Found it, but Firefox doesn't put it in a separate tab, even with "Force links that create new windows to open in new tab" selected. I think it has to do with the AJAX implementation; right-clicking on the link shows a context menu that suggests it's not even a link proper, there's not even a "Properties" item in the menu.
For me, tabs are much, much more convenient than separate windows. I have a certain region of my screen that I have to keep clear at all times, and tabs allow me to easily maximize the amount of space each open web page uses without going over that limit.
Create a standard for an information packet that contains the connection protocols supported, and the supporting details for configuring those protocols. Allow the packet compiler to choose whether most details are built-in, or prompt the end-user for information.
It doesn't have to be XML, though. Any structured file format would work.
BTW...I mentioned GPG, not PGP. How important the difference is depends on who you ask.:)
I can encrypt my email use by connecting to the Gmail server using https - how do I do that using Thunderbird? No doubt it depends on my ISP, right?
Depends. If you're intention is to send an email that the recipient, and only the recipient, can read, you should use something like GPG. GPG is independant of your ISP.
If your intention is to only encrypt the communication between you and your ISP, then yes, you need to contact your ISP and see if they offer something like SMTP over SSL. Yeah, it's confusing to talk about. That's one reason virtually nobody does it.
Encrypting individual emails using something like GPG is the only private way to get an email from you to the recipient. The data you encrypted cannot be decrypted until it gets to your recipient. If you use something like SMTP over SSL, your data is only encrypted between you and your ISP. Once it reaches your ISP, it's decrypted and sent to its destination as plain text.
Hope that helps. Go ahead and email me if you have more questions.
Also, it's tedious to configure Thunderbird to talk to an ISP - you have to fuck about with port numbers and user names etc and I frequently forget whether username (for instance) includes or excludes the part of my email address left of the @.
Uhm...that's normal for standalone email apps. When I was a phone tech at an ISP, I had to walk people through that process for Outlook, Outlook Express, Netscape 4, Mozilla, Mozilla Thunderbird...for one account, it's not that hard.
Your problem is you're using more email addresses than you can comfortably keep track of.
Browser identification only happens once an HTTP connection has been made. If you're not connecting to the server, it's not because of which browser you're using.
More likely, it's slashdotted and configured to reject connections when under too high a load.:)
I love GMail. But once I have a decent internet connection at home, I'm switching back to POP3 access there, and Google's webmail access everywhere else.
If/when Google adds POP3 and/or IMAP support for accesing other email accounts, I'll be really happy. It's the next logical step if they want to target the business world's infatuation with Outlook+Exchange.
Even in GMail, with its excellent thread support, I sometimes find I want more than one email easily accessible.
Usually, it's when I'm composing a message containing a composite of information from a number of past emails. Happens most when I'm coordinating between different people.
If you want virus warnings, read CERT, not Slashdot. CERT is all about computer security. Slashdot is not.
Also, most people who read Slashdot already know what Sober is. Slashdot targets those who are already moderately informed in the subject matter. I'd quickly tired if every mention of a virus in a Slashdot story looked like this:
"Microsoft claims the latest version of Windows is much more resistant to viruses, which are tiny pieces of code which copy themselves from computer to computer and can result in data loss and security violations."
Let's do away with every game genre that could be influenced by these programs, starting with games aimed at poor, innocent children.
And who's the most guilty? V-Tech and Leap Frog! Those companies need to have criminal charges filed against them, because they're marketing video games designed to brainwash little children!
Would you argue that Windows XP SP2 qualifies as Traditional Windows? It exemplefies thatAPIs available under one version may not be available, or even behave the same, under others.
Other examples:
NT kernel vs DOS kernel. The Windows 95 era should have been the Windows NT4 era.
Early versions of DirectX compared with later ones. You can't run many old games under later versions of Microsoft's "Gaming API".
Win16 not supported in WoW for 64-bit Windows. In the Real World, there are still a lot of 16-bit Windows applications doing things like tracking inventory and controlling manufacturing equipment. The only good thing about these peoples' situation is nobody writes viruses for their OS any more.
