I stay at home. Activity level nearly zero (though a few times a month I bicycle several miles to do errands). No meat, mostly carbohydrates, but no holding back on fats and don't eat lowfat foods. Very thin (always been thin). Explain that.
OK, it's manufacturer specific, but is it not an identifier of some sort for the product, similar to ISBN or UPC? Your point seems orthogonal to the main question.
Or simply that the tests can detect lesser concentrations than older ones. It's similar to how people freak out because all sorts of bad things are found in food/water/air, even though the concentrations are insanely minimal. I can understand a homeopath freaking out, but anyone else should come to his senses on seeing how low the concentrations are.
What happens after that? To where do they get... 'exported' again once they are... 'retired' in those third world country? It's very likely that electronics disposal regulations in those third world countries are nearly as strict as they should be. So really what then?
I agree. It would be better for these third-world people to buy new computers and then have to dispose of them at some point, than buy used computers and have to dispose of them at some point. Much cleaner and less environmental waste.
Before posting, I looked up a few definitions and read that an SKU was some kind of identifier, for example a number of alphanumeric code. If you're saying that SKU number isn't redundant, then what exactly is a "Stock-keeping unit"?
All Microsoft has to do is disable the custom XML feature, which should be pretty easy to do, then give that a different SKU number from what's been sold so it's easy to distinguish the two versions.
I'd better get out my debit card, go get some cash from the ATM machine after entering my PIN number, and buy some copies before they remove this feature...
Odd, that's how styled text was stored on Mac OS at least as far back as 1990, probably earlier. You had the text, and a style table which was just a set of runs for each style, with changes between. But it's insanely obvious; either you store meta-information inline, and have delimiters, or you store it separately, and include pointers (text offsets) to what they apply to.
By all means, even someone with no credit should monitor their credit report (even if only the annual credit report you get for free).
(sorry for being persistent) I've tried to get my credit report and they claim they have nothing on me. I've rented a few apartments, paid utility bills, had a checking account for several years. I was born and have always lived in the US and have a SS number, so I figured it was just because I never had a credit card. Thanks.
Quick question, since you've worked in this area: What if I don't have a credit report, i.e. never had a credit card, gotten any loans, etc.; can someone still pull anything up on me, even though I can't even get a report for myself?
Security through obscurity means intentionally keeping vulnerabilities/untested things from being known, not having bugs. Virtually everything has bugs. This is just a case of insecurity due to a bug. Don't water down the meaning of "security through obscurity".
Essentially, no business properly secures their data. This means there are no alternatives, so there can be no repercussions from failure to enact proper security. People may moan and complain, but it isn't that they chose a company with poor security, it's that the industry just does business without security. For instance, no one will go without banking, and no bank is known for properly securing their data. Thus, clients can't create loss of profits for businesses with a poor security reputation.
Let's rewrite that a bit: "Essentially, no business sells computers. This means there are no alternatives, so there can be no repercussions from failure to offer computers for sale. People may moan and complain, but it isn't that they chose a company that doesn't sell them, it's that the industry just does business without selling any computers. For instance, no one will go without calculating finances, and no company is known for offering computers to do this. Thus, clients can't create loss of profits for businesses that don't sell computers."
The thing you're leaving out should now be clear: entrepreneurs who take advantage of untapped markets. If people really want security (i.e. are willing to pay for it), then there's a huge untapped market that some company could make profits by catering to.
If you link with LGPL code, you just have to make the source of the library available - in the for you used it. So if you bugfix or enhance the library, you must offer forward the bugfixes - and it makes sense to submit them back, so the community gains. But the LGPL does not require you make public the whole source of your app.
However, it does require that the user be able to make changes to the LGPL library and then relink with your program. The simplest way to allow this is to build the LGPL code as a shared library (DLL). I don't think many people realize that they can't just statically-link to an LGPL library from their closed-source program and release the source to the LGPL code, as that is nearly useless in allowing the user to make changes to the LGPL portion of the executable.
This misses much of the problem though. You can create a full application of original code, then be forbidden to statically link with a tiny GPL library or borrow a couple of routines without making your whole product fall under GPL. This isn't a commercializing GPL code or rebundling it.
And you wouldn't have this problem if you say tried to borrow a few routines from a proprietary library? If your product is closed, why do you expect people dedicated to open products to help you? And if your product is open, what's wrong with having to use the GPL if you use GPL code in it?
InfoWorld tried to interview Richard Stallman, who runs the Free Software Foundation that created and manages the GPL, on this issue, but he demanded control of what we published, so we declined.
I think InfoWorld is twisting "he demanded that we not take control over the text of his interview, so we declined". I think RMS probably wanted to be able to publish the words of his interview in other places without having to get InfoWorld's permission each time.
Or just install AutoPager (what you aren't using FireFox?)
It won't run on the platform I'm using. And no, I'm not going to switch platforms simply so I can run Firefox (unless you'd like to give me several thousand dollars to replace all my equipment with some modern stuff).
Wouldn't the drive benefit from a real understanding of the filesystem for this sort of thing? If it knew a sector was unallocated on a filesystem level, it would know that sectors were empty/unneeded, even if they had been written to nicely. Or should computers now have a way of tagging a sector as "empty" on the drive?
I have a radical concept: let the filesystem manage the drive, rather than making the drive do it. Isn't that the point of file systems, to provide optimal use of the media? Some filesystems used to schedule accesses that were near each other, to reduce head travel in a hard drive. Why not have them know about SSDs and do the read-rewrite themselves? It seems the problem is that there is an accepted interface to them that hides this information, thus requiring that the drive do it. At some point the interface should allow a filesystem to optionally take over this task.
