So you'd kick your kids out so you can have a smoke? Nice. I see that you say you'll avoid children and stay downwind (you're still upwind of *someone*, possibly a child), clearly you don't have children of your own or I wouldn't have to make that point.
I don't usually read sigs (hell, I haven't updated mine in over 2 years, it's pathetic, really) and, clearly neither do most./ers (you seem to have missed the chance to infer that bit of information about me by having not read my 2-years-out-of-date sig). That said, yes, it looks like we're on the same page; and in my city and state, the hierarchy of rights regarding smoking has been determined. It is illegal to smoke within a business establishment or within 20ft of any entrance or exit of such an establishment, anywhere in the state of California, and it is illegal, in my city, to smoke anywhere in the downtown area, in any multi-unit dwelling, or within 20 feet of such. Exceptions made for medical marijuana, of course; and I'm fine with that, because pot-smokers are at least courteous about it; if they're gonna smoke, they're gonna find a place where the smoke will be contained, only sharing with those who ask.
And the only reason this is necessary is that, once a language becomes popular, people try to use it for things it wasn't meant for, then extend it to be able to do those things, all the while making it worse at everything else. We need to go back to a "right tool for the job" mentality (and if the tool for your job doesn't exist, create it, don't break *my* tool to make it work for you), create a new set of languages from that point, and be done with this.
Really, though! I remember when a spreadsheet app fit on a single floppy and had every feature that Google Docs spreadsheets have today. To use Google Docs (arguably, the smallest office suite available today), I need a web browser (56.2MB for Chrome, 57.6MB for Firefox, so 44-45 floppies), then a 2.2MB download just to open a blank spreadsheet (2 floppies), so a simple spreadsheet app has grown more than 46x in size over the past 20 years?
When there are too many tools you spend more time trying to find one that works rather than getting on with completing the job.
Uh... there's either a tool that works, or there isn't. If you have 5 tools made for 5 problems, but you happen to have 6 problems, you aren't going to be able to solve them all, are you? Well, not without creating another tool, at least. And, once that tool is created, the other 5 don't suddenly stop working.
I do agree with the point you were, most likely, trying to make, however. If you have 10 tools made for 5 problems, you suddenly have (statistically speaking), 8 incorrect tools for each problem, when only 4 incorrect tools are necessary. Once you have a tool, it is best to improve, rather than replace.
Of course, there are exceptions, and we're encountering those exceptions with nearly every popular language right now. What happens when someone goes to use the wrong tool for their problem, then decides to extend that tool? The tool actually becomes worse for everyone (except that one user); and when everyone's doing it... need I go on?
And that is when people who need a good tool have no choice but to build a new one.
Maybe I'll come up with something after a few cups of coffee, perhaps a shot of espresso and a latte. Let's talk more later, right now I'm gonna head over to the Java shop down the street.
Smoking is as much of a right as not being forced to breathe a smoker's smoke, or cross the street when approaching a smoker to avoid it (only to get hit by a car while crossing, or worse, encounter a smoker on the other side), or leave a room to avoid said smoke. In fact, my right to *not* breathe in smoke trumps your right to smoke, in all cases. Why? Simple, read on.
When you smoke, you are making a choice that affects not only you, but others around you, by way of second hand smoke. When I choose not to smoke, I'm not emitting any odors or carcinogenic compounds as a result of that choice (regardless of what odors and/or carcinogenic compounds may otherwise be emanating from my person). You don't have to give up your right to use a public right of way (e.g. sidewalk or road), or your right to be in the room you are currently in, to avoid my choice not to smoke; however, in order to avoid your choice to smoke, I do have to give up those rights.
Right to smoke? Sure, in your own home, in the absence of non-consenting nonsmokers.
Now, take that concept and apply it to everything else you think is a right. Welcome to America, the land where your right to do whatever the fuck you want ends where my senses and health begin.
This. And so much of the reason he's been a disappointment has more to do with congress than with him. He wasn't the one gutting his own health care bill, was he? Mind you, he completely lacks any of the kind of influence required to sway the opinions of our representatives and bring them back in line with that the general populace wants; but, then, that being necessary in the first place if a failing of congress, not the presidency.
My bank has an automated phone menu for it! I choose the option and it takes me through a list of transactions, allowing me to press 1 if fraudulent or 2 of legit. It's been a while, but I seem to recall being asked the date and amount of the oldest fraudulent transaction before the list review began; ostensibly to determine where the review should stop. The temporary credit was immediate, I got a phone call the next day to confirm that I had, in fact, meant to report fraud, and received a letter within a week, informing me that me claim had been processed and the transactions had been removed from my account. This was with Capital One; they have a few other practices I'm not too fond of, but I can avoid those by simply using my card responsibly.
