both are designed to deprive revenue from the internet at large
Said "internet at large" has no inherent right to anybody's revenue.
For some reason, our society has allowed itself to be gulled into accepting that advertisers have some divine right to plaster their inane drivel over every surface visible to the human eyeball. The sooner and more effectively we can smack the arrogant parasites down, the better.
In any case, insisting that Firefox users are stingy is totally moronic. Firefox itself is free. Why should anyone have to pay dollars to have it behave the way we prefer it to? Nobody is forcing the GP to write extensions. If he doesn't want to do it because he'd rather make money, that's just fine. He is welcome to piss off and make money elsewhere. Nobody will miss him.
If (as I suspect) he's just feeling unloved because no-one can be bothered with his extensions, there's a simple answer to that: go write something more useful that people DO like.
Hundreds of thousands of people will likely uninstall it today alone.
Maybe, maybe not. I uninstalled it less than an hour after installing. I just found the damn thing too much of an intrusive speed-bump to what I do. However, I rarely see any ads, since I have a large hosts file to lock out most of the offending domains, and a combination of adblock and flashblock to fine-tune the rest. NoScript is more or less redundant.
You are still going to need ethernet to connect all the wireless access points together.
Exactly. More to the point: for all those desktop machines out there, I see no purpose to flooding the air with wireless signals when the machine is essentially nailed to the desk and not going anywhere. You might just as well enjoy the faster, more secure connection.
Wireless is a great way of conveniently dealing with portable devices like laptops and so forth, but nobody can deny that congestion is going to be a real issue if we do away with ethernet.
fuck embryos... i hate people... we dont need anymore...
That sounds wilfully flamebaity, but there's some truth in it. If it were not for this idiotic "go forth and multiply" principle, humanity would be much better off.
Firstly, no, it's not like the Special Olympics. Also it apparently it makes a difference what platform you are running. I just tried the OS X version of 3.5b4 and it scored 92 vs. the XP version's 93.
I have never found that such acid tests reveal any show-stoppers likely to totally ruin my life as I know it. I realise that browsers should strive to be as standards-compliant as possible - and to that end the acid tests are a great diagnostic tool - but for the most part, so long as webpages render well enough to be comprehensible, I can get by. I am well aware that both Safari and Opera are reputed to score 100, but neither of those browsers are adequate for me. I have grown accustomed to having the zotero, adblock and flashblock extensions, and I no longer care to do without them.
if you are that uninterested in computers that these algorithms are uninteresting for you, you should leave.
Yeah. TFA has relegated to its second page a couple of the techniques that used to be important to me nearly 30 years ago: self-modifying code and patching code while it was actually running. These came under the heading of "hazardous duty", since if you got it wrong you could fuck things up quite spectacularly, and EVERYONE would know about it and give you a hard time. This was the sort of thing that was guaranteed to the adrenaline going.;-)
I had almost forgotten about the old DEADBEEF filler in core-dumps, though. I pulled that trick out of my hat in the '80s when I was showing a new CompSci graduate a way to fix an issue with an old COBOL program. I had a hex dump of about 500 pages 11x14" fanfold, and I just flicked the edges of the paper to locate the likely culprit. She cracked up laughing when I showed her the "secret".
I never got to like the Mighty Mouse. However, if anybody wants an actual positive recommendation (!), mine is for the Logitech Cordless Trackman Wheel. As far as I know, it only has 2 cons: it is a bit big to carry around with a laptop and it is probably useless to a left-hander. Oh, and the fact that Logitech have stopped marketing them, though they are still readily available.
That aside, the device is a rugged thing. I've had mine for several years, and it shows absolutely no indication of wear. Since you don't need to pick the thing up and move it around, it needs very little desk space. It works perfectly on Linux with the standard USB interface or with a PS/2 adapter if you prefer. I used to get some pain in my wrist and arm after long sessions at the computer with ordinary mice, but that is a thing of the past now.
Since the OP referred specifically to power usage, I have to say I don't know how much power the USB transmitter drains (since I use mine with a desktop machine it's a non-issue) but I think I have replaced the battery in the actual mouse only once or twice at most.
"Some researcher"!? The guy (prof. Tanenbaum) wrote the original Minix, which was the OS that inspired Linux and hosted the early stage of its development.
Exactly. But given that the EURC wants something that is both "reliable and secure", I'm not sure why they're throwing money at something that has been essentially moribund for over 15 years. Their Euros would be better spent on improving Linux (which BTW is already IMO pretty secure and reliable) and be done with it.
