Arnor

Did every single English peasant really have access to leather and the skills to make their own shoes? Did the shoes they managed to procure really cost so little compared to the manufactured ones? Did they really cost so little taking quality, durability, and procurement of materials into account?

If the economic decision was really so simple and the desire for a rural communal lifestyle was really so strong, urbanization never would have happened.

I think it's reasonable to assume that either JavaScript is available or the user has made the conscious decision to turn off JS; if so, that user is probably savvy enough to realize the issue and decide whether to enable JS for the particular site.

Far less reasonable is faulting a JS framework for assuming it can use JS.

Still, I agree that if JS isn't essential to the functionality of the site, a non-JS fallback should be available.

It can, but I don't think these will. It looks like this dialogue is already framed in "regulation vs no regulation" without much depth. I think that a long drawn-out discussion among professionals would be more effective (if slower than) sound-byte politics.

Which part requires everyone agreeing? Building a working framework or having a dialogue?

This conversation is important. It's a bit disappointing that we see legislation instead of dialogue. The initiatives here sound kind of knee-jerk and rather difficult to enforce.

Companies should be held accountable for the data they collect and how it is used. Most TOS are unconscionable. I'm sure some of the folks here read the entire TOS of every web service they use, but I've never met a person in real life who does. I think a framework for TOS that is basically just a check box "Do you collect: A, B, C" "Do you distribute: X, Y, Z" could be really useful. There could be some pretty cool strategies between web sites and browsers to help users determine what the site is doing and whether they want to proceed.

This is a time for a dialogue that builds a working framework, not a burst of legislation that pacifies the public and accomplishes at best a couple of short term goals.

I worry about the regulations being wrong or becoming wrong over time then being very difficult to change. What happens if we are legally obligated to engineer a system in an insecure manner and we can't fix it without a series of bureaucratic moves?

If sweeping regulations do come along, I hope there's a strong push for them to be loose or amiable enough to avoid these problems. For now, though, I'm skeptical.

And how shall we proceed?

>The only real form of code reuse that OOP addresses is direct object inheritance.

Composition is far more useful and effective means of code reuse in OOP.

Why wait for rust to be stable for something cooler? Haskell is already here :)

It might be worth taking the hit...

If you feel the need to downvote this, I think an explanation is in order... Perhaps your answer to my question is "Yes, I do eat organic food because of a perceived health benefit." If that's the case, a response would be more appropriate...

> She also buys “organic” in the belief that it is better both for her and for the animals raised in that way, even though the products are markedly more expensive than those from the local grocery store.

Is anyone really eating organic food because of a perceived health benefit anymore? Everyone I know who eats organic (myself included) is doing for the sake of environmental consciousness or animal welfare not personal health.

If you're OK with friction shifters, you can get a used bike from the 80s for < $200 that will work well. I've got a buddy who beats me on flat stretches with his old Schwin World Sport (a really fun bike if you're looking for an old reliable work-horse). I happen to live in a very bike friendly city so they used bike market might not be as good everywhere.

I love the trickle down effect in bicycling. I got my 2001 Trek 5200 for ~ $1000. The components are a bit behind, but I'd be happy to ride the carbon-fiber frameset for the next 10 years!

I've also had only good experiences with HR. I've always worked in pretty small companies where I have good relationships across the board. I feel truly sorry for folks who have demons working down the hall from them trying to take away their benefits. I wonder, why stay?

Why are you saying things you don't want the cloud to know about anyway?

> Having the ability to control some of the content that is returned by the server in the response body is crucial for an RFD exploit to be successful.

This sounds like an XSS attack against downloaded files as opposed to rendered HTML.

Isn't Go also more likely to be used for concurrent tasks and therefore more likely to exhibit concurrency bugs? I admit I skimmed the article and may have missed this being dealt with in the methodology...

