Yeah, it runs. It was pretty brutal with 256MB, but I got 512MB now so its better. Of course I got a first-gen ( can I use "first-gen" here?) Mini, so any one you'd buy new now should adequate.
1. Map your Exposé functions to the screen corners from the "Dashboard and Exposé" option in System Preferences. I've got the following mapped: Top-Left-Application-Windows, Top-Right-All-Windows, Bottom-Left-Start-Screen-Saver, Bottom-Right-Desktop. Its way faster than having to hunt out F9-12 between mouse movements.
Hunt? Hunt!? Come on, they're nice big keyboard buttons. Plus by using the keyboard buttons instead of hotcorners (yech for the most part, although I do have one for disable screensaver) dragging and dropping just became a lot more useful
Doesn't get much more open-ended than Animal Crossing. As far as whether it can tear you away from a book or a DVD, I can attest it most certainly can. Books, DVDs, TV, sleep, food, class. Basically anything that doesn't have the addictiveness of crack can't supersede Animal Crossing.
Well its been a while since I read the ars dissection, but the meta-data attributes that spotlight uses are stored in the filesystem meta-data of HFS+ (ala BeOS). The "problem" is that spotlight doesn't search the files directly, but rather the index. Which is ok because since Tiger has kernel hooks akin to inotify, the index is updated whenever you move, delete, copy, or modify a file or its meta-data.
.DS_Store is for finder type stuff as regards icon positioning and such.._filename is for when the file has an old-style Mac OS resource fork. Neither contain the metadata used by Spotlight.
How about the tower? (Assuming of course, it is a tower.)
Re:What exactly are you looking for?
on
Linux WebCam Software?
·
· Score: 4, Informative
There is. Its called appropriately enough webcam. There's no GUI afaik, but the config file is really simple. It sounds like exactly what you want. apt-get install webcam will grab it in Ubuntu for sure.
Re:Grammar Police to the rescue
on
RFID Cookware
·
· Score: 1
Not in every language (See ML, Pascal, Lisp, etc.)
Let us consider a hypothetical DRM setup. An audio file is protected by encryption and digital signing to be only playable in a certain piece of software. You can delete the file, you can play it in a program provided to you. You can copy the file to various media, but the file won't play on another device because the key is tied to your computer. This is scheme is a DRM scheme correct? Its annoying because you have to use their software to play the file, and they don't trust you to not share the file with others.
Now ignoring things like a root-kit for instance, pretend that you know the only protection is encryption, and that the software does exactly what it says it does, (perhaps you have the source code to the program and compiled it yourself.) how is this a security risk? And if it is a security risk, than are encrypted emails a security risk? Its the same arrangement, only the people who are meant to get the message receive the message. I'm not trying to create a ridiculous situation here, I realize the real world will have practicalities intruding, but I must object to the idea that DRM and security are mutually exclusive. The scenario I've described is a simplified version of Fairplay is it not?
Now whether or not you can really achieve DRM technically speaking is a whole 'nother matter, as is the various other reasons for its ickyness. The only idea I'm trying to put forth is that I do not see how DRM (the concept) automatically negates security (the concept). In many ways DRM is a capability based security model. You get a set of capabilities for a given piece of media. Just not as many as we are used to or as many as we should have.
In conclusion, yes DRM is bad. No I do not believe that it is by definition a security risk. Yes I will admit real-world implementations can be security risks.
Security and a rootkit yes, are probably mutually exclusive. Doesn't mean that DRM can't peacefully coexist with security. Look at Fairplay for instance. I don't like DRM for many reasons, its annoying, it by its existence says that I can't be trusted, but as far as I can tell the concept of DRM doesn't automatically negate, or even compromise security. A rootkit is a poor implementation of DRM, yes. Fairplay, or even the DRM on wm* files are another matter all together. Even CSS, which is a form of DRM or Macrovision. Sticking a DVD into your computer thats protected by CSS is not going to compromise your systems security.
Slashdot Mirror
If they convince the media to call them the "beleagured Gateway Corp." perhaps, just perhaps they can turn it around.
Theoretically speaking, the answer to that question is yes.
The didn't have to open-source webkit. WebCore is where all the KHTML code is.
Employers choose who gets to work for them. They don't just leave their doors open so anybody can walk in, do some work, and walk out with money.
That sounds kinda like a cool place to work.Google to map WoW
http://mapwow.com/
as i'm not really a cocoa developer, i'm not too terribly concerned.
