I generally like the Bourne shell, but I will easily admit that it hasa number of things that are less than ideal. One of those less thanideal things is a peculiar omission: you cannot easily redirect just standard error into a pipeline.

This sounds like a peculiar thing to want, but there are situations where you do need to process stderrseparately; for example, you might need to timestamp all stderr outputand log it. In a hypothetical shell with this feature you could have a'timestamper' program

One of the technical problems with'sender stores messages' schemes for email-like things is that itlets a malicious sender generate messages on the fly for up to themoment customized malware (and this gets much, much worse if the protocolhelpfully includes things that you can use to fingerprint specificclient software).

It is tempting to deal with this problem by making the identificationfor messages include a hash verifier or address, in the way that currentversion control systems identify files by their hashes. This would meanthat

(Spoiler warning, and in fact this is probablygoing to be incomprehensible if you haven'tseen the episode or read a summary, such as here .)

I suspect that we're supposed to consider Nami an unsympathetic and weakcharacter and feel that her sisters were more or less in the right. Ihave the opposite reaction: this was a major parenting failure and Namiis a victim. Here's why:

If someone is traumatized so badly that they have horrifyinghallucinations, the correct response is not

(Well, one of them.)

There are three shutter speeds for taking pictures of moving bicycles:

• too slow: the bicyclist and bicycle are motion blurred (usefulonly for artistic effect ).

• too fast: everything is frozen motionless and the bicyclistlooks like they are doing an unnatural track stand .

• just right: the rider and bike are sharp but there is stillvisible motion blur in the wheels (and perhaps the rider's feet),so the bike still looks like it is actually in motion.

The

Here's one view of the difference, put in a punchy short form:

• web 1.0: all of this user attention is going to be worth money!
• web 2.0: all of this user attention is going to be worth money,and this time around we're going to make sure that the users stickaround for it.

In classic 'Web 1.0' operations (with the apex of this being the variousportals), it turned out to be very hard to monetize all