"Because it does?" is the most stupid answer possible.
"Because all nucleons have approximately have the same mass" is the right answer here. Well, actually the fact that helium is a gas would also be relevant.
I get you won't accept for the question "why can't I open this door" the answer "because it is locked" either? Because that's exactly the same: It identifies the conditions (the door is locked) relevant for it (the door can't be opened) happening.
Making your site better for users, by following the guidelines provided by the search engine providers, perhaps?
I mean, what would a search engine company like Google know about making information easy to find and sites easy to navigate?
Sites easy to navigate? Given my late experience with using Google's site, very little. Well, I now do my searches through Startpage, there the web page still behaves like a web page should behave.
In other words, if he signs but it doesn't get ratified, nothing really changes because currently the treaty is fulfilled anyway, and a later change is not blocked by the contract because it was not ratified. On the other hand, if this contract gets ratified, then later the law cannot be changed any more, except by changing the treaty (which is much harder, because everyone who signed and ratified it has to agree).
Given that this is ACTA, which scenario would you prefer?
Well, I wonder how he would have coped with the following:
Him: Why is it lighter? You: Because it has fewer nucleons. Him: Why does it have fewer nucleons? You: Because otherwise it would not be Helium. Him: Why would it not be Helium? You: Because we humans defined Helium that way.
Therefore an understanding would mean to derive the formula from those theories (just as we understand why the earth goes around the sun by solving the equation of motion in a gravitational field).
Solving the equation for motion in a gravitational field tells you what happens, not why.
No, solving the equation of motion tells you why it happens, by identifying the conditions which are relevant for it happening (the equations for example tell you that if the earth would be much faster, it wouldn't go round the sun but fly away).
Really, the world would have never have moved on from PL1/, B, aseembly and Multics? No one would have ever have thought "is there a better way?"
Of course someone would have thought "is there a better way." And we have no idea what he would have come up with. There's no reason to assume it would have had any similarity with Unix (other than the similarity forced on it by being an operating system, of course).
Actually we have microscopical theories which are assumed to describe everything (well, everything relevant at that level, at least). Therefore an understanding would mean to derive the formula from those theories (just as we understand why the earth goes around the sun by solving the equation of motion in a gravitational field). We did not fully understand Mercury's movement before Einsteins GR, because we could not completely describe its movement with the existing theories.
An explanation of why oil and water don't mix would mean to derive that formula from the fundamental laws of physics (in this case electrodynamics and quantum mechanics).
But... comments like yours seriously piss me off - do you really think that if Ritchie hadn't created C, that no one else would have?
Of course not. Someone might have invented another language fulfilling the same role, and being as good in that. But I strongly doubt that it would have been C. Maybe it would have been a better language. Maybe it would have been a worse language. But it would not have been the same language.
Indeed, it's more news for nerds than the death of Steve Jobs which was reported here. I doubt there are many popular programs written in a language which was not influenced in any way by C (and be it only by using the syntax). And the same is true for operating systems and Unix.
You just gave quite a bit information about yourself. You are a self-employed Canadian, invested in Housing corporations, have three credit cards, use Windows and Linux, hold several domains, and in another post you told that you lived in Texas for 5 months 6 years ago, and that address turns up in Google. Also, you regularly Google yourself.
Clicking on your Slashdot profile and reading some of your other posts quickly reveals that you had a condo on the beach in Boca Raton since the 1970's, live in the third world, are married and are a doctor. (Unless in some of your posts you were lying, of course)
I wonder if that information would be sufficient to uniquely identify you. Especially since someone really determined on that would do more than just scan through your posts of the past few days. Possibly you use the same nickname on other services (a quick Google search should reveal whether the nick is used otherwise, and reading a few posts would then give a pretty good guess if it's you from the writing style), and in that case more information about you might be gathered from those places.
Dude when the seas get wild and that affects the submarine then the depth gauge will be reading zero anyway..
Submarines can also operate close to the water surface. And I guess especially there it is important to know exactly how far you are from the water surface. Are you close enough to use the periscope? Are you deep enough to pass below that ship?
They cannot be shut down, nor stopped. That is a wonderful thing - as long as a government has the ability to do something, it will find a way to use it to the detriment of its people. The best way to fight that is to remove the weapon from their insane fingers...
How about you be more careful with your $5000 and not dropping it where anybody can just pick it up?
So would you say it's OK to take things out of a house if its door happens to be unlocked? Because after all, the house owner should have been more careful and have locked the door, right?
He wrote: "Turning it to the bar or the police is the thing to do."
To which you answered:
If you drop your wallet and the only contact information in there is for your dry cleaners, then you have no standing to be mad when I am unable to return it to you.
So you are saying you are unable to find the bar you found it in (and that while you are actually there)? And you are also unable to find the police?
