It's not the number of interactions that counts - it's the number of people affected. We can fake the same stats by claiming air travel is safer by looking at accidents per passenger-mile, as opposed to accidents per passenger-hour.
Uh, how is using the actually relevant statistics "faking" anything?
By passenger-hour, buses are 3x safer than airplanes.
Which would only be a meaningful comparison if people made travel mode decisions with a fixed travel time in mind, rather than a fixed destination in mind.
So, yeah, if your concern is "which is the safer mode of transportation for a voyage with an embarked time of 1 hour", that has some meaning.
But usually travel mode decisions are made with origin and destination fixed, not embarked time fixed.
I don't know. HP has been self destructing but looking back over Meg Whitman's career she seems to have the golden touch. Everything she ever worked on thrived.
That seems obviously false, unless you mean to imply that she didn't work on her own gubernatorial campaign.
The whole idea of CSS was to separate content from presentation. But it never lived up to that promise for me. It would be more accurate to say that it separates content from *font* presentation.
If by "more" you mean "less", then this is true.
What would be REALLY useful to me is a way to separate out the actual layout of the page from the content.
Content: use semantic HTML (in HTML5, that's pretty easy, since even the old physical tags that have been retained are now semantic tags, but you may need to review HTML5 to see what the semantics are that the tags are supposed to represent, since in some cases they aren't obvious from their old presentational use in HTML 4.01 and earlier.) Presentation (including layout): Use CSS. If all you know how to do with CSS is select fonts, you probably need to learn a lot more CSS than you currently know. (e.g., the CSS box model and CSS tables and the related properties, since those are pretty big in layout.)
I can do this now with php (and I do it on most of my sites now), but it would be nice to have it native to html/css.
It is native to HTML/CSS.
The way I have it set up is that the header of the page (with all the header graphics, page background image, sidebar graphics, etc.) are in a separate file, as is the footer. So to change the entire look of all my pages and subpages on the entire site, all I have to do is edit those two files.
That seems to be combining shared content with presentation, not separating content and presentation.
To the extent that there is substantive content for the header, footer, and sidebar that is shared between pages, these could be built as separate HTML files that are included via iframe tags.
To the extent that it is simply common presentation (shared cosmetic background images, etc.), these are things that can already be set through CSS (in fact, shared HTML content could be set through CSS as well using the:before and:after pseudo-selectors using content URLs, but that begins combining content with presentation as well, so it should be done cautiously if you are trying to get a clean content/presentation separation.)
That was supposed to be the kind of thing that css could do, but in practice I can only do it by making my pages php files and using an include statement to bring in the header and footer html.
HTML and CSS support what you describe without server- (or client-) side scripting or includes. Whether you can do it in HTML+CSS without PHP or other server-side scripting/includes is, of course, a different issue.
Most languages consider whitespace. In most programming languages where both of the following are valid, they will have different semantics:
1: foo bar 2: foobar
Quite a lot of languages even distinguish between different types of whitespace, e.g., C where the following two constructs are different, despite differing only in which particular kind of whitespace:
1: foo();// bar();
2: foo();// bar();
Python may be unusual in which differences in whitespace it considers significant, but not in that it considers whitespace significant. People need to stop confusing the issue.
But is he referring to optimized in general, or specifically for opera.
I think he means "optimized in general"; Google has a preference for throwing something that works into the wild (usually, as a clearly designated beta, demonstration, etc.) and then getting outside opinions on how to make it work better rather than tossing out abstract proposals with no implementation.
Lie seems to prefer people discussing the proposals, refining them, and then putting together an implementation.
There are arguments for both approaches, though for most things on the web I think Google's approach is better in practice, even when it might not be better in theory.
In a way, it mirrors the whole HTML5 vs. XHTML2 story.
Becoming the default search engine on a secondary version of another browser with a declining market share. Is MS trying to implode or are they just clueless?
Maybe MS is smart about the future, and TFS is wrong about the direction this points. Maybe its not about the future of Mozilla -- dumping Google -- but instead about the future of Microsoft's browser. Maybe after testing the water with "Firefox with Bing", MS just adopts that in place of IE. Given the plethora of devices with browser, Microsoft's waning borwser share even in the desktop browser market and its miniscule browser share everywhere else, maybe spending the money to maintain a browser in-house just isn't worth it anymore given how weak of a lever it has become for Microsoft's other products.
and the release of Firefox with Bing indicates that Mozilla is now confident in Bing's ability to provide a top-notch service to Firefox users.
