This is just ridiculous. "Ain't" is a word culled from common usage, and there is no way formalizing it will overcome its common usage meaning, which is [negation of] ["to be" conjugation]. The conjugation of "ain't" to any pronoun is "ain't". And if you lived anywhere that "ain't" is actually used in common speech, you would know this. "He ain't" is perfectly valid, if "ain't" is valid.
Your explanation is reductionist, and exactly what would be expected from someone who wants English to be a "living language" but still subject to dead rules. But "ain't" is a perfect example of how languages evolve, discarding or sidestepping rules so that even a "contraction" might have none of a contraction's characteristics (which it ain't got; it's neither a combination nor elision of the original words, whichever conjugation of "to be" you pick).
I should add: the US could have intervened in Iraq and been on the right side, by enforcing the NFZ rather than authorizing Iraq to use its airspace for military purposes during the 1991 uprisings. They instead supported Hussein's repression of that uprising, and the rest of the Iraq strategy is tied to that decision.
I'm not an Obama supporter (I voted for someone else... Winona LaDuke, if you must know, and I was embarrassed when I found out she endorsed Obama), and I oppose the vast majority of his political program. I think his policies are by and large a continuation of Bush policies, which I also opposed. Including his foreign policy, including Iraq, and including Afghanistan. I was opposed to the Iraq war on principle (not because it was a mistake, it was morally wrong). And I support this no-fly zone; I think it's one of the few things Obama's been on the right side of since 2008. I was on the fence regarding the NFZ (knowing the precedence of the devastation of Iraq under a NFZ regime in the 90s, under Bush I/Clinton) until I heard exactly what the rebels were saying: we don't have time for you to debate this, you need to do it now. Is that hypocrisy? I don't think so. It's not my fault that details don't enter into your analysis, and it's not my fault that you reflexively find lowest common denominator categories to place people's political positions into so that you can berate them.
There is a fundamental difference between Libya and Iraq, which is that a huge civilian population came out demanding limited, specific outside help. Beyond that fundamental difference, there are implementation differences: instituting a NFZ wasn't led by a political agenda in imperialist countries incubated over a decade earlier; it wasn't supported by an obvious campaign of deception and intimidation; it wasn't part of an imperial "remaking the region" strategy, in fact it was in reaction to the region attempting to remake itself. There's far less in common than different in these cases. And if the western strategy exceeds its mandate from the Libyan people, you can be sure those supporters who opposed the Iraq war will not follow.
That's a weird metric to use to justify intervention. Either they were right or they weren't, and either they should have been repressed or they shouldn't have. It's inconceivable that there would have been intervention on their behalf in any case, China is and was just too powerful for such an intervention to be embraced by those doing the intervening. That said, I really don't know if they asked for outside help. That might be a better metric. Don't you think?
That's a tough question, because there's a detail you left out. The US *did* intervene, on behalf of the Hussein regime, authorizing air strikes against anti-regime rebels. There's legitimate room for debate about whether we should choose sides in a rebellion of that sort, but there is no question that what we did do was worse than either of the options you presented.
I think a case can be made, especially in the context of a world where small events can trigger eruptions of chaos the likes of which we've never seen before, that we have an obligation to be on the "right side" of events like this where we can find a "right side", guided by moral principles rather than economic and geopolitical concerns. But where we can't, or even won't, do that, we at least have an obligation not to be on the decidedly "wrong side". Which puts us in a pretty awkward position, being on the "wrong side" of quite a lot already. There's no guarantee that by abandoning the horrible regimes we support throughout that region we would be ensuring victory for genuine improvement, but we are certainly impeding it by maintaining those regimes.
Safari was faster than Firefox because Firefox was a dog in desperate need of serious updating, and because Safari's release schedule is somewhat more aggressive than Firefox's. There was never any "secret APIs" that Safari could access and Firefox couldn't. The "secret APIs" haven't been opened up, but Firefox is closing the performance gap. How does that fit into this little conspiracy theory?
Browser speed matters because browsers can and will do a lot more than they have done in the past. Browsers have been "fast enough" primarily because developers only push functionality to the limits of browser performance.
The usual usage scenario will use a web view to load local html. A Twitter client would open links in a browser. Even putting that all aside though, the worst case scenario is still that the app is equally vulnerable to Safari.
How on Earth is a web browser—designed to access anything and everything on the web—a lower attack surface than apps with a WebKit view? At the very worst, in the case of apps which are also web browsers, the attack surface is equal.
