You're a shoe-in for the lowest UID to not bother reading the 50 comments in front of you award (It makes you spill your coffee at some point in time in the future, not really a great award).
Of course, by now, the next guy would win an award for not reading the 100 comments in front of him.
The primary purpose of the tool is to publicize poor security practices at major social web sites.
The primary function of the tool is to automate the sniffing and use of a session cookie.
If you think Google was sniffing session cookies you are an idiot.
That the exploit only works on a network that the computer doing it can access makes it easier to do on open networks, but Firesheep should work just fine over networks that use WEP.
"Total" is a really bad word to use when you mean "net".
And I suppose it might be worthwhile at some point to go harvest metals from asteroids, but it will probably still make more sense to use aluminum and titanium (ores of which are hilariously abundant; aluminum production is way below 1% of reserves and the great majority of titanium is used as pigment).
If China has a big debt, don't you think they would try to use their hundreds of billions of dollars to pay it off?
Their net position is a lot more important than the details of whether they have used debt to finance this or that, and their net positions is that of lender.
Ok, but "\\" is a perfectly valid Python string that ends in a backslash. The real complaint is that the Python parser will not interpret r'\' as a valid raw string.
Sure you can end a string with a backslash. You just have to escape it, so it ends up looking like "\\". But you have to escape backslashes in lots of places in Python, it's the escape character.
He regularly engages in ad hominem attacks (things like pointing out things that 'progressives' are doing and then acting as if Obama is part and parcel of all those actions). He makes causal attributions that do not exist. He begs the question.
When it takes him less than 5 minutes to attempt rhetorical sleight of hand (or guilt by implied association, or...), it doesn't take more than 5 minutes to know it isn't worth watching.
I don't turn it on particularly often, I just occasionally turn it on to see what compels millions of people to watch, and I don't see it, so I turn it off (usually when he rambles across two topics and then makes a statement associating them together, even though there is nothing resembling logic involved in the association.).
As far as citing his dishonesty, no, I can't, because I don't have any evidence that his entire shtick is an act, but that's why I phrased that statement as an uncertainty.
See, all I am doing is speculating and leaving it to you to fill in the possible details, if you decide to. Just look into it for yourself.
It is nearly a certainty that the genes you speak of (you have two rough groups there, genes that influence disease and genes that influence politics/personality) are interrelated and will interact with each other.
I don't think Glenn Beck thinks about politics as More Government vs. Less Government, I think he thinks about politics as a way to foment frenzy and garner attention (he only garners a little attention mind you, but it is plenty enough to bring in his advertisers).
If he is being honest with his listeners and viewers, he should try to be less ramblely and actually string ideas together (rather than presenting disconnected ideas and then asserting that they are connected simply because he presented them side by side).
Can we agree that the group of people with both employer-paid smart phones and great concern over $1 (Rather than say, the ability to load arbitrary software on the phone) is quite small?
The plus or minus $500 is all pretty tangential to my point about the griping about $1 being silly.
I'm sorry I made a comment that sort of said something about the relative prices of cell phones, it was not my intent to energize the pickers of the nits.
Not lying dude, just being sloppy and lazy, as in, my goal was not to deceive, it was to point out that balking at $1 for a favorite game when you are implicitly willing to spend hundreds (is that better?) just to carry the thing is ridiculous.
(and I wasn't trying to paint the iPhone as being expensive, Wired says it isn't particularly so:
I was setting a benchmark of comparison for the $1, which isn't really a relevant amount for a person that can afford an iPhone. So the $1 is effectively $0, and the OP was using that $0 to make a statement about not liking Apple's management of their platform. Which was ridiculous.)
Are there hundreds of games that you think it would be "Awesome!" to have on your phone that costs $500 and requires a $2,000 service contract, or are you just trying to make a point in the most ridiculous way possible?
Slashdot Mirror
Brain pacemakers are an often used treatment option for things like Parkinson's disease.
You are extrapolating linearly.
For reference, 50 years ago integrated circuits were still brand new.
You're a shoe-in for the lowest UID to not bother reading the 50 comments in front of you award (It makes you spill your coffee at some point in time in the future, not really a great award).
Of course, by now, the next guy would win an award for not reading the 100 comments in front of him.
No ballot issues in your jurisdictions?
I got to vote on a zoning issue and on a state constitutional convention. I definitely wanted to express my opinion on the zoning issue.
