A company, public or not, exists to do whatever its owners want it to do. If the Microsoft shareholders don't like the position of the current board they can vote it off.
I don't get your last point. Are you under the impression that Chick-fil-A is the only private business that can serve you food? Because otherwise, I don't see how exactly does being "pro private business" has anything to do with eating at C-f-A.
An habitual truth-teller is simply an impossible creature; he does not exist; he never has existed. Of course there are people who think they never lie, but it is not soâ"and this ignorance is one of the very things that shame our so-called civilization. Everybody liesâ"every day; every hour; awake; asleep; in his dreams; in his joy; in his mourning; if he keeps his tongue still, his hands, his feet, his eyes, his attitude, will convey deceptionâ"and purposely. Even in sermonsâ"but that is a platitude.
What parent said is that if the password has more entropy than the has, you can't know if you "cracked" it or not, because there's more than one password that results in the same hash.
You do if you want to access other website in which the user may have used the same password, because the wrong password won't hash to the right value when the salt is different.
It's ~200k, and what would happen is that they'd deny your application for violating the rules and keep the money (yes, the money is a fee for the review, not a payment for keeping the gTLD).
Well, as a student myself just a couple of months ago, I don't have a digital camera, an phone with an USB charger (or a contract) and the old TV is still my main TV.
In fact, I'd say that people who do have all that can probably afford a netbook faster than a Rasp.Pi.
Not true, as far as I remember service packs never disabled functionality and locked you out of you own data like ML does with the RSS reader in Mail.app.
No, a censor is someone who is tasked etc in order to suppress the content if deemed inappropriate. The mods here can't suppress the comments, just tag them with a score. It's the reader who may or may not suppress them by choosing his/her own threshold level.
Well, if they're using NoScript they could have Facebook's scripts enabled but not this company's. That said, it's very unlikely that they'd be more than 1% or so.
What about if you prefer a nice glass of wine, a nice leather seat, a lamp, and a book by Kierkegaard (about how organized Christianity is the pits - yes, that would make one a terror suspect, wouldn't it?), instead of wasting time reading the shitload of opinions about *nothing* your ex-girlfriends, your ex-didn't-wanna-be-your-girfriend-then-but-wants-to-fuck-you-now-desperately and ex-college mates insist on posting on social networks?
Well, then either you'll be ruled out by other features, or in the worst case they'll have to waste time manually ruling you out. It's not like you get a target on your head and a plane ticket to Guantanamo.
I barely have time to read books by the great minds... I care very little about reading the opinion of tens, dozens - or hundreds of people (FB "friends") - few of which have anything really substantial and interest to say or live a de facto interesting life (99.99999% of us really don't).
Sure, I don't have a Facebook account either, but I'm perfectly aware than I'm increasingly an outlier.
That kind of statistics is so, so WRONG on so many levels, it's like saying the intelligence community if full of morons who don't understand the unbelievable number of confounding variables and the statistical selection bias involved.
I'm quite ignorant of statistics, but would it really have a great effect if they used something like a Bayes classifier with dozens of features?
Don't be ridiculous, they're obviously not planning on stopping everyone without an FB account. They're probably using something like a Bayes classifier and not having an FB account is just one of many features.
Slashdot Mirror
Because that's what the authors used on their paper:
A Richter-type scale for Sudoku hardness
Hairyfeet said there was a "large amount" of purists, and that's obviously not true, judging simply by the number of users of pure distros.
Maybe if you hadn't stopped reading, you'd understand what cpu6502 actually meant. Here, I'll give you a hand:
it is not the role of government to punish/boycott/ban people or businesses or groups for their speech or ideas.
Refusing to serve someone is not a speech or idea.
Chick-Fil-A isn't refusing to serve gays, so I don't see how is your post relevant.
A company, public or not, exists to do whatever its owners want it to do. If the Microsoft shareholders don't like the position of the current board they can vote it off.