If you're asking how it's technically restricted, the next-generation features of the "Nitro" JavaScriptCore engine are not in the UIWebView libraries. That's how it's not available.
To the great-grandparent-post's broader point about security distinctions, it's hard to imagine that an app implementing UIWebView is more of a security risk than an app specifically geared toward visiting sites which execute arbitrary code with JSC. If JSC is vulnerable to malice or ignorance, then Safari is much more vulnerable than some random App Store application, based on surface area alone.
I specified desktop browsers in anticipation of that point.:)
And while a conventional site shouldn't assume any of those things, and more (eg. the site in question assumes a keyboard which rules a bunch of mobile devices out), that's not new. A conventional—ie. informational—website should remain functional regardless of the hardware and software interfaces involved, and this has been the accessibility rallying cry since long before there was even such a thing as a "mobile browser".
That said, this isn't a conventional site we're discussing. It's perfectly reasonable for a specialized application to have certain software and hardware dependencies. It may narrow the audience to impose unnecessary dependencies, but the harm is to the application vendor.
The problem is that websites and web applications share a platform, and it's easy to get confused about what expectations apply to which.
Is it a good game? Not really. The gameplay is pretty awful, and the concept is naturally pretty limited. But it's clever and unusual, and highlights something that is both useful and not widespread enough (the ability to set navigation without leaving a loaded page) as well as something that is of questionable utility but novel (manipulation of an interface element that's currently guaranteed to exist in any desktop user agent to act as a presentation element).
People can dismiss it, as they have done and surely will do until this article falls below the fold, but it's pretty neat conceptually. It's not earth-shattering. Just neat.
Slashdot Mirror
she's pretty pissed
Well then she should lay off the sauce.
This is just ridiculous. "Ain't" is a word culled from common usage, and there is no way formalizing it will overcome its common usage meaning, which is [negation of] ["to be" conjugation]. The conjugation of "ain't" to any pronoun is "ain't". And if you lived anywhere that "ain't" is actually used in common speech, you would know this. "He ain't" is perfectly valid, if "ain't" is valid.
Your explanation is reductionist, and exactly what would be expected from someone who wants English to be a "living language" but still subject to dead rules. But "ain't" is a perfect example of how languages evolve, discarding or sidestepping rules so that even a "contraction" might have none of a contraction's characteristics (which it ain't got; it's neither a combination nor elision of the original words, whichever conjugation of "to be" you pick).
Now go'onan'gitcha some pie and quitcherbitchin'.
Lousy Smarch weather.
I should add: the US could have intervened in Iraq and been on the right side, by enforcing the NFZ rather than authorizing Iraq to use its airspace for military purposes during the 1991 uprisings. They instead supported Hussein's repression of that uprising, and the rest of the Iraq strategy is tied to that decision.
I'm not an Obama supporter (I voted for someone else... Winona LaDuke, if you must know, and I was embarrassed when I found out she endorsed Obama), and I oppose the vast majority of his political program. I think his policies are by and large a continuation of Bush policies, which I also opposed. Including his foreign policy, including Iraq, and including Afghanistan. I was opposed to the Iraq war on principle (not because it was a mistake, it was morally wrong). And I support this no-fly zone; I think it's one of the few things Obama's been on the right side of since 2008. I was on the fence regarding the NFZ (knowing the precedence of the devastation of Iraq under a NFZ regime in the 90s, under Bush I/Clinton) until I heard exactly what the rebels were saying: we don't have time for you to debate this, you need to do it now. Is that hypocrisy? I don't think so. It's not my fault that details don't enter into your analysis, and it's not my fault that you reflexively find lowest common denominator categories to place people's political positions into so that you can berate them.
There is a fundamental difference between Libya and Iraq, which is that a huge civilian population came out demanding limited, specific outside help. Beyond that fundamental difference, there are implementation differences: instituting a NFZ wasn't led by a political agenda in imperialist countries incubated over a decade earlier; it wasn't supported by an obvious campaign of deception and intimidation; it wasn't part of an imperial "remaking the region" strategy, in fact it was in reaction to the region attempting to remake itself. There's far less in common than different in these cases. And if the western strategy exceeds its mandate from the Libyan people, you can be sure those supporters who opposed the Iraq war will not follow.
Where were we during the genocides in sub-Saharan Africa?
Without more specifics, "probably arming the belligerents" is a good guess.