Anyone who is stupid enough to rely entirely on the score some program gives has no place in education.
That last line sums it up entirely. A lecturer or supervisor should be able to tell whether or not a body of text has been plagiarised simply from the "delivery". It is usually obvious enough to a "meatware" processor, usually very accurately, whereas algorithms in software are rarely worth the time taken to encode them.
So here's what you do. You put down the primary sources and go to the library. Read papers published by Ph.D. students that interpret Nietzsche's works and struggle to answer the question before you. Make notes on the general points of the argument and the supporting quotes across several of these papers
Exactly. There's actually nothing wrong with incorporating research done by someone else into your own. That is not plagiarism. The point is to be able to synthesise ideas, while acknowledging where they came from.
You get graded on looking like you are finding the bad guys.
No, you are graded on whether you are doing "something". And running around in circles, tearing your hair out and yelling "OhMyGodOhMyGodWhatAboutTheChildrenWe'reAllGoingToDie!" is just fine as far as the large moronic section of the electorate is concerned.
More likely they will use word of mouth in an open field. Payphones mostly don't exist (now everybody has a mobile phone), and where they do, they are situated on roads with the heaviest traffic noise and are therefore useless for holding a conversation.
And traditional mail? HaHaHaHaHa.... Maybe, if it ever gets to its destination.
You have a short memory. I was living in England at the peak (or nadir) of Thatcher's reign, and she had everything well set on its present course. Though I gather there were worse or at least equally egregious cases of abuse of authority during WWII. I just wasn't there to see them.
Slashdot Mirror
If you're not comfortable doing it yourself, iResQ does it for $99 [iresq.com], or this guy says he'll do it for $40 [ebay.com]
Would you send off your phone to be tinkered with on the strength of an ad on eBay?
Good luck with that.
I'm ultimately the one that's going to have to look for any IEDs ...
Are those the same as IUDs? Does one have as much fun looking for them?
both are designed to deprive revenue from the internet at large
Said "internet at large" has no inherent right to anybody's revenue.
For some reason, our society has allowed itself to be gulled into accepting that advertisers have some divine right to plaster their inane drivel over every surface visible to the human eyeball. The sooner and more effectively we can smack the arrogant parasites down, the better.
In any case, insisting that Firefox users are stingy is totally moronic. Firefox itself is free. Why should anyone have to pay dollars to have it behave the way we prefer it to? Nobody is forcing the GP to write extensions. If he doesn't want to do it because he'd rather make money, that's just fine. He is welcome to piss off and make money elsewhere. Nobody will miss him.
If (as I suspect) he's just feeling unloved because no-one can be bothered with his extensions, there's a simple answer to that: go write something more useful that people DO like.
Hundreds of thousands of people will likely uninstall it today alone.
Maybe, maybe not. I uninstalled it less than an hour after installing. I just found the damn thing too much of an intrusive speed-bump to what I do. However, I rarely see any ads, since I have a large hosts file to lock out most of the offending domains, and a combination of adblock and flashblock to fine-tune the rest. NoScript is more or less redundant.
You are still going to need ethernet to connect all the wireless access points together.
Exactly. More to the point: for all those desktop machines out there, I see no purpose to flooding the air with wireless signals when the machine is essentially nailed to the desk and not going anywhere. You might just as well enjoy the faster, more secure connection.
Wireless is a great way of conveniently dealing with portable devices like laptops and so forth, but nobody can deny that congestion is going to be a real issue if we do away with ethernet.
WTF? If that's your idea of an analogy, maybe you should just go back to sleep.
...I'll be damned if I'm going to tolerate weasels putting on business suits and stealing jobs from humans!
Why? When they stand for public office, everybody votes for them.
I think the fact that GWB is of above average intelligence is the most poorly reported aspect of the entire Bush administration.
If the average intelligence quotient of the typical American is about 12, that's not saying much.
fuck embryos... i hate people... we dont need anymore...
That sounds wilfully flamebaity, but there's some truth in it. If it were not for this idiotic "go forth and multiply" principle, humanity would be much better off.
All of the acid tests stipulate that they are to be tested with the browser at its default settings.
In any case, how hard is it to unzip a binary tarball and stick it in /usr/local?
Firstly, no, it's not like the Special Olympics. Also it apparently it makes a difference what platform you are running. I just tried the OS X version of 3.5b4 and it scored 92 vs. the XP version's 93.
