need long term statistics so they can shame their supply to demand
How'd they figure out how to shame supply to demand? That must be a very valuable, patentable business process. I hope they've already applied for the patent.
Actually, I think he meant Neve as in Neve Campbell.
Re:Landsberg's last book annoyed me enough
on
The Big Questions
·
· Score: 1
That's quite ridiculous as you say. At some point after the 'prudent' person starts to have frequent sex, they become by definition imprudent. Then they in fact become the 'bad guys' they are supposedly offsetting. In other words, viruses have no respect for arbitrarily assigned prudence values.
I always thought of it this way:
XServer provides display and I/O services to the client applications. Client and server may be on the same machine or not.
Umm, his original list had 4 distinct entities:
Depends, ILDASM,.NET Reflector, & low level profiling.
None of the first 3 of those should in any way be confused as a form of 'low level profiling' but profiling is, rather, yet another distinct method which can reveal dependencies.
Yep, and I bet their software architecture would probably not even allow such (without even more serious hacking at least). MS' software is surprisingly 'open' in this sense.
Yea, I know how they do it. I was just saying that it isn't an officially sanctioned method. The official customizations of the Today screen are actually rather limited.
HTC's version uses some black magic. Most of the other customized versions involve partnerships with Microsoft. In general, it's [i.e., the 'Today' screen] not very customizable without hacking.
The question arises as to why most people seem desperately to need a concept like truth rather than living in an interesting and engaging state of doubt.
Mystery and doubt need not be synonymous. Some absolutes may hold even though particulars are not known.
Essentially, it's because any security flaw is the result of a bug. It's just a bug that can be exploited. So, if the code is maintained properly, then bug fixes will be continuous and as such, reduce the number of exploitable bugs.
It depends on your scope of consideration. Design flaws are not 'bugs' in the traditional sense of the word (i.e., implementation-related). However, if you expand your scope to include design specs then your statement is true. There do exist though exploits of perfectly-implemented but imperfectly-designed code.
So what you're saying is that if a would-be traitor happens to have both the cunningness and the backing (financial and otherwise) to get elected that we should just hand him the keys to the kingdom without a 'vetting process'?
No, I agree with you. But, I think you missed my point. If Obama was as disillusioned as he claimed, there's a very good chance he surpassed the limits. If I recall correctly, no 'hard' substance use (such as cocaine--anything harder than marijuana really) is permitted at all and marijuana use must be limited to 10 occurrences or less. I'm pretty sure Obama would fail on both of those counts.
Actually, it does. The frequency of use is a determining factor. It's clear that he used drugs for 3 or 4 years so I'm sure he far surpassed the official limit.
Yea, but that will surely start to change as controversy arises. Let's say that anyone with knowledge of such (or who has friends with knowledge of such) is involved in a case. Then, these more subtle points will come to light. Really, any case of high enough importance/profile (i.e., with parties of sufficient funding and consequences of sufficient severity) should already raise these questions.
Slashdot Mirror
need long term statistics so they can shame their supply to demand
How'd they figure out how to shame supply to demand? That must be a very valuable, patentable business process. I hope they've already applied for the patent.
Actually, I think he meant Neve as in Neve Campbell.
That's quite ridiculous as you say. At some point after the 'prudent' person starts to have frequent sex, they become by definition imprudent. Then they in fact become the 'bad guys' they are supposedly offsetting. In other words, viruses have no respect for arbitrarily assigned prudence values.
I always thought of it this way: XServer provides display and I/O services to the client applications. Client and server may be on the same machine or not.
I would imagine that there's a lockout due to inactivity. Wouldn't that serve the same purpose?
Umm, his original list had 4 distinct entities: Depends, ILDASM, .NET Reflector, & low level profiling.
None of the first 3 of those should in any way be confused as a form of 'low level profiling' but profiling is, rather, yet another distinct method which can reveal dependencies.
No, that's devolution.
Or use two delimiters instead of just ':'.
Yep, and I bet their software architecture would probably not even allow such (without even more serious hacking at least). MS' software is surprisingly 'open' in this sense.
It's like an application overdrawing the entire desktop on Windows--not exactly banned but neither condoned. :-)
Yea, I know how they do it. I was just saying that it isn't an officially sanctioned method. The official customizations of the Today screen are actually rather limited.
HTC's version uses some black magic. Most of the other customized versions involve partnerships with Microsoft. In general, it's [i.e., the 'Today' screen] not very customizable without hacking.
Funny! And, COM & multithreading on Windows are not "too hard" either. This is truly a ridiculous article.
Bless you, son.
Actually those technicalities may be important to a Buddhist who values all life (or PETA).
The question arises as to why most people seem desperately to need a concept like truth rather than living in an interesting and engaging state of doubt.
Mystery and doubt need not be synonymous. Some absolutes may hold even though particulars are not known.
Essentially, it's because any security flaw is the result of a bug. It's just a bug that can be exploited. So, if the code is maintained properly, then bug fixes will be continuous and as such, reduce the number of exploitable bugs.
It depends on your scope of consideration. Design flaws are not 'bugs' in the traditional sense of the word (i.e., implementation-related). However, if you expand your scope to include design specs then your statement is true. There do exist though exploits of perfectly-implemented but imperfectly-designed code.
If cluster size is 4 MB then far fewer than 1001 1 MB files will not fit. The average person isn't going to consider that.
What a bogus argument. The photo is clearly a derivative parody work.
And others would say 2008. After all, which one has ties to left-wing extremist ideologues & anti-West/American militant groups?
So what you're saying is that if a would-be traitor happens to have both the cunningness and the backing (financial and otherwise) to get elected that we should just hand him the keys to the kingdom without a 'vetting process'?
No, I agree with you. But, I think you missed my point. If Obama was as disillusioned as he claimed, there's a very good chance he surpassed the limits. If I recall correctly, no 'hard' substance use (such as cocaine--anything harder than marijuana really) is permitted at all and marijuana use must be limited to 10 occurrences or less. I'm pretty sure Obama would fail on both of those counts.
Actually, it does. The frequency of use is a determining factor. It's clear that he used drugs for 3 or 4 years so I'm sure he far surpassed the official limit.
You think that some schmuck who is working fixing problems remotely really gives a crap about the plans for your Facebook-killer?
Aha! You *were* reading their email. How else did you know about the Facebook-killer in the works?
Yea, but that will surely start to change as controversy arises. Let's say that anyone with knowledge of such (or who has friends with knowledge of such) is involved in a case. Then, these more subtle points will come to light. Really, any case of high enough importance/profile (i.e., with parties of sufficient funding and consequences of sufficient severity) should already raise these questions.