
For instance, Steam already does this using IP geolocation. If you always log in to Steam from one country and then suddenly try to purchase a game from a different country it'll throw back a cryptic error and you won't be able to make the purchase from the foreign IP unless you contact support.
Judging by the video of the device in action, it *still* has shit performance and a crappy UX. That's probably how they figured out it was JavaScript. "Why is this thing so bloody slow and unresponsive? Oh hey, it must be JavaScript! Cool!"
It's slow because it's running on a low-end device that costs about £50. iOS or Android wouldn't be much faster there.
The unavailable YouTube videos should just be marked as unavailable in the search listings; it can still be useful to know of address-restricted videos because you can use a proxy or something.
You can use functional style programming with JavaScript, because JavaScript has functional programming language elements. There are first-class functions, and you can also have immutability, tail-end recursion etc. if you know what you're doing.
Node.js doesn't claim to be innovative. It allows you to do event-driven io that's been possible with other technologies since forever, but it just makes it harder to unintentionally use blocking io. Node.js can also appeal to people who would like to have the same technology in back-end as in front-end.
The Chrome V8 engine and Firefox's JavaScript engine since version 10 are reasonably fast and stand up to other languages well in benchmarks, and you can notice that they perform well in practice.
jQuery's real aim isn't to make JavaScript "less painful to use", but to make DOM usable. DOM is not part of JavaScript, but it's a large part of why JavaScript has a bad rep, since the DOM API really is painful to use.
There's no reason why the trend of JavaScript's reputation improving would stop in the future. The technologies built with JavaScript are maturing, and the understanding of the language keeps improving. JavaScript's reputation has been hurt by its popularity, since there are just so many JavaScript users that are unskilled or unwilling to learn. People just see that it's not classical OO and think it's bad, or they look at poor quality JavaScript code and think that there's no other kind.
JavaScript has progressed since the time it was mainly used for window.open(), but none of you critics disparaging it seem to have actually gone and made viable alternatives to JavaScript in browsers, or made viable alternatives to the web as a rich, barrierless application platform. It just seems like for some reason you'd like to keep things stagnant as they were. Perhaps it's because you're threatened by the idea that you've been misjudging JavaScript. In any event, JavaScript is here to stay, it'll keep improving, and your opinion will be increasingly marginal.
This is the etymological fallacy: confusing the etymology of a word (where the word came from) with its meaning. "Pwn" is derived from "own" but has a different meaning.
You think non-violent drug users are not jailed in the USA? You are a moron who projects his ideas of how it should work onto reality. USA is the leader in jailing such people. California, for instance, made it a minor offence only last year.
Which does make me wonder about the "financial interest" angle mentioned in the Vanity Fair piece... are any of these media outlets paying for access to the current set of leaked documents?
Meh, some "exclusivity" they must be paying for then, since there's so many of them.
the case with Hans Reiser was different, and he was believed to be innocent by many/. readers even though prima facie he looked guilty. Assange, on the other hand, prima facie looks not guilty. if he turns out to indeed be guilty, it will both be strange with regard to what's currently known and depend on some hitherto unknown facts.
Slashdot Mirror
Chromium is a hugely complex project; if the people that are currently being paid to work on it stop, it's questionable how much could be done by "the community", meaning unpaid volunteers.
Actually, CO2 seems to have played some role, and you seem to be parroting a debunked, tired myth.
In most situations that downloaded file confirmation dialog is just a nagging thing you need to click through, so its usefulness in preventing users from executing disguised .exe files is limited, especially because you need to understand the significance of the dialog in the first place, which most users probably don't. The users might as well just think that it's a glitch that the image viewer is suddenly displaying a confirmation dialog. Showing the file extension would help about as much as having this confirmation dialog, if not more, but the real solution would be not making the files executable by default in the first place. You should have to right click and click 'Run' or something along those lines to run downloaded executable files.
Says "... and worst of all, philosophers." Proceeds to do philosophy.
UK is party to the European Convention on Human Rights and it provides the right to freedom of expression, though.
It's modded Insightful because it's parodying the parent post.
Radiometric dating is a tool of the devil, clearly. How can anyone believe the absurd idea that decay rates of radioactive elements could be used to date materials. All these so-called scientists are either brainwashed or satanist atheists. We need more clear-headed people like you to explain that the real truth is found in the creation science literature, not in the manufactured lies of geochemistry or just about any other accepted scientific discipline. They'll see when the Rapture comes, though...
The unredacted cables got released because of a stupid blunder by David Leigh from The Guardian, who published the cable's encryption key in a book. Manning acted responsibly and let the disclosure be handled by major newspapers, and it "didn't work out" only because of something he couldn't predict or influence.
