Yeah but how many wand charges does it take to engrave your pet's name? Huh?
That's why I always name my pet Elbereth...
Personally I have no opinion about HTTP/2, but I have to say that this anonymous hit piece looks a lot like some IETF participant who didn't like how the process came out trying to create the appearance of consensus against it by pumping up the anger of the interwebs without actually saying what's wrong with the spec. When I see people making statements not supported by explanations as to why we might want to consider them correct, my tendency is to assume that it's hot air trying to bypass the consensus process.
It's also a bit annoying to see the IETF accused of having published a document advocating snooping when in fact someone floated that idea in the IETF and it was shot down in flames, and what we actually published was a document stating that snooping is to be considered an attack and addressed in all new IETF protocol specifications (RFC 7258).
What "anonymous hit piece"? Second link in the fine summary has a clear byline, Poul-Henning Kamp.
From the article:
HTTP/2.0 is not a technical masterpiece. It has layering violations, inconsistencies, needless complexity, bad compromises, misses a lot of ripe opportunities, etc. I would flunk students in my (hypothetical) protocol design class if they submitted it. HTTP/2.0 also does not improve your privacy.
I too would like more details, but I doubt he's just blowing smoke here.
At some point the earth will stop spinning.
The one who will build a forecast model will know which side of the earth will be
Appropriate investment decisions can be made to purchase a land in the twilight zone, where is not too hot and not too cold.
Some sources say, that earth is slowing down 1.7 milliseconds every 100 years. However the last leap second adjustment took place in 2012, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...
Anybody know a quick and dirty way, a good formula, that would tell us when the earth will really stop rotating?
The Earth will likely still be spinning when the Sun becomes a red giant, boils away the atmosphere and oceans and turns everything all melty, so the real (long-term!) investment deal is in O'Neill colonies.
How about instead of setting the time to 23:59:60, the value 23:59:59 happens twice. When we have DST, and the time falls back an hour, we don't switch to some odd non-existant number for an hour so that we don't have overlap. We just set the clocks back to 1 AM. So all the times between 1 AM and 2 AM happen twice when switching off daylight savings.
The times between 1 AM and 2 AM don't really happen twice on the day daylight time ends, they are simply ambiguous unless daylight or standard time is specified. (In other words, you don't know which of 2 possible seconds 1:42:42 AM refers to until daylight or standard time is specified.) Similarly, your proposal would make 23:59:59 ambiguous without some additional specifier, in which case why not just use 23:59:60?
There is no one perfect solution, which is why there are multiple time standards, including TAI and GPS which do not incorporate leap seconds.
Many programmers are ignorant as to the more subtle aspects of timekeeping.
It does not help that for many programs, it simply doesn't matter.
It is also very easy to slip assumptions that are broken by leap seconds into code. (Every minute has 60 seconds--wrong! Every hour has 3600 seconds--bzzt! Every day has 86400 seconds--fail!)
The main problem with desalination plants is that they are a risky investment. If the drought ever does end then you are basically priced out of the market and you have these big expensive desalination plants collecting dust until the next drought.
Build desalination plants on barges. Move them to the most profitable locations as needed.
"The four building blocks of the universe are fire, water, gravel and vinyl." -- Dave Barry