The Internet Archive discovers and captures web pages through many different web crawls.
At any given time several distinct crawls are running, some for months, and some every day or longer.
View the web archive through the Wayback Machine.
I doubt it ever will. The reason why I use JSON is because it's a very simple data format; when I need more expressive and structured data interchange I always fallback on XML+XSD+XSLT - something JSON will probably never catch up with (because that already exists and why make JSON needlessly complex in order to handle what that kind of stack does?).
I think web developers get caught up in bashing XML a lot for no good reason - just because it isn't directly applicable to a simple RESTful API doesn't mean it isn't incredibly useful, it's meant for machines anyway!
"HTML5, rumored as Flash killer, is a brand new web technology that raises a revolution lead by Apple in web application development."
Sorry, I can't really take this seriously after that. And as there's no definition of "an HTML5 powered app" I probably couldn't have done previous to it either. There are some nice apps here, sure, but I'm not sure what value this has over any other list of "cool web apps". Indeed, it's less valuable due to the misinformation.
The US is trying to make that transition. The bill passed the Senate, and Committee in the House, and goes to a full House vote in June 2011. But it will likely be difficult for the two bills to match and be agreed upon because of all the other crap in the bill which has good stuff and bad (much like the overwrought SBIR reauthorization bill that can never seem to pass and it just extended ad infinitum).
I like the "first to file" idea, but it puts the small inventor at a disadvantage. The main benefit is that it will hopefully lubricate university tech transfer offices. No more "oh I'll put in a disclosure and wait and see, I'm safe." it'll incentivize the inventors to file a provisional as soon as possible. But of you're building (or hacking) something in your garage you'd better get a patent attorney quick. And be patient, because response times on a first-to-file system will be horribly slow even compared to today's glacial system.
A friend of mine once did the calculus to create his own juggling ball pattern. What he found is that there are all sorts of factors (like the changing stretchiness of the cloth versus direction and details of doing the stitches) that were too hard to calculate, which left lots of room for engineering. (Making a lot of examples, and tweaking the design.)
>You know what's funny? I think this is exactly what the author would call a "stupid" remark - it's meant to say something nasty about the person you're replying to, and you don't even gain from it!
Or it's meant to point out something that I, at least, happen to agree with. Reveling in identifying stupidity tends to obscure that we're all stupid at one point or another. Besides, it's not all too difficult to turn this around on you; you just called him stupid for no gain of your own.
>You see, the irony here is that the author isn't actually talking about stupidity and intelligence. He's actually talking about people who engage in lose/win, win/win, lose/lose, or win/lose behavior.
Then he shouldn't use those terms over and over again in such a misleading fashion.
All of your post--which is essentially a smokescreen--fails to address the salient accusation, which is that applying mathy and logic-y terms to a discussion of stupidity doesn't quite ameliorate the distasteful sense that, in reading/enjoying the article, we're gloating.
UK law provides taxpayer backed guarantees to a fixed balance per saver per bank; if NR had been allowed to collapse the UK taxpayer would've been on the hook for that amount.
And I agree that bankrupticies must be possible and are a good thing for businesses as a whole; Too Big To Fail explicitly works against this. NR was big enough regioinally that it'd have caused major economic damage to that (already fragile) region had it been allowed to go down.
Branches and tags are just "Stick-it-notes" you attach to the DAG. They can be removed around at whim, but they only serve to mark a point in the DAG for your convenience. The GC process will kill parts of the DAG with no such branch/tag, but it only happens after some days by default.
Were git able to rewrite history, it couldn't use SHA1 checksums as names for the content. Note that a rebase alters the SHA1 stack you have, so it is regarded as something different. But you can't do that easily with published stuff as it would render further work impossible.
Fast forward is the recognition that a stick-it-note can be moved linearly ahead.
You won't be rewriting history, you will be writing new history and then forget about the old. But it is still there should accidents happen.
Maybe I'm just an optimist, but it didn't actually seem to me like he was trying to say anything nasty about you. I thought he was just joking/reflecting on the universal appeal of the article--it's well-written and accessible, so it would make most readers feel smart, and everyone likes feeling smart.
No, it's true, but iOS 4 has been out for almost a year, and is available for almost all devices (and required on the iPhone 4 and newer). I think the downvotes might be because it's just not important information anymore, almost everyone is on iOS 4.0 or later.
Yes, math can improve almost anything, but you can do an acceptable job at McD with no math knowledge.
The optimally suboptimal queueing at that one place was not acceptable! Still, as my ex demonstrated, you can manage the same optimality at that job just be being observant and using common sense. The human brain is a pretty powerful general optimizer. Math is most useful in situations where data is not so accessible to a casual observer. The problem in those situations, is that the optimization itself then becomes harder to observe/explain/comprehend. There is a similar problem in large enterprises with automated testing and refactoring.
Still, it's a McD job, and if you had learnt some math then you could have found something a lot better.
Well, in Homer Alaska at the time, from my vantage point, it would've been some more machismo so the right person would give me a job as a forklift driver, some cooking experience, so I could get a job doing that, or maybe some more muscle -- all those would've done a lot more to get me a higher paying job than math.
You seem to be suggesting that the world would be better off if this article didn't exist. I'm interested to know why, because I found it mostly funny and a little thought-provoking. I didn't get the impression that the author claims his work has been subjected to any degree of scientific rigor, nor that he thinks people ought to be idolizing or congratulating him for sharing it. It's just kind of out there, for each reader to make whatever they want of it.
Also, what exactly do you mean by "parody"? I thought he was clearly poking fun at the world at large, but didn't get the sense that there was any particular other work which he was lampooning.
all of those resulted in awful outcomes to go with the good.
political problems don't get "solved". differing groups get pushed around around over time. the overall amount of pushiness monotonically increases.
Funny passage from the article: "Not that Dini shows much respect for his invention. His brother Ricardo is a talented mechanical engineer who also works on the project and proposed some of its defining features – the single armature for example. Today though he is beating recalcitrant parts of it with a hammer. Enrico refers to a pin system for calibrating the height of the frame as ‘this fucking device’"
I've long thought that there are too few hackers and too many CS students. Nobody can merely just educate people to turn them into hacker programmers but you can give some support in that regard.
First, set the bar high enough in universities/colleges that only people who have that magical natural programmer aptitude and lots of spare time programming experience can make it. Limit investing the precious university resources to that level and above only. This prevents academic CS education from being dragged down and dumbed down because they have to shovel nearly anyone who got accepted through the system.
Then, supplement those who wish to become the CS students but who lack the necessary mind and experience with training courses that begin from zero. These can be private courses or public education available in some other, non-academic institution. If it turns out that, given some experience, some of the trainees actually have the right aptitude then they can collect more experience and eventually apply to the university/college like the rest of the hackers.