For instance, I send you an email from support@bankofamercia.com
But my bank is called Bank of Amercia. They're just having some financial difficulties right now, that's why they can't allow me to withdraw all my deposits. They're FDIC backed, so I don't have to worry, right?
That would be the ultimate irony, for their code to all become open-source due to their attempts to claim they owned lots of source they didn't. It'd almost make all these years of SCO stories worth it...
I think we need to form a government task force that removes all dictionaries and medical texts from any homes and schools where children and immature adults are present.
Slashdot Mirror
I stay at home. Activity level nearly zero (though a few times a month I bicycle several miles to do errands). No meat, mostly carbohydrates, but no holding back on fats and don't eat lowfat foods. Very thin (always been thin). Explain that.
You forgot to wave your arm to the left/right after each line.
OK, it's manufacturer specific, but is it not an identifier of some sort for the product, similar to ISBN or UPC? Your point seems orthogonal to the main question.
Or simply that the tests can detect lesser concentrations than older ones. It's similar to how people freak out because all sorts of bad things are found in food/water/air, even though the concentrations are insanely minimal. I can understand a homeopath freaking out, but anyone else should come to his senses on seeing how low the concentrations are.
I agree. It would be better for these third-world people to buy new computers and then have to dispose of them at some point, than buy used computers and have to dispose of them at some point. Much cleaner and less environmental waste.
Before posting, I looked up a few definitions and read that an SKU was some kind of identifier, for example a number of alphanumeric code. If you're saying that SKU number isn't redundant, then what exactly is a "Stock-keeping unit"?
I'd better get out my debit card, go get some cash from the ATM machine after entering my PIN number, and buy some copies before they remove this feature...
Odd, that's how styled text was stored on Mac OS at least as far back as 1990, probably earlier. You had the text, and a style table which was just a set of runs for each style, with changes between. But it's insanely obvious; either you store meta-information inline, and have delimiters, or you store it separately, and include pointers (text offsets) to what they apply to.
So this verdict was an unreasonably high amount to deter future copyright infringements, which presumably won't be prosecuted with such high amounts?
(sorry for being persistent) I've tried to get my credit report and they claim they have nothing on me. I've rented a few apartments, paid utility bills, had a checking account for several years. I was born and have always lived in the US and have a SS number, so I figured it was just because I never had a credit card. Thanks.
And we're free to withold information from the companies in the first place. We have these things called contracts that we enter voluntarily.
Quick question, since you've worked in this area: What if I don't have a credit report, i.e. never had a credit card, gotten any loans, etc.; can someone still pull anything up on me, even though I can't even get a report for myself?
Security through obscurity means intentionally keeping vulnerabilities/untested things from being known, not having bugs. Virtually everything has bugs. This is just a case of insecurity due to a bug. Don't water down the meaning of "security through obscurity".
Maybe because criminals know that zero law-abiding citizens carry guns...
Your wishes have been answered. Edit your article preferences and you can eliminate articles from your front page by a particular editor. Enjoy.
Let's rewrite that a bit: "Essentially, no business sells computers. This means there are no alternatives, so there can be no repercussions from failure to offer computers for sale. People may moan and complain, but it isn't that they chose a company that doesn't sell them, it's that the industry just does business without selling any computers. For instance, no one will go without calculating finances, and no company is known for offering computers to do this. Thus, clients can't create loss of profits for businesses that don't sell computers."
The thing you're leaving out should now be clear: entrepreneurs who take advantage of untapped markets. If people really want security (i.e. are willing to pay for it), then there's a huge untapped market that some company could make profits by catering to.
However, it does require that the user be able to make changes to the LGPL library and then relink with your program. The simplest way to allow this is to build the LGPL code as a shared library (DLL). I don't think many people realize that they can't just statically-link to an LGPL library from their closed-source program and release the source to the LGPL code, as that is nearly useless in allowing the user to make changes to the LGPL portion of the executable.
And you wouldn't have this problem if you say tried to borrow a few routines from a proprietary library? If your product is closed, why do you expect people dedicated to open products to help you? And if your product is open, what's wrong with having to use the GPL if you use GPL code in it?
I think InfoWorld is twisting "he demanded that we not take control over the text of his interview, so we declined". I think RMS probably wanted to be able to publish the words of his interview in other places without having to get InfoWorld's permission each time.
It won't run on the platform I'm using. And no, I'm not going to switch platforms simply so I can run Firefox (unless you'd like to give me several thousand dollars to replace all my equipment with some modern stuff).
I have a radical concept: let the filesystem manage the drive, rather than making the drive do it. Isn't that the point of file systems, to provide optimal use of the media? Some filesystems used to schedule accesses that were near each other, to reduce head travel in a hard drive. Why not have them know about SSDs and do the read-rewrite themselves? It seems the problem is that there is an accepted interface to them that hides this information, thus requiring that the drive do it. At some point the interface should allow a filesystem to optionally take over this task.
Uncluttered article, without any extra crap and multiple pages. Printable = readable.
But my bank is called Bank of Amercia. They're just having some financial difficulties right now, that's why they can't allow me to withdraw all my deposits. They're FDIC backed, so I don't have to worry, right?
That would be the ultimate irony, for their code to all become open-source due to their attempts to claim they owned lots of source they didn't. It'd almost make all these years of SCO stories worth it...
I think we need to form a government task force that removes all dictionaries and medical texts from any homes and schools where children and immature adults are present.