Or when Saddam was gassing his own people, or when he started a war with Iran that got ~900,000 people killed?
This is much easier to answer accurately. We were supplying arms, WMD supplies, financing and diplomatic support.
You're fucking kidding right?
That's a weird metric to use to justify intervention. Either they were right or they weren't, and either they should have been repressed or they shouldn't have. It's inconceivable that there would have been intervention on their behalf in any case, China is and was just too powerful for such an intervention to be embraced by those doing the intervening. That said, I really don't know if they asked for outside help. That might be a better metric. Don't you think?
That's a tough question, because there's a detail you left out. The US *did* intervene, on behalf of the Hussein regime, authorizing air strikes against anti-regime rebels. There's legitimate room for debate about whether we should choose sides in a rebellion of that sort, but there is no question that what we did do was worse than either of the options you presented.
I think a case can be made, especially in the context of a world where small events can trigger eruptions of chaos the likes of which we've never seen before, that we have an obligation to be on the "right side" of events like this where we can find a "right side", guided by moral principles rather than economic and geopolitical concerns. But where we can't, or even won't, do that, we at least have an obligation not to be on the decidedly "wrong side". Which puts us in a pretty awkward position, being on the "wrong side" of quite a lot already. There's no guarantee that by abandoning the horrible regimes we support throughout that region we would be ensuring victory for genuine improvement, but we are certainly impeding it by maintaining those regimes.
Safari was faster than Firefox because Firefox was a dog in desperate need of serious updating, and because Safari's release schedule is somewhat more aggressive than Firefox's. There was never any "secret APIs" that Safari could access and Firefox couldn't. The "secret APIs" haven't been opened up, but Firefox is closing the performance gap. How does that fit into this little conspiracy theory?
Browser speed matters because browsers can and will do a lot more than they have done in the past. Browsers have been "fast enough" primarily because developers only push functionality to the limits of browser performance.
The usual usage scenario will use a web view to load local html. A Twitter client would open links in a browser. Even putting that all aside though, the worst case scenario is still that the app is equally vulnerable to Safari.
How on Earth is a web browser—designed to access anything and everything on the web—a lower attack surface than apps with a WebKit view? At the very worst, in the case of apps which are also web browsers, the attack surface is equal.
If you're asking how it's technically restricted, the next-generation features of the "Nitro" JavaScriptCore engine are not in the UIWebView libraries. That's how it's not available.
To the great-grandparent-post's broader point about security distinctions, it's hard to imagine that an app implementing UIWebView is more of a security risk than an app specifically geared toward visiting sites which execute arbitrary code with JSC. If JSC is vulnerable to malice or ignorance, then Safari is much more vulnerable than some random App Store application, based on surface area alone.
No, there's more to it than that. UIWebView cannot compile arbitrary code, but Safari's JavaScriptCore (Nitro nee "Squirrelfish Extreme") does. http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2011/03/confirmed-some-web-apps-not-seeing-ios-43-javascript-speedup.ars
I specified desktop browsers in anticipation of that point. :)
And while a conventional site shouldn't assume any of those things, and more (eg. the site in question assumes a keyboard which rules a bunch of mobile devices out), that's not new. A conventional—ie. informational—website should remain functional regardless of the hardware and software interfaces involved, and this has been the accessibility rallying cry since long before there was even such a thing as a "mobile browser".
That said, this isn't a conventional site we're discussing. It's perfectly reasonable for a specialized application to have certain software and hardware dependencies. It may narrow the audience to impose unnecessary dependencies, but the harm is to the application vendor.
The problem is that websites and web applications share a platform, and it's easy to get confused about what expectations apply to which.
You *can not* do that. Changing the domain will navigate to the domain you've changed it to.
Apart from full-screen desktop browsers, none of your list are desktop browsers. Exception noted though.
Is it a good game? Not really. The gameplay is pretty awful, and the concept is naturally pretty limited. But it's clever and unusual, and highlights something that is both useful and not widespread enough (the ability to set navigation without leaving a loaded page) as well as something that is of questionable utility but novel (manipulation of an interface element that's currently guaranteed to exist in any desktop user agent to act as a presentation element).
People can dismiss it, as they have done and surely will do until this article falls below the fold, but it's pretty neat conceptually. It's not earth-shattering. Just neat.
And babies. Wait, that's not right.
What, he's white too?
Mental masturbation is still doing something.
Oh. Er. Why?
But would you prefer it be used for good or awesome?
Also known as most of the English-speaking world?