I thought you were joking about Firefox 7. From version 4 to 7 in one year, are you kidding? It turns out you're right. For some reasons, I really dislike software companies jack up version numbers: how can you have FOUR MAJOR releases within one year for a relatively complex software? That gives me an impression that they feel insecure of becoming irrelevant, instead of competing on features and usability, they choose to compete on version numbers.
I could be wrong, but I just don't feel like they fall into the same trap Netscape did a decade ago.
I could care less, but companies have done it several times.
Netscape skipped version 5 (a doomed project).
Microsoft ditched version numbers for years (95, 98, 2000), and then just names -- due to how version number increments on an existing product appear to end users.
To technically savvy it doesnt really matter "is it 5.0 or 4.5?"
But the version number or name is about trying to position the product as a "new one" or even just "mature" to the more typical end user.
I don't want to be "that guy" and I'm not trying to be a grammar Nazi. I know this is now an idiom in the USA, and therefore it doesn't have to make sense.
However ...
I've now heard it said, in four different countries, that this phrase makes the speaker sound like an idiot. I know it's now just "the norm" in the USA, but I wanted to let people here know that saying this makes a bad impression.
If you don't care how you sound to non USAians then don't bother. But if you're wondering what I'm talking about, David Mitchell does an excellent job of explaining "I couldn't care less"
Let me play devil's advocate (which might actually play in your favor, seeing as you've used that neologism). How do you think new words and phrases make it into the dictionary? It's by a proportionate amount of people using it for a specific meaning. Meaning is an abstract concept. Contrary to popular belief, language is not always logical or literal. It's an ever-changing organism: elastic and metamorphic.
The phrase you quote is not "now just" the norm. It has always been ever since I can remember living in North America. It's nobody's fault the British-speaking world has just discovered it. This reminds me a little of when the Europeans first discovered "America."
This is why Jorge Luis Borges once said, "Todas las palabras fueron alguna vez un neologismo" (All words were once a neologism).
It's common in the USA. People I've spoken to from other countries think it makes those who use it seem ignorant. I'm providing data, not making a judgement. I know that many idioms don't make sense when dissected.
The parts of the world I have regular dealings with - excluding the USA - all say "I couldn't care less," and that actually does make sense. The people I've spoken with about this have expressed bewilderment that the alternate version should be used. They say that it doesn't make sense, and it's open to misunderstanding.
When I speak with customers I don't use the same short-hand or code phrases that I use with my colleagues. Likewise students when applying for jobs or other positions use more formal language, because to do otherwise makes them look uneducated and ignorant. I'm just saying that I've seen the same attitude towards people who use this particular phrase.
Personally, I don't care. In fact, it would be hard for me to care less. I'm just offering a datum that some might find useful.
It's sarcastic in intent. Trying to condemn an idiom that is obviously logical nonsense misses the point. When I say "I could care less", it could be interpreted instead, "as if there were anything else I care less about."
That's one of my main problems with cell phones in general. We're still (behaviorally) used to in-home phones, where people call less frequently and more importantly, so interrupting your current task to answer it made sense. Now, social calls are frequent, and people still interrupt whatever they're doing to answer the phone. They're artificially high priority.
I let everyone know that phones, with me, are low priority - I have an answering machine. Call logs. I can see who you are and when you called whenever I have time - call me twice if it's actually important.
But I'll still check my phone to see who's calling me when it rings, because doing so is such a minor interruption and might be important and not everyone will try again - I'll probably pick up if a hospital or police department calls me. It's not saying "I have more important people to talk to than you", it's saying "Talking with you is not the most important thing that can possibly exist at this time", which is true and expectable - wouldn't you like to know ASAP if your family is in the hospital?
I don't think it's as rude. If my phone goes off I check because it might genuinely be more important - if I excuse myself from a social conversation because a client website just went offline, I don't think that would be considered rude. (If it was a social message / call, the AFK interaction obviously gets priority)
In Auastralia the plan I've just moved to (http://www.tpg.com.au/mobile/plans.html) gives me enough calls, text and data for $15 a month without any lock in.
I've been looking into US contracts in preperation for a move and was shocked at the rates people are willing to pay.
I think both have their good points. Smaller companies allow more freedom and a wider range of experience. If you pick the wrong small company you'll pick up bad habits (what's version control? backups? testing?). I didn't have a software engineering degree, so wasn't aware of some of the things I was doing wrong (or missing) until I spent some time in bigger companies.
hmm.. this is interesting. Someone once quoted that India is the only ex-Commonwealth country (including Canada AND the UK itself) that has the most iron clad constitutional guarantees on free speech.
I'm not sure how accurate that is though - India has on occasion banned books (like Salman Rushdie's work) to prevent potential civil unrest. But there are similar precedents in the USA.
The Indian Penal Code, framed by the British in colonial times, contains a number of laws that make giving offence a crime, and throttle free speech. For example, there’s Section 295 (a), which makes it a non-bailable offence to “outrage religious feelings or any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs.” There’s Section 153 (a), which seeks to punish “any act which is prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities”. There’s Section 124 (a), which prescribes life imprisonment for anyone who “by words or expression of any kind brings or attempts to bring or provoke a feeling of hatred, contempt or disaffection towards government”—something that any critic of any government could be accused of.
The constitution, framed not by the British but by the freedom fighters who got us independence, cops out when it comes to free speech. While Article 19 (1) (a) pays lip service to it, Article 19 (2) lays out “reasonable restrictions” such as when it applies to matters such as “public order” and “decency or morality”, matters which are, of course, open to interpretation. I’d love it if we had something like the First Amendment of the US Constitution, which contains no such caveats—but sadly, we don’t.
Another issue is that your S3 credentials are stored on your primary server. An attacker who gains access to that machine will also gain access to off site backups, and can completely destroy your business.
I was under the impression that using S3's versioned object support, it's possible to set up an account that has the ability to write objects but not to delete previous versions.
Q: How can I ensure maximum protection of my preserved versions?
Versioning’s MFA Delete capability, which uses multi-factor authentication, can be used to provide an additional layer of security. By default, all requests to your Amazon S3 bucket require your AWS account credentials. If you enable Versioning with MFA Delete on your Amazon S3 bucket, two forms of authentication are required to permanently delete a version of an object: your AWS account credentials and a valid six-digit code and serial number from an authentication device in your physical possession
I went through SFO on the weekend and said I didn't want to go through the machine. You're made to feel pretty stigmatised, you have to stand there while the TSA officer repeatedly yells out "We got an opt-out. Male opt-out." across the hall.
The pat down itself was extremely thorough but considering how much the TSA gets bagged on Reddit, the officer was incredibly professional. It didn't feel lewd or dirty. Sure, it was violating and I resented having to be put through the experience, but the guy was just doing his job and it was obvious he'd been extensively trained. All up it took about 5 minutes of my time.
What worried me the most was that afterword he asked "The TSA is conducting a survey, why did you opt-out?" I replied that I didn't like my freedoms being taken away. However, thinking about this later, I realised that if in a year they release stats that say "only 1% of people opt-out, and only 5% of those people do so for medical or religious reasons" then it is going to be a hell of a lot easier for them to push for the scans to become mandatory.
"The TSA is conducting a survey, why did you opt-out?"
With a straight face:
"Because I get sexual gratification from having my genitles fondled. Your job is sort of like prostitution, but you get paid by the pimps rather than the customers."
Opera Mini stores the page state on their servers. If you click on a JS link then the Opera Mini client treats it like a new page load, but the server is just executing the JS and resending the page.