So basically your saying that assuming these hackers have gone in, recovered your password, AND you used the same password for your email, it's safe to assume they didn't change your password to lock you out?
That's absolutely not what I said. Here's a relevant portion of my post: "someone who can read your mail but doesn't have the old password can get into your account" (the emphasis was even there in the original). That is, you are not only vulnerable against the original hackers, but in addition to others who manage to get access to your mail (reading is sufficient!). And that's independent of whether you used the same password for your email and WineHQ because those others do not need to know the password you used for WineHQ; indeed they need not even have guessed before that you have an account on WineHQ. And it may be that the original attackers did not find out your password (because you used a sufficiently good one).
Although no answer is perfect, in your solution you are requiring that the original WineHQ accounts are still uncompromised which is an unsafe assumption.
A changed password is equivalent to a forgotten password. Therefore the procedures set forth for that case may be used. Yes, they are most probably not any more secure; but then, you only need to use them if your account already was compromised as opposed to if your account only might be compromised (i.e. you only have the risk to get your account compromised in those cases where it already happened).
Assuming the email is still safe is generally the safer of the two options. Using the email the only people that MIGHT get burned are those that used the same password on both. Both options involve risk.
A solution which is not only perfectly safe as long as the email is safe, but in addition is still safe when the email is not safe, but the one who got access to your email does not know your old password is definitely more safe than a solution which is perfectly safe as long as the email is safe, but is completely unsafe otherwise.
Yes, both options involve risk. But the dedicated link + old password solution involves less risk because it is safe in all situations where the original version is safe, but is also safe in some situations where the original one is not.
And BTW, on that link they could also allow the password which was set just before the security breach happened (the hashes should still be on some backup). Which would bypass any problems caused by the attackers changing passwords while only marginally reducing security.
that depends on where you found the cell phone. you don't have a legal obligation to find the owner of lost or abbandoned property. if he were the owner of the bar the abbandoned property left in his establishment would be his and he has every right to sell it if he wants.
You have no obligation to find the owner, but you may have the obligation to allow the owner to find his lost property (which he can't if you take it away). In Germany, you definitely have that obligation. There are actually special offices for that, called "Fundamt" ("finding office"). But giving it to the police is also possible. And I'm pretty sure just leaving it where it was is allowed too.
You hit the Anonymous Coward. The Anonymous Coward turns to flee! You see here a -1 cursed Slashdot post. You pick up x - a -1 cursed Slashdot post. What do you want to read? (slx*?) You feel that your are wasting your time.
Slashdot Mirror
"Because it does?" is the most stupid answer possible.
"Because all nucleons have approximately have the same mass" is the right answer here. Well, actually the fact that helium is a gas would also be relevant.
I get you won't accept for the question "why can't I open this door" the answer "because it is locked" either? Because that's exactly the same: It identifies the conditions (the door is locked) relevant for it (the door can't be opened) happening.
Making your site better for users, by following the guidelines provided by the search engine providers, perhaps?
I mean, what would a search engine company like Google know about making information easy to find and sites easy to navigate?
Sites easy to navigate? Given my late experience with using Google's site, very little.
Well, I now do my searches through Startpage, there the web page still behaves like a web page should behave.
In other words, if he signs but it doesn't get ratified, nothing really changes because currently the treaty is fulfilled anyway, and a later change is not blocked by the contract because it was not ratified. On the other hand, if this contract gets ratified, then later the law cannot be changed any more, except by changing the treaty (which is much harder, because everyone who signed and ratified it has to agree).
Given that this is ACTA, which scenario would you prefer?
Well, I wonder how he would have coped with the following:
Him: Why is it lighter?
You: Because it has fewer nucleons.
Him: Why does it have fewer nucleons?
You: Because otherwise it would not be Helium.
Him: Why would it not be Helium?
You: Because we humans defined Helium that way.
Therefore an understanding would mean to derive the formula from those theories (just as we understand why the earth goes around the sun by solving the equation of motion in a gravitational field).
Solving the equation for motion in a gravitational field tells you what happens, not why.
No, solving the equation of motion tells you why it happens, by identifying the conditions which are relevant for it happening (the equations for example tell you that if the earth would be much faster, it wouldn't go round the sun but fly away).
return 0; would have worked as well.
Didn't ANSI C89 still have implicit int? I thought it had been removed only in C99.
Not necessarily. He could also come from another Everett-World. No string theory required for that.
Of course someone would have thought "is there a better way." And we have no idea what he would have come up with. There's no reason to assume it would have had any similarity with Unix (other than the similarity forced on it by being an operating system, of course).
Actually we have microscopical theories which are assumed to describe everything (well, everything relevant at that level, at least). Therefore an understanding would mean to derive the formula from those theories (just as we understand why the earth goes around the sun by solving the equation of motion in a gravitational field). We did not fully understand Mercury's movement before Einsteins GR, because we could not completely describe its movement with the existing theories.
