The 'n' stands for 'Not' and the 'o' stands for 'Only', so it's wrong to read it as NO SQL, it should be seen as Not Only SQL. I.o.w.: not a move away from sql, but exploring other options besides SQL

So, considering it's not entirely random, which browser is likely to land in the spot where most users will look first (in the middle) ?

As 5 choices are offered, in which order they are presented is not really that interesting. What's interesting is how users will pick their choice: if the vast majority will pick the 3rd one (middle) because they don't have time / want to read all the choices' options, it's more interesting which browser that will be.

Unfortunately, unless we know what kind of user patterns are likely, we can't really judge the numbers. For example if it was the most less likely that a user would pick the most right one from a set of 5 characters on screen, MS would put its biggest competitor there. And they don't see FF as their competitor, but google.

if you never use the same random number twice. Sorting fails because if two or more elements have the same 'random' number assigned to them, they won't switch places compared to the other elements compared to whatever numbers the rest has. This means that it's less optimal.

So calling sorting a non-optimal randomization technique isn't always valid: assigning unique random numbers to the elements does work.

I mean, he needs to block the HV correcting the tables, and presses a button to do that. But... that requires serious timing, as the call is made and directly after that he has to block the memory access with the pulse. To me this seems impossible to do, or he can start jamming the signal BEFORE the call is made, but that would potentially ruin the call in the first place.

Taking the risk of developing a new technology is thus incentivized because you can be assured that your product won't be ripped off and sold for cheap, preventing you from making any profit (or just breaking even) off of what could have been a potentially expensive period of R&D beforehand. That's why it makes sense to have patents

In theory that sounds great. In practice however, the competitor can rip your innovation easily by building it a bit different and patent that too (as it's not 'the same'). The result is 2 patents for practically the same thing. If more competitors do that, we end up with a lot of patents for the same thing and nightmares waiting to happen.

In theory the competitors have to license the technology patent by the inventor. In practice they don't want to pay and try to work around it. If by patenting your own 'slightly different' approach is possible, they'll do it.

So in practice what you said is not going to work. True, the inventor likely has more costs than the 'me-too' product producer but they won't gain it back because the competition won't license their tech.

As showing a nipple or add nudity to a game will definitely make it be rated A for adult only and thus not sellable.

For the people who think this footage is not something to argue about because it's a 'game', consider a game where you have to shove as much jews as possible in a gas chamber. Yes, horrific and the lowest possible taste possible, but it's for the sake of the argument: it's then too just 'a game', however people will (and rightfully so) be horrified and declare it unacceptable.

What I then wonder is: why is this 'a game' and 'fantasy', and another example 'unacceptable' ?

The problem is that anything can install such a listening service on XP making it instantly vulnerable. That XP SP2/3 isn't vulnerable by default is a 'mitigating factor' in MS Security bulletin lingo, not a reason not to patch.

I don't understand why they're dragging their feet, as sooner or later something installs a listening service (or the user already has such a service) and it's over.

I don't really care about speed, all browsers are pretty fast. The main issue I have with for example Opera is that it doesn't always render HTML correctly (even in 10 RTM), and sometimes hangs when you resize windows. I rather like a correctly rendered page which is done in 0.012ms than a badly rendered page which is rendered in 0.003ms

These issues are still not fixed in 10.0 RTM:

- VMWare server 2.0 interface doesn't render properly in 10.0: Select a VM and at the right you don't see any info appear.
- '#' local links are resolved after everything is loaded: e.g. http://my.opera.com/community/forums/topic.dml?id=277142&page=14#comment3054845 , this is slow, as all icons first have to be loaded before the local jump is made. This is annoying at forum sites
- On Windows XP, Checkbox in webpage isn't styled but looks like Windows 95 checkbox. This is particularly present here at /., where all checkbox controls are rendered as windows 95 checkboxes.
- Cookies set in javascript where the name has a ' ' in the name are not persisted.
- Sometimes a combobox is rendered as a windows 95 combobox instead of a Windows XP / themed combo box, e.g. when you set the options like: Pink
- In the default skin, on Windows XP, when you hover over the scrollbar at the right, the scrollbar is highlighted... pink
- Bittorrent client is really really slow compared to Vuse for example

ref: http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2007/09/ten-tips-for-slightly-less-awful-resume.html

I think you and your team should start focusing on developing software for the client you have to write the software for, i.o.w. back to square 1 of Software Engineering. You and your team seem to have moved yourselves into an organizational mess which takes more time to manage than the actual software development.

Mind you, your client doesn't give a hoot HOW you created the software, which language it is written in, or that you eat 1001 bags of blue M&Ms during the making, all they care about is if the software does what they need it to do. So you should go write that software, how is up to you, but if that 'how' process is actually taking more time and energy than the software itself, you should perhaps abandone that process you called 'agile' and go back to Common Sense Software Engineering principles, like defining what functionality should be implemented and actually DO that.

I would have upmodded you but I already replied elsewhere. I didn't know it was a kort geding, as indeed there it's very important to show up. TPB should really get a better lawyer. OTOH, they might get sued in a lot of countries, so it's for them undoable to visit each and every one of them to go to a court hearing, I think.

I don't believe Brein has a good case against ISPs as they're not involved in the lawsuit: if Brein orders them to block a certain site, they can simply say they (ISPs) aren't ordered to do so because the site has to block the NL visitors, not an ISP, it would otherwise come down to censorship for the entire population ordered by civil court, which can never happen, as Brein is a civil organisation.

But with dutch judges, one never knows...

- if they appear in The Netherlands, they can be arrested.

No that's not true, it's not a criminal charge, it was in civil court. You can only be arrested if you have committed a crime. If they're not paying, according to the court, and they appear in the netherlands, the court could order to confiscate their belongings till the sum they have to pay is fulfilled, but that's about it. So i.o.w.: it's likely they just don't give a toss about this ruling.

if they continue to not block the Dutch, then BREIN may have a case for Dutch -ISPs- to block TPB as alternative means of getting TPB blocked.

No, as BREIN isn't associated with the public ministry (Openbaar Ministery) which is the authority which sues people/legal identities in criminal court. BREIN is a civil organisation like any other company or foundation, and therefore has no authority to order anything from anyone. An ISP isn't involved in this (otherwise phone companies should also be held liable when a criminal tells a mate to commit a crime) and therefore can't be ordered to do anything.

The judge is clearly not aware of what internet is. This is common among judges btw. I also find it weird that a civil organisation can censor the internet (through civil court) for people who aren't involved in the lawsuite.

I recall bank secrecy, I recall flight information etc. And isn't it so that a US law is seen as 'valid' across the globe in the US? If not, how can it be that people who have never visited the US are demanded by the US to be brought to them for 'justice' because they violated a US law. ?

and I can't upgrade my Windows XP box to 7 because there's no upgrade path either. This means that I have to upgrade to vista first, and then to 7. Like I have nothing better to do.

The other thing is that on my core 2 quad with 2gb ram, I never really run into delays of switching between processes, windows XP feels snappy (and 'feeling snappy' is mostly a user interface trick anyway), as the major bottleneck of all things done on a system is the harddisk.

I.o.w.: upgrading to 7 (if it were possible) will not give me much better hardware usage anyway than win XP does now. And no, I hate the 7 taskbar (as I have to fight with hidden settings to get my beloved quicklaunch back and I hate the grouping of icons).