Yes, there are valid reasons for this incompatibilities. But a developer for Windows should expect a platform that's stable for the short term, but has earthquakes every now and then.
Linux, an admittedly large subset of the UNIX world, is by comparison seismically dead.
Oh and BTW, fork() and the unix process model sucks as a parallellism primitive.
You're right...you should use pthreads or nptl instead.
Some advice from someone who makes the same mistake every now and then...When you learn something in class, don't talk about it on Slashdot for at least a month. That'll give you a chance to think before you type.
In the mean time, dissing UNIX around here is likely to get you modded "Troll."
It's different. Hard drive magnetic regions and the tiny capacitors in DRAM cells are different from what I'm describing. Those entities interact with each other on a macroscopic level.
When you use quantum entanglement to create a qubit, your particles are interacting on a quantum level. All the entangled particles have essentially the same state.
Yes, it'll disturb the state, if there's only one particle in the bit.
However, if you entangle several particles together, one one bit is disturbed, a cotangled bit will probably reset it. From what I gather, the more cotangled particles you have in a bit, the more reliable your bit is.
I don't believe they're related, but ISTR cleaning Jupiter stuff off of several computers over the last month. (At a student-run mass computer-servicing event my club organized.)
Otto Z. Stern is a director at The Institute of Technological Values - a think tank dedicated to a more moral digital age. He has closely monitored the IT industry's intersection with America's role as a world leader for thirty years. You can find Stern locked and loaded, corralling wounded iLemmings, nursing an opal-plated prostate, spanking open source fly boys, wearing a smashing suit, dropping a SkyCar on the Googleplex, spitting on Frenchmen, vomiting in fear with a life-sized cutout of Hilary Rosen at his solar-powered compound somewhere in the Great American Southwest.
Sounds like an all-around troll. Great URL, though. More descriptive.
Frankly, I'm a little tired of this point of view.
"Why should (government) be working on (technology) when there are so many human issues to be solved?"
Spinoffs. They don't just improve your computer, they improve your education, your medications, and tools you might use in a lab. And all of these lead to further improvements in tools, technique and education. It's technology; it snowballs.
And some of that snowball leads to improvements in other fields, including humanitarian ones.
Slashdot Mirror
Found it, but Firefox doesn't put it in a separate tab, even with "Force links that create new windows to open in new tab" selected. I think it has to do with the AJAX implementation; right-clicking on the link shows a context menu that suggests it's not even a link proper, there's not even a "Properties" item in the menu.
For me, tabs are much, much more convenient than separate windows. I have a certain region of my screen that I have to keep clear at all times, and tabs allow me to easily maximize the amount of space each open web page uses without going over that limit.
That's actually a pretty cool idea.
:)
Create a standard for an information packet that contains the connection protocols supported, and the supporting details for configuring those protocols. Allow the packet compiler to choose whether most details are built-in, or prompt the end-user for information.
It doesn't have to be XML, though. Any structured file format would work.
BTW...I mentioned GPG, not PGP. How important the difference is depends on who you ask.
I can encrypt my email use by connecting to the Gmail server using https - how do I do that using Thunderbird? No doubt it depends on my ISP, right?
Depends. If you're intention is to send an email that the recipient, and only the recipient, can read, you should use something like GPG. GPG is independant of your ISP.
If your intention is to only encrypt the communication between you and your ISP, then yes, you need to contact your ISP and see if they offer something like SMTP over SSL. Yeah, it's confusing to talk about. That's one reason virtually nobody does it.
Encrypting individual emails using something like GPG is the only private way to get an email from you to the recipient. The data you encrypted cannot be decrypted until it gets to your recipient. If you use something like SMTP over SSL, your data is only encrypted between you and your ISP. Once it reaches your ISP, it's decrypted and sent to its destination as plain text.
Hope that helps. Go ahead and email me if you have more questions.
