People who insist on waving AK-47 in debian's faces demanding that they comprise their philosophy so that they can have the latest non-free drivers are only hurting themselves.
You can't win over the developers by calling them names.
First, let's ignore any apps that do direct writing to hardware, just to make it simplier.
Okay now say a program calls function winA(). So wine implements winA(), by say just calling linuxA()
What a recompiler would do is rewrite the winA() to linuxA() on the fly.. not much different, no real help.
I suppose it would be helpful if in the code you do say: winA(); winB() where there is no linux equialent, but there is a linuxAB() that does both, in which case the recompilier would have the advantage. But you could arguably do that anyway by implementing winA() to set some flag, then winB() checks the flag is set, and if so calls winAB().
hmm. If the samba people don't get access to the technical documents, then they'll just do exactly what they've been doing all along - reverse engineer. How is this going to affect samba team in a negative way?
You dumb ass - of course there was the implied meaning that your IP address could be public knowledge. Whether it is secure or not is totally irrelevant to the discussion.
Actually no they don't come to a standstill. Because if they did, then you would know both their exact position and their exact speed at the same time (which you have probably heard cannot happen).
Btw this is why electrons don't fall into the atom. Because if they did, you'd know where they are and the speed of them:)
Slashdot Mirror
How do you know that in a month she wouldn't have gotten used to the place anyway?
People who insist on waving AK-47 in debian's faces demanding that they comprise their philosophy so that they can have the latest non-free drivers are only hurting themselves.
You can't win over the developers by calling them names.
I don't understand what you are proposing.
First, let's ignore any apps that do direct writing to hardware, just to make it simplier.
Okay now say a program calls function winA().
So wine implements winA(), by say just calling linuxA()
What a recompiler would do is rewrite the winA() to linuxA() on the fly.. not much different, no real help.
I suppose it would be helpful if in the code you do say:
winA(); winB() where there is no linux equialent, but there is a linuxAB() that does both, in which case the recompilier would have the advantage. But you could arguably do that anyway by implementing winA() to set some flag, then winB() checks the flag is set, and if so calls winAB().
Using shadow password files means that the password is kept in
If the hacker managed to read
Very few systems these days don't use a shadow file.
":)PPP" - good grief! What is that - tounge within tongue within tongue, like in aliens.
Well you probably want to use squid to do the caching. Apache's caching support is fairly basic.
hmm you misunderstand probability.
Say you want it to last 1 week. So you build it with a 99.9% probability of lasting 1 week.
However this means that the chance of surviving for 3 weeks is around 99.7% (assuming the probability of failure is time-constant.)
Of course - haven't you heard of a little thing called turing completeness?
Any language can be mapped on to any other language.
So in your admission, at least 20 times you have almost hit a person or another car, and at least one of those times it was at high speed.
I had very similiar conversations with my ex-gf.
Hmm and for both of us they were ex's.. I'm starting to see a pattern here.
It's always dangerous when you use sarcasm, because if you're wrong or have missed something, then you can look really stupid.
And guess what - you dumb ass.
It won't be in the bios - it will be on the cpu.
hmm. If the samba people don't get access to the technical documents, then they'll just do exactly what they've been doing all along - reverse engineer.
How is this going to affect samba team in a negative way?
because people would complain on slashdot about some bug and ask people to vote for it, and 10,000's would then vote for it, screwing up the system.
(not that the voting means anything anyway..)
Well duh, the whole point steganography is that you can't prove the data is even there.
"But I'm not willing to expose my machine to a worm-infested, script-kiddie-prowling public internet in order to do it."
That sounded like hysteria to me too
Nah it would be much faster to get around for experts. They would know how to rocket jump.
You dumb ass - of course there was the implied meaning that your IP address could be public knowledge.
Whether it is secure or not is totally irrelevant to the discussion.
The argument is that the password itself counts as security through obscurity. So in that case yes slashdot does use security through obscurity.
If instead, for example, slashdot logged you in based on your ip, then that wouldn't be security though obscurity.
There's no "duh" about it. And no 'hence' either. Just that if we do reach absolute zero, then it doesn't mean that everything stops moving.
Actually no they don't come to a standstill.
:)
Because if they did, then you would know both their exact position and their exact speed at the same time (which you have probably heard cannot happen).
Btw this is why electrons don't fall into the atom. Because if they did, you'd know where they are and the speed of them
Why did they have to change the actual account number?
So you can only be an OS fanatic if you hack on linux kernel? What about kde and so on.
They wouldn't because otherwise people will just change it.
If it's buggy - well that's tough.
How is this insightful? Of course they won't put it on flash memory.