Your mistake is that you don't have the slightest idea of what you're talking about. Manning went to mainstream media like NYT and WaPo first and they turned him down. Only then he went to WikiLeaks, and WikiLeaks arranged a consortium of major newspapers to disclose the information responsibly, and the only reason the cables got leaked wholesale was because of the gross negligence/incompetence of a Guardian journalist, i.e., "a reporter at a major news organization".
I don't think it counts as a war; it could count as an act of aggression, but I wouldn't know, the situation is not as clear as with Iraq War, which was an invasion followed by an occupation.
The decision making of Congress was driven by the faulty and/or fabricated evidence coming from the Bush administration, however.
Wars of aggression are typically wars of conquest, but the international treaties defining crime of agression do not make annexation a necessary condition. A war of aggression is basically a war without the justification of self-defense.
You first talk about the scientists' "very public statements", but now you admit that none of the scientists actually made such statements, because in reality the scientists just failed to correct a public official who talked about "no danger". It's misleading that you keep talking about the scientists' "actions", since at most the charge can be about inaction. Moreover, even if the scientists had corrected the official, they would still have had no grounds to recommend evacuation. The main responsibility for avoidable deaths in this case should go to the people who failed to implement adequate building standards in an area with a known earthquake risk.
For instance, Steam already does this using IP geolocation. If you always log in to Steam from one country and then suddenly try to purchase a game from a different country it'll throw back a cryptic error and you won't be able to make the purchase from the foreign IP unless you contact support.
It's slow because it's running on a low-end device that costs about £50. iOS or Android wouldn't be much faster there.
The unavailable YouTube videos should just be marked as unavailable in the search listings; it can still be useful to know of address-restricted videos because you can use a proxy or something.
You can use functional style programming with JavaScript, because JavaScript has functional programming language elements. There are first-class functions, and you can also have immutability, tail-end recursion etc. if you know what you're doing.
Node.js doesn't claim to be innovative. It allows you to do event-driven io that's been possible with other technologies since forever, but it just makes it harder to unintentionally use blocking io. Node.js can also appeal to people who would like to have the same technology in back-end as in front-end.
The Chrome V8 engine and Firefox's JavaScript engine since version 10 are reasonably fast and stand up to other languages well in benchmarks, and you can notice that they perform well in practice.
jQuery's real aim isn't to make JavaScript "less painful to use", but to make DOM usable. DOM is not part of JavaScript, but it's a large part of why JavaScript has a bad rep, since the DOM API really is painful to use.
There's no reason why the trend of JavaScript's reputation improving would stop in the future. The technologies built with JavaScript are maturing, and the understanding of the language keeps improving. JavaScript's reputation has been hurt by its popularity, since there are just so many JavaScript users that are unskilled or unwilling to learn. People just see that it's not classical OO and think it's bad, or they look at poor quality JavaScript code and think that there's no other kind.
JavaScript has progressed since the time it was mainly used for window.open(), but none of you critics disparaging it seem to have actually gone and made viable alternatives to JavaScript in browsers, or made viable alternatives to the web as a rich, barrierless application platform. It just seems like for some reason you'd like to keep things stagnant as they were. Perhaps it's because you're threatened by the idea that you've been misjudging JavaScript. In any event, JavaScript is here to stay, it'll keep improving, and your opinion will be increasingly marginal.
This is the etymological fallacy: confusing the etymology of a word (where the word came from) with its meaning. "Pwn" is derived from "own" but has a different meaning.
You think non-violent drug users are not jailed in the USA? You are a moron who projects his ideas of how it should work onto reality. USA is the leader in jailing such people. California, for instance, made it a minor offence only last year.
The same PDF can bee seen converted into HTML here: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.pdf-archive.com%2F2011%2F03%2F13%2Fegyptofficers-rev-840%2Fegyptofficers-rev-840.pdf
Having it in HTML makes it easier open the links.
I think this is just being uncharitable.
Actually Assange had about 20 times more votes (382k) than Zuckerberg (just 18k).
Was it Idle when you posted this? It's in the News category now.
Which does make me wonder about the "financial interest" angle mentioned in the Vanity Fair piece... are any of these media outlets paying for access to the current set of leaked documents?
Meh, some "exclusivity" they must be paying for then, since there's so many of them.
the case with Hans Reiser was different, and he was believed to be innocent by many /. readers even though prima facie he looked guilty. Assange, on the other hand, prima facie looks not guilty. if he turns out to indeed be guilty, it will both be strange with regard to what's currently known and depend on some hitherto unknown facts.
Calling someone an idiot shouldn't be defamation anwhere, since it's just an opinion.