The primary purpose of the tool is to publicize poor security practices at major social web sites.
The primary function of the tool is to automate the sniffing and use of a session cookie.
If you think Google was sniffing session cookies you are an idiot.
That the exploit only works on a network that the computer doing it can access makes it easier to do on open networks, but Firesheep should work just fine over networks that use WEP.
Like with flu vaccines, right? Those have been a disaster of epic proportions.
"Total" is a really bad word to use when you mean "net".
And I suppose it might be worthwhile at some point to go harvest metals from asteroids, but it will probably still make more sense to use aluminum and titanium (ores of which are hilariously abundant; aluminum production is way below 1% of reserves and the great majority of titanium is used as pigment).
It must be really exciting to be able to flip a coin and not be certain that it is going to land.
A person doesn't have to have a perfect description of reality to have a better description of reality than the one they were using yesterday.
What would it change if Americans measured ourselves and our roads in SI units?
BTW, the bottle of beer I am drinking is 11.5 fl.oz. and 340 ml, neither is particularly more useful as a measure than 'a bottle'.
The goal of Pheonix was always to make a user oriented browser, rather than a developer catchall.
That the first step in doing that was to remove a bunch of stuff has caused endless confusion.
If China has a big debt, don't you think they would try to use their hundreds of billions of dollars to pay it off?
Their net position is a lot more important than the details of whether they have used debt to finance this or that, and their net positions is that of lender.
That's actually what the article is about.
Ok, but "\\" is a perfectly valid Python string that ends in a backslash. The real complaint is that the Python parser will not interpret r'\' as a valid raw string.
Sure you can end a string with a backslash. You just have to escape it, so it ends up looking like "\\". But you have to escape backslashes in lots of places in Python, it's the escape character.
He regularly engages in ad hominem attacks (things like pointing out things that 'progressives' are doing and then acting as if Obama is part and parcel of all those actions). He makes causal attributions that do not exist. He begs the question.
And so on.
Maybe. Star Trek as Federation Propaganda is a fun thought process.
When it takes him less than 5 minutes to attempt rhetorical sleight of hand (or guilt by implied association, or ...), it doesn't take more than 5 minutes to know it isn't worth watching.
I don't turn it on particularly often, I just occasionally turn it on to see what compels millions of people to watch, and I don't see it, so I turn it off (usually when he rambles across two topics and then makes a statement associating them together, even though there is nothing resembling logic involved in the association.).
As far as citing his dishonesty, no, I can't, because I don't have any evidence that his entire shtick is an act, but that's why I phrased that statement as an uncertainty.
See, all I am doing is speculating and leaving it to you to fill in the possible details, if you decide to. Just look into it for yourself.
It is nearly a certainty that the genes you speak of (you have two rough groups there, genes that influence disease and genes that influence politics/personality) are interrelated and will interact with each other.
I don't think Glenn Beck thinks about politics as More Government vs. Less Government, I think he thinks about politics as a way to foment frenzy and garner attention (he only garners a little attention mind you, but it is plenty enough to bring in his advertisers).
If he is being honest with his listeners and viewers, he should try to be less ramblely and actually string ideas together (rather than presenting disconnected ideas and then asserting that they are connected simply because he presented them side by side).
Nuh-uh dude, the photons coming from his body clearly belong to him.
Can we agree that the group of people with both employer-paid smart phones and great concern over $1 (Rather than say, the ability to load arbitrary software on the phone) is quite small?
The plus or minus $500 is all pretty tangential to my point about the griping about $1 being silly.
I'm sorry I made a comment that sort of said something about the relative prices of cell phones, it was not my intent to energize the pickers of the nits.
Not lying dude, just being sloppy and lazy, as in, my goal was not to deceive, it was to point out that balking at $1 for a favorite game when you are implicitly willing to spend hundreds (is that better?) just to carry the thing is ridiculous.
(and I wasn't trying to paint the iPhone as being expensive, Wired says it isn't particularly so:
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/06/the-real-cost-of-iphone-4-vs-android-rivals/
I was setting a benchmark of comparison for the $1, which isn't really a relevant amount for a person that can afford an iPhone. So the $1 is effectively $0, and the OP was using that $0 to make a statement about not liking Apple's management of their platform. Which was ridiculous.)
Are there hundreds of games that you think it would be "Awesome!" to have on your phone that costs $500 and requires a $2,000 service contract, or are you just trying to make a point in the most ridiculous way possible?