I think it clearly indicates that they are willing to take Microsoft's money to distribute a product with different defaults, I don't think its all that clear that it means anything more.
NeXT was selling $10,000 workstation-class machines to people used to buying Suns.
IIRC, the NeXTcube was about $10,000 (with the features changing, but not the price, between the successive models), but the NeXTstation introduced about the same time as the second NeXTcube (when they added color) was ~$3,000.
Not that this really contradicts your basic point.
To work, the attacker needs to have planted two files somewhere that can be set to the working directory for chrome.
Note quite: the first of them has to be in the root of the CWD (e.g., on Windows, if the CWD is C:\foo\bar\baz, the file has to be in C:\), and the other one can be anywhere, since its accessed by an address provided in the first file.
You can write whatever you want in a notebook with your handwriting, sign it and date it back, it will be impossible to tell. This is just an example of a bad law that will hopefully get fixed by the time the kids of today finish school.
Its not really a bad law; nothing makes signed, dated notebooks uncontrovertible evidence. They are admissible as evidence -- as are any records kept in the regular course of business. There's a lot more case law on the details of what matters in paper records because there are centuries more cases settling the rules, so lots of places are more comfortable relying on retaining paper records for the simple reason that the rules as to what is important with paper records are more firmly established.
'I fundamentally reject the notion you need technology aids in grammar school,' says Alan Eagle
"Need" is a funny word. Its obviously possible for a teacher to teach some material with nothing more than some students to teach and the natural faculties inherent in the teacher's body and those of the students, but I think its been clear for some centuries that various "technology aids" can, with proper usage, be of considerable benefit in teaching at all levels, whether or not they are strictly "needed".
'The idea that an app on an iPad can better teach my kids to read or do arithmetic, that's ridiculous.'
Yes, its a ridiculous strawman that you've set up; the actual idea is that an computing devices with appropriate features and software -- whether that's in the form of iPad apps or otherwise -- might be better (and/or additional) tools used in teaching, compared to (and/or combined with) the variety of "technology aids" that have been widely adopted for use in education over the course of history, from the original tablet and stylus of antiquity through the writing slates used a couple of centuries ago, and pens, pencils, notepads, textbooks, chalk & chalkboards, markers and whiteboards, etc., etc., etc.
Apple has done voice for a long time, too. Lots of people have. Siri is different.
Siri is an interface using voice recognition for input, a selection of backends to do the actual work (Wolfram Alpha is a big one, apparently), and speech synthesis for part of the output. Its a clever wiring together of existing technologies, but its not revolutionary in a way that is likely to provide Apple a durable edge substantively (having been first mover is likely to be a marketing edge longer than there is any substantive edge, though, so its likely to be quite good for Apple, anyway.)
Does "bipartisan support" mean that it has the support of both the major parties, or simply that it has the support of a couple of guys in each but will get voted down by a majority in both?
Usually, when used by a politician, it means it is supported by that politician and at least one politician that caucuses with the other major party in one of the houses of Congress.
Not that I'm suggesting it, but Rome is the longest-running government I can name. (Government, not country; that would be, what, China?) Let's ignore the democratic Roman era and just go with the part ruled by emperors: didn't that last for, like 1200 years or something?
I just looked it up. There was 500 years of Roman Republic followed by about 1500 years of Roman Empire.
I think the best case for continuous Roman imperial rule runs from Augustus becoming emperor in 27BC through the sack of Constantinople by the Fourth Crusade in 1204.
The government does not decide the price under FRAND terms.
O RLY?
Instead it is a well established (although inherently fuzzy) legal term that basically means that pricing cannot be anti-competitive. The patent holder determines the license price and terms according to those restrictions.
Yeah, see, they are, as you note, legal terms -- and, at that, fuzzy ones -- which means what the restrictions are and whether a particular attempt to set terms complies with them are determined, ultimately, by recourse to the courts -- which are part of the government.
Direct democracy is where the people are in control of the decision-making process.
Right. This isn't that. What this really provides is a way to level the playing field (a bit) with regard to issues that have wide public support but not necessarily moneyed interests and paid lobbyists behind them, vs. those that do have paid lobbyists behind them.
One of the advantages that moneyed interests have is that politicians want access to the money for campaign purposes (either directly, or want the moneyed interest to spend "independently" in ways that benefit the politician). This doesn't affect that.
