Submarines? How are they going to get access to humid air while they travel around underwater? Unless you are planning to take in seawater, evaporate it and then condense it again but this is basically a crude form of desalination. At $30 per cubic meter it is a lot more expensive than desalination which is $0.5 so this would imply that the energy needs are much less for desalination.
At last I can finally get rid of those nasty rough edges from the precious digital bytes being read from my CD. The difference in sound is incredible of course.
Most types of fusion use an isotope of hydrogen, which you extract from sea water. These are also proving tricky to implement. Also with cold fusion a lot of people don't even know if it exists yet.
I would indeed assume that having spent three years in jail the guy would not have continued to pay rent on his apartment, also I doubt he would have left the lights on in his apartment.
No the idea is that the man would have had to pay the living costs had he not been in jail. Thus the amount is reduced from his compensation. If he had not been in jail he would not have had this money therefore he is not compensated for it.
It sounds bad when you phrase it in such a biased way. The idea is that the person is compensated for the money they could have earned had they been out of prison. Living expenses are removed from this which are actually fairly low, the article quoted in the story says £12500 for 3 years which isn't all that much. They are not paying for being in jail, they are instead being compensated fairly by calculating how much money they would have had to spend on things other than bed and board while in jail, since it is assumed that the person would have spent money on bread and board.
Ah so now America is at war with these suspected terrorists they can treat them entirely differently. I guess the UK isn't at war with these terrorists though because you said so. This new law will only apply to terrorist suspects so I don't see what the difference is really.
Also when will the US decide this 'war' is over. When they have made the terrorists formally surrender? That is never going to happen. Also who are hey even waging the war against? They capture their enemies in interesting places. And of course they will not be able to do anything against these suspected terrorists if they are prisoners of war. I guess they could charge them with war crimes but the problem is that they didn't actually commit any.
Accepting things like this could be dangerous for the project. It is quite different to generally donating to the project.
When you offer money for them to fix your bug, which is effectively what you are doing even if you just ask them to prioritise it, other people may see that. So when they come along with something they think they can just pay the developers to get it done quickly. This is ok on a small scale but if it escalates then it could use up a lot of developer time.
Also it could potentially produce conflicts, since you are giving money for a bug so how will the money be distributed. Will it just go to the developer who fixed the bug, but then how do you decide who fixes the bug? In most cases it would probably be ok but it could easily cause problems.
You can code to standards and make the page work in IE. It just takes a lot of effort. I have created a css based website design which works in every browser I have tested (safari, IE5,6,7, Firefox, Opera, Konqueror) with exactly the same code for each browser. The borders came out to be a few pixels different and it took quite a bit of effort but it can be done.
Just because the code cannot be executed directly hardly means it isn't a security problem. Basically you have a file downloaded to the users desktop without the users permission. I could create an executable called My Computer.exe with the my computer icon and that will be downloaded to the desktop without user consent. How is that not a security risk?
No the danger lies in the fact that apple didn't code safari to mark the file as being downloaded from the internet. Any application could write executables such as an installer from a CD it would just confuse people to tell them that those files were downloaded from the internet when they weren't therefore the browser needs to mark the file to say it is downloaded from the internet but guess what the safari programmers didn't do? Hence it is all apples fault.
It is even better than that. It has javascript password protection. This will naturally keep your site perfectly secure. I thought perhaps this might be a possible one where it could work with some kind of strong encryption actually based on the password. I was disappointed after looking at the trial however since I cracked it by simply using trial and error to remove bits of code until I narrowed it down the the correct bit. Then the page was free for viewing.
And naturally one of the main ways I would aim to hack a page would be via the cache so this security feature will be highly useful as well. What better way could I spend $40.
I was excited by the feature in the demo which offered to prevent the user from taking screenshots since I thought it would be valuable to report this seemingly critical security flaw in my browser. Unfortunately the feature did not work in the slightest.
Even better to stop those determined hackers is the excellent tip to stop them even finding the source code. This of course is done by the option to insert 200 blank lines at the top of the source.
You can protect your valuable image from being used by somebody else by reducing the quality so now if your competitors steal your banner it will look rubbish on their site. The only minor fault is that yours will look rubbish as well.
Possibly the only useful feature in the entire program is an automated tool to watermark your images.