In this case, it's more like "Oh no, I've been inconvenienced as a direct result of someone else's negligent actions."
If the end result of TV manufacturers not releasing a more secure firmware for the affected models is your TV running malicious code that, say, simply bricks your TV, they should be liable for repair or replacement costs. If the result is that your TV ends up running code that hacks into your computer and steals your financial and personal details, they should likewise be liable for any resulting fraud and the cost of cleaning up that mess. In both cases, maybe a little something for the trouble, as well; it's best for society that we discourage purposeful negligence like this.
We're not talking about simply missing a TV show here; there are real and potentially damaging implications here.
Wow! 56WPM? That's the record? I was hitting 60WPM on my BlackBerry Curve when I first got it; but then, that had a physical keyboard. I never did test my typing speed after having it for a while, but I'd venture it was somewhere north of where I started.
Uhm... what? That's totally unnecessary and adds extra work for the developer; this is about *not* requiring extra work form the developer. Clearly, the APK subsystem can already unpack APKs, it's kind of, oh, let's see... what it does. It can also repack them; the functionality already exists. Know what other functionality the APK subsystem already has? Signing packages, and verifying signatures of packages. Well, would you look at that? The APK subsystem can already do what I'm suggesting! Simple to implement, at that point.
You start with an APK signed by the market (and likely also signed by the developer), a known-good point. You need nothing more than that, honestly. And, as far as the market (and most developers selling apps there, I'm sure) is concerned, the inability to safely and securely share repacked APKs is a benefit, not a hinderance, which your over-the-top proposed extension to my solution does away with.
I see where you're going with this and I agree, it would be nice for pirates.
Since the developer typically signs the APK before submitting it to the market, then the market signs it again, having the market split the already-signed APK into multiple platform-specific APKs isn't really an option; this brings us back to requiring the developer to upload multiple platform-specific APKs, which is what we're talking about not having to do.
You do if the APK is signed. Removing files fro ma signed APK changes the checksum and invalidates the signature. However, there's a solution for that, though it doesn't solve the data transfer issue.
So, then, why not have the device be able to unpack the APK (oh look, it already can!), strip out the incompatible binaries, repack the APK with the remaining bits and pieces, and sign it with its own key? I know that doesn't solve the data transfer problem, but it does (and securely so) solve the "users uninstall largest apps first" problem. Hell, it would even be possible to use a different signing system for repacked APKs (making it obvious) and have the APK subsystem refuse to install repacked APKs from other devices, or at least devices not associated with your Google account (so you know the APK you're installing is from an official source, or one that was repacked by one of your own devices).
I left AT&T's superior coverage for T-Mobile's superior customer service. I'm not going to say they're perfect because, let's face it, they're not; I've had billing issues with them, but nothing on the recurring-have-to-call-every-month-to-get-a-credit-because-they-refuse-to-fix-the-underlying-problem scale I had with AT&T. Strangely, my phone also seems to work in more places on T-Mobile than it did on AT the only place I have spotty coverage is in my office, where my AT&T phone only worked because I had a microcell (when that could get GPS signal).
I'm sorry you didn't get what I was hinting at; please allow me to clarify. My point was that this *is* a software solution and that carries can push this as an update or a "forced" app download and if they're serious about implementing VoLTE, you can be sure they *will* do so. The few of us who run a rooted phone with a non-factory ROM will be unaffected, but, if it gets pushed as an update to *current* phones, the general population of smartphone users gets screwed on battery life.
And this is a software solution, meaning it could end up on today's phones with nothing more than an update or an app download.
Re:Never used this keystroke
on
Goodbye, Ctrl-S
·
· Score: 1
Since manual saving is still an option, "Save As" would maintain the same behavior it's always had; save my new changes as a new file and leave the original in the state it was in when I last opened or manually saved it. That's what "Save As" does on systems that don't autosave (hell, that's what it does in MS Office apps that DO autosave), so why can't Apple implement that?
Re:Never used this keystroke
on
Goodbye, Ctrl-S
·
· Score: 1
No, but close. If you've already made your edits, "Save As" is now "Duplicate, then roll back to the version you started with"; if you know in advance that you're going to want to keep the original version, then yes, "Duplicate" (or simply making a copy) is identical to "Save As"; however, that's not how "Save As" is typically used.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you replied to the wrong post; mine was surely not pro-smoking.
