Except Apples drivers for Windows are really bad, not fully featured and they regularly deprecate versions of Windows on their kit for no reasons - for instance Windows 8 on 2006 Quad Core Mac Pros with 16GB ram, or indeed any 64bit install of Windows on that hardware will cause Bootcamp to say "nope", despite it working perfectly well.
The Rafale and the Eurofighter are the same age (they actually date from the same initial development program, from which the Eurofighter countries left because they didn't want a carrier capable variant), it just looks like the Eurofighter is newer because it spent longer in development hell.
No they aren't actually, the F-35A and C have no compromises caused by having to accomodate the B variant, as its the B variant which compromises for its own capability (it has smaller weapons bays, a lower fuel capacity, shorter range etc etc).
Uhm, no one said that the bulk of the US future airplanes must take off and land like helicopters - there are three variants of the F-35, and only the F-35B (which will be bought by the US Marine Corp, as well as the UK) has VTOL capability. The bulk of the F-35 order (around 1,600 planes at last count) will consist of the F-35A, which is completely conventional. The third variant is the F-35C, for the US Navy.
It helps your argument if you actually sound like you know wtf you are bitching about.
That would be the case if you linked their bank card to their Google account, and not your bank card to their Google account, or even gave them access to your bank card on your Google account.
I chose my words as I intended it to be taken - the post I was replying to intimated that the Wine people only trust code that originated internally, rather than from an external source such as Valve, because then they can guarantee its heritage. Which is ironic considering the source of the last issue was internal, and thus wouldn't have been prevented by their current stance.
Wikipedia has some really bad rules about editing and information - no "original research" for example, so basically nothing can be added to the sum total of human knowledge as Wikipedia considers it, until its been posted on some blog somewhere first...
I've seen Games Workshop fictional universe articles pop up with the "needs third party citations" label, as apparently the original source material isn't good enough for Wikipedia...
Odd considering their (Wines) last copyright cockup was entirely due to an internal contributor committing decompiles of Microsoft binaries as contributed code...
Yes, 3.5 years while under no international scrutiny or interference, with a near to unlimited budget as you can get, and without the threat of your infrastructure being destroyed at any moment in time.
No country in the world enjoys those advantages today.
Your understanding of what is required is a little off - the root CA holder can indeed "retroactively" sign any certificate they want, and your browser would merrily accept such a signed alternative cert without raising any errors because it would never see the original cert. The very act of installing the root CA in the browser allows them to completely replace any other cert signed by any root CA and not cause errors to occur. The only opportunity they would have however to do this would be if they were proxying the traffic between you and the internet.
With all due respect, you are pretty much talking 100% bullshit - mono is way more advanced than you suggest it is, and its a no-brainer that of course it won't run native code, but as I have yet to come across a library which is actually mixed mode that doesn't seem to be an issue.
But it isn't restricted at all, as I've used the same.Net code in apps on Windows, Linux, IOS, Windows Phone, Windows RT and Android.
Add to that the fact that Microsoft is leaning more and more toward Portable Class Libraries delivered via nuget rather than monolithic libraries delivered centrally, and PCLs are targeted toward a base standard which runs on all.NET platforms (full, micro, WP, Metro, Mono) and its getting better all the time.
Why was.Net mentioned as a legacy technology? Its actively developed, has a decent community, and is widely used - apart from some poor articles and conclusions that were jumped to here on/. There is no reason to consider.Net a legacy technology.
What is more likely is that the person was referring to projects that are stuck on specific versions in maintenance hell, which can happen with any language - Ive been stuck with VB.Net 2.0 WebForms projects, while at the same time I've been using MVC 4 and.Net 4.0. One I would consider a legacy project, the other not, but both use the same line of tech.
You consider having exact laws a bad thing? I'd rather have the laws I have to live under as exact as possible, with no wiggle room in which a corrupt police officer or judge (not the entire law enforcement or judiciary, talking about smaller levels of corruption here) has room to manoeuvre to get you no matter what.
The problem with the notion that you should follow the spirit of the law, and not just the letter, means that you now have two very different sets of rules to follow - one which is laid out word for word and any ambiguity can be argued objectively according to that wording, and the other which is entirely fuzzy and subject to change on a whim depending on who it is that is being held to it.
Problem is, that post is in reality nothing more than the account of someone who has shown that he doesn't want to be identified simply denying some-ones attempt to identify him - there's no guarantee he isn't simply lying because he wants to remain unidentified.
Hell, the issue would have happened if there were no gotos in use, and instead both statements were method calls - the unintended method call would still have happened.
