As part of the society, you should think about how not to become a target of hacking activism. Especially when it's impossible to crush every one of the "hackers".
Better yet, convert them into your loyal customers, and even better, direct their anger to your competitors.
Shell history doesn't contains only input, not output. Someone may have splashed some GPG private keys to the terminal, and the output ends up in the filesystem blocks.
I think LyX is mostly focused on the WYSIWIG aspect. Your problems (automatic completion of bibtex key, automatically managed "make" process, and debugging in context) are better solved in something that work like an IDE. Perhaps you can look for one that suites your needs.
Oh come on, get an IDE*. Typo in BibTeX key? It will jump to the offending line and highlight the error. Multiple passes? It manages the compilation process for you.
* Perhaps should be called IAE -- intergrated authoring environment. Personally I use vim-latex but please don't burn me for not using Emacs.
For many purposes, simple text file is indeed superior due to, well you guess, textuality. Put it this way: you can't grep an ODF file, but you can grep in a text file with insane efficiency (most of the time).
It first tried to rebuke the claims of Kodak being not able to innovate, etc, and then discussed "how people today use photos" in the examples of Flickr, Facebook, and such. It concluded with the weak argument of essentially one sentence, that "[It] is hard to see a role for Kodak in all of this." The problem with this reasoning is that exactly the same thing can be said about many of Kodak's competitors. I'm not aware whether Nikon or Canon is doing significantly better in this regard, which is to ease the "sharing and distribution" of photos through the Internet and social networking.
Apart from others, one way to harden the GP's backup is to sign a hash of it using his[1] own GPG key. Not that it counters all attacks but it makes the recovery process safer. If a malware somehow injects itself into the backup image after the image has been generated, the hash changes, but the signed hash cannot be easily spoofed.
[1] Since he's "Livius" not "Livia" I'd think he is a "he" not a "she":-)
I believe this is a wise move for Google. The general user won't care this much anyway. Those who are likely to manipulate search results, esp. in the way not approved by Google, will look at this as a powerful warning and are discouraged.
This is far from purely marketing. The quality of the search results is what make Google alive and a winner in the first place. Google has little other choice but doing so, even if it means a short-term dip for Chrome in their own search results.
And a little good PR after it doesn't hurt, anyway. I think Google deserves it.
The conspiracy theorist in me always believe this kind of outrageous prices are part of some money laundering schemes. Maybe their malice is so well advanced that it cannot be distinguished from stupidity already.
Slashdot Mirror
As part of the society, you should think about how not to become a target of hacking activism. Especially when it's impossible to crush every one of the "hackers".
Better yet, convert them into your loyal customers, and even better, direct their anger to your competitors.
Shell history doesn't contains only input, not output.
Someone may have splashed some GPG private keys to the terminal, and the output ends up in the filesystem blocks.
On a memory-limited system, one may not want /tmp kept as tmpfs in the RAM.
The problem is your terminal history may include data from other hosts, decrypted. Therefore it's not just "your" worries.
Whenever I heard of Japanese speech-jamming machines I go grab my point-of-view gun.
Good luck explaining to the corporate suites what a "pwn" is.
We still see this kind of XXXX coming up every leap year.
eMacs not good enough? But I never know vi costs so much!
I think LyX is mostly focused on the WYSIWIG aspect. Your problems (automatic completion of bibtex key, automatically managed "make" process, and debugging in context) are better solved in something that work like an IDE. Perhaps you can look for one that suites your needs.
Oh come on, get an IDE*. Typo in BibTeX key? It will jump to the offending line and highlight the error. Multiple passes? It manages the compilation process for you.
* Perhaps should be called IAE -- intergrated authoring environment. Personally I use vim-latex but please don't burn me for not using Emacs.
For many purposes, simple text file is indeed superior due to, well you guess, textuality. Put it this way: you can't grep an ODF file, but you can grep in a text file with insane efficiency (most of the time).
Maybe they got a patent on searching *by* the keys instead of searching for the keys. People these days are crazy.
They must be very good at NetHack.
It first tried to rebuke the claims of Kodak being not able to innovate, etc, and then discussed "how people today use photos" in the examples of Flickr, Facebook, and such. It concluded with the weak argument of essentially one sentence, that "[It] is hard to see a role for Kodak in all of this." The problem with this reasoning is that exactly the same thing can be said about many of Kodak's competitors. I'm not aware whether Nikon or Canon is doing significantly better in this regard, which is to ease the "sharing and distribution" of photos through the Internet and social networking.
Certainly it does. It is a decent way to visualize the orbital perturbation stuff.
And their grand master, King Carlos can just ask the loud whiners to shut the **** up.
Apart from others, one way to harden the GP's backup is to sign a hash of it using his[1] own GPG key. Not that it counters all attacks but it makes the recovery process safer. If a malware somehow injects itself into the backup image after the image has been generated, the hash changes, but the signed hash cannot be easily spoofed.
[1] Since he's "Livius" not "Livia" I'd think he is a "he" not a "she" :-)
oops strike that. My visual_grep function needs some bug-hunting again. XD
3) Dogpile still exists. I don't think I've used it in the past decade until now.
And is the only one with Netscape in the top ten results ;-)
I believe this is a wise move for Google. The general user won't care this much anyway. Those who are likely to manipulate search results, esp. in the way not approved by Google, will look at this as a powerful warning and are discouraged.
This is far from purely marketing. The quality of the search results is what make Google alive and a winner in the first place. Google has little other choice but doing so, even if it means a short-term dip for Chrome in their own search results.
And a little good PR after it doesn't hurt, anyway. I think Google deserves it.
Another implication is that the terminal will be more complex, cost more and consume more power compared with the GPS terminal.
Some mod's sarcasm filter need fixing.
I have to believe this is either market segmentation done right, or money laundering done wrong. Or perhaps the other way around.
The conspiracy theorist in me always believe this kind of outrageous prices are part of some money laundering schemes. Maybe their malice is so well advanced that it cannot be distinguished from stupidity already.