So you'd kick your kids out so you can have a smoke? Nice. I see that you say you'll avoid children and stay downwind (you're still upwind of *someone*, possibly a child), clearly you don't have children of your own or I wouldn't have to make that point.
I don't usually read sigs (hell, I haven't updated mine in over 2 years, it's pathetic, really) and, clearly neither do most ./ers (you seem to have missed the chance to infer that bit of information about me by having not read my 2-years-out-of-date sig). That said, yes, it looks like we're on the same page; and in my city and state, the hierarchy of rights regarding smoking has been determined. It is illegal to smoke within a business establishment or within 20ft of any entrance or exit of such an establishment, anywhere in the state of California, and it is illegal, in my city, to smoke anywhere in the downtown area, in any multi-unit dwelling, or within 20 feet of such. Exceptions made for medical marijuana, of course; and I'm fine with that, because pot-smokers are at least courteous about it; if they're gonna smoke, they're gonna find a place where the smoke will be contained, only sharing with those who ask.
And the only reason this is necessary is that, once a language becomes popular, people try to use it for things it wasn't meant for, then extend it to be able to do those things, all the while making it worse at everything else. We need to go back to a "right tool for the job" mentality (and if the tool for your job doesn't exist, create it, don't break *my* tool to make it work for you), create a new set of languages from that point, and be done with this.
Really, though! I remember when a spreadsheet app fit on a single floppy and had every feature that Google Docs spreadsheets have today. To use Google Docs (arguably, the smallest office suite available today), I need a web browser (56.2MB for Chrome, 57.6MB for Firefox, so 44-45 floppies), then a 2.2MB download just to open a blank spreadsheet (2 floppies), so a simple spreadsheet app has grown more than 46x in size over the past 20 years?
But, it's in a browser now, so it's new, right?
When there are too many tools you spend more time trying to find one that works rather than getting on with completing the job.
Uh... there's either a tool that works, or there isn't. If you have 5 tools made for 5 problems, but you happen to have 6 problems, you aren't going to be able to solve them all, are you? Well, not without creating another tool, at least. And, once that tool is created, the other 5 don't suddenly stop working.
I do agree with the point you were, most likely, trying to make, however. If you have 10 tools made for 5 problems, you suddenly have (statistically speaking), 8 incorrect tools for each problem, when only 4 incorrect tools are necessary. Once you have a tool, it is best to improve, rather than replace.
Of course, there are exceptions, and we're encountering those exceptions with nearly every popular language right now. What happens when someone goes to use the wrong tool for their problem, then decides to extend that tool? The tool actually becomes worse for everyone (except that one user); and when everyone's doing it... need I go on?
And that is when people who need a good tool have no choice but to build a new one.
Maybe I'll come up with something after a few cups of coffee, perhaps a shot of espresso and a latte. Let's talk more later, right now I'm gonna head over to the Java shop down the street.
Are you kidding me? CLR is GREAT for rust!
Smoking is as much of a right as not being forced to breathe a smoker's smoke, or cross the street when approaching a smoker to avoid it (only to get hit by a car while crossing, or worse, encounter a smoker on the other side), or leave a room to avoid said smoke. In fact, my right to *not* breathe in smoke trumps your right to smoke, in all cases. Why? Simple, read on.
When you smoke, you are making a choice that affects not only you, but others around you, by way of second hand smoke. When I choose not to smoke, I'm not emitting any odors or carcinogenic compounds as a result of that choice (regardless of what odors and/or carcinogenic compounds may otherwise be emanating from my person). You don't have to give up your right to use a public right of way (e.g. sidewalk or road), or your right to be in the room you are currently in, to avoid my choice not to smoke; however, in order to avoid your choice to smoke, I do have to give up those rights.
Right to smoke? Sure, in your own home, in the absence of non-consenting nonsmokers.
Now, take that concept and apply it to everything else you think is a right. Welcome to America, the land where your right to do whatever the fuck you want ends where my senses and health begin.
This. And so much of the reason he's been a disappointment has more to do with congress than with him. He wasn't the one gutting his own health care bill, was he? Mind you, he completely lacks any of the kind of influence required to sway the opinions of our representatives and bring them back in line with that the general populace wants; but, then, that being necessary in the first place if a failing of congress, not the presidency.
My bank has an automated phone menu for it! I choose the option and it takes me through a list of transactions, allowing me to press 1 if fraudulent or 2 of legit. It's been a while, but I seem to recall being asked the date and amount of the oldest fraudulent transaction before the list review began; ostensibly to determine where the review should stop. The temporary credit was immediate, I got a phone call the next day to confirm that I had, in fact, meant to report fraud, and received a letter within a week, informing me that me claim had been processed and the transactions had been removed from my account. This was with Capital One; they have a few other practices I'm not too fond of, but I can avoid those by simply using my card responsibly.
