is making its way on Slashdot. Digital cameras have nothing to do with instant news widespreading. First, this is a bad example, the pictures were taken at least three months ago. Second, they were first published by the NYT. Third, even the NYT never certified the authenticity of any of them. Fourth, without satellites digital cameras would be almost useless for any such thing like instant news reporting.
And, I can remember a certain 9/11 2001 where old style cameras were pointed at the WTC and I could see it crashing down in realtime. The images were guaranteed authentic in almost no time.
given what you can do with chemical and bacterial weapons much more cheaper to produce with ready available chemical products or some bacterian material you can steal much more easily and so much difficult to track down.
to click for peanuts. I've just seen a TV program about rabbits in Australia. And it seems a guy freed 24 rabbits in his farm and ends up with 22 millions two years later.
I think about starting my "lettuce for mouse clicks" program.
About the world government, I was only reflecting what Albert Einstein's suggestion would lead to.
However, the UN is a post-WWII organization mainly built by WWII winners. That's what the security council reflect.
As known today, the UN is no longer an effective organization. Corruption is a known fact for a long time. Oil vs Food program is proving this at an never ever reached scale. Would you still trust an organization which members may have been bought a long time ago by a Saddam Hussein through a very UN program?
I think you overestimate non-security council members interest in the Rwanda situation, just before the genocide took place.
And a UN with teeth doesn't mean anyone can do anything he feels is good because he feels something was violated into the UN charter.
Einstein's vision of the UN role seems to me too much idealistic. Something like the great worldwide governement anyone expect the great omni power (call it God if you wish) to establish. Reality is just too far away from such a picture.
In a government like UN, who will rule? On democratic rules, the Chinese will dominate the world, unless an Indian-Parkistaneese coalition defeat them, etc. This idea to turn the UN into a governement is just the best way to return to the pre-UN era!
will this meter/payment station survive the -25C temperature we are often getting here during the winter? And, who will remove the snow from the solar panel?
At -25C, the backup battery efficiency is very low. The day is at its shortest during winter and the snow is likely to obstruct the panel's solar cells.
And, in the even it survives, will the electronics and circuitry keep working fine at these temperatures or are we likely to see the bill being increase by some amount due to an unreliable device?
Well, with little effort you could rapidly conclude the qualifier applied to Application Development.
RAD is usually targetted at quick-and-dirty application with a GUI. Something where usability is the most important factor. I would never develop a banking system with a RAD tool given the number of transactions/secs, error recovering and other stuff which are required and much more important than a flashy GUI to it.
The whole big thing is not about plowing a field, but rather about computing it's area, surface, depth, chemical composition, analyze fluid dynamics in its soil,look at the seismic data if any oil field can be found, etc. So, what the heck two oxen will help us here? It's scientifically proven they just can't compute 1+1.
I maintain it can be ignore wrt the administration of the workstation itself.
The claim is: To become userfriendly you have to be less secure!
It has nothing to do with: Let an idiot administer a userfriendly system where he can click on a bunch of icons to make it unsecure.
Unless you believe the theorem: The best way to secure a system is through obscurity. If someone don't know anything about the system, the system can be considered secure.
With the corollary: To administer an obscure system, you need a Ph.D.
From which we can derive: If you earned a Ph.D. you are not an idiot!
But there is plenty of examples this last assumption is false.
So, obscurity is not a satisfactory way to secure a system. And userfriendliness has nothing to do with security.
the point is somewhat irrelevant since the question is about the weight, if any, between security and usability.
The human factor should be ignore in most cases, except on the usability evaluation. We can safetly assume both hypothetical environments are managed by knowledgeable professionals.
So, I believe the affirmation from Windows administrators is just crappy. A piece of software just don't need to be vulnerable to be usable. And, in fact, when it is vulnerable it quickly becomes unusable and unmanageable.
Very strange, but when I am looking at those clear case or black and silver decorated with pink and/or purple neon. I am just thinking the same thing.
Maybe a piece of orange/brown shaggy carpet sticked on the DVD/CDRW door can complete the picture. And why not a velvet/pastel nude picture on the left side of the case panel?