But an often overlooked advantage that moneyed interests have -- and, having spent some time working in a legislative office I've seen this pretty directly -- is that they represent a known constituency of a particular size and its easy to know what they are interested in. Its very, very hard to collate non-coordinated constituent communications to get a good view of particular proposals that have interest in the constituency that aren't being advanced by groups that have a paid lobbying effort. There's a reason that everyone says that writing to your legislator is most effective when you can assign a subject line that includes the identification of a particular bill currently under consideration with a support or oppose indicator -- those are easy to categorize.
This conceptually makes it a lot easier to categorize and collate feedback that isn't simple support or oppose to things that are already "on the table" with a convenient bill identifier. And, in that respect, its useful in making it possible for ideas that have interest to get to where they might make a difference.
Its not direct democracy, and its not a magical transformation, but it could be very useful.
C# got optional dynamic typing in version 4 with the DLR
Right. That's why I said it was mostly-statically-typed rather than just plain statically-typed.
Compiler-as-a-service is a nice feature for the.NET runtime (and, as I understand it, this is a.NET runtime feature, not a C# language feature), but the Ruby/Python comparison doesn't really seem to be on-point as to why.
Ruby's primary implementation is a bytecode compiler and a runtime VM..
The kicker isn't the eval function, but rather the def/prototype functions. In Ruby, you can instantiate a String object named str, add a method to String, and then immediately call that method on str.
That has nothing to do with compiled vs. interpreted, but with the semantics of method call resolution.
Open Source means you release the source. Plain and simple.
Well, actually, it means that the source is released under an open source license. Which Google has done with all versions of Android prior to Honeycomb, and has announced plans to do with Ice Cream Sandwich.
So, all pre-Honeycomb versions of Android are open source, and Ice Cream Sandwich will be open source, and Honeycomb is not and will not be open source.
And google decided that all vendors weren't willing to put in the time to make it ready for a phone. If it were really open source, they could have trusted the community to do it right. If not, well they should make their own hardware like apple does then.
There's quite a lot of excluded middle between the open development model (which you confuse here with "open source") and the OS manufacturer making their own exclusive hardware (both Microsoft's Windows CE/Mobile/Phone internal-development, closed-source, but rely on third-party hardware vendors approach, and Google's internal-development, open-source-most-of-the-time, work-with-a-network-of-vendors-that-actually-own-Android model are among the many possible models that are neither Apple's internal-closed-do-everything-yourself model or a pure open-development, open-source model.)
The Google/OHA model with Android appears reasonably successful in the real world, so I'm not really clear on what justification you think you have for arguing that if they aren't using the open-development, open-source model they should instead use Apple's model rather than the model they are currently using.
Fine. However, as the owner of a v2.2 tablet whose manufacturer never released a software update, I'd have appreciated the opportunity to update it myself...
The version of Android which includes 3.0+ features but is designed to run on most devices that met the requirements for Android 2.x is 4.0.
Which Google has announced that they will release as open source.
Why wait till the software is stable? Even if you do believe in the myth that software ever is finished enough, isn't the one of the purposes of open source to have a few extra eyeballs to check if it is mature?
That's one thing some people release things as open source to gain, but its not the only reason people use open source, and its possible to use open source without that even being part of the motivation.
Google users be they on Android or when you use gmail, google search etc... are not seen by Google as their customers.
Some Google users are seen as customers, some aren't.
Its really easy to tell the difference: if you are paying Google for a service, you are a customer.
If you are part of the network that provides value to the people that are paying for service (which, contrary to something you say elsewhere in your post, isn't just advertisers, its also Android developers, paid App Engine users, and a number of other paid service users) you are a supplier of product.
Given the nature of Google's paid services, there is considerable overlap between their customers and their suppliers of product.
Slashdot Mirror
Uh, how is using the actually relevant statistics "faking" anything?
Which would only be a meaningful comparison if people made travel mode decisions with a fixed travel time in mind, rather than a fixed destination in mind.
So, yeah, if your concern is "which is the safer mode of transportation for a voyage with an embarked time of 1 hour", that has some meaning.
But usually travel mode decisions are made with origin and destination fixed, not embarked time fixed.
That seems obviously false, unless you mean to imply that she didn't work on her own gubernatorial campaign.
If by "more" you mean "less", then this is true.
