He tried to scrabble down a stairway and boom!
Did he at least get triple word score?
There are several problems with XML in this context though. For starters, writing anything based on XML by hand sucks. Not that TeX is perfect, but it is quite a bit more pleasant to write than XML.
Furthermore, XML based things like DocBook only solve a few - if any - of the issues outlined in the article, since they are only a way to describe content and structure. It is still up to whatever engine you use to convert things to PDF or another "reading" format. And this is also where these solutions fall short, since most of these engines are nowhere near as advanced as the TeX engines when it comes to generating actual documents. In fact, they are usually converted to HTML. I have yet to see an HTML engine that handles hyphenation, ligatures, justicfication and similar typesetting related topics anywhere close to what TeX engines do.
Something else mentioned in the article is programming within the document. This is an area where TeX really is not all that great, but at the same time it is yet another item where XML is worse. If you have ever done anything like XSLT you will know that simple if/then/else constructs can get very large very quickly. The solution in general seems to be to embed another language within your document - JavaScript being the obvious option there. However, as LuaTeX proves, that solution is really not exclusive to XML.
But according to quantum physics, matter does not exist unless it has been observed... it's all probability waves until observation takes place. If you extend this further, you could argue that before the beginning of the universe, there had to have been an observer who observed the big bang.
Except that quantum mechanics states no such thing. The term "to observe" in this context means "to interact with" and refers to the collapse of a wavefunction when two particles interact. There is no need for an external observer in this process. In addition, recent interpretations of quantum mechanics completely drop the concept of wavefunction collapse and state that everything can be in a superposition. Schrödinger's cat is actually a thought experiment that criticises wavefunction collapse and suggests superpositions can carry on to macroscopic scale.
Why don't animals today get bigger and bigger today? Well, they just haven't had that mutation again. In the case of homo sapiens, the species seems to already have a gene that makes it want to gang up and kill any member who looks different so such a mutation would hardly be viable.
It is not just a matter of not having that mutation, it is also a matter of having a completely different metabolism. All mammals are warm-blooded, which means we need energy to keep ourselves warm. The larger you are, the more energy you need to keep yourself warm. Needing more energy means needing to eat more and needing a larger area to sustain you. At some point, you will hit a limit where if you grow bigger, you can no longer sustain yourself. For our current environment, this seems to be around the size of an elephant for land animals.
QML is as close to JSON as it can be while still supporting all the features that are needed for the concept to work. I'm not sure in what way you would like for it to be closer to JSON? I suppose the most major difference is that where JSON is weak typed QML is stronger typed. Properties are pretty strong typed, whereas the included JavaScript in signal handlers and other places is (obviously) completely weak-typed. But even the stronger-typed properties are not as strongly typed as they would be in C++.
For example, objects use introspection to resolve functions, meaning that I can call any exposed method on that object. The same goes for properties on objects. Where the strong typing appears is when you want to assign something to that property - an object property will throw an error when you try to assign an int and vice versa. While I personally appreciate it, I believe this was mainly done to ease the integration between QML and C++, since it becomes easier to optimise method calls if you do not need to parse the type at every call.
Go ask the software and hardware vendors why they don't target Linux and they'll give you plenty of reasons. Hint: it's NOT market share. There are small software shops that LOVE writing apps for niche markets. But one of the biggest reasons they don't target Linux is that it's a moving target.
They'll release a package, only to have the next update kill it, and they'll get a flood of support calls (which cost them money). The answer from the Free Software Purists(tm) will inevitably be, "well, if you'd release everything and let us build from source, you wouldn't have that problem."
On the other hand, looking at it from the side of kernel development, why should kernel development be slowed to support the broken business model of existing companies?
In addition, there are also solutions to this problem, see things like DKMS and the NVidia drivers. Most of the time, switching kernel just requires a recompilation of the kernel module, which is exactly what DKMS handles. Heck, even the Catalyst driver usually deals fine with newer kernels, it is the X server that is the issue there. So this issue is mostly solved.
They're not going to do that. Whether it's right or wrong, that's just a fact and it's time to accept it. They're NOT GOING TO DO THAT. Instead, they'll just continue to target Windows or Mac or (nowadays) Android.
Android uses the Linux kernel. So you are saying that they do not target Linux yet they do?
The Dutch police doesn't even enter an house when there are two of them and they literally hear someone get tortured to death. I'm not making this up; this actually happened. The officers in front of the house could hear screams and moans and did absolutely nothing.
Yes because clearly, screams and moans can mean nothing other than someone being tortured to death. Here in Holland it is pretty reasonable not to assume the worst when you hear sounds like that, considering cases like those happen rarely enough. And would you honestly want the police to come knocking on your door whenever you're playing a movie just a little too loud?
On the positive side. If you manage to speed a little on the Dutch highways (you know, reckless driving where you dare to drive 85 - 86 km/hr instead of the allowed 80 km/hr) then chances are very high that you will get a speeding ticket. That's where the Dutch police truly excels.
So quite frankly, within this context this can hardly come as a surprise.
That is not really the fault of the police though, but the fault of those who say to them "you need to have X amount of tickets otherwise you don't get a bonus." Since catching a real criminal doesn't bring in any money but rather costs money, someone decided it is a far better idea to have the police fine you for speeding rather than catching that drug dealer living downtown. Not that I am happy with that, I think the entire idea of a minimum amount of fines is ridiculous.
Without life, Biology itself would be impossible.
