Because it's using XML to try to help an app that doesn't understand the new element to figure out what to do with it, rather than just ignore it (as happens by default under XML, as you pointed out).

I don't expect anything past today. Statistics don't apply to individuals. (Yeah, in the statistical sense, I expect 80-100, but in the normal usage of the word, "If the Lord wills, we will live and also do this or that" seems like the right attitude. The quote is from James, though I forget the exact verse.)

Why have such an attitude? Because I recognize that I'm not immune to car crashes, cancer, random crime, and all the rest. Bad stuff doesn't just happen to other people.

And even if I don't die early, others around me may. "When... the flowers are laid on the grave, will the tears that fall to the ground be the tears of regret for the words that we did not say?" - Steven Curtis Chapman

So don't wait. Plan ahead, sure, don't be stupid. But also make today count.

Thanks. I was running from memory, so it was plausible that I had it badly wrong. Nice to have my memory confirmed.

IANAL. Having gotten that standard disclaimer out of the way, here's how I understand it. Jacobsen v. Katzer was a blatant, deliberate ripoff of open source code, followed (IIRC) by suing the original author for using his own code that the thief had claimed after stealing it. Said thief claimed that the open source license didn't mean anything, so that the thief's claim on the code was the only real one. Said thief lost the case. Now, I may have some of the foregoing details wrong. Don't take that as the gospel about what happened. But the point is, this case doesn't have much to do with accidental infringement. So let's take a specific example. Let's say open source project X unwittingly gets some code in it that is actually owned by company Y. Let's say that you, company Z, are using this code in a widget that you have shipped a large number (N) of. Now company Y is raising a stink. Do you have to either pay company Y for the use of their code or update all of your widgets in the field? Yes, unless company Y decides to be nice. (Note, however, that this is no different than a situation that Microsoft found itself in a few years back, so it's no different because the code was open source.) Are you liable for some large number of dollars times N to penalize you for stealing company Y's code? Probably not, unless your lawyers do a lousy job. You did it in innocence, which is completely different than the facts of this case.

Would we be screaming if it was Microsoft who did this, rather than Google? Yeah, we would be screaming, and rightly so. We'd be worried about Microsoft attempting to create an MS-only ghetto that they lock people into (though it's harder to see how they could do so with a subset, rather than with extensions like they tried last time). We should subject MS to extra scrutiny - they have certainly earned it. But that doesn't mean that Google gets a pass. I know their motto is "Don't be evil", but that doesn't mean that they will live up to it forever.

A search and seizure warrant for all servers in the datacenter, no matter what company owns them? Either they exceeded the scope of the warrant, or it's a horribly over-broad warrant. Either way, that's not "reasonable" search. It's still a violation of due process - what due process is supposed to mean, that they can't just take people's stuff on a whim.

... and the memory fades with age. But I seem to remember a time when this was a free country, with due process of law and such.

The fine article says that this results limits the number of possible quarks. Can someone give an explanation (or even the outline of one) at a level that someone with a B.S. in physics can understand?

... because the domain probably didn't end in .gov It's supposed to be a parking ticket, right? But http://www.some.plausible.domain.name.com/ should be a red flag, just because of the .com

We just had the Super Bowl. People payed 2.4 million dollars to air one 30-second-long commercial.

Were they stupid? Or did they actually know what they were doing? Can they really make a difference in people's behavior in 30 seconds of passive viewing?

My belief is that the advertisers are not stupid - that it actually pays. But if so, arguing that all the sex and violence on TV - or in video games - has no effect, when people are exposed to hours and hours of it, seems rather naive. 30 seconds of a commercial changes people's behavior, but hours and hours of program don't? I'm sceptical...

Look, I'm not supporting Jack Thompson here. As far as I can tell, he's an obsessive jerk who is happy to stretch the truth beyond all recognition to try to advance his crusade. I don't want anything to do with him. And yet, his basic premise - that video games can change people's behavior in negative ways - seems to me to be completely reasonable. More than that, it seems to be supported by the actions of the advertisers, who bet millions of dollars that they can change our behavior via what we watch.

After you turn off the main breaker, put a padlock on it. This prevents anyone who "wants to be helpful" or "knows what they're doing" from turning your main breaker back on.

Also note that your house probably has two phases. With this approach, you probably need to wire them together. If you do this in the house breaker box, do it before you connect your alternate power. Note well: Anything that depends on 220 V power is unusable with this approach. That may well include the high settings on an electric range.

We did this for three days in a winter storm when I was a kid (neighbors were on the corner and had power up a different street; they ran us an extension cord). These tips I learned from watching what my dad did.

Sorry, you still fail. First: Good doesn't equal best. Granted. But, to review, you picked on one word and criticized my ability to read for content. In doing so, you showed a failure of your own to read for content. I pointed this out. You ignore that and criticize one word. Fine. I concede you the ticky-tacky point about the one word. Enjoy your resounding victory. Second: Your experience exceeds mine, though not by too much. And, I'll totally grant you that sometimes languages (and other tools) get chosen for stupid reasons. But it's still rather arrogant for you to assume that everyone making such choices is either less experienced or less wise than you. Your experience may let you see that a different tool would be a good fit for your project. You might even be right (after factoring in availability/cost of experienced programmers in less-popular languages, maintainability, and other such considerations that often are ignored by language zealots). You might be right - for your project. But you're calling a lot of people idiots (yeah, my word, not yours), and a fair number of them have as much experience as you, or even more. In short: It's still arrogance. For all your experience, don't assume that everyone else is ignorant.

You said that Perl, C++, and Java "suck the most", and that Lisp and Smalltalk are "good languages". You then quibble with my use of the word "best" as failure to read for content. Try reading my post for content before you get too critical. My point was your arrogance, which you display again in your reply. Yeah, you know better than all the rest of us working programmers out there, we're just stupid sheep for picking such lousy languages, and you know so much better than us which languages are good. "What makes a programming language popular involves a lot of things that have nothing to do with the quality of the language itself." Here you have to do one of two things. Either you assume that we are all idiots for working with bad tools, or else you have to define "the quality of the language itself" as meaning something other than its usability for producing actual working programs in the real world. Both positions are elitist and arrogant.

Yeah, you know which languages are best. What a pity that 99% of working programmers are too stupid to see the light and move to a good language.

Or is it just possible that they're right and you don't see the whole picture?