It occurs to me that you could even have a REALLY public email address that passed through gmail's filters properly.
The problem I have in mind is that I participate in (not just lurk on) several mailing lists. When I post, my email address is out there for spammers to find, eventually: gmane.org, among others, is a great place to harvest emails. What can I do about this? I actually want to get email on that address (the list itself) but I don't want spam to get through.
The solution:
- implement the post I just made, above.
- Sign up on the mailing list as xant+mailinglist@gmail.com (you may want to get more specific about which mailing list, but it's not really necessary)
- Set gmail to keep (or label and move) email matching To:xant+mailinglist@gmail.com AND From:(the real mailing list address)
- Set gmail to spambucket To:xant+mailinglist@gmail.com that isn't from the real mailing list.
True, it's possible to for a spammer to forge the From address, but that doesn't seem to happen very often. At least, in the lists where I participate.
Very nearly the most serious (and, probably, one of the most common) problems you can have with a server is loss of network connectivity, or problems with network connectivity, which would make streaming sound less useful.
On the other hand, if your stream was continuous (like yours, evidently) you would know something was wrong not by the noise but by the silence.
Who the heck sits in the same room with their servers? How would you even hear the sound over all those fans, anyway? This is only useful if the music penetrates the network and comes out on your desktop somewhere.
Well, if you're talking about memory leaks, then you're right. The thing is, 95% of the problem in Firefox does not fit that definition of memory leak. It's not un-freed memory, it's referenced objects.
1) Lots of the leak problems are caused by extensions, which are written in a memory-managed language called Javascript.
2) Much of the core leak problem is caused by a performance feature in Firefox which causes it to hold references to objects longer than the user thinks is needed.
Bottom line is no higher-level language would resolve either of these things. The browser code says to hold on to objects, so it does. The addon code permits extensions to create objects in memory and hold on to them, so they do.
Memory managed languages do not prevent programmers from writing code that holds on to objects in memory on purpose.
You've missed the point. I am not saying numbers should mean different things based on context. I'm saying this is the real world, and that's how it works in the real world. If you don't like it, come up with a better solution.
I'm not an expert in the subject, but if what you say is true doesn't that mean adult stem cells can only be used in applications where linear, rather than geometric tissue growth is an acceptable speed? Which means only very, very small structures. If I wanted to repair, say, a million damaged spinal cord cells I'd need to wait for a a million stem cell divisions, no? That would take a very long time.
I am honestly speaking from ignorance here so please correct me if I'm wrong. I always thought geometric growth rates were part of the solution.
You got modded funny but I honestly can't tell. I'll answer as if you're being serious.:-)
Words mean different things depending on context. Period. Nothing you can do about it.
If you want no ambiguity, you also have to provide a linguistic standard that people will like enough to actually use.
How about "1024 bytes", if that's what you mean. I think I could calculate the exact number of bytes in 2**20 bytes faster than I could remember how to pronounce the SI abbreviation.
Not to mention TV ratings, which aren't even enforceable without one of those awful chips, and which still require *parents*, not officers of the law, to carry out the enforcement.
I suspect this will not entirely peter off once the news of the acquisition fades into memory, because YouTube.com will be a popular site for a very long time to come. "uTube.com" is a fine alternate domain name for the video site.
Google should offer them a bunch of money for "uTube.com", because it has value to Google, but it is a pure liability for the pipe sellers.
Is this libel? Sounds like it. I haven't seen it, didn't find a link, but from the description we've got untruth in writing or broadcast, tending to bring the target into ridicule/hatred, etc., all that.
Is it still libel on the Internet? The Internet makes it much easier to publish stuff for a wide audience, but you're still doing that, however easy it may be.
Are parents responsible for the acts of their children? Yes. In civil cases, and in many criminal cases, the parents can be held responsible.
Is this going to bring a "chilling effect"? I think the only thing it's going to chill is people publishing hurtful lies about other people online. I have no problem with that. The only thing new here is that minors have greater access to the eyeballs of the public at large than they did before.
1) Pre-IE7 versions of IE do not support transparent PNG without hacks. The hacks are not terribly difficult to implement, but if you don't like hacks, and you need transparent images, you might use GIF. OTOH, you might not: GIF only supports on/off transparency. That means a pixel is either completely transparent or completely opaque. Lots of things like soft shadows only look right with the alpha transparency of PNG. This argument will gradually fade away as IE7 gains widespread adoption. It isn't much of a reason today.