The US doesn't need authority from the UN to depose Iraq. Nowhere is it in the UN charter to give permission to depose any sitting government.
If that is correct then all of the current outrage at Russias action in Crimea is equally superfluous...
And the UN doesn't give orders for specific actions in war unless the action is a UN action. That hasn't happened since Korea and we are reminded often how big of a failure that was.
That is where you are wrong, the original 1991 Gulf War was a UN authorised action - see UNSC Resolution 678, which authorised member states "co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the foregoing resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area;"
While the UN are not the government of the world, they uphold international treaties which member states have agreed to, which include the recognition of the sovereignty of member states and the right for a countries government to govern. Multiple independent western courts have affirmed that military action with the aim of regime change is illegal under international law.
Except your assertions are where the oversimplification occurs, as there is ample prior examples of an entity splitting into multiple smaller entities and separating debt obligations in the process. There is absolutely no scope for Scotland simply walking away from UK debt obligations without their own share - if they did that, they lose significant amounts in assets that would otherwise be transferred north of the border.
One example would be the £28Billion that Scottish banks are required to deposit in holding at the Bank of England (a requirement for the Scottish banks to be able to print and distribute their own currency) - walk away from the debt obligations and that wont be transferred back.
Osborne had to guarantee the debt, as any doubt surrounding it would have repercussions on the UKs credit rating internationally and the UK government cannot allow that to happen.
I'd also love for you to show me this international law which your comment so heavily relies on, because this is an internal issue between the UK and Scotland - external entities can label Scotland whatever they want, but ultimately its the agreement that the UK and Scotland comes to which dictates Scotlands ongoing debt obligations.
Uhm, no, that's nothing more than a bullshit excuse - the US did not have authority from the UN to depose the Iraqi government, they were never granted that in 1991, and they were never granted that at any time after 1991. They were given the authority to carry out specific actions in order to remove Iraqi forces from Kuwait, but no more.
You also ignore the fact that as part of their request for help, the Kuwaiti government promised democratic elections in a free Kuwait. They never happened.
Slashdot Mirror
Except Apples drivers for Windows are really bad, not fully featured and they regularly deprecate versions of Windows on their kit for no reasons - for instance Windows 8 on 2006 Quad Core Mac Pros with 16GB ram, or indeed any 64bit install of Windows on that hardware will cause Bootcamp to say "nope", despite it working perfectly well.
The Rafale and the Eurofighter are the same age (they actually date from the same initial development program, from which the Eurofighter countries left because they didn't want a carrier capable variant), it just looks like the Eurofighter is newer because it spent longer in development hell.
No they aren't actually, the F-35A and C have no compromises caused by having to accomodate the B variant, as its the B variant which compromises for its own capability (it has smaller weapons bays, a lower fuel capacity, shorter range etc etc).
Uhm, no one said that the bulk of the US future airplanes must take off and land like helicopters - there are three variants of the F-35, and only the F-35B (which will be bought by the US Marine Corp, as well as the UK) has VTOL capability. The bulk of the F-35 order (around 1,600 planes at last count) will consist of the F-35A, which is completely conventional. The third variant is the F-35C, for the US Navy.
It helps your argument if you actually sound like you know wtf you are bitching about.
That would be the case if you linked their bank card to their Google account, and not your bank card to their Google account, or even gave them access to your bank card on your Google account.
A child taking money from your wallet without your knowledge is no different to this situation.
Wallet manufacturers must be quaking in their boots.
I chose my words as I intended it to be taken - the post I was replying to intimated that the Wine people only trust code that originated internally, rather than from an external source such as Valve, because then they can guarantee its heritage. Which is ironic considering the source of the last issue was internal, and thus wouldn't have been prevented by their current stance.
Wikipedia has some really bad rules about editing and information - no "original research" for example, so basically nothing can be added to the sum total of human knowledge as Wikipedia considers it, until its been posted on some blog somewhere first...
I've seen Games Workshop fictional universe articles pop up with the "needs third party citations" label, as apparently the original source material isn't good enough for Wikipedia...
Odd considering their (Wines) last copyright cockup was entirely due to an internal contributor committing decompiles of Microsoft binaries as contributed code...
Yes, 3.5 years while under no international scrutiny or interference, with a near to unlimited budget as you can get, and without the threat of your infrastructure being destroyed at any moment in time.
No country in the world enjoys those advantages today.
Yup, I'm on a 3G contract (specifically not 4G) and I can get HSDPA, so its definitely not considered 4G here.
