nooop

To hit the employee until he signs?

If the headline meant app compability, it would probably have been written like: "It is fully app compatible with iPhone OS 5.0"

Has this place become like zdnet or something like that?

I hate you! More seriously git is super easy to begin to use, and even more so for small projects and / or projects with a small number of contributors.

Setup? git init; git add . (if no unwanted binary in the tree) Something interesting has been done? git commit -am "rock more" New source file? git add file; git commit -m "new foobar module"

What value does it bring? Great revert capability, bisecting bugs, and so over. I agree most of the time I don't need it, but well, when I do it is handy. It is like being insured.

So this is incorrectly titled. This should be a "A Quiz About Integers in C on common x86 and x64 ABI."

Unfortunately this does not educate people to that kind of issues, which is very unfortunate.

> The WOW compatibility layer couldn't account for 700 MB.

I'm not that sure... Plus 64 bits binaries are probably something in the order of 10% bigger.

You can't just declare a speech insane without a good reason, especially if it more or less agrees with what you state just next...

Edit: although i don't know how to read (insane vs. inane), this does not fundamentally changes anything in context...

Yet you just made no argument for why his arguments are weak, while yours are: jobs create consumers and consumers create jobs, but in your equation absurdly rich people and increasing inequality does not seem to be needed...

It is even worth than that:

> “They’re not accepting answers that are mathematically correct,” Abbott notes, “and accepting answers that aren’t mathematically correct.”

The test just seems to be a retarded thing designed by a clueless bureaucrat.

Of course it was smarter. But that does not make Apple actions "refreshing".

What isn't clear in "promoting" the Services?

Google can broadcast TV ads with your private photos if they want to.

Yet, with those rights, Google are able to (worldwide) ; create derivative works, communicate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute such content.

I mean "publicly perform, publicly display and distribute such content", how on earth can you formulate that so broadly for a service intended to store private files??? And how after reading that can you qualify it as "Complete FUD"?

In depth analysis are interesting and everybody here understand that google is not going to be THAT evil in the short term, but the fact this _is_ formulated like that is very interesting and not fud at all.

> 35day/year vacations (not to mention the ~20 days of public holidays. Yay France!)

I wish it was true; but you are just bullshitting.

Walmart is not a monopoly (and even more not a monopoly by design that will never be anything else).

Cygwin has a built-in utf-8 terminal that I find quite descent. (Only for some months, it did not have it before.)

By your very own definition, "In theory" means "we have a model that makes good predictions in some circumstances."

If I let "some circumstances" be "non critical use with no attacker" and the model be "very very very very very very very very very very very very very low probability of collision when applied on pre-existing files", I don't see any problem.

The problem is that you were commenting the article using an absurdly geek point of view, interpreting each sentence as it had a very strict mathematical meaning.

In the real world, peoples sometime do misuse the language a little with the resulting sentences being easier to understand for everybody. That is generally not a call for a smart people to point out that when translated word by word (i.e. when poorly translated) using quantifiers, the statement is mathematically false. Especially when everybody on earth understand that use of "in theory" in the first place.

If Jeff wanted to make a mathematical article, he probably had written mathematical statements in the first place.

If every time you see the world "theory" you are feeling you should correct the one using it by telling him about corner cases he very probably already knows about their existence in the first place, you will loose a lot of time for a lot of non-constructive comments.

If people are willing to give up their privacy to use facebook and find value in using facebook, i'm fine with that and i won't enter a jihad to make them stop using facebook, although when i can i try to make sure they are a minimum informed about what they are giving up (while trying not to be too insistent, just providing information).

As for you can roll your own facebook, this is absolutely false. Facebook tries to get the whole planet registering with them, and don't have and probably will never have a protocol letting a fully featured "facebook bis" integrate with them (except maybe if legally bound to).

e-mail is a completely distributed service. People using gmail are not segregated from the others.

Now I'm also not pretending that facebook is evil for all that. I was initially reacting at your comparison between facebook and e-mail, which made little sense.

Principle 0: use 72 points fonts.

email is not a private company looking for using you as their product.

It does not allow infinite string compression, because you obviously have to store the original data. For hashes of good length and quality, the theory stands. I would even use MD5 and say the theory stands for non-critical every day uses given there is no attacker.

I would not call "a hash that has no need whatsoever to be tamper-proof and cares only about speed" a checksum. You don't use checksums to create a hash table. Now some checksum would be suitable for that use, but not all. So let's continue to call a hash a hash.

He won't stop viruses, but will those viruses be made illegal in UE?

> if you are comfortable with returning tuples, perhaps the inputs should be a tuple as well...

why should they?

Look at all the horror stories of badly written programs or moronic CEO or things like that.

The other parts of the world are fucked up as well. There are probably a lot of "secure" lotteries, but there are probably also a lot of insecure ones.

In france some lotteries are broken since forever [1], "everybody" knows it, and nobody cares. Friends of bar tenants gets the gains. "La française des jeux" get the overall gains. The general public is generally fucked more than it should.

[1] tickets are not random but comes in batch with nearly constant amount of various outcomes: the seller, who you tipically ask for your gain, can take note of what happened in each batch and predict if its remaining part is worth being buyed by a friend. Very easy.

Small SMD are tricky to solder by hand, especially when nearby component are so close, but it is not impossible.

Now mounting a BGA without a largely automatic machine would be stupid for high volumes (and even for very small one, and maybe even for unitary prototypes), and in this case it would also be stupid to not pick and place all SMD.

Indeed even with very low wages, it would probably be stupid to mount a board manually except for very low volumes and very small boards. Mouting a small SMD can be done quickly with practice, but you are amazed when you count the amount there is (try on an iphone photo or on a random motherboard)

"This is now just running the web directly."

This makes absolutely no sense. This is borderline an insult to system developers -- because system software is what the device is running directly.

I'm all for people to state a bit of sensationalist statements so they can sell there shit and be understood by the general public and so over, but this is going way too far. Being proud of an intrinsically limited product (this is a linux that runs only one program by design, so this is less capable than an android or whatever) for the improvements it can brings as side effects is one thing, but a statement like "this is running the web directly" is misleading because it will be understood as the real stuff by less knowledgeable people who will believe in some kind of incredibly innovative magic, like a magical processor "running the web" or i don't know what idiotic fantasm, instead of taking the thing for what it is: a system that can do less, with maybe some advantages as a side effects, but of course some inconveniences too.

Probably some of the "top 1% person in the US [that] gets $384k/year" do not get it only because of being highly qualified and hard working...

It is good to have highly paid nurses if it correlates with other good factors, else it is good for nurses but pointless for the general public, or even bad if it means the latter is being ripped off and the costs are absurdly high compared to other countries.

> but due to her age, she was not eligible in France

I call bullshit on that. Due to general condition maybe, but if you are in great shape except on one risky point and the risk of treatment seems acceptable you are not going to be refused treatment because you are too old.