And if they somehow (cough cough) manage to weasel their way out of getting convicted, bar the middle-managers on up from ever holding another government position/job.
This is, what, the third or fourth time we've heard "okay okay, we swear this time we're really stopping it, for real," and then found out a little later no, they actually didn't. At this point it's a rogue agency, as they clearly don't give a wet slap what the authorities are telling them to do. Dissolve the entire thing and make a new agency with some fucking accountability!
Have you ever tried using GTKRadiant? Trying to shape a 3-d object using 3 fixed planes in a 2D editor gets interesting:P Or accidentally resizing an object below zero size, which makes it invisible but doesn't delete it, and then the compilation blows out with a weird error. Not that all the errors aren't rather cryptic...
Also the documentation is terrible, but at least it exists. Thank god for wikis.
(believe it or not NT supported the equivalent of unix Hard Links and SoftLinks)
Do you have a source for this? I'm only finding symbolic links in XP from googling. And that was only kernel mode; user-mode symlinks debuted in Vista.
NTFS junction points[edit] Main article: NTFS junction point The Windows 2000 version of NTFS introduced reparse points, which enabled, among other things, the use of Volume Mount Points and junction points. Junction points are for directories only, and moreover, local directories only; junction points to remote shares are unsupported.[12] The Windows 2000 and XP Resource Kits include a program called linkd to create junction points; a more powerful one named Junction was distributed by Sysinternals' Mark Russinovich.
Not all standard applications support reparse points. Most noticeably, Backup suffers from this problem and will issue an error message 0x80070003[13] when the folders to be backed up contain a reparse point.
Shortcuts[edit] Shortcuts, which are supported by the graphical file browsers of some operating systems, may resemble symbolic links but differ in a number of important ways.
Symbolic links to directories or volumes, called junction points and mount points, were introduced with NTFS 3.0 that shipped with Windows 2000. From NTFS 3.1 onwards, symbolic links can be created for any kind of file system object. NTFS 3.1 was introduced together with Windows XP, but the functionality was not made available (through ntfs.sys) to user mode applications. Third-party filter drivers – such as Masatoshi Kimura's opensource senable driver – could however be installed to make the feature available in user mode as well. The ntfs.sys released with Windows Vista made the functionality available to user mode applications by default.
Putting a rock through a car's windshield won't physically disable the vehicle. It might disable the *driver*, but that's somewhat different.
Chucking something into the unshielded propellers *will* disable the vehicle (presumably). And then you have an extra dimension to make the ensuing crash more "fun."
My university was one of the few in the state system where you borrowed your textbooks from the campus library for the year, so I dodged that bullet. After freshman year it was running joke in the group of Comp Sci people I knew that you never actually had to open your CS textbooks the whole semester, since it was all PowerPoint presentations and programming work anyway, and you could find most anything you were wondering about via a minute or two on Google.
There would still be the occasional course where 2 or 3 times during the semester there was some specific thing about formatting that was easier to find in the textbook than via google-fu, but yeah.
Mint XFCE (or probably Xubuntu) by default ends up giving you pretty much the equivalent of the de-crapified 7-and-earlier Windows interface. It even does snap-to-edge now out of the box:)
The theming engine is split into two different pieces, somewhat oddly, but that's when you're getting into customizing it.
The GPL is constructed to work within the confines of copyright law because RMS was smart enough to know he couldn't kill the existing system so he might as well play along.
demanding companies to release GPL code, and using legal threats to infringe on peoples freedoms.
If you want the freedom to take other people's work and close the source and claim it as your own, go find a BSD license. The point of the GPL is to ensure the continued availability of the code to the community, not to provide free (as in beer) work for companies not willing to share.
And besides, if you don't redistribute your modifications you can do whatever you want with GPL'd code anyway.
You mean that fork of Firefox 29 that still think they're doing a better job than Mozilla
As regards the interface, I'd say they are.
(and that they can handle all of the stuff they're deprecating)
Mozilla is the one deprecating stuff. PM is just continuing with the existing way that already works. Unfortunately that's indeed going to get rough once Firefox moves on, and then we'll see whether PM survives.
