Yeah. No-one will ever need anything that COBOL can't do. All these modern languages are just ego.

Plug-ins are too platform specific. Implement it in JS for a "run anywhere" solution.

The best solution is always dependent on the task and the dataset.

(Obviously I mean updates, not insertions.)

As others have said, bubble sort is efficient on mostly-sorted datasets. Bubbling sorting your database after every X insertions (for some value of X) or before a search (whichever comes first) makes the world a nicer place.

Actually, insertion sort can be done with a single array structure. When you insert a value into the new list, you delete it from the old list. So the total len(old) + len(new) = len(original). You can use a single int to identify the partition between the segment of the array that represents the new list and the segment that represents the new, sorted list, and effectively do sort-in-place. Hell, it's not even an extra variable, as you would need that index to keep track of the next element to add to the new list anyway.

Like chicken fried steak, for starters....

*shrug* I'm sure you say plenty of stuff that would sound weird to me.

Did you read my message? I was referring to something JJ Abrams has said about his use of lens flares and the reason for them. I didn't say he was the first. My point about Babylon 5 wasn't about the quality or means of creation of the lens flare effects, but their result in terms of the overall atmosphere and sense of illusion. If you're looking for an argument, argue what I wrote. Otherwise it's just boring.

You defeat your own argument by bringing up lens flare. JJ Abrams says it adds immediacy by implying that the cameraman was actually there, filming it, and didn't have enough time to set up the camera to avoid it. What Abrams misses is that making it self-consciously "filmed" reduces immediacy, because it means that the audience isn't there. In Babylon 5, the lens flare was mostly restricted to outer space, not inside the station, and the effect was doubly powerful. Lens flare in space said "you are not here", and the viewer was consequently deeper immersed in the illusion of being trapped in a tin can floating in space.

It annoyed me more than it should that the one epilogue was the sailing to the west bit, and there was a modern braided synthetic rope in the rigging. Because elves are sophisticated.

Muscle-memory has a lot to answer for in typos. Quite often I end up typing "ing" for words ending -ing, eg withing, or "and" instead of -an.

Of course I meant to say "for anyone based in the US"...

For anyone based in the UK who wants to make a submission against this, I suggest you base your argument on the versatility of wifi and its use in closed networks.

For example, there are apps for Android and iOS that let you use your phone as a NAS box (network addressed storage) and this would break it. Or apps that use wifi to use your phone as a remote control for the media player software on your PC.

If you build a list of the non-internet use cases for wifi, focusing particularly on activities business travellers are very likely to use, then it would be extremely hard for the FCC to find that Marriott's move isn't antagonistic to guests....

No, it's them refusing to accept that they overestimated the value of wifi in the first instance. If the US is anything like the UK, the big chains will have been the first to jump on the "internet" bandwagon, and being the risk-averse cheapskates that they are, will have franchised out the internet to a third party. It's quite possible that Marriott don't even own the networking infrastructure installed in the building, and that they basically act as an agent by selling it to visitors. For a good few years, they got away with it, because they were selling it to business travellers who didn't care seeing as it was going on expenses -- heck, even when many smaller hotels were rolling out free wifi, some of the big hotels still offered paid-for internet only, and even then, it was wired internet ("if you don't have an Ethernet cable, please ask at reception"). Now they find themselves in a position where that business model has been blown apart because the single important class of customer -- the expense-account business traveller -- has an internet connection in his pocket.

IE. their business model was shit, and now rather than writing off the losses, they're trying to artificially shore it up.