Your understanding of what is required is a little off - the root CA holder can indeed "retroactively" sign any certificate they want, and your browser would merrily accept such a signed alternative cert without raising any errors because it would never see the original cert. The very act of installing the root CA in the browser allows them to completely replace any other cert signed by any root CA and not cause errors to occur. The only opportunity they would have however to do this would be if they were proxying the traffic between you and the internet.
This is the UK, totally different wiretap law - this doesn't breach it, its their network and they can intercept what they wish.
With all due respect, you are pretty much talking 100% bullshit - mono is way more advanced than you suggest it is, and its a no-brainer that of course it won't run native code, but as I have yet to come across a library which is actually mixed mode that doesn't seem to be an issue.
But it isn't restricted at all, as I've used the same .Net code in apps on Windows, Linux, IOS, Windows Phone, Windows RT and Android.
Add to that the fact that Microsoft is leaning more and more toward Portable Class Libraries delivered via nuget rather than monolithic libraries delivered centrally, and PCLs are targeted toward a base standard which runs on all .NET platforms (full, micro, WP, Metro, Mono) and its getting better all the time.
Why was .Net mentioned as a legacy technology? Its actively developed, has a decent community, and is widely used - apart from some poor articles and conclusions that were jumped to here on /. There is no reason to consider .Net a legacy technology.
What is more likely is that the person was referring to projects that are stuck on specific versions in maintenance hell, which can happen with any language - Ive been stuck with VB.Net 2.0 WebForms projects, while at the same time I've been using MVC 4 and .Net 4.0. One I would consider a legacy project, the other not, but both use the same line of tech.
You consider having exact laws a bad thing? I'd rather have the laws I have to live under as exact as possible, with no wiggle room in which a corrupt police officer or judge (not the entire law enforcement or judiciary, talking about smaller levels of corruption here) has room to manoeuvre to get you no matter what.
The problem with the notion that you should follow the spirit of the law, and not just the letter, means that you now have two very different sets of rules to follow - one which is laid out word for word and any ambiguity can be argued objectively according to that wording, and the other which is entirely fuzzy and subject to change on a whim depending on who it is that is being held to it.
Problem is, that post is in reality nothing more than the account of someone who has shown that he doesn't want to be identified simply denying some-ones attempt to identify him - there's no guarantee he isn't simply lying because he wants to remain unidentified.
Hell, the issue would have happened if there were no gotos in use, and instead both statements were method calls - the unintended method call would still have happened.
Someone better tell Airbus that their 59ft panels on the A350XWB are somehow shorter than Wal-Marts 53ft panels...
The US doesn't need authority from the UN to depose Iraq. Nowhere is it in the UN charter to give permission to depose any sitting government.
If that is correct then all of the current outrage at Russias action in Crimea is equally superfluous...
And the UN doesn't give orders for specific actions in war unless the action is a UN action. That hasn't happened since Korea and we are reminded often how big of a failure that was.
That is where you are wrong, the original 1991 Gulf War was a UN authorised action - see UNSC Resolution 678, which authorised member states "co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the foregoing resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area;"
http://www.refworld.org/cgi-bi...
While the UN are not the government of the world, they uphold international treaties which member states have agreed to, which include the recognition of the sovereignty of member states and the right for a countries government to govern. Multiple independent western courts have affirmed that military action with the aim of regime change is illegal under international law.
Except your assertions are where the oversimplification occurs, as there is ample prior examples of an entity splitting into multiple smaller entities and separating debt obligations in the process. There is absolutely no scope for Scotland simply walking away from UK debt obligations without their own share - if they did that, they lose significant amounts in assets that would otherwise be transferred north of the border.
One example would be the £28Billion that Scottish banks are required to deposit in holding at the Bank of England (a requirement for the Scottish banks to be able to print and distribute their own currency) - walk away from the debt obligations and that wont be transferred back.
Osborne had to guarantee the debt, as any doubt surrounding it would have repercussions on the UKs credit rating internationally and the UK government cannot allow that to happen.
I'd also love for you to show me this international law which your comment so heavily relies on, because this is an internal issue between the UK and Scotland - external entities can label Scotland whatever they want, but ultimately its the agreement that the UK and Scotland comes to which dictates Scotlands ongoing debt obligations.
Uhm, no, that's nothing more than a bullshit excuse - the US did not have authority from the UN to depose the Iraqi government, they were never granted that in 1991, and they were never granted that at any time after 1991. They were given the authority to carry out specific actions in order to remove Iraqi forces from Kuwait, but no more.
You also ignore the fact that as part of their request for help, the Kuwaiti government promised democratic elections in a free Kuwait. They never happened.