I beg of you to please strip anything out of Firefox that is not part to the web browsing experience and put it back in as a plugin if you have to. Just focus on being a web browser and having the best plug in interface possible.
The funny thing is, wasn't that what Firefox (or Phoenix, back then) originally set out to do? Strip anything out of the Mozilla browser suite (now Seamonkey, I think?) that is not part of the web browsing experience and allow people to put it back in as a plugin if they want to?
Funny that it turns "f" into "tlh". I would have expected "f" to become "ng" instead and for "tlh" to arise from "x" (the "xifan hol" encoding). Ah well.
Another thing that bothers me (a lot) is from people who know absolutely nothing about my professional capability endorsing my professional capability...
I think that's because LinkedIn pushes suggested endorsements into your face when you visit the site, so lots of people probably just click on them "yes, yes, whatever" simply to make them go away.
This is precisely why I want scientists naming planets according to an accepted method of taxonomy. Koozebane? Seriously? Because muppets? I like the muppets as much as the next man but come on - a heavenly object stuck with a ridiculous name like that forever just because some guy thought it would be funny? Ugh no.
Then you had better not look at the names of asteroids... some of them are pretty whimsical. "19383 Rolling Stones" is just an example.
Not to ruin the joke or anything, but if the second cousins are twice removed then they're typically off by a couple generations. The age discrepancy would be awkward enough.
Not necessarily. I'm sure you've heard of uncles who are younger than their nephews (Mary has her son Bob at 16, Mary's parents get another son Charles 17 years after Mary was born, Charles is Bob's uncle despite being a year younger).
Once you're as far away as "second cousin", the "twice removed" need not imply "a lot younger" -- it all depends how long the generations tended to be in the two branches of the family.
1. Start with machine translation - it's faster to correct than start from scratch and their equivalent of OCR.
Not always, in my experience - the bad translation may trap you into not changing it too much, with the result that you end up with sub-optimal results. Like with some code, it's often better to throw it away entirely and start from scratch rather than trying to polish a machine translation.
On the other hand, if the goal is merely to produce "something that's comprehensible", I suppose it will work.
I know you are trying to be funny, but searching for ``latex images'' on google the first page is all tutorials on how to insert an image into a Latex document. The third link was a link to a google image search wich did have the kind of thing you are implying. still 9/10 relevant results is not bad.
It was actually based on a true experience of mine; however, that was several years old and both the state of Google's index as well as its algorithms have surely changed a lot since then.
I'm glad to hear that results are better now.
(I wonder whether the "search bubble" is partly responsible -- people who tend to search for "knuth" and "programming" might get different results for "latex images" than those who tend to search for "bdsm" and "pvc".)
If things don't improve, the next generation of kids have no idea that the sky is supposed to be blue.
Here in northern Germany, the default colour of the sky is white. Not because of pollution (light or otherwise) but because of these things we call "clouds".
It's fairly rare that a day is not 100% overcast. (Or at least it seems like that to me.)
Withing the old Google labs was a search called Google Sets. It was rarely used, but when you needed that capability it was the only place on the net you could do it. Why it or "labs" had to go away I don't understand.
For the uninitiated, Sets allowed to you enter 2 or 3 things of some type and it would return a list (15) of other things of that type. The example they used was to enter the titles of a few Tom Cruise movies and it would return a bunch more. In real world usage you could use it to identify alternative makers of various products, or alternatives to any number of things (programming languages for example) or even things where you don't know how the terminology that describes how they are related.
The functionality of Google Sets is still there as a part of Google Drive spreadsheets: enter some terms underneath each other in a column, select the cells, then ctrl-click the little square in the bottom right-hand corner and drag it downwards to however many cells you want to fill with Sets suggestions.
The first thing I thought is, how are we going to record any actual child abuse? How about social workers detailing such events, are they falling foul of the law with their reports?
Probably there will be some exception there.
FTA:
The law would be tightly written, he insisted, to cover obscene writing of a nature "that it must reasonably be assumed to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal".
Only "absolutely vile" material would be targeted, he said
When you put these super resilient creatures in space with no protection from radiation most of them die.
But if you send comparatively weak men to the moon where they're exposed to the exact same radiation they all survive and none died soon after from cancer?
Makes sense...
You missed the bit with "no protection from radiation". The space suit isn't just there to keep air inside it.
Does it strike anyone else as odd that you can go from Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport to Secretary of State for Health in a day, or from Transport to Defence? Do any of these people have any actual experience or qualification in the departments they get dumped on? It's all just a load of old bollocks, isn't it?
My thoughts as well.
It seems a bit odd that someone can go from one ministry to a completely different one... or, for that matter, that dividing up people into ministries "conveniently" goes by proportion of parties in the coalition, since the various parties just happen to have experts for the various subjects in the requisite proportions.
I noticed that with my boss today. We were chatting and his "push" email updated, so he glanced at it. Then we resumed chatting and his email updated so he glanced at it again. I found it annoying & made our chat last 1.5 times longer than it should have. I check my email just twice a day..... I figure if it's urgent they can pick up the phone and call. Or send an instant message.