Anyway, I don't know why you associate wood with porn, maybe some early age trauma...
I would buy a load of condoms to cover my not waterproof PDA. If it was ever necessary. And lubricate the pen, to help it slides on the latex surface...
Slashdot Mirror
And, I can remember a certain 9/11 2001 where old style cameras were pointed at the WTC and I could see it crashing down in realtime. The images were guaranteed authentic in almost no time.
So, this thread is pure bullshit!
I may be totally wrong, but this kind of action altought not directly profitable to the suer, may accomplish other goals, read FUD.
After that, you can easily get the money to liberate the energy in a controlled manner and turn it into a peaceful invention.
Also, at this stage, it maybe much more easier to just focus on the way to liberate the energy without the hassle to figure out how to control it.
But, don't forget, at end, they get married and add many children (no necessarily in that order).
Rumors are going wild about Microsoft thinking seriously to throw the towel and rename it's invention Aspire.
I think about starting my "lettuce for mouse clicks" program.
This should now be read:
"What would happen to the NYSE and the NASAQ if all the indian people would click the mouse at the same time?"
Chinese wisdom has been surpassed by Indian wisdom...
However, the UN is a post-WWII organization mainly built by WWII winners. That's what the security council reflect.
As known today, the UN is no longer an effective organization. Corruption is a known fact for a long time. Oil vs Food program is proving this at an never ever reached scale. Would you still trust an organization which members may have been bought a long time ago by a Saddam Hussein through a very UN program?
I hope you are kidding, if affirmative...
And a UN with teeth doesn't mean anyone can do anything he feels is good because he feels something was violated into the UN charter.
Einstein's vision of the UN role seems to me too much idealistic. Something like the great worldwide governement anyone expect the great omni power (call it God if you wish) to establish. Reality is just too far away from such a picture.
In a government like UN, who will rule? On democratic rules, the Chinese will dominate the world, unless an Indian-Parkistaneese coalition defeat them, etc. This idea to turn the UN into a governement is just the best way to return to the pre-UN era!
Uncertainty principle of Heisenberg
these HDDs? I'm seeking for a reason to resign as president of my local LUG...
At -25C, the backup battery efficiency is very low. The day is at its shortest during winter and the snow is likely to obstruct the panel's solar cells.
And, in the even it survives, will the electronics and circuitry keep working fine at these temperatures or are we likely to see the bill being increase by some amount due to an unreliable device?
RAD is usually targetted at quick-and-dirty application with a GUI. Something where usability is the most important factor. I would never develop a banking system with a RAD tool given the number of transactions/secs, error recovering and other stuff which are required and much more important than a flashy GUI to it.
just fold it properly and throw it next door...
The whole big thing is not about plowing a field, but rather about computing it's area, surface, depth, chemical composition, analyze fluid dynamics in its soil,look at the seismic data if any oil field can be found, etc. So, what the heck two oxen will help us here? It's scientifically proven they just can't compute 1+1.
The claim is: To become userfriendly you have to be less secure!
It has nothing to do with: Let an idiot administer a userfriendly system where he can click on a bunch of icons to make it unsecure.
Unless you believe the theorem: The best way to secure a system is through obscurity. If someone don't know anything about the system, the system can be considered secure.
With the corollary: To administer an obscure system, you need a Ph.D.
From which we can derive: If you earned a Ph.D. you are not an idiot!
But there is plenty of examples this last assumption is false.
So, obscurity is not a satisfactory way to secure a system. And userfriendliness has nothing to do with security.
The human factor should be ignore in most cases, except on the usability evaluation. We can safetly assume both hypothetical environments are managed by knowledgeable professionals.
So, I believe the affirmation from Windows administrators is just crappy. A piece of software just don't need to be vulnerable to be usable. And, in fact, when it is vulnerable it quickly becomes unusable and unmanageable.
Maybe a piece of orange/brown shaggy carpet sticked on the DVD/CDRW door can complete the picture. And why not a velvet/pastel nude picture on the left side of the case panel?
Anyway, I don't know why you associate wood with porn, maybe some early age trauma...