"The funny thing is that, at the end of the day, JSON and XML are the same thing, only syntactically different."
Yes, exactly. But XML is readable by people. JSON is not. Just try to read any big dataset in JSON, especially if it's minified. Good luck. At least with XML you have a shot.
Having said that: there are lots of good tools for converting from one to the other, so it could be a lot worse.
You make a good point about standards and validation, though, too. That's why business data interchanges are generally built on XML, and not JSON. Even though JSON is generally more efficient.
IF the situation calls for HUMANS to read the data, I sure as hell do prefer XML. No contest. JSON is virtually unreadable.
Like I said: it's fine for computer data interchange, but when it comes to human intervention, give me XML any day.
I'm not claiming XML is perfect, by any stretch of the imagination. But when humans rather than computers need to deal with the data, it beats the shit out of JSON.
"Most certainly, though, he achieved what thousands of other smart people couldn't."
Just as I was saying: as with Mr. Gates, luck had a big hand in it. There isn't anything "obvious" about it at all.
And Google is not a good example because they're just plain shitty at making business decisions. They've proven that time and time and time again. They had one great success with their search engine. They've tried leveraging that into other successes elsewhere. And even given their huge pile of money, their success rate has been dismal at best.
Their recent "one account for all of Google" has suffered a tremendous backlash, and it was long PREDICTED that it would be a really dumb thing to do. No hindsight necessary.
Google makes dumb decisions.
"Kind of reminds me of all the Bill Gates haters from 15 years ago... He was just lucky! He stole his ideas! It was some other guy that deserves what he has! Gee you don't sound bitter at all..."
I don't much care what it "sounds like" to you. No, I am not bitter, I am just stating historical facts.
Bill Gates WAS lucky. But he was also a very good manager and businessman. But the historical FACT here is that if Gary Kildall had not thumbed his nose at IBM, Microsoft would never have happened. Look it up. That was luck.
Zuckerberg was also lucky -- as well as unscrupulous -- and he isn't even that great of a manager. His own firm nearly kicked him out, if you recall. All fact. Look it up.
Why is recycling the batteries Nissan's problem? Recycling the lead-acid accumulator in a ICE car or the used engine oil isn't Ford's (etc.) problem or expese? Nissan doesn't own the batteries in sold cars.
Doesn't Nissan retain ownership and you lease the battery pack from them for your Leaf?
Nissan isn't being eco-friendly here,
Bullshit. Reuse is the most eco-friendly type of recycling. It requires the least energy expenditure. You want them to spend more energy recycling the batteries more often, you aren't being eco-friendly. The batteries will still get recycled when they're no longer useful for this alternate purpose.
I should have said, Nissan isn't doing this to be eco-friendly as in that isn't their motivation. Economics is.
OTOH, one could argue that there is a very limited supply of Lithium and the reuse means they will need to mine more because of the demand for new batteries for new cars. That's not eco-freindly, when there are other resources for providing peak and backup power for data centers.
That's the problem with complicated problems, there just aren't simple solutions.
"Disney is a corporation, the artists etc etc are the people."
Irrelevant. You are tossing out the entire context of this thread.
By this logic, you could also say that Chrysler does not make automobiles, and Apple does not make computers.
In a very technical, ridiculously hair-splitting sense you are correct, but in a way that is irrelevant to the whole point of the conversation that is going on here.
For computer-to-computer data interchange, JSON is not bad. But it's about as human-readable as the Voynich Manuscript.
"Actually, I mostly agree with you. The point I was trying to make was that simply aiming to decrease inequity is a silly goal if you don't have broader constraints such as 'so everyone can afford to eat'."
So the question is: how would you fix this? Because here's a fact for you: the government spends MASSIVELY more money today to fix that "income inequity" today than it ever has... and yet we have more inequity now than -- almost -- we ever have.
Intentions are not results. Lots of well-intended government programs have left us less well off.
There is a very strong positive correlation between government actions and spending intended to decrease inequity, and inequity.
So what are you going to do? More of the same? Probably not a good idea.
Better yet, it's a misinterpretation by, wait for it.....
Nah, he couldn't possibly know what the Bible means......
Even by your link:
The telescope successfully deployed to the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station in November 2005 and will take data until the end of 2008.
This isn't exactly "news". More like "oldz".
And here I was going to respond "1964 called, they want their news back".
Seriously, this is cool, but astroengine's teaser above "For the first time" is nowhere near correct.
The problem isn't with the grades, it's with the utter lack of acknowledgement that different students learn in different ways.