So you would have preferred if the person had not emailed your boss but rather had called him, interrupting your chat for longer than just a glance?
I don't know, but it always bothers me if I'm talking to someone face-to-face, the phone rings, and they answer it for a minutes on end as if the person right next to them is completely unimportant. There's a lot to be said for asynchronous communication sometimes.
And if the employer is a small business that can't afford weeks of payroll without the associated profit?
They'll have to do whatever they do in other cases where they have to pay money to someone who is not working, for example, a mother during maternity leave or an ill worker during sick leave. I'm not sure jury duty is much different here.
parseFloat --> parseGleitkommazahl("parse" is not a German word)
Yes it is; it's the imperative of parsen. Ich parse, du parst, er parst. "Parse die Gleitkommazahl!" Optionally, you can also say "Pars die Gleitkommazahl!"; both forms are possible for the imperative.
I agree that it doesn't really roll trippingly off the tongue, though.
Now that I think of it, wouldn't it be better if we were a bit more polite to the computer, though? var pi = parsenSieBitteDieGleitkommazahl('3.14159'); vielenDank();
the A and Z keys are next to each other (on a German keyboard as well as an international one).
They're nowhere near one another on a German keyboard; the key below A is Y, and Z is next to T. Perhaps you were thinking of the French keyboard (AZERTY)?
In some states you can go ahead and record all of the calls that you want and you do not have to tell anyone.
That's what I heard, too -- that in those places, there has to be the consent of at least one party for the call to be recorded.
So you can't just wiretap random strangers speaking to each other... but if you're calling a company, and you (as one of the participants to the call) give consent to recording the call, then record away!
My experience in Germany is that the announcement is along the lines of "We listen in to or record selected calls for quality control and training purposes. If you do not wish this, please say so at the beginning."
Now, this could be because German companies care more about your privacy (or about the PR effects), so they make this explicitly opt-out. Or it could be legislation.
Perhaps you could try influencing legislation where you live to demand an opt-out approach to call recording?
Slashdot Mirror
I beg of you to please strip anything out of Firefox that is not part to the web browsing experience and put it back in as a plugin if you have to. Just focus on being a web browser and having the best plug in interface possible.
The funny thing is, wasn't that what Firefox (or Phoenix, back then) originally set out to do? Strip anything out of the Mozilla browser suite (now Seamonkey, I think?) that is not part of the web browsing experience and allow people to put it back in as a plugin if they want to?
Funny that it turns "f" into "tlh". I would have expected "f" to become "ng" instead and for "tlh" to arise from "x" (the "xifan hol" encoding). Ah well.
Fiat is by definition not real money and instead an abstract controlled (inflated) by the politicians
Can any money be "real"? Isn't money by definition an abstraction that we use because we don't want to keep swapping deer hides for horseshoes?
Another thing that bothers me (a lot) is from people who know absolutely nothing about my professional capability endorsing my professional capability...
I think that's because LinkedIn pushes suggested endorsements into your face when you visit the site, so lots of people probably just click on them "yes, yes, whatever" simply to make them go away.
This is precisely why I want scientists naming planets according to an accepted method of taxonomy. Koozebane? Seriously? Because muppets? I like the muppets as much as the next man but come on - a heavenly object stuck with a ridiculous name like that forever just because some guy thought it would be funny? Ugh no.
Then you had better not look at the names of asteroids... some of them are pretty whimsical. "19383 Rolling Stones" is just an example.
Not to ruin the joke or anything, but if the second cousins are twice removed then they're typically off by a couple generations. The age discrepancy would be awkward enough.
Not necessarily. I'm sure you've heard of uncles who are younger than their nephews (Mary has her son Bob at 16, Mary's parents get another son Charles 17 years after Mary was born, Charles is Bob's uncle despite being a year younger).
Once you're as far away as "second cousin", the "twice removed" need not imply "a lot younger" -- it all depends how long the generations tended to be in the two branches of the family.
Java makes an excellent* desktop application.
* Excellent is defined here as "slow, ugly and memory hungry."
Reminds me of this joke:
"Knock, knock"
"Who's there?"
...
...
...
...
"Java."
1. Start with machine translation - it's faster to correct than start from scratch and their equivalent of OCR.
Not always, in my experience - the bad translation may trap you into not changing it too much, with the result that you end up with sub-optimal results. Like with some code, it's often better to throw it away entirely and start from scratch rather than trying to polish a machine translation.
On the other hand, if the goal is merely to produce "something that's comprehensible", I suppose it will work.
I know you are trying to be funny, but searching for ``latex images'' on google the first page is all tutorials on how to insert an image into a Latex document. The third link was a link to a google image search wich did have the kind of thing you are implying. still 9/10 relevant results is not bad.
It was actually based on a true experience of mine; however, that was several years old and both the state of Google's index as well as its algorithms have surely changed a lot since then.
I'm glad to hear that results are better now.
(I wonder whether the "search bubble" is partly responsible -- people who tend to search for "knuth" and "programming" might get different results for "latex images" than those who tend to search for "bdsm" and "pvc".)
