I remember it was written in mid 2000s, by one of the public digital intellectuals, one who liked to talk about open innovation: Cory Doctorow, maybe Larry Lessig. I can’t find it, but I swear I’ve read it.
One thing that the media have a tough time recognizing is the fact that Bill and Jimmy are legit experimental artists, and still love making art of all kinds. And they also happened to have some amazing musical talent and experience (Jimmy: The Orb; Bill: Big In Japan and early manager of Echo and the Bunnymen).
So, they decided to take their talents into areas where few experimental artists had ever gone before, taking over the pop charts ... and then proceeded to do what experimental artists are wont to do in such a situation.
They gave a huge middle finger to the industry, by barnstorming the big UK music industry award ceremony (the '92 Brit Awards), playing a death metal version of one of their dance hits while Bill fired blanks from a machine gun over the heads of the crowd. Later in the evening they dumped a dead sheep outside one of the after-parties, and shortly afterwards deleted their entire back catalogue.
They proceeded to do lots of other experimental stuff, ranging from writing some excellent books (I recommend Bill's "45") to activities such as Jimmy's model English village a few years back.
And the music, 30+ years later, is still fantastic! Not just the pop hits. Listen to The White Room. Dig up the club singles and experiments like the Abba and Whitney projects and It's Grim Up North.
Yet after all that, what does the media remember them for? More often than not, it's the one-off act of Burning a Million Quid in 1994. Their ground-breaking music, the books, the anti-establishment statements and art ... it's almost an afterthought.
It's like releasing an otherwise interesting book about Ozzy Osbourne - a seminal figure in the history of heavy metal with an unusual groundbreaking role in reality TV - and positioning it around a single sensational incident from 1982, "Crazy Train: Ozzy Osbourne, the Man Who Bit The Head Off A Bat"
If you want to get out of this dependency hell, bundle these small, essential functions into the runtime.
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Refe...
Out of curiosity, is there a peer-reviewed study on this? Moderation sounds good, but I'd like to understand at what intensity (dB) for what period could potentially constitute hearing loss.
The 60% cited in that link seems to be based on a 120dB max (so: 72dB), which is a fair bit higher than most consumer devices (with consumer headphone impedance levels). Some cursory research shows that it's a bit closer to 103 - 109dB for an iPhone (and similar devices), which puts it around 63dB.
For context, I use canalphones for the isolation, and so I can keep the output down. I also understand that these aren't viable and/or comfortable for everyone.
TL;DR: How long can someone sustain ~63dB without potential hearing damage?
Some useful (official) tables and charts: https://www.osha.gov/dts/osta/otm/noise/standards_more.htmlhttps://www.osha.gov/dts/osta/otm/new_noise/images/fig3.gif
And this has a nice listing of levels/safe listening times: http://www.dangerousdecibels.org/education/information-cente...
What can emacs and vi do that a regular IDE can't ?
emacs: incredibly customizable, you can re-write the way your editor works. Some features that I find important: editing files remotely over SSH, running a shell inside the editor (so the same editing commands work in the shell), easy to write custom file finding functions for searching different parts of a codebase, git integration (a semi-GUI interface to git), and if another editor has a feature, someone has probably created a package that adds that functionality to emacs. Also has tetris and pong.
Maybe it would be a more accurate measure of ability to ask software engineering applicants to read code and explain what it does, or to judge them as you'd judge a composer, by their portfolio.
Generally in the US, the Owner of the property will own any improvements which the cable company makes to the property unless their was an encumbrance on the land title (or deed) - in which case their remedy for not allowing their use of the improvement would be foreclosure but would be in line behind all previously recorded encumbrances such as mortgages and covenants. This would historically include anything buried or running through the walls. Overhead wires also would likely fall in this category. Real property is funny that way.
Contrary to the article's implication, the cable company could retain ownership of the wire between the box and the wall socket. It's just equipment, like the box itself. But the improvements to the land convey with the land...if your neighbor builds his fence on your side of the property line, it's not his fence it's yours. That's why the cable company cannot insist you share your infrastructure.
And I'm not remembering the terms for this, but I've heard there are situations where your neighbor building his fence on your land and you not taking action within a certain amount of time would cede that part of your land to your neighbor.