2) GIF supports animation, PNG does not support animation. The other standard, MNG, does, but it has very little browser support. Firefox doesn't even support it out of the box. OTOH, animating an 8-bit image is not considered the height of cool any more; you're probably going to use Flash if you want graphics that move. Again, not much of a reason today.
Conclusion: If you're designing a new website, you probably have no reason to use GIF at all. If any of the above reasons apply to your existing website, it's probably time for a site redesign, eh? Nevertheless, there they are.
Notably absent from these pages are the words "in the United States". This list would be a hell of a lot longer if we included books banned by, for example, Nazi Germany. (Uh oh, I feel a Godwin coming on.)
I realize Google is based in the US and this isn't necessarily even an accusation of USA-centrism (why would I even object? I'm a US citizen myself..) but it is a factual omission that seems important considering this will be seen by Google's hundreds of millions of users all over the world.
Please try again. Your definition of art needs revision. Everybody thinks they can do better than philosophers who've been debating this since the dawn of civilization (and, likely, before).
The new UI will lead to accidental tab closing. If you left click and are off a few pixels (particularly when lots of tabs are visible), you'll accidentally close the tab. Even if this happens rarely, it will be infuriating when it does happen.
All so users don't have to learn the middle click idiom? What the hell is UI design coming to?
Slashdot Mirror
I think you mean: 74 megafeet.
It occurs to me that you could even have a REALLY public email address that passed through gmail's filters properly.
The problem I have in mind is that I participate in (not just lurk on) several mailing lists. When I post, my email address is out there for spammers to find, eventually: gmane.org, among others, is a great place to harvest emails. What can I do about this? I actually want to get email on that address (the list itself) but I don't want spam to get through.
The solution:
- implement the post I just made, above.
- Sign up on the mailing list as xant+mailinglist@gmail.com (you may want to get more specific about which mailing list, but it's not really necessary)
- Set gmail to keep (or label and move) email matching To:xant+mailinglist@gmail.com AND From:(the real mailing list address)
- Set gmail to spambucket To:xant+mailinglist@gmail.com that isn't from the real mailing list.
True, it's possible to for a spammer to forge the From address, but that doesn't seem to happen very often. At least, in the lists where I participate.
Gmail lets you filter on basically anything you want. To implement the GP's suggestion, you would:
Give out your "real people" email address as xant+hello@gmail.com
Give out your "websites" email address as xant+thinkgeek_is_a_damn_spammer@gmail.com (for example)
Set gmail to allow xant+hello to pass through the Inbox.
Set gmail to drop xant@gmail.com and xant+*@gmail.com into the spambox.
Thank you for your compelling and well-argued thesis, titled "Some People Exaggerate." Wow.
Very nearly the most serious (and, probably, one of the most common) problems you can have with a server is loss of network connectivity, or problems with network connectivity, which would make streaming sound less useful.
On the other hand, if your stream was continuous (like yours, evidently) you would know something was wrong not by the noise but by the silence.
I like it.
Who the heck sits in the same room with their servers? How would you even hear the sound over all those fans, anyway? This is only useful if the music penetrates the network and comes out on your desktop somewhere.
They should do it the right way, and go straight to the source.
There's no substitute for a face-to-face with a dirty cheater.
Well, if you're talking about memory leaks, then you're right. The thing is, 95% of the problem in Firefox does not fit that definition of memory leak. It's not un-freed memory, it's referenced objects.
FF is written mostly in C++, not C. That aside:
1) Lots of the leak problems are caused by extensions, which are written in a memory-managed language called Javascript.
2) Much of the core leak problem is caused by a performance feature in Firefox which causes it to hold references to objects longer than the user thinks is needed.
Bottom line is no higher-level language would resolve either of these things. The browser code says to hold on to objects, so it does. The addon code permits extensions to create objects in memory and hold on to them, so they do.
Memory managed languages do not prevent programmers from writing code that holds on to objects in memory on purpose.
You've missed the point. I am not saying numbers should mean different things based on context. I'm saying this is the real world, and that's how it works in the real world. If you don't like it, come up with a better solution.
BTW:
10 (base 10) = 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1
10 (base 16) = 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1
Knowing the context is pretty important, I'd say.