Also, it's tedious to configure Thunderbird to talk to an ISP - you have to fuck about with port numbers and user names etc and I frequently forget whether username (for instance) includes or excludes the part of my email address left of the @.
Uhm...that's normal for standalone email apps. When I was a phone tech at an ISP, I had to walk people through that process for Outlook, Outlook Express, Netscape 4, Mozilla, Mozilla Thunderbird...for one account, it's not that hard.
Your problem is you're using more email addresses than you can comfortably keep track of.
Browser identification only happens once an HTTP connection has been made. If you're not connecting to the server, it's not because of which browser you're using.
:)
More likely, it's slashdotted and configured to reject connections when under too high a load.
I love GMail. But once I have a decent internet connection at home, I'm switching back to POP3 access there, and Google's webmail access everywhere else.
If/when Google adds POP3 and/or IMAP support for accesing other email accounts, I'll be really happy. It's the next logical step if they want to target the business world's infatuation with Outlook+Exchange.
Even in GMail, with its excellent thread support, I sometimes find I want more than one email easily accessible.
Usually, it's when I'm composing a message containing a composite of information from a number of past emails. Happens most when I'm coordinating between different people.
Darn it...Now that you mention it, it does sound like a clever poem.
Heh.
Just hunt for prey near a steroid factory. :)
Also, most people who read Slashdot already know what Sober is. Slashdot targets those who are already moderately informed in the subject matter. I'd quickly tired if every mention of a virus in a Slashdot story looked like this:
I imagine it'll allow for GCC support to become vastly improved.
And wasn't UltraSPARC one of the platforms OpenBSD was having difficulty porting to?
They still own the patents on various parts of the implementation.
From what I understand of patent law, if someone else wants to distribute hardware, they'll still need to get patent licenses.
IOW, Sun is becoming an IP company of a rare sort.
Let's do away with every game genre that could be influenced by these programs, starting with games aimed at poor, innocent children.
And who's the most guilty? V-Tech and Leap Frog! Those companies need to have criminal charges filed against them, because they're marketing video games designed to brainwash little children!
</sarcasm>
Highly caffeinated and highly medicated.
I'd like to see a comment search for "Nobody will see this".
Unfortunately, the site's running so slow, I guess nobody will.
Other examples:
Yes, there are valid reasons for this incompatibilities. But a developer for Windows should expect a platform that's stable for the short term, but has earthquakes every now and then.
Linux, an admittedly large subset of the UNIX world, is by comparison seismically dead.
Oh and BTW, fork() and the unix process model sucks as a parallellism primitive.
You're right...you should use pthreads or nptl instead.
Some advice from someone who makes the same mistake every now and then...When you learn something in class, don't talk about it on Slashdot for at least a month. That'll give you a chance to think before you type.
In the mean time, dissing UNIX around here is likely to get you modded "Troll."
It's different. Hard drive magnetic regions and the tiny capacitors in DRAM cells are different from what I'm describing. Those entities interact with each other on a macroscopic level.
When you use quantum entanglement to create a qubit, your particles are interacting on a quantum level. All the entangled particles have essentially the same state.
Not mine. flux4's. Hence the link.
Yes, it'll disturb the state, if there's only one particle in the bit.
However, if you entangle several particles together, one one bit is disturbed, a cotangled bit will probably reset it. From what I gather, the more cotangled particles you have in a bit, the more reliable your bit is.
To the tune of Yankee Doodle Went to London
"Hey! Look! An X10 unit!"
BLAM!
I don't believe they're related, but ISTR cleaning Jupiter stuff off of several computers over the last month. (At a student-run mass computer-servicing event my club organized.)
From the bottom of the page:
Sounds like an all-around troll. Great URL, though. More descriptive.
Frankly, I'm a little tired of this point of view.
"Why should (government) be working on (technology) when there are so many human issues to be solved?"
Spinoffs. They don't just improve your computer, they improve your education, your medications, and tools you might use in a lab. And all of these lead to further improvements in tools, technique and education. It's technology; it snowballs.
And some of that snowball leads to improvements in other fields, including humanitarian ones.