You had a typo, you left off the "d" in "lived". You're right, though, only people who have some experience are likely to appreciate how horrible Java really is.
Why should crude oil be carried to the refineries on closed tank cars on trains anyway? That seems dangerous. Don't we have pipelines going to the refineries for that purpose?
What we do, and have done for many years, is just pad to the nearest X bytes, where X is roughly size / 30. That's small enough that it makes little difference in speed, but many resources end up being the same size.
Consider as an example the Mayo clinic web site. Each page is maybe 5KB for the html itself. The graphics for the logo, nav bar, etc.are separate requests, cached after the home page. 80% of the html is template stuff - the header, the footer, the nav bar, overall page structure. Maybe 20%, or 1KB, is different on each page. Most pages have 500-1,000 bytes of unique content. So pad up to the nearest 100 bytes. You aren't going to notice any slowdown from an extra 50 bytes, but if most pages are an even multiple of 100 and their sizes generally don't differ by more than 1,000 bytes, about 10% of all the pages on the site will pad out to the same size as the requested page - foiling the attack.
It seems to have worked. The bad guys discuss our security system on the crack forums regularly, but there's been no mention of a successful sized-based attack.
You'll note the second amendment says "Congress shall not", it says what Congrss may not do. It does not claim to give citizens any right at all. Instead, it says Congress may not abridge THE right. Not that they must give you some new right, but that they must not violate THE right, the right you already have, by virtue of being human.
The plain wording of the Constitution simply recognizes that you have these rights and the government shouldn't violate them. Nowhere dies it define what exactly "the freedom of speech" is. Perhaps the reason the founders didn't feel the need to define these rights is because they were already defined in the existing law, English common law. I think you'll find that at the time they wrote "THE freedom of speech", they understood that freedom to include unpopular speech, but not shouting fire in a crowded theatre, libel, and a few other things.
This fact, that the ConConstitution speaks of protecting pre-existing rights, is crucially important. If your rights were not pre-existing as part of bring human, they must have been given to you by government. What government can give, government can take away. The Constitution rejects that view. Because your rights are endowed by your creator, legal documents can neither remove the nor define them. The Constitution doesn't define the freedom of speech because it can't. If it could, it could define freedom of speech as freedom to say approved things. The definition is elsewhere, as it must be.
Soros is welcome to buy elections in his country, Hungary.
The Jones family of northwest Arkansas is rich from their trucking company. They are well known amongst people who follow the trucking industry. How many unstable people are passionate about trucking compared to how many unstable people are passionate about bitcoin?
I'm not saying that everyone who uses bitcoin is unstable - most aren't. But of the people who are unstable, more will be iinterested in bitcoin, Marilyn Manson, and Ron Paul than in Walmart, Jewel Kilcher, and Marco Rubio.
Both the reporter thought Mozilla was involved and also people posting here said they saw the headline and got mad at Mozilla. Out of our very small sample, we know more than one person thought it was Mozilla's doing, and it hurt Mozilla's reputation.
You might wonder much likelihood of confusion is allowed under the law. Google "moron in a hurry" for the answer. If you're selling cans of Coke at a garage sale, only a moron in hurry would think for a second that your sale of warm Coke was endorsed by Coca-Cola, so that would be allowed.
Ps, I do understand your point of view too, and that's a reasonable argument. I'm just saying Firefox also has a reasonable argument because it's about "likelihood of consumer confusion" and in this case we know it did in fact cause consumer confusion.
TFA says when the reporter saw it, they asked Mozilla about the deal. Only after Mozilla said "what the hell... We didn't know about this" did the reporter ask Dell. So at least to the reporter, there was in fact consumer confusion, which is the primary test under trademark law.
You low how commercials and labels so often indicate "not affiliated with
Note that in your example, if you posted on Craigslist, "I will install Windows for $200" it is unlikely that a) anyone would think Microsoft was involved in posting your or and b) that it would do Microsoft any harm. Thus, you'd be allowed to use the Windows trademark since it wouldn't result in consumer confusion.
It looks Mozilla made a deal with Dell to sell Firefox.
Given Mozilla is dependent on the goodwill of the free software movement, there are actual damages from that false implication of affiliation. Because "likelihood of consumer confusion" figures prominently in trademark law, that's one reasonably strong legal argument. I'm not a lawyer, I just play one in court. Actual lawyers may express better arguments too.
The main thing in trademark law is likelihood of consumer confusion. The first thing the reporter did was ask MOZILLA about the deal. When Mozilla said "wtf", the reporter asked Dell. If a tech reporter thought it looked like implied affiliation, some customers probably will to. You can't use someone's trademarked name to falsely imply affiliation.
If you sell a Coke at your garage sale, nobody is going to think that Coca-Cola Inc is involved in that, so there is no problem.
I can think of ONE purchaser who would pay $100, and they'd buy 100,000 copies at $100 each.
You may remember a few years ago advertisements did NOT say "T-Mobile is better than AT&T". Instead they compared themselves to "the leading brand". Only fairly recently was it decided that such a comparison was not trading on the good reputation of the target and not implying affiliation, and was therefore allowed.
The tests is whether the speaker is a) attempting to tie themselves to the trademark's good reputation or b) implying an affiliation where none exists.
In this case, the first thing the reporter did was contact MOZILLA to ask about the deal they had with Dell. The reporter figured the Mozilla had made a deal to sell Firefox through Dell. That sounds like an implication of affiliation, and a false one. It arguably makes Firefox look bad, as though they are doing something that many of their users and developers would object to. Almost like a false flag operation, making it look like Mozilla is involved. That's not allowed.
> This is the DOE *prediction* is for 2018
Finally you said something honest! All this time you've been saying 11 cents, comparing it to the 3.5 cent actual retail price of natural gas. I'm glad you're now being a little more transparent - some people PREDICT that one day the cost to build new solar plant may come down. Other people predict Bitcoin will make them rich. I'm not betting on either.
Nanosolar scammed / lost half a billion of our money, Mt Gox did the same. Similarly for Solyndra and all the other bitcoin scams / losses. The one difference between Bitcoin and solar is that Bitcoin is available 24 hours a day.
Your link says that's the predicted cost to the utility to build a solar plant. That is, not including distribution costs, etc.
The actual retail price is 35 cents, compared to 3.5 for natural gas.
Even your link says "solar electricity doesn’t really compete" with other sources.