I have never found that such acid tests reveal any show-stoppers likely to totally ruin my life as I know it. I realise that browsers should strive to be as standards-compliant as possible - and to that end the acid tests are a great diagnostic tool - but for the most part, so long as webpages render well enough to be comprehensible, I can get by. I am well aware that both Safari and Opera are reputed to score 100, but neither of those browsers are adequate for me. I have grown accustomed to having the zotero, adblock and flashblock extensions, and I no longer care to do without them.
if you are that uninterested in computers that these algorithms are uninteresting for you, you should leave.
;-)
Yeah. TFA has relegated to its second page a couple of the techniques that used to be important to me nearly 30 years ago: self-modifying code and patching code while it was actually running. These came under the heading of "hazardous duty", since if you got it wrong you could fuck things up quite spectacularly, and EVERYONE would know about it and give you a hard time. This was the sort of thing that was guaranteed to the adrenaline going.
I had almost forgotten about the old DEADBEEF filler in core-dumps, though. I pulled that trick out of my hat in the '80s when I was showing a new CompSci graduate a way to fix an issue with an old COBOL program. I had a hex dump of about 500 pages 11x14" fanfold, and I just flicked the edges of the paper to locate the likely culprit. She cracked up laughing when I showed her the "secret".
I never got to like the Mighty Mouse. However, if anybody wants an actual positive recommendation (!), mine is for the Logitech Cordless Trackman Wheel. As far as I know, it only has 2 cons: it is a bit big to carry around with a laptop and it is probably useless to a left-hander. Oh, and the fact that Logitech have stopped marketing them, though they are still readily available.
That aside, the device is a rugged thing. I've had mine for several years, and it shows absolutely no indication of wear. Since you don't need to pick the thing up and move it around, it needs very little desk space. It works perfectly on Linux with the standard USB interface or with a PS/2 adapter if you prefer. I used to get some pain in my wrist and arm after long sessions at the computer with ordinary mice, but that is a thing of the past now.
Since the OP referred specifically to power usage, I have to say I don't know how much power the USB transmitter drains (since I use mine with a desktop machine it's a non-issue) but I think I have replaced the battery in the actual mouse only once or twice at most.
"Some researcher"!? The guy (prof. Tanenbaum) wrote the original Minix, which was the OS that inspired Linux and hosted the early stage of its development.
Exactly. But given that the EURC wants something that is both "reliable and secure", I'm not sure why they're throwing money at something that has been essentially moribund for over 15 years. Their Euros would be better spent on improving Linux (which BTW is already IMO pretty secure and reliable) and be done with it.
Anyone who is stupid enough to rely entirely on the score some program gives has no place in education.
That last line sums it up entirely. A lecturer or supervisor should be able to tell whether or not a body of text has been plagiarised simply from the "delivery". It is usually obvious enough to a "meatware" processor, usually very accurately, whereas algorithms in software are rarely worth the time taken to encode them.
So here's what you do. You put down the primary sources and go to the library. Read papers published by Ph.D. students that interpret Nietzsche's works and struggle to answer the question before you. Make notes on the general points of the argument and the supporting quotes across several of these papers
Exactly. There's actually nothing wrong with incorporating research done by someone else into your own. That is not plagiarism. The point is to be able to synthesise ideas, while acknowledging where they came from.
Great! I've been waiting for the opportunity to change my status to "Deceased".
;-)
Is that a tax dodge?
Well, let me be the first to welcome our somnambulant pirate overlords... ;-)
Brave Sir Robin, that is...
"When danger reared its ugly head,
He bravely turned around and fled,
Brave, brave brave, brave Sir Robin"
The General Public deserve slightly more credit here.
Is he related to General Failure? And is he also interested in my hard drive?
You get graded on looking like you are finding the bad guys.
No, you are graded on whether you are doing "something". And running around in circles, tearing your hair out and yelling "OhMyGodOhMyGodWhatAboutTheChildrenWe'reAllGoingToDie!" is just fine as far as the large moronic section of the electorate is concerned.
More likely they will use word of mouth in an open field. Payphones mostly don't exist (now everybody has a mobile phone), and where they do, they are situated on roads with the heaviest traffic noise and are therefore useless for holding a conversation.
And traditional mail? HaHaHaHaHa.... Maybe, if it ever gets to its destination.
You have a short memory. I was living in England at the peak (or nadir) of Thatcher's reign, and she had everything well set on its present course. Though I gather there were worse or at least equally egregious cases of abuse of authority during WWII. I just wasn't there to see them.