Not the first place I'd start looking. Nuff said. (Heck... there's probably more porn producers in Montreal than porn virgins.)
Disclaimer:
Most of the Live services, especially Hotmail.
For instance, take trying to download a movie from Sony's PS3 store. You'll only ever make that mistake once. You could have a 10 petabyte internet connection and it would still take you 16 hours to download a TV episode from them because they won't send you the file at anywhere near a reasonable speed.
You must have a different PS3 store than the one I use. Mine gets me a 30 minute TV episode in about 10 minutes, max. And I can start watching it as soon as I start downloading it. Very nice.
A good point, except what you mean is that New York has the "gall", as in bile. Just trying to keep things humorous.
Except for Jefferson it would have been six or seven old men that run the country.
His phrasing was "They can already turn off the internet at-will," and then he described a proposed bill. How is it correct to say that someone already has a power that might be granted to them in the future?
A proposed bill doesn't give anybody the power to do anything except debate the bill in Congress. You might need to watch this again.
Even somewhat technical people fail to realize this frequently.
Do you have some kind of number that would describe exactly how frequently?
The more digits that prime numbers have, the further apart adjacent primes are.
That's not actually true. As numbers get larger you'll get longer composite runs, but you'll still find prime constellations between some of those runs. If what you say was true, the twin prime conjecture would be closed with a "Myth: BUSTED!" sticker on it, instead of open with overwhelming evidence in its favor.
Good catch. The other thought that occurs to me now is that the rule could have simply been "if specifying a port number, you must also specify the protocol." Now there's no ambiguity in any case.
It should also be noted that in the alternate universe where URLs look like http:example.com:80/whatever, we'd be having this conversation on colondot.org. That alone is reason enough not to have done things this way.
No, your example just showed that you'd need to remove the
1. Are there two ':' in the URL? Then you have protocol:host:port.
2. Are there zero ':' in the URL? Then you have host, assume protocol and port from context (like your web browser does now).
3. Is there one ':' in the URL?
3a. Is the string in front of ':' a known protocol name? Then you have protocol:host.
3b. It's not? Then you have host:port, assume protocol from context.
See how easy that was? Furthermore, you're basing your entire argument on the way things work now, not the way they worked at the time. Sir Tim could have come up with any system he wanted, as evidenced by the fact that he did come up with an arbitrary system in the form of two slashes.
It looks like someone messed up the summary. I'm pretty sure it should be:
Peengdum und Netvurk Vurld ere-a repurteeng thet zee SE tld drupped ooffff zee internet yesterdey dooe-a tu a boog in zee screept thet generetes zee SE zune-a feele-a. Zee SE tld hes cluse-a tu oone-a meelliun dumeeens thet ell vent doon dooe-a tu meessing zee treeeling dut in zee SE zune-a feele-a. Sume-a cecheeng nemeserfers mey steell be-a retoorneeng infeleed DNS respunses fur 24 huoors.
As long as none of your references are named Guido, you should be fine.
I guess Python isn't used much in the gambling industry.
Can't troll in daylight.
Was it ever supposed to be anything more than that?
It's later than you think, the joint Russian-American space mission has already begun.
