Actually, we have 100 Senators. I'm going to use your tiny typo to float a different mathematical idea: increased representation at the federal level. I say there aren't enough senators.

My thought is that there should be 1 representative (senator or house member) for each 100,000 voters. If we assume an even 310,000,000 in US population (it isn't even, but it's close enough, I think) then that would be 3100 representatives. If 10% go to the senate, divided by state, then each state gets 6 senators. The other 2800 get apportioned by population into the house of representatives; NYC would get (at an assumed 8 million citizens) 72 representatives, and the rest of NY would get 99. My small town would get about a quarter of a representative, which is better than we get now.

I'd also make it a rule that districts must be cohesive. No more (or at least much less) gerrymandering. The ratio of the area of the smallest oval covering the district over the area of the actual district can't be over 2 (or some other small number). No more twisty outlines. And the representative districts need to fill the senatorial districts.

I'd also allow voting on neighboring districts, but with less weight: 60% from the district itself, 40% from outside. So a local nutcase can be overridden by people nearby.

If anyone sees this, let me know just how ludicrous it is.

Not true. RDP has support for hosting single applications from multiple servers on your screen. No one uses it that way except for enterprise stuff like Citrix, but it's part of the protocol.

And today, X remoting is essentially "shitty pixel scraping", because all the frameworks don't use X server rendering, they draw to local buffers and hand that to X (that's how you get pretty font support, for example). So X is schlepping pixmaps around, and if you're going to do that, why not just get rid of the rest of the protocol cruft: hence Wayland.

Where I work the client DOES want the current buzzword-du-jour. They fear being stuck with some ancient legacy crap that no one can support. As a result they get stuck with unproven shiny stuff that turns out not to work in practice, and no one can support.

No silver bullet.

Myself, I never found Stand on Zanzibar OR The Sheep Look Up all that depressing. The Brunner book that I found most depressing was Children of the Thunder. The Wikipedia write-up (and cover blurb) don't really reflect my memory of the book, which I recall liking up to the end, so I guess I ought to reread it. But that has always stuck in my mind as a book I didn't WANT to reread because it was so depressing.

Sad to say, wrong again.

You meant "to".

You monster!

Just a note on usage: an "in-state flight" is known as an "intra-state flight". What you're thinking of, where the federal government regulated things, is and "inter-state flight". "intra" means "within"; "inter" means "across multiple" (sorta; I'm hard-pressed to come up with a better short definition).

What you wrote disagrees with itself, because "in-state" is the same as "intra-state". Nonetheless, I'm sure we all understood what you meant.

Newsflash: whooosh!!

Check your sarcasm detector, as it seems to be completely broken.

Woosh.

He's pointing out that the 4 letter acronym OTOH (On The Other Hand) wasn't spelled out.

I had no idea we were already living in a Rush album.

Try 512 AD.

I think your showing more issues with Word than with ePub.

That you manged to get Word to print your document in a way that "looked great" is amazing. It's even more amazing if the formatting managed to stick after an edit. Personally, having written a number of reasonably long technical documents in Word, I've found that it usually manages to screw up somewhere along the way, with mysterious refusal to break a line (or not break a line, or apply a style) somewhere, and the only way to fix it is to move the text elsewhere, delete it, and copy it back, and then apply formatting again. When I can, I avoid Word, because it sucks.

So if 1/3 show a decline, and 2/3 show an increase, isn't there just a smidge of a possibility that the overall average is going up? (It's not a gurantee, obviously; if the increases are small and the declines are large the overall number would be down.)

Climate models aren't intended to explain the local variations; they're there for the big picture.

The cagey way you phrase this makes this a likely troll. The climate folks have looked at all the numbers and concluded that, overall, temperatures are increasing. Yes, some local temperatures are declining. You yourself admit it's even a minority of local temperatures. That you try to turn it into some sort of accusation is trolling.

While that SOUNDS nice, the performance would be atrocious. As another reply points out, this has been done, but no one uses it. The reason, I'd bet, is that round-trip times kill you.

One call is pretty fast. But once you're querying a significant part of the DOM to get some values, all those round-trip times add up. This is the same issue that makes X slow over a WAN (not unusably slow, just annoyingly slow): X has synchronous requests and responses; you can't make the next request until the response comes back, and even fast pings on a real network are measured in tens on milliseconds. That adds up to a second with just a hundred calls.

You need a higher-level protocol. One where all the presentation can be sent at once, and painted on the screen. Once it's there, we can get all the data, and send up actions that manipulate the data. With little scripts to do immediate validation already running locally, sent down as part of the initial presentation. (This sounds familiar, somehow.)

Or you could try for asynchronous. Send up a bunch of requests at once, and get all the responses back at once. Then round-trips don't kill you. The problem there is that all too often the data you want depends on the result of the previous request. You could shoot down a whole program that collects what you want and sends it back....

Those things are all true, except the last (and only with a contrafactual assumption there). If it were the case that Coke did not, in fact, have high-fructose corn syrup in it, then they could complain about your picture of Coke. Just because it is a soft drink, and popular, doesn't give you the right to print a picture of the trademarked Coke logo when that has nothing to do with the story. (In the real world, Coke is full of HFCS, and it would be fine.)

In this case, the NYSE has nothing to do with the insider trading (apparently), and they don't want to be associated with the story, and that means they can use their trademark on their "image" to prevent it being tied to a story that isn't about them.

It's as if a story about pedophiles in our midst were illustrated with pictures of you playing with your kids. Sure, the story never claimed you were a pedophile; it never mentioned you at all. Yet the presence of your image there would cause an association you would certainly not like, and you would for damn sure use whatever legal basis you had to get your pictures off of there.