The one with a userbase who go around acting like Mozilla are clueless morons
How do you know how many people complaining about Firefox around here are PM users? I haven't observed that correlation. PM users may tend to be critical of Mozilla for obvious reasons, but I bet most people critical of Mozilla are not PM users.
while despite still smugly relying on their work
While I get where you're coming from, forking is an established and beneficial open source practice.
and having some of the least idea of what Mozilla is doing and why?
Tell me more about your qualifications, Mr. A.C. "Everybody who doesn't agree with me should shut their cake-hole", eh?
Yeah, they're all so much more level-headed than the people who are just mindless hypocrites.
At least they're doing something about it instead of just whining online.
All you have to do is ensure that anyone posting anything on the internet uses their own real name and address, and has provided a copy of their passport/driving licence or other official ID as proof.
Oh, is that all? Thanks, Orwell:P
In order to be allowed to rate a movie, you would have to provide a copy of your cinema ticket.
So we only care about the opinions of people who've watched the movie legally? I take it we're only caring about the ratings for the first few weeks after release, before they start showing it on cable channels?
In other words, anonymous online reviews are currently close to meaningless. Personally, I would rather read a couple of reviews by decent film critics, rather than take any notice of the number of 1* or 5* reviews.
Slashdot Mirror
And if they somehow (cough cough) manage to weasel their way out of getting convicted, bar the middle-managers on up from ever holding another government position/job.
This is, what, the third or fourth time we've heard "okay okay, we swear this time we're really stopping it, for real," and then found out a little later no, they actually didn't. At this point it's a rogue agency, as they clearly don't give a wet slap what the authorities are telling them to do. Dissolve the entire thing and make a new agency with some fucking accountability!
/. (or another "news" site) had a recent post about N.S.A. technicians having low morale and there being high turnover there
Well no wonder, when they're being told to do fucking blatantly illegal things for their job.
Not sure what a non-Euclidean joke would be. I was covering both sides.
Have you ever tried using GTKRadiant? Trying to shape a 3-d object using 3 fixed planes in a 2D editor gets interesting :P Or accidentally resizing an object below zero size, which makes it invisible but doesn't delete it, and then the compilation blows out with a weird error. Not that all the errors aren't rather cryptic...
Also the documentation is terrible, but at least it exists. Thank god for wikis.
Pretty much the exact opposite IMO. Now Penny Arcade is some kind of non-Euclidean universe of rubbery noodle-appendages and dad jokes.
I meant "softlinks were only in XP (and later)", not "only softlinks were in XP", sorry. My phrasing was ambiguous.
(believe it or not NT supported the equivalent of unix Hard Links and SoftLinks)
Do you have a source for this? I'm only finding symbolic links in XP from googling. And that was only kernel mode; user-mode symlinks debuted in Vista.
NTFS junction points[edit]
Main article: NTFS junction point
The Windows 2000 version of NTFS introduced reparse points, which enabled, among other things, the use of Volume Mount Points and junction points. Junction points are for directories only, and moreover, local directories only; junction points to remote shares are unsupported.[12] The Windows 2000 and XP Resource Kits include a program called linkd to create junction points; a more powerful one named Junction was distributed by Sysinternals' Mark Russinovich.
Not all standard applications support reparse points. Most noticeably, Backup suffers from this problem and will issue an error message 0x80070003[13] when the folders to be backed up contain a reparse point.
Shortcuts[edit]
Shortcuts, which are supported by the graphical file browsers of some operating systems, may resemble symbolic links but differ in a number of important ways.
Symbolic links to directories or volumes, called junction points and mount points, were introduced with NTFS 3.0 that shipped with Windows 2000. From NTFS 3.1 onwards, symbolic links can be created for any kind of file system object. NTFS 3.1 was introduced together with Windows XP, but the functionality was not made available (through ntfs.sys) to user mode applications. Third-party filter drivers – such as Masatoshi Kimura's opensource senable driver – could however be installed to make the feature available in user mode as well. The ntfs.sys released with Windows Vista made the functionality available to user mode applications by default.
I've heard the analogy before that the hardest parts of flying are takeoff and landing. And cars are basically taking off/landing all the time.
Putting a rock through a car's windshield won't physically disable the vehicle. It might disable the *driver*, but that's somewhat different.
Chucking something into the unshielded propellers *will* disable the vehicle (presumably). And then you have an extra dimension to make the ensuing crash more "fun."
in some places a 15 yr old can't consent while in other places a 13 yr old can consent
Not in North America. At a state level, the lowest is 16.