Content: use semantic HTML (in HTML5, that's pretty easy, since even the old physical tags that have been retained are now semantic tags, but you may need to review HTML5 to see what the semantics are that the tags are supposed to represent, since in some cases they aren't obvious from their old presentational use in HTML 4.01 and earlier.)
Presentation (including layout): Use CSS. If all you know how to do with CSS is select fonts, you probably need to learn a lot more CSS than you currently know. (e.g., the CSS box model and CSS tables and the related properties, since those are pretty big in layout.)
It is native to HTML/CSS.
That seems to be combining shared content with presentation, not separating content and presentation.
To the extent that there is substantive content for the header, footer, and sidebar that is shared between pages, these could be built as separate HTML files that are included via iframe tags.
To the extent that it is simply common presentation (shared cosmetic background images, etc.), these are things that can already be set through CSS (in fact, shared HTML content could be set through CSS as well using the :before and :after pseudo-selectors using content URLs, but that begins combining content with presentation as well, so it should be done cautiously if you are trying to get a clean content/presentation separation.)
HTML and CSS support what you describe without server- (or client-) side scripting or includes. Whether you can do it in HTML+CSS without PHP or other server-side scripting/includes is, of course, a different issue.
Most languages consider whitespace. In most programming languages where both of the following are valid, they will have different semantics:
1: foo bar
2: foobar
Quite a lot of languages even distinguish between different types of whitespace, e.g., C where the following two constructs are different, despite differing only in which particular kind of whitespace:
1: //
foo();
bar();
2: // bar();
foo();
Python may be unusual in which differences in whitespace it considers significant, but not in that it considers whitespace significant. People need to stop confusing the issue.
I think he means "optimized in general"; Google has a preference for throwing something that works into the wild (usually, as a clearly designated beta, demonstration, etc.) and then getting outside opinions on how to make it work better rather than tossing out abstract proposals with no implementation.
Lie seems to prefer people discussing the proposals, refining them, and then putting together an implementation.
There are arguments for both approaches, though for most things on the web I think Google's approach is better in practice, even when it might not be better in theory.
In a way, it mirrors the whole HTML5 vs. XHTML2 story.
Maybe MS is smart about the future, and TFS is wrong about the direction this points. Maybe its not about the future of Mozilla -- dumping Google -- but instead about the future of Microsoft's browser. Maybe after testing the water with "Firefox with Bing", MS just adopts that in place of IE. Given the plethora of devices with browser, Microsoft's waning borwser share even in the desktop browser market and its miniscule browser share everywhere else, maybe spending the money to maintain a browser in-house just isn't worth it anymore given how weak of a lever it has become for Microsoft's other products.
I think it clearly indicates that they are willing to take Microsoft's money to distribute a product with different defaults, I don't think its all that clear that it means anything more.
IIRC, the NeXTcube was about $10,000 (with the features changing, but not the price, between the successive models), but the NeXTstation introduced about the same time as the second NeXTcube (when they added color) was ~$3,000.
Not that this really contradicts your basic point.
Note quite: the first of them has to be in the root of the CWD (e.g., on Windows, if the CWD is C:\foo\bar\baz, the file has to be in C:\), and the other one can be anywhere, since its accessed by an address provided in the first file.
Its not really a bad law; nothing makes signed, dated notebooks uncontrovertible evidence. They are admissible as evidence -- as are any records kept in the regular course of business. There's a lot more case law on the details of what matters in paper records because there are centuries more cases settling the rules, so lots of places are more comfortable relying on retaining paper records for the simple reason that the rules as to what is important with paper records are more firmly established.
"Need" is a funny word. Its obviously possible for a teacher to teach some material with nothing more than some students to teach and the natural faculties inherent in the teacher's body and those of the students, but I think its been clear for some centuries that various "technology aids" can, with proper usage, be of considerable benefit in teaching at all levels, whether or not they are strictly "needed".
Yes, its a ridiculous strawman that you've set up; the actual idea is that an computing devices with appropriate features and software -- whether that's in the form of iPad apps or otherwise -- might be better (and/or additional) tools used in teaching, compared to (and/or combined with) the variety of "technology aids" that have been widely adopted for use in education over the course of history, from the original tablet and stylus of antiquity through the writing slates used a couple of centuries ago, and pens, pencils, notepads, textbooks, chalk & chalkboards, markers and whiteboards, etc., etc., etc.
Strangely, replacing "speak" with "type", you can do that to several search engines, like Wolfram Alpha.
