Comment I don't know anyone who is buying these. (Score 1) 193
Do you? I know plenty of people who use Apple products, but none of them want an Apple watch. I still prefer the old school stand alone (offline) Casio Data Bank 150/300 watch!
Do you? I know plenty of people who use Apple products, but none of them want an Apple watch. I still prefer the old school stand alone (offline) Casio Data Bank 150/300 watch!
What did the taxpayers get for the $1 billion per year above and beyond paying for actual launches?
Hmmm.... US military subsidizing nasa contractors that are also military suppliers to the tune of a billion bucks a year. Hmmm.... is that going to pay for rocket stuff.... or perhaps is there some "off the books" work going on?
If you are running a program which costs money or time, you should be considering whether it is worth running periodically regardless of whether it's a program to collect phone data or bringing donuts to the office. If you aren't revisiting that decision, you're doing your job badly.
Besides, I don't buy the line that Snowden "forced the agency's hand". I call bullshit. They could have done any number of things at that point: modify their program, reduce their program, or even eliminate it entirely. What they did instead was double down. That was THEIR decision, nobody else's. Trying to cast blame doesn't change that.
No. Within a narrowly defined market, money is just another type of 'goods' of which there's a vastly larger supply (and hence, a relatively stabler valuation)
You're not contradicting me here. You're reinforcing what I said.
GP confused inflation and deflation within a specific market, with how it is measured. My comment was about price point as an indicator. I did not mean that it was, by itself, inflation or deflation. I wasn't trying to "define" deflation.
In this context, M2 and M3 have very little relevance.
Camera camera camera. the benefits of surveilance are not a sufficient reason to overcome the pervasive invasiveness. pychologically were a private species.
It need not be invasive. It would be quite easy to construct a system that would automatically erase any footage the moment a plane successfully lands and docks at the airport.
The only footage that would be seen then, is when there is a real problem.
Reduction in prices is not deflation. Deflation is reduction in the money supply.
You are getting your contexts confused. Not my fault.
A market -- which is to say, the market for a particular good -- can be considered aside from the markets for other goods.
Within that market, "money supply" is mostly meaningless because money is considered to be a universal commodity. So deflation is measured by price point.
And in fact, all deflation can be measured by price point. Government economic advisers have been harping about the "dangers" of deflation for a long time... yet the money supply was never in any danger. So ask yourself why. I already gave you all the hints you need.
Here you go, you irritating character.
I know what CRI is, you pedantic twit. This doesn't address my comment at all, which was in reference to GP's vague statement about "light quality".
If GP had written CRI, then I (and everybody else) would have known what he meant.
Well, OK, so when should I expect that I can build a brochure site for a hotel that uses HTML5 videos and have one video format and one set of custom controls to work with? Because the world has moved on and Flash is no longer a viable option for this kind of work despite offering those advantages for many years, thanks to much the same browser developers who can't get their act together and actually provide a better replacement. They can't even manage to make the default "this is a video" overlay look the same, or even put it in roughly the same place so you can design placeholder graphics accordingly.
Please explain what this has to do with validation, which I thought was the topic under discussion?
But this brings us back to the original question from my first post in this thread: why? What objective advantage do you or your employer/client gain by insisting on such compliance?
Exactly what it is supposed to do: assurance that it will work as built across all major browsers.
Believe it or not, a majority of big-name sites are still using Flash, along with open-source JS players.
It seems to me you're complaining that using new features that aren't yet standardized, aren't yet standardized. I can sympathize with your frustration, but then if you don't like it, don't use them.
Browsers will never be "standardized" on the very latest features. That's not how it works. So if you don't want to get stuck, don't use the latest features. What else do you expect me to say?
Actually, that's exactly how a market economy works. Things get better and cheaper over time because of innovation and stiff competition. Or did you still spend $10,000 on a 40" flat screen TV this year, and hundreds of dollars for a 20MB disk drive? That must be frustrating for you.
Also, note: this feature of healthy markets is called "deflation" in that particular market. But... deflation is precisely the hated bugaboo of Obama and his crony Keynesian-interventionist-mainstream economists.
They hate success, if it doesn't include them.
What if we reverse the polarity of the graphene coating?
It sucks all the light out of other nearby fixtures.
Still not happy with the light quality, but
"Light quality" is so vague as to be meaningless. Not enough light? Don't like the color temperature? You get rainbows instead of "white" light? Photons moving too slow for your taste? What?
Yes, I was, and I respectfully disagree. Browsers today do a lot more, but frequently the support for newer features is so specific to each browser and in some cases so unstable that it is completely useless for real world projects
Correct. That's why you don't use newer features until they're absorbed by the standard.
But the point is that these non-standard-compliant implementation techniques don't break anything in practice, because every browser is tolerant of them and will always remain so because far too much would break otherwise.
What I meant was: if they don't validate. I didn't mean "break" in the sense that they don't work.
You may not care for the practice, but nothing leaves my hands into production until it validates, except when the stakeholder insists on using something that won't.
It is all in the TFA, folks, please read it from time to time.
I did read TFA, thanks very much. I was asking WHY her claims were rejected. We already knew THAT they were rejected.
Your comment adds nothing to the "why?"
2.4 statute miles of surgical tubing at Yale U. = 1 I.V.League