An explanation of why oil and water don't mix would mean to derive that formula from the fundamental laws of physics (in this case electrodynamics and quantum mechanics).
You know, the majority of all people ever born has not yet died. Therefore the evidence that everyone eventually dies is not very good. :-)
Of course not. Someone might have invented another language fulfilling the same role, and being as good in that. But I strongly doubt that it would have been C. Maybe it would have been a better language. Maybe it would have been a worse language. But it would not have been the same language.
Indeed, it's more news for nerds than the death of Steve Jobs which was reported here.
I doubt there are many popular programs written in a language which was not influenced in any way by C (and be it only by using the syntax). And the same is true for operating systems and Unix.
You just gave quite a bit information about yourself. You are a self-employed Canadian, invested in Housing corporations, have three credit cards, use Windows and Linux, hold several domains, and in another post you told that you lived in Texas for 5 months 6 years ago, and that address turns up in Google. Also, you regularly Google yourself.
Clicking on your Slashdot profile and reading some of your other posts quickly reveals that you had a condo on the beach in Boca Raton since the 1970's, live in the third world, are married and are a doctor. (Unless in some of your posts you were lying, of course)
I wonder if that information would be sufficient to uniquely identify you. Especially since someone really determined on that would do more than just scan through your posts of the past few days. Possibly you use the same nickname on other services (a quick Google search should reveal whether the nick is used otherwise, and reading a few posts would then give a pretty good guess if it's you from the writing style), and in that case more information about you might be gathered from those places.
Lol what?
This is about a printer, presumably printing toys. Thus the reason for "could be the last toy you ever have to buy for your kids?"
So the kids could die from this?
Dude when the seas get wild and that affects the submarine then the depth gauge will be reading zero anyway..
Submarines can also operate close to the water surface. And I guess especially there it is important to know exactly how far you are from the water surface. Are you close enough to use the periscope? Are you deep enough to pass below that ship?
They cannot be shut down, nor stopped. That is a wonderful thing - as long as a government has the ability to do something, it will find a way to use it to the detriment of its people. The best way to fight that is to remove the weapon from their insane fingers...
VeriSign now is the government?
So would you say it's OK to take things out of a house if its door happens to be unlocked? Because after all, the house owner should have been more careful and have locked the door, right?
He wrote: "Turning it to the bar or the police is the thing to do."
To which you answered:
So you are saying you are unable to find the bar you found it in (and that while you are actually there)? And you are also unable to find the police?
American Indian or Indian Indian? (Damn Columbus! :-))
That's absolutely not what I said. Here's a relevant portion of my post: "someone who can read your mail but doesn't have the old password can get into your account" (the emphasis was even there in the original). That is, you are not only vulnerable against the original hackers, but in addition to others who manage to get access to your mail (reading is sufficient!). And that's independent of whether you used the same password for your email and WineHQ because those others do not need to know the password you used for WineHQ; indeed they need not even have guessed before that you have an account on WineHQ. And it may be that the original attackers did not find out your password (because you used a sufficiently good one).
A changed password is equivalent to a forgotten password. Therefore the procedures set forth for that case may be used. Yes, they are most probably not any more secure; but then, you only need to use them if your account already was compromised as opposed to if your account only might be compromised (i.e. you only have the risk to get your account compromised in those cases where it already happened).
A solution which is not only perfectly safe as long as the email is safe, but in addition is still safe when the email is not safe, but the one who got access to your email does not know your old password is definitely more safe than a solution which is perfectly safe as long as the email is safe, but is completely unsafe otherwise.
Yes, both options involve risk. But the dedicated link + old password solution involves less risk because it is safe in all situations where the original version is safe, but is also safe in some situations where the original one is not.
And BTW, on that link they could also allow the password which was set just before the security breach happened (the hashes should still be on some backup). Which would bypass any problems caused by the attackers changing passwords while only marginally reducing security.
that depends on where you found the cell phone. you don't have a legal obligation to find the owner of lost or abbandoned property. if he were the owner of the bar the abbandoned property left in his establishment would be his and he has every right to sell it if he wants.
You have no obligation to find the owner, but you may have the obligation to allow the owner to find his lost property (which he can't if you take it away). In Germany, you definitely have that obligation. There are actually special offices for that, called "Fundamt" ("finding office"). But giving it to the police is also possible. And I'm pretty sure just leaving it where it was is allowed too.
Ok, 77 million accounts were stolen, and now 93 million accounts are left. Therefore before the theft, there have been 170 million accounts. Right? :-)
You hit the Anonymous Coward.
The Anonymous Coward turns to flee!
You see here a -1 cursed Slashdot post.
You pick up x - a -1 cursed Slashdot post.
What do you want to read? (slx*?)
You feel that your are wasting your time.