Living in the rural midwest, the concept of clapping on 2 and 4 was a foreign concept to most people I knew growing up. I lucked out because my dad was a music teacher. He caught me clapping on 1 and 3 once and promptly fixed it. Thanks Dad!

Kasparov also complained that he was never allowed to see any logs or previous games by Deep Blue ahead of the match. If he was playing another GM, there would have been hundreds of games available where he could get a feeling for the player's preferences. Preparing for such a high level match necessarily requires such preparations.

Still some mental gymnastics going on here.

1. What I find repugnant doesn't push anything on anyone.

2. My comment had nothing to do with what you or I do, it had to do with the above comment about Disney and Coke showing LGBT people in shows and ads.

By this logic, your logic, they have been "pushing" straight, black, hispanic, white, Christian, Jewish, youth, and elderly on us for years. Having the individual (or couple) on the show/ad does not in and of itself "push" anything. That's absurd.

If you don't like that gay people have sex, let them get married. rimshot

The "they" I was referring to is up a couple posts form mine. Namely: Disney and Coke.

No... They simply acknowledge that the roughly 4% of the population that identify with the LGBT community exists. It's a pretty far push from acknowledging existence to "pushing homosexuality on everyone." I'll leave as an exercise to the reader to identify the mental gymnastics required to come up with the phrase: "pushing homosexuality on everyone"

This is what I was hoping to see from the start. How they accounted for the differences between "sugary soda drinkers" and others. I still don't see how the general attitude of soda drinkers or their level of exercise was evaluated. Perhaps you left out some of the factors mentioned. Still, it seems completely reasonable to ask for more information about the groups before concluding that drinking soda is the cause of shorter telemores.

You've made some really good points. I guess I read the parent post a bit differently. I was looking through for a summary of how the lifestyle difference between soda drinkers and fruit juice drinkers had been handled. When I saw that post, I thought woowee, here's the thread where the answer will come in. A brief synthesis of the page you mentioned would have really helped me determine the credibility of the article. I can, however, understand the frustration with the statement of "this is more likely [some other reason] than the experts' conclusion." More reasonable is "If you've read the full article, how did experts deal with [this other reason]?" If the answer is complicated and occupies a full page, I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for the cliff notes.

1. Some of us aren't subscribers to APHA or aren't interested in spending $22 on the article.

2. Why so confrontational? If you know the answer to the question, why not summarize it? Is the answer to the question so complicated that it would take more time and energy than the two paragraphs you composed in derision?

More to the point would have been:

Does popular understanding of evolutionary theory need more depth and nuance?

The concepts of co-evolution and the symbiotic relationship between an organism and its environment are both established and obvious. The growing body of information related to non-genetic inheritance is very interesting, but it's not really a broad "rethink" of the core concept of evolution.

Still, it brings forth a few concepts that don't really get out of the classroom and into the mainstream such as the roles of behavior and teaching on reproductive success. When the subject comes up in the coffee house you'll hear appeals to `intelligence` or `strength` as intrinsic traits. Many successful organisms accumulate advantages through life (e.g. knowledge, immunities, strength). Some of these accumulated traits can be passed to offspring (knowledge through teaching; immunities through mother's milk); others simply aid the individual in achieving greater reproductive success. This isn't new information nor is it surprising to folks with knowledge of the subject, but it is missed in a more secular setting.

Unfortunately, it's hard to get to even this level of nuance because the public hasn't got past "survival of the species" and "nature vs nurture."

So here's what we do guys: put the golden key in the black box!

> JRuby and Rubinius use native threads so you can use all cores with just Thread.new.

Almost. JRuby uses JVM threads so the actual threading model depends on the underline JVM.

If all you're looking for is an html template system, there are html template languages for almost every programming language (including ruby, python, nodejs, Scala, Haskell, C, C++). Even most PHP developers are using template systems besides just PHP intermingled in HTML these days.

I still agree that PHP is probably the fastest way to get a couple dynamic HTML pages that include server data. The limitations of PHP as a template language quickly reveal themselves as projects grow.