My parents are on OO.o, my girlfriend is on OO.o, and my NetBook is on OO.o. The universal response in this admittedly small sample has been: "hey, that looks a lot more like the Office I'm used to!".
That's a Windows PC, an iMac, and a Linux netbook by the way.
An open system is more secure as everyone know when a vulnerability is discovered and syadmin's can make work arounds (or even pull the system down) until a patch is developed.
I keep hearing this, but it's not true per sé.
One can find vulnerabilities in both open or closed software - more easily in open source because one can look at the code. If one finds a vulnerability, and doesnot report it, having open source makes no difference to the severity. If the person looking for vulnerabilities is malicious, open source would seem to be at a disadvantage compared to closed source.
Open source only starts having advantages when people are actively looking at the code for vulnerabilities without malicious intent, and reporting them. Fixing those issues once reported is theoretically easier and faster in open source, and not reliant on the original publisher of the software.
So in the end, open source is only secure as the number and quality of people actively looking for and reporting vulnerabilities, and the number and quality of people actively fixing these vulnerabilities. In open source, you potentially have more of these people if you can motivate them, and you have to hope these people are (collectively)as good as the malicious people.
99% of programmers couldn't "big O" their way out of a wet paper bag.
And also, in many cases of optimization, you may find that the "constant factor" of certain algorithms and hardware oddities (cache, SIMD instructions) actually overrides the theoretical performance benefits for most of the expected input data.
That's a nonsense argument. Movies can be made for next to nothing as well with a handheld camcorder. See "Blair Witch Project" and the like. Sure, those are lucky shots, but so are the bands that "make it" on a shoestring budget.
The amount of gear and expertise required to make a decent album with half a chance of making any money at all is more than you'd think.
Lots of bands are making cheap recordings, some of them are even good. But very, very few of them make any money off of it, let alone enough to live off it.
Also worth noting is that Chernobyl was quite exceptional in that the accident occurred during a test where staff had intentionally overridden several safety protocols.
Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be so exceptional, even with Western reactors. The Dutch have just admitted recently to accidentally turning off critical systems in the dark in 2001 (English article). Yes, that was a research reactor, not a power reactor, but "it's exceptional" seems to be a very bad thing to rely on for safety.
Looking at the movies in TFA, I think one hundred thousand kilometers at 1/14th of the sun's diameter could actually be correct. The wave is gigantic if I interpret the movie correctly.
Re:Waterfall
on
Becoming Agile
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Interesting history: The original description of the "waterfall" methodology was actually used as an example of *bad* methodology: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterfall_model.
I have a feeling that a lot of things would be a lot clearer if we knew this.
Then again, the universe might reset if we found out.
Or perhaps it already ha*&@#!(.. <NO CARRIER>
Wrong.
They will spray regardless of being fixed. You don't have to bother googling up anything to try to disprove it, I've got two fixed cats that spray.
Slashdot Mirror
Mod parent funny.
This is a story about DRM, not formats. A story about the forgotten idea of key escrow idea and of DRM cert servers, not file formats.
Was that idea generated by the department of redundancy department?
My parents are on OO.o, my girlfriend is on OO.o, and my NetBook is on OO.o. The universal response in this admittedly small sample has been: "hey, that looks a lot more like the Office I'm used to!".
That's a Windows PC, an iMac, and a Linux netbook by the way.
An open system is more secure as everyone know when a vulnerability is discovered and syadmin's can make work arounds (or even pull the system down) until a patch is developed.
I keep hearing this, but it's not true per sé.
One can find vulnerabilities in both open or closed software - more easily in open source because one can look at the code. If one finds a vulnerability, and doesnot report it, having open source makes no difference to the severity. If the person looking for vulnerabilities is malicious, open source would seem to be at a disadvantage compared to closed source.
Open source only starts having advantages when people are actively looking at the code for vulnerabilities without malicious intent, and reporting them. Fixing those issues once reported is theoretically easier and faster in open source, and not reliant on the original publisher of the software.
So in the end, open source is only secure as the number and quality of people actively looking for and reporting vulnerabilities, and the number and quality of people actively fixing these vulnerabilities. In open source, you potentially have more of these people if you can motivate them, and you have to hope these people are (collectively)as good as the malicious people.
Compiling!
I am an IT consultant, you insensitive clod.
Now let me tell you about Agile Development...
In Canada, don't think of the children! It's an offense!
(I wonder, in Soviet Canada, do children think of you?).
99% of programmers couldn't "big O" their way out of a wet paper bag.
And also, in many cases of optimization, you may find that the "constant factor" of certain algorithms and hardware oddities (cache, SIMD instructions) actually overrides the theoretical performance benefits for most of the expected input data.
* Comments tell you 'why'
Usually in the form of "Bug number 1234567: I don't know why this fix works, but it does. Don't touch it!".
That's a nonsense argument. Movies can be made for next to nothing as well with a handheld camcorder. See "Blair Witch Project" and the like. Sure, those are lucky shots, but so are the bands that "make it" on a shoestring budget.
The amount of gear and expertise required to make a decent album with half a chance of making any money at all is more than you'd think.
Lots of bands are making cheap recordings, some of them are even good. But very, very few of them make any money off of it, let alone enough to live off it.
everyone else would say 'ok, fair enough, here's your $30 now leave me alone and take that WGA crap with you!'
>
Those two people already got it on their MSDN subscription.
And NO EGGS!
I thought that said "Aluminium Rice Rocket", and I wondered why it was posted to /.
Also worth noting is that Chernobyl was quite exceptional in that the accident occurred during a test where staff had intentionally overridden several safety protocols.
Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be so exceptional, even with Western reactors. The Dutch have just admitted recently to accidentally turning off critical systems in the dark in 2001 (English article). Yes, that was a research reactor, not a power reactor, but "it's exceptional" seems to be a very bad thing to rely on for safety.
Some readers don't much of it?
I didn't much of it.
I almost a full of it though.
Looking at the movies in TFA, I think one hundred thousand kilometers at 1/14th of the sun's diameter could actually be correct. The wave is gigantic if I interpret the movie correctly.
Interesting history: The original description of the "waterfall" methodology was actually used as an example of *bad* methodology: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterfall_model.
With the music industry, you KNOW this will fall on deaf ears.
*shrugs* This doesn't scare me.
Hey, a black helicopte!#&*...<Connection Lost>
I have a feeling that a lot of things would be a lot clearer if we knew this.
Then again, the universe might reset if we found out.
Or perhaps it already ha*&@#!(.. <NO CARRIER>
The speed of light. Light mayonaise.
+1 Flu shot?
He'd raze your taxus.
spray cars and motorcycles and front porches
Not if they're fixed.
Wrong. They will spray regardless of being fixed. You don't have to bother googling up anything to try to disprove it, I've got two fixed cats that spray.
vi nöt tri a höliday in svéden this year?
Sëe the löveli lakes?