Also, if you're having problems embedding images in LaTeX, an Internet search for "latex images" will often not do what you are hoping for...
If things don't improve, the next generation of kids have no idea that the sky is supposed to be blue.
Here in northern Germany, the default colour of the sky is white. Not because of pollution (light or otherwise) but because of these things we call "clouds".
It's fairly rare that a day is not 100% overcast. (Or at least it seems like that to me.)
Withing the old Google labs was a search called Google Sets. It was rarely used, but when you needed that capability it was the only place on the net you could do it. Why it or "labs" had to go away I don't understand.
For the uninitiated, Sets allowed to you enter 2 or 3 things of some type and it would return a list (15) of other things of that type. The example they used was to enter the titles of a few Tom Cruise movies and it would return a bunch more. In real world usage you could use it to identify alternative makers of various products, or alternatives to any number of things (programming languages for example) or even things where you don't know how the terminology that describes how they are related.
The functionality of Google Sets is still there as a part of Google Drive spreadsheets: enter some terms underneath each other in a column, select the cells, then ctrl-click the little square in the bottom right-hand corner and drag it downwards to however many cells you want to fill with Sets suggestions.
It's only backup if you can get it back afterwards.
Both IE 9 and Chrome offer sanboxing.
SAN boxing? Is that like taking a bunch of disks and putting them into a network-accessible case? :-)
The first thing I thought is, how are we going to record any actual child abuse? How about social workers detailing such events, are they falling foul of the law with their reports?
Probably there will be some exception there.
FTA:
The law would be tightly written, he insisted, to cover obscene writing of a nature "that it must reasonably be assumed to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal".
Only "absolutely vile" material would be targeted, he said
You can get a screen replaced for a couple hundred dollars.
Wait, is this supposed to be a good thing?
You mean, repairing (/replacing) one component costs about as much as the device is currently worth?
In cars, that sort of thing is called an "economical total loss", at least over here (wirtschaftlicher Totalschaden).
So let me get this straight...
When you put these super resilient creatures in space with no protection from radiation most of them die.
But if you send comparatively weak men to the moon where they're exposed to the exact same radiation they all survive and none died soon after from cancer?
Makes sense...
You missed the bit with "no protection from radiation". The space suit isn't just there to keep air inside it.
Does it strike anyone else as odd that you can go from Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport to Secretary of State for Health in a day, or from Transport to Defence? Do any of these people have any actual experience or qualification in the departments they get dumped on? It's all just a load of old bollocks, isn't it?
My thoughts as well.
It seems a bit odd that someone can go from one ministry to a completely different one... or, for that matter, that dividing up people into ministries "conveniently" goes by proportion of parties in the coalition, since the various parties just happen to have experts for the various subjects in the requisite proportions.
I noticed that with my boss today. We were chatting and his "push" email updated, so he glanced at it. Then we resumed chatting and his email updated so he glanced at it again. I found it annoying & made our chat last 1.5 times longer than it should have. I check my email just twice a day..... I figure if it's urgent they can pick up the phone and call. Or send an instant message.
So you would have preferred if the person had not emailed your boss but rather had called him, interrupting your chat for longer than just a glance?
I don't know, but it always bothers me if I'm talking to someone face-to-face, the phone rings, and they answer it for a minutes on end as if the person right next to them is completely unimportant. There's a lot to be said for asynchronous communication sometimes.
And if the employer is a small business that can't afford weeks of payroll without the associated profit?
They'll have to do whatever they do in other cases where they have to pay money to someone who is not working, for example, a mother during maternity leave or an ill worker during sick leave. I'm not sure jury duty is much different here.
parseFloat --> parseGleitkommazahl ("parse" is not a German word)
Yes it is; it's the imperative of parsen. Ich parse, du parst, er parst. "Parse die Gleitkommazahl!" Optionally, you can also say "Pars die Gleitkommazahl!"; both forms are possible for the imperative.
I agree that it doesn't really roll trippingly off the tongue, though.
Now that I think of it, wouldn't it be better if we were a bit more polite to the computer, though? var pi = parsenSieBitteDieGleitkommazahl('3.14159'); vielenDank();
the A and Z keys are next to each other (on a German keyboard as well as an international one).
They're nowhere near one another on a German keyboard; the key below A is Y, and Z is next to T. Perhaps you were thinking of the French keyboard (AZERTY)?
In some states you can go ahead and record all of the calls that you want and you do not have to tell anyone.
That's what I heard, too -- that in those places, there has to be the consent of at least one party for the call to be recorded.
So you can't just wiretap random strangers speaking to each other... but if you're calling a company, and you (as one of the participants to the call) give consent to recording the call, then record away!
My experience in Germany is that the announcement is along the lines of "We listen in to or record selected calls for quality control and training purposes. If you do not wish this, please say so at the beginning."
Now, this could be because German companies care more about your privacy (or about the PR effects), so they make this explicitly opt-out. Or it could be legislation.
Perhaps you could try influencing legislation where you live to demand an opt-out approach to call recording?
At first I read that as "Android crashes" and wondered if only there were some way to harness the power of Windows crashes as well....