You claim to be a member of an Age of Enlightenment, and yet in the same breath spend your time insulting and throwing derision at those you disagree with.
I find your position and actions to be pure hypocrisy of the worst possible form. If you cannot accept that it's ok for others to believe in things you do not, and respect them in their beliefs, you are the one stuck in the Dark Ages. That's exactly the kind of thinking the Dark Ages was guilty of.
"In computer programming, an application programming interface (API) is a set of routines, protocols, and tools for building software applications."
An API exists whether anyone has taken the time to document it or not. The specification cannot be the API, or by definition an API could not exist until someone took the time to write a specification for it. All the specification does is tell you what's in the API.
I was simply joking around, but the point is a lot simpler than it looks.
An API is just a public member you can call. That's it. There's nothing more complicated about it.
Saying it's a specification is IMHO not correct. A specification describes the API, it is not the API itself. An API absolutely is code. The difference is just the public members, which are the API, vs the private implementation details, which are not.
I'm in an area close to one where Google Fiber has come in. While I can't get Google's offering yet (I'm still holding out hope :) ), my Comcast speeds have magically increased to 5x what they were when we first moved here.
We originally paid for 12Mbps. We've recently started getting 60. And no, our price hasn't changed at all. It's been funny watching this happen, honestly.
Thanks for sharing this. I didn't know any other vcs had tried to do this. I'm only familiar with most of the more popular ones, and the only other ones I've ever used are SVN, CVS and a dab at Mercurial.
Actually, this is not true of any other version control.
If you destroy the main branch (usually referred to as the trunk) in SVN, CVS, or any other version control software, everyone loses the ability to do anything with that repository ever again.
The only way to fix it for those is to create an entirely new repository somewhere and manually upload all the current code as if it was the first commit. You lose all your history and any ability to go revert before that point. Git is the only one that treats the main branch the same is any other branch.
For Git, all you do is mark another branch as main and you're done. You keep all the history and everything is as if nothing ever happened. Git is like bitorrent for version control, while every other one follows the old single point of download architecture.
Distribution is easy. All you need to do is let everyone know where to go. The difficult part has only ever been getting the files setup in the first place.
The part I find even funnier about this is that Git actually makes taking the files off the site even more ridiculous.
The way Git works, every computer using it has a complete copy of the current version of the software, so every single devs machine is its own backup of the current state of the code. It doesn't matter if the main system crashes, blows up, or is ripped apart by a horde of zerglings. Nothing will be lost.
Good luck playing wac-a-mole against that many moles :).
This is disgusting. This technique well known as a man in the middle attack and should be prosecuted as such. The fact that they're your provider does not give them the freedom to alter your messages like this.
Awesome news. I'm a software engineer who has been trying to build some things on my own for some time now and I can't begin to see how anyone thinks this has made things more difficult for me. I feel like I can finally breathe a little.
One thing, though. How does one shave amounts off of transactions by rounding up? Sorry, but that's really getting to me :).
"but burning the hydrogen doesn't produce a net gain of energy"
I'm more than a little disappointed when I see people think that this is the goal we need to achieve in order for a system to be viable for use. Our current systems don't produce a net gain of energy, but that is not the point.
The point is that we need a source of energy that is relatively easy to extract and easy to transport in the vehicles it's intended to be used for. It would be awesome if we could also get a net gain in the process, but that is not the problem that's trying to be solved.
The fact that we have to extract the hydrogen out of water to get hydrogen fuel is no different than having to convert oil into gasoline. There is no net gain, but there is a result that we need.
This is pretty awesome to read. The problems with fusion have always been how to get enough energy in to cause fusion to happen without creating radioactive waste (read: hydrogen bomb), and how to collect the massive amount of energy that comes out once the atoms fuse together.
Seeing them able to model how the sun does it is just incredible. I wish the article described more how they actually collect the resulting energy.