Exactly: the source is "open" to paying subscribers, just as the source to... just about any closed source software anywhere, can be seen if you buy a licence to see it. It fits NO definition of OS that I'm aware of.

I find it amazing that there still hasn't been a film or TV adaptation of Iain M Banks. Not that such a thing would be necessary or a validation of his writing; but I'd love to see it imagined and realized visually. It's a vision of perhaps the best possible case for the human future - if we don't fuck up.

I'm in two minds about reading Rand: on the one hand, I've heard nothing but contempt for the quality of her writing from commentators I respect - i.e. prose, structure, etc. On the other, as I'm assuming I would disagree with her theses I would like to do so from an informed perspective. Should I bother?

But this colour already has a name. It's called "black".

I feel a bit gutted that Sam Adams wasn't founded by, you know, Sam Adams.

I couldn't help but search the pdf for brace rules, and lo:

AV Rule 60

Braces ("{}") which enclose a block will be placed in the same column, on separate lines directly before and after the block.

Example:

if (var_name == true)

{

}

else

{

}

Hey, nothing wrong with that. As long as there's a consistent standard, it does make things more readable.

I agree about consistency but I don't find that style more readable. It wastes vertical space to little benefit.

I agree with you stylistically and don't personally use that brace placement. However, given the number of people writing C++ code for the F-35, it makes sense to settle on a standard that is never ambiguous. When nesting multiple control statements, it can sometimes require good judgment to know where to place braces for maximum readability. Giving each one its own line avoids requiring your developers to exercise good judgment in all the myriad cases.

Yeah, but that's a stylistic choice. IMO this is one of those cases where one choice isn't better than another, and it's just better to have made a decision.

I think he's referring to apples "goto fail" bug to show it wouldn't happen under a project with strict guidelines :)

HTML would be much easier to write if it were based on JSON. Less bandwidth too. Has this been attempted?

Are you kidding me?

Currently:

  <ul>
    <li>Hello!</li>
  </ul>

By your suggestion:

  {
    "tagName": "ul",
    "children": [
      {
        "tagName": "li",
        "children": [
          "Hello!"
        ]
      }
    ]
  }

(and, yes, it has been attempted... JSON.stringify(document.body))

> JSON.stringify(document.body)

One of two things will happen, depending on your browser.

If your browser is following the WebIDL spec, so all the accessors are on the prototype, this will produce "{}".

If your browser is WebKit-based, this will throw an exception, because body.firstChild.parentNode == body and JSON.stringify throws on object graphs with loops.

Aw, damn. I didn't realise it was all fake properties, I thought that would produce something.

Nothing fake about accessor properties. Means you can lazily generate the string for .innerHTML and such, though!

I don't think your example needs to be quite so verbose.

  {
    'ul': {
      'li': 'hello!'
    }
  }

I would think it would depend upon the parser.

Regardless, I'd still rather write out HTML instead of JSON for markup.

That breaks down as soon as you have something with attributes, and it breaks down even further once you have something like:

  <p>Example <b>text</b></p>

You see, this is why I don't create standards.

I'm going to go with that JSON is the failure point with my grand vision.

Not sure your example would work in a real world situation. The UL would probably have an array attached as it can have multiple children. Then we get into the fact that all tags can have attributes, not just a text node.

You're right, I didn't consider attributes. In my simplified way the parser would need to know which keywords were attributes based on parent element versus keywords that are just new children elements. Which would defeat the purpose.

I guess I'm not changing the world today.

There's always tomorrow!

Nah, I need time to recover from this dismal failure and to reflect. Maybe next Tuesday.

LISP:

  (:ul (:li Hello))

Nah.

It would be much easier as a Lisp S-EXP.

And yes, it has been attempted.

Actually, Pakistan is mentioned once in the context of being a possible suspect, as are the USA and China. The other mention is to state that only the Pakistani media initially took an interest in the death of one scientist, which is hardly some kind of negative accusation.

To add to this, it would not be in India's best interest to publicize any security issue within its nuclear complex.

Especially if that information would inflame a nuclear neighbor, with which there is already confrontational history.

I am also not sure how mentioning a competing nation that has been in direct dispute with the target nation is offensive, specifically in the context of listing nations that may have interest in the issue.

Ctrl+C means copy the text, with optional formatting. It doesn't mean "run a script", and this little trick implies two things: first, that the author is going to assume that anyone who copies text is trying to steal the content without attribution; secondly, that having been corrected in your naughty ways, you'll blithely accept the link he's pasted in there.

It's a web faux-pas, the equivalent of having your whole site in Flash, or trying to disable right-click for fear that someone might steal your precious, precious content.

"his content"

It's not yours. He can do what he wants with it.

That depends - were they risk aware or did they assume Sony would produce another PS3-style effort?