I'm not an expert in the subject, but if what you say is true doesn't that mean adult stem cells can only be used in applications where linear, rather than geometric tissue growth is an acceptable speed? Which means only very, very small structures. If I wanted to repair, say, a million damaged spinal cord cells I'd need to wait for a a million stem cell divisions, no? That would take a very long time.
I am honestly speaking from ignorance here so please correct me if I'm wrong. I always thought geometric growth rates were part of the solution.
You got modded funny but I honestly can't tell. I'll answer as if you're being serious. :-)
Words mean different things depending on context. Period. Nothing you can do about it.
If you want no ambiguity, you also have to provide a linguistic standard that people will like enough to actually use.
How about "1024 bytes", if that's what you mean. I think I could calculate the exact number of bytes in 2**20 bytes faster than I could remember how to pronounce the SI abbreviation.
What does XPS do better than PDF? Can you link to a list of features or, better yet, a feature comparison?
Not to mention TV ratings, which aren't even enforceable without one of those awful chips, and which still require *parents*, not officers of the law, to carry out the enforcement.
Check out Freenigma.
;-)
No need to thank me, it was a Slashdot post that tipped me off.
I suspect this will not entirely peter off once the news of the acquisition fades into memory, because YouTube.com will be a popular site for a very long time to come. "uTube.com" is a fine alternate domain name for the video site.
Google should offer them a bunch of money for "uTube.com", because it has value to Google, but it is a pure liability for the pipe sellers.
Is this libel? Sounds like it. I haven't seen it, didn't find a link, but from the description we've got untruth in writing or broadcast, tending to bring the target into ridicule/hatred, etc., all that.
Is it still libel on the Internet? The Internet makes it much easier to publish stuff for a wide audience, but you're still doing that, however easy it may be.
Are parents responsible for the acts of their children? Yes. In civil cases, and in many criminal cases, the parents can be held responsible.
Is this going to bring a "chilling effect"? I think the only thing it's going to chill is people publishing hurtful lies about other people online. I have no problem with that. The only thing new here is that minors have greater access to the eyeballs of the public at large than they did before.
1) Pre-IE7 versions of IE do not support transparent PNG without hacks. The hacks are not terribly difficult to implement, but if you don't like hacks, and you need transparent images, you might use GIF. OTOH, you might not: GIF only supports on/off transparency. That means a pixel is either completely transparent or completely opaque. Lots of things like soft shadows only look right with the alpha transparency of PNG. This argument will gradually fade away as IE7 gains widespread adoption. It isn't much of a reason today.
2) GIF supports animation, PNG does not support animation. The other standard, MNG, does, but it has very little browser support. Firefox doesn't even support it out of the box. OTOH, animating an 8-bit image is not considered the height of cool any more; you're probably going to use Flash if you want graphics that move. Again, not much of a reason today.
Conclusion: If you're designing a new website, you probably have no reason to use GIF at all. If any of the above reasons apply to your existing website, it's probably time for a site redesign, eh? Nevertheless, there they are.
They had it in freeze frame onscreen for a while. Eventually their eyes wandered.
> I seem to recall shredding my hand on some sports game which needed a fast back-and-forth operation.
That would be Activision's Decathlon. The 1500-meter dash is probably a contributing factor in many of today's carpal tunnel sufferers.
Patent lawyer, no less. The kind of person who makes sure to cram as many patents into the system as fast as possible, regardless of their worth.
Notably absent from these pages are the words "in the United States". This list would be a hell of a lot longer if we included books banned by, for example, Nazi Germany. (Uh oh, I feel a Godwin coming on.)
I realize Google is based in the US and this isn't necessarily even an accusation of USA-centrism (why would I even object? I'm a US citizen myself..) but it is a factual omission that seems important considering this will be seen by Google's hundreds of millions of users all over the world.
Inspiring, useless, YET not art: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half_Dome
Inspiring, useFUL, YET clearly art: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallingwater
Please try again. Your definition of art needs revision. Everybody thinks they can do better than philosophers who've been debating this since the dawn of civilization (and, likely, before).
The new UI will lead to accidental tab closing. If you left click and are off a few pixels (particularly when lots of tabs are visible), you'll accidentally close the tab. Even if this happens rarely, it will be infuriating when it does happen.
All so users don't have to learn the middle click idiom? What the hell is UI design coming to?
I've got it--"prostitution".
Oh wait, that's the word for the news agencies that allow this stuff to penetrate.
So to speak.