Cocoa developers really shouldn't care one way or the other about Xcode anyway, CodeWarrior targeted the Carbon libs, AFAIK.
Yeah, it runs. It was pretty brutal with 256MB, but I got 512MB now so its better. Of course I got a first-gen ( can I use "first-gen" here?) Mini, so any one you'd buy new now should adequate.
I didn't know comic book guy actually existed in real life.
1. Map your Exposé functions to the screen corners from the "Dashboard and Exposé" option in System Preferences. I've got the following mapped: Top-Left-Application-Windows, Top-Right-All-Windows, Bottom-Left-Start-Screen-Saver, Bottom-Right-Desktop. Its way faster than having to hunt out F9-12 between mouse movements.
Hunt? Hunt!? Come on, they're nice big keyboard buttons. Plus by using the keyboard buttons instead of hotcorners (yech for the most part, although I do have one for disable screensaver) dragging and dropping just became a lot more useful
Yeah just like real life, if all you do is increase your time and money you can't do anything with either.
Well everything between you and the other end point can see where you are going, so no, its not really private.
It's precedent. Not precident. Though 'precident' could potentially make sense given the current administration.
You can't be serious! Ewwwwwww.
Doesn't get much more open-ended than Animal Crossing. As far as whether it can tear you away from a book or a DVD, I can attest it most certainly can. Books, DVDs, TV, sleep, food, class. Basically anything that doesn't have the addictiveness of crack can't supersede Animal Crossing.
Is a sunset a creative work? Don't you people understand the concept of "AND"?
Well its been a while since I read the ars dissection, but the meta-data attributes that spotlight uses are stored in the filesystem meta-data of HFS+ (ala BeOS). The "problem" is that spotlight doesn't search the files directly, but rather the index. Which is ok because since Tiger has kernel hooks akin to inotify, the index is updated whenever you move, delete, copy, or modify a file or its meta-data.
.DS_Store is for finder type stuff as regards icon positioning and such. ._filename is for when the file has an old-style Mac OS resource fork. Neither contain the metadata used by Spotlight.
How about the tower? (Assuming of course, it is a tower.)
There is. Its called appropriately enough webcam. There's no GUI afaik, but the config file is really simple. It sounds like exactly what you want. apt-get install webcam will grab it in Ubuntu for sure.
Not in every language (See ML, Pascal, Lisp, etc.)
I have. It works for at least "Hello, world!".
Let us consider a hypothetical DRM setup. An audio file is protected by encryption and digital signing to be only playable in a certain piece of software. You can delete the file, you can play it in a program provided to you. You can copy the file to various media, but the file won't play on another device because the key is tied to your computer. This is scheme is a DRM scheme correct? Its annoying because you have to use their software to play the file, and they don't trust you to not share the file with others.
Now ignoring things like a root-kit for instance, pretend that you know the only protection is encryption, and that the software does exactly what it says it does, (perhaps you have the source code to the program and compiled it yourself.) how is this a security risk? And if it is a security risk, than are encrypted emails a security risk? Its the same arrangement, only the people who are meant to get the message receive the message. I'm not trying to create a ridiculous situation here, I realize the real world will have practicalities intruding, but I must object to the idea that DRM and security are mutually exclusive. The scenario I've described is a simplified version of Fairplay is it not?
Now whether or not you can really achieve DRM technically speaking is a whole 'nother matter, as is the various other reasons for its ickyness. The only idea I'm trying to put forth is that I do not see how DRM (the concept) automatically negates security (the concept). In many ways DRM is a capability based security model. You get a set of capabilities for a given piece of media. Just not as many as we are used to or as many as we should have.
In conclusion, yes DRM is bad. No I do not believe that it is by definition a security risk. Yes I will admit real-world implementations can be security risks.
Security and a rootkit yes, are probably mutually exclusive. Doesn't mean that DRM can't peacefully coexist with security. Look at Fairplay for instance. I don't like DRM for many reasons, its annoying, it by its existence says that I can't be trusted, but as far as I can tell the concept of DRM doesn't automatically negate, or even compromise security. A rootkit is a poor implementation of DRM, yes. Fairplay, or even the DRM on wm* files are another matter all together. Even CSS, which is a form of DRM or Macrovision. Sticking a DVD into your computer thats protected by CSS is not going to compromise your systems security.
Please do explain why DRM and security are mutually exclusive?