Oddly enough, Wolfram Alpha is where Siri sends many inquiries to actually get responses.
So, yeah, its search with a voice recognition interface.
Siri is an interface using voice recognition for input, a selection of backends to do the actual work (Wolfram Alpha is a big one, apparently), and speech synthesis for part of the output. Its a clever wiring together of existing technologies, but its not revolutionary in a way that is likely to provide Apple a durable edge substantively (having been first mover is likely to be a marketing edge longer than there is any substantive edge, though, so its likely to be quite good for Apple, anyway.)
Usually, when used by a politician, it means it is supported by that politician and at least one politician that caucuses with the other major party in one of the houses of Congress.
I think the best case for continuous Roman imperial rule runs from Augustus becoming emperor in 27BC through the sack of Constantinople by the Fourth Crusade in 1204.
O RLY?
Yeah, see, they are, as you note, legal terms -- and, at that, fuzzy ones -- which means what the restrictions are and whether a particular attempt to set terms complies with them are determined, ultimately, by recourse to the courts -- which are part of the government.
A whole lot of marketshare?
Right. This isn't that. What this really provides is a way to level the playing field (a bit) with regard to issues that have wide public support but not necessarily moneyed interests and paid lobbyists behind them, vs. those that do have paid lobbyists behind them.
One of the advantages that moneyed interests have is that politicians want access to the money for campaign purposes (either directly, or want the moneyed interest to spend "independently" in ways that benefit the politician). This doesn't affect that.
But an often overlooked advantage that moneyed interests have -- and, having spent some time working in a legislative office I've seen this pretty directly -- is that they represent a known constituency of a particular size and its easy to know what they are interested in. Its very, very hard to collate non-coordinated constituent communications to get a good view of particular proposals that have interest in the constituency that aren't being advanced by groups that have a paid lobbying effort. There's a reason that everyone says that writing to your legislator is most effective when you can assign a subject line that includes the identification of a particular bill currently under consideration with a support or oppose indicator -- those are easy to categorize.
This conceptually makes it a lot easier to categorize and collate feedback that isn't simple support or oppose to things that are already "on the table" with a convenient bill identifier. And, in that respect, its useful in making it possible for ideas that have interest to get to where they might make a difference.
Its not direct democracy, and its not a magical transformation, but it could be very useful.
Right. That's why I said it was mostly-statically-typed rather than just plain statically-typed.
Compiler-as-a-service is a nice feature for the .NET runtime (and, as I understand it, this is a .NET runtime feature, not a C# language feature), but the Ruby/Python comparison doesn't really seem to be on-point as to why.
Ruby's primary implementation is a bytecode compiler and a runtime VM..
That has nothing to do with compiled vs. interpreted, but with the semantics of method call resolution.
Well, actually, it means that the source is released under an open source license. Which Google has done with all versions of Android prior to Honeycomb, and has announced plans to do with Ice Cream Sandwich.
So, all pre-Honeycomb versions of Android are open source, and Ice Cream Sandwich will be open source, and Honeycomb is not and will not be open source.
There's quite a lot of excluded middle between the open development model (which you confuse here with "open source") and the OS manufacturer making their own exclusive hardware (both Microsoft's Windows CE/Mobile/Phone internal-development, closed-source, but rely on third-party hardware vendors approach, and Google's internal-development, open-source-most-of-the-time, work-with-a-network-of-vendors-that-actually-own-Android model are among the many possible models that are neither Apple's internal-closed-do-everything-yourself model or a pure open-development, open-source model.)
The Google/OHA model with Android appears reasonably successful in the real world, so I'm not really clear on what justification you think you have for arguing that if they aren't using the open-development, open-source model they should instead use Apple's model rather than the model they are currently using.
The version of Android which includes 3.0+ features but is designed to run on most devices that met the requirements for Android 2.x is 4.0.
Which Google has announced that they will release as open source.
So it sounds like you'll have that opportunity.
That's one thing some people release things as open source to gain, but its not the only reason people use open source, and its possible to use open source without that even being part of the motivation.
Some Google users are seen as customers, some aren't.
Its really easy to tell the difference: if you are paying Google for a service, you are a customer.
If you are part of the network that provides value to the people that are paying for service (which, contrary to something you say elsewhere in your post, isn't just advertisers, its also Android developers, paid App Engine users, and a number of other paid service users) you are a supplier of product.
Given the nature of Google's paid services, there is considerable overlap between their customers and their suppliers of product.