Unless you go to Mexico and further south.
seems arbitrary.
Well, yeah. How else would you do it? Have the jury talk to the victim and decide case-per-case whether they consented? That's a terrible idea.
These guys have no respect for fellow human beings. Shameful.
FTFY. Why is this specifically about marines? :P
What problem would that solve? They want to catch the people doing the recording, not the ones being recorded.
Which may also differ from the ones doing the uploading.
After that I decided I'd just try to make due without them, which... was probably not the best choice for my education.
Really depends what field you're going into. For Comp Sci I didn't have a problem.
that course was CompSCI101
My university was one of the few in the state system where you borrowed your textbooks from the campus library for the year, so I dodged that bullet. After freshman year it was running joke in the group of Comp Sci people I knew that you never actually had to open your CS textbooks the whole semester, since it was all PowerPoint presentations and programming work anyway, and you could find most anything you were wondering about via a minute or two on Google.
There would still be the occasional course where 2 or 3 times during the semester there was some specific thing about formatting that was easier to find in the textbook than via google-fu, but yeah.
Meh. Works just fine for most of us.
Until it doesn't, and you find out you can't read the logs to figure out why.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't also out to get you.
see below
The bigger problem is: We won't know which "patch" M$ will 'break' to induce this problem.
I thought we weren't going to be getting individual patches anymore anyway? They're rolled up into weekly or monthly packages now.
A.K.A. riders A.K.A. how the legislature perverts the bill you wants to pass to force you to give them unrelated stuff they want
Mint XFCE (or probably Xubuntu) by default ends up giving you pretty much the equivalent of the de-crapified 7-and-earlier Windows interface. It even does snap-to-edge now out of the box :)
The theming engine is split into two different pieces, somewhat oddly, but that's when you're getting into customizing it.
They're in the business of making OS, it's kind of expected for them to make it work on any hardware
cf. MacOS
In this case it's somewhat analogous to a thing they do in German, where words that have no literal meaning (e.g. "denn") are inserted for emphasis.
The GPL is constructed to work within the confines of copyright law because RMS was smart enough to know he couldn't kill the existing system so he might as well play along.
demanding companies to release GPL code, and using legal threats to infringe on peoples freedoms.
If you want the freedom to take other people's work and close the source and claim it as your own, go find a BSD license. The point of the GPL is to ensure the continued availability of the code to the community, not to provide free (as in beer) work for companies not willing to share.
And besides, if you don't redistribute your modifications you can do whatever you want with GPL'd code anyway.
Bit of a strawman. Don't suppose you have a source for your 14 million figure?
You mean that fork of Firefox 29 that still think they're doing a better job than Mozilla
As regards the interface, I'd say they are.
(and that they can handle all of the stuff they're deprecating)
Mozilla is the one deprecating stuff. PM is just continuing with the existing way that already works. Unfortunately that's indeed going to get rough once Firefox moves on, and then we'll see whether PM survives.
The one with a userbase who go around acting like Mozilla are clueless morons
How do you know how many people complaining about Firefox around here are PM users? I haven't observed that correlation. PM users may tend to be critical of Mozilla for obvious reasons, but I bet most people critical of Mozilla are not PM users.
while despite still smugly relying on their work
While I get where you're coming from, forking is an established and beneficial open source practice.
and having some of the least idea of what Mozilla is doing and why?
Tell me more about your qualifications, Mr. A.C. "Everybody who doesn't agree with me should shut their cake-hole", eh?
Yeah, they're all so much more level-headed than the people who are just mindless hypocrites.
At least they're doing something about it instead of just whining online.
All you have to do is ensure that anyone posting anything on the internet uses their own real name and address, and has provided a copy of their passport/driving licence or other official ID as proof.
Oh, is that all? Thanks, Orwell :P
In order to be allowed to rate a movie, you would have to provide a copy of your cinema ticket.
So we only care about the opinions of people who've watched the movie legally? I take it we're only caring about the ratings for the first few weeks after release, before they start showing it on cable channels?
In other words, anonymous online reviews are currently close to meaningless. Personally, I would rather read a couple of reviews by decent film critics, rather than take any notice of the number of 1* or 5* reviews.
Yeah, true enough.
But what if somebody leaked the film beforehand?