I don't get your last point. Are you under the impression that Chick-fil-A is the only private business that can serve you food? Because otherwise, I don't see how exactly does being "pro private business" has anything to do with eating at C-f-A.
You must be new here.
An habitual truth-teller is simply an impossible creature; he does not exist; he never has existed. Of course there are people who think they never lie, but it is not soâ"and this ignorance is one of the very things that shame our so-called civilization. Everybody liesâ"every day; every hour; awake; asleep; in his dreams; in his joy; in his mourning; if he keeps his tongue still, his hands, his feet, his eyes, his attitude, will convey deceptionâ"and purposely. Even in sermonsâ"but that is a platitude.
On the Decay of the Art of Lying, by Mark Twain.
You didn't understand parent's post.
What parent said is that if the password has more entropy than the has, you can't know if you "cracked" it or not, because there's more than one password that results in the same hash.
You do if you want to access other website in which the user may have used the same password, because the wrong password won't hash to the right value when the salt is different.
If Verizon could just increase the rates without losing customers, why exactly haven't they done so already? They hate free money?
It's ~200k, and what would happen is that they'd deny your application for violating the rules and keep the money (yes, the money is a fee for the review, not a payment for keeping the gTLD).
Well, as a student myself just a couple of months ago, I don't have a digital camera, an phone with an USB charger (or a contract) and the old TV is still my main TV.
In fact, I'd say that people who do have all that can probably afford a netbook faster than a Rasp.Pi.
I rather have dipshits singing the praises of a fucking number than old farts ranting about such dipshits.
So it has a nickname, who the fuck cares?
Slashdot isn't "becoming" anything, it's just your rose colored glasses. The MacOSX stories from 2001/2002 have plenty of flamebait too.
Not true, as far as I remember service packs never disabled functionality and locked you out of you own data like ML does with the RSS reader in Mail.app.
A completey functioning computer, except for the mouse, keyboard, power supply, storage and screen.
No, a censor is someone who is tasked etc in order to suppress the content if deemed inappropriate. The mods here can't suppress the comments, just tag them with a score. It's the reader who may or may not suppress them by choosing his/her own threshold level.
Well, if they're using NoScript they could have Facebook's scripts enabled but not this company's. That said, it's very unlikely that they'd be more than 1% or so.
Is the code of your OS formally proven?
What about if you prefer a nice glass of wine, a nice leather seat, a lamp, and a book by Kierkegaard (about how organized Christianity is the pits - yes, that would make one a terror suspect, wouldn't it?), instead of wasting time reading the shitload of opinions about *nothing* your ex-girlfriends, your ex-didn't-wanna-be-your-girfriend-then-but-wants-to-fuck-you-now-desperately and ex-college mates insist on posting on social networks?
Well, then either you'll be ruled out by other features, or in the worst case they'll have to waste time manually ruling you out. It's not like you get a target on your head and a plane ticket to Guantanamo.
I barely have time to read books by the great minds... I care very little about reading the opinion of tens, dozens - or hundreds of people (FB "friends") - few of which have anything really substantial and interest to say or live a de facto interesting life (99.99999% of us really don't).
Sure, I don't have a Facebook account either, but I'm perfectly aware than I'm increasingly an outlier.
That kind of statistics is so, so WRONG on so many levels, it's like saying the intelligence community if full of morons who don't understand the unbelievable number of confounding variables and the statistical selection bias involved.
I'm quite ignorant of statistics, but would it really have a great effect if they used something like a Bayes classifier with dozens of features?
One would like to think that posts were judged based on their merit and content rather than on who posted them, but that doesn't seem to be the case.
They are, just not as individual posts but as a continuum.
It's not solved, the costs are just less visible.
Nobody is considering people without Facebook mass-murderers. They're considering it a statistical feature among many others.
Don't be ridiculous, they're obviously not planning on stopping everyone without an FB account. They're probably using something like a Bayes classifier and not having an FB account is just one of many features.