In this case, it's more like "Oh no, I've been inconvenienced as a direct result of someone else's negligent actions."
If the end result of TV manufacturers not releasing a more secure firmware for the affected models is your TV running malicious code that, say, simply bricks your TV, they should be liable for repair or replacement costs. If the result is that your TV ends up running code that hacks into your computer and steals your financial and personal details, they should likewise be liable for any resulting fraud and the cost of cleaning up that mess. In both cases, maybe a little something for the trouble, as well; it's best for society that we discourage purposeful negligence like this.
We're not talking about simply missing a TV show here; there are real and potentially damaging implications here.
Wow! 56WPM? That's the record? I was hitting 60WPM on my BlackBerry Curve when I first got it; but then, that had a physical keyboard. I never did test my typing speed after having it for a while, but I'd venture it was somewhere north of where I started.
Uhm... what? That's totally unnecessary and adds extra work for the developer; this is about *not* requiring extra work form the developer. Clearly, the APK subsystem can already unpack APKs, it's kind of, oh, let's see... what it does. It can also repack them; the functionality already exists. Know what other functionality the APK subsystem already has? Signing packages, and verifying signatures of packages. Well, would you look at that? The APK subsystem can already do what I'm suggesting! Simple to implement, at that point.
You start with an APK signed by the market (and likely also signed by the developer), a known-good point. You need nothing more than that, honestly. And, as far as the market (and most developers selling apps there, I'm sure) is concerned, the inability to safely and securely share repacked APKs is a benefit, not a hinderance, which your over-the-top proposed extension to my solution does away with.
I see where you're going with this and I agree, it would be nice for pirates.
Since the developer typically signs the APK before submitting it to the market, then the market signs it again, having the market split the already-signed APK into multiple platform-specific APKs isn't really an option; this brings us back to requiring the developer to upload multiple platform-specific APKs, which is what we're talking about not having to do.
You do if the APK is signed. Removing files fro ma signed APK changes the checksum and invalidates the signature. However, there's a solution for that, though it doesn't solve the data transfer issue.
So, then, why not have the device be able to unpack the APK (oh look, it already can!), strip out the incompatible binaries, repack the APK with the remaining bits and pieces, and sign it with its own key? I know that doesn't solve the data transfer problem, but it does (and securely so) solve the "users uninstall largest apps first" problem. Hell, it would even be possible to use a different signing system for repacked APKs (making it obvious) and have the APK subsystem refuse to install repacked APKs from other devices, or at least devices not associated with your Google account (so you know the APK you're installing is from an official source, or one that was repacked by one of your own devices).
Any reason this wouldn't work?
T-Mobile is an international company; only the US subsidiary is merging.
I left AT&T's superior coverage for T-Mobile's superior customer service. I'm not going to say they're perfect because, let's face it, they're not; I've had billing issues with them, but nothing on the recurring-have-to-call-every-month-to-get-a-credit-because-they-refuse-to-fix-the-underlying-problem scale I had with AT&T. Strangely, my phone also seems to work in more places on T-Mobile than it did on AT the only place I have spotty coverage is in my office, where my AT&T phone only worked because I had a microcell (when that could get GPS signal).
Just a quick google search turned this up as the first result. I'm sure there are others out there, if that doesn't meet your needs.
To truncate with rounding, yes. Lazy truncation, however...
I'm sorry you didn't get what I was hinting at; please allow me to clarify. My point was that this *is* a software solution and that carries can push this as an update or a "forced" app download and if they're serious about implementing VoLTE, you can be sure they *will* do so. The few of us who run a rooted phone with a non-factory ROM will be unaffected, but, if it gets pushed as an update to *current* phones, the general population of smartphone users gets screwed on battery life.
And this is a software solution, meaning it could end up on today's phones with nothing more than an update or an app download.
Since manual saving is still an option, "Save As" would maintain the same behavior it's always had; save my new changes as a new file and leave the original in the state it was in when I last opened or manually saved it. That's what "Save As" does on systems that don't autosave (hell, that's what it does in MS Office apps that DO autosave), so why can't Apple implement that?
No, but close. If you've already made your edits, "Save As" is now "Duplicate, then roll back to the version you started with"; if you know in advance that you're going to want to keep the original version, then yes, "Duplicate" (or simply making a copy) is identical to "Save As"; however, that's not how "Save As" is typically used.