Slashdot Mirror
Submarines? How are they going to get access to humid air while they travel around underwater? Unless you are planning to take in seawater, evaporate it and then condense it again but this is basically a crude form of desalination. At $30 per cubic meter it is a lot more expensive than desalination which is $0.5 so this would imply that the energy needs are much less for desalination.
At last I can finally get rid of those nasty rough edges from the precious digital bytes being read from my CD. The difference in sound is incredible of course.
Most types of fusion use an isotope of hydrogen, which you extract from sea water. These are also proving tricky to implement. Also with cold fusion a lot of people don't even know if it exists yet.
I would indeed assume that having spent three years in jail the guy would not have continued to pay rent on his apartment, also I doubt he would have left the lights on in his apartment.
No the idea is that the man would have had to pay the living costs had he not been in jail. Thus the amount is reduced from his compensation. If he had not been in jail he would not have had this money therefore he is not compensated for it.
It sounds bad when you phrase it in such a biased way. The idea is that the person is compensated for the money they could have earned had they been out of prison. Living expenses are removed from this which are actually fairly low, the article quoted in the story says £12500 for 3 years which isn't all that much. They are not paying for being in jail, they are instead being compensated fairly by calculating how much money they would have had to spend on things other than bed and board while in jail, since it is assumed that the person would have spent money on bread and board.
Ah so now America is at war with these suspected terrorists they can treat them entirely differently. I guess the UK isn't at war with these terrorists though because you said so. This new law will only apply to terrorist suspects so I don't see what the difference is really.
Also when will the US decide this 'war' is over. When they have made the terrorists formally surrender? That is never going to happen. Also who are hey even waging the war against? They capture their enemies in interesting places. And of course they will not be able to do anything against these suspected terrorists if they are prisoners of war. I guess they could charge them with war crimes but the problem is that they didn't actually commit any.
Accepting things like this could be dangerous for the project. It is quite different to generally donating to the project.
When you offer money for them to fix your bug, which is effectively what you are doing even if you just ask them to prioritise it, other people may see that. So when they come along with something they think they can just pay the developers to get it done quickly. This is ok on a small scale but if it escalates then it could use up a lot of developer time.
Also it could potentially produce conflicts, since you are giving money for a bug so how will the money be distributed. Will it just go to the developer who fixed the bug, but then how do you decide who fixes the bug? In most cases it would probably be ok but it could easily cause problems.
It took maybe an extra 20% of the time, and the benefit will be that it won't break every time microsoft decide to change IE's rendering engine.
You can code to standards and make the page work in IE. It just takes a lot of effort. I have created a css based website design which works in every browser I have tested (safari, IE5,6,7, Firefox, Opera, Konqueror) with exactly the same code for each browser. The borders came out to be a few pixels different and it took quite a bit of effort but it can be done.
Just because the code cannot be executed directly hardly means it isn't a security problem. Basically you have a file downloaded to the users desktop without the users permission. I could create an executable called My Computer.exe with the my computer icon and that will be downloaded to the desktop without user consent. How is that not a security risk?
No the danger lies in the fact that apple didn't code safari to mark the file as being downloaded from the internet. Any application could write executables such as an installer from a CD it would just confuse people to tell them that those files were downloaded from the internet when they weren't therefore the browser needs to mark the file to say it is downloaded from the internet but guess what the safari programmers didn't do? Hence it is all apples fault.
It is even better than that. It has javascript password protection. This will naturally keep your site perfectly secure. I thought perhaps this might be a possible one where it could work with some kind of strong encryption actually based on the password. I was disappointed after looking at the trial however since I cracked it by simply using trial and error to remove bits of code until I narrowed it down the the correct bit. Then the page was free for viewing.
And naturally one of the main ways I would aim to hack a page would be via the cache so this security feature will be highly useful as well. What better way could I spend $40.
I was excited by the feature in the demo which offered to prevent the user from taking screenshots since I thought it would be valuable to report this seemingly critical security flaw in my browser. Unfortunately the feature did not work in the slightest.
Even better to stop those determined hackers is the excellent tip to stop them even finding the source code. This of course is done by the option to insert 200 blank lines at the top of the source.
You can protect your valuable image from being used by somebody else by reducing the quality so now if your competitors steal your banner it will look rubbish on their site. The only minor fault is that yours will look rubbish as well.
Possibly the only useful feature in the entire program is an automated tool to watermark your images.