The key part is "when an UK judge tells them to." Which means that the UK judge must be convinced that this request is justified under UK rules. Not perfect (the request can contain any amount of lies, and the judge can fall for them), but at least one more barrier. And if you're really concerned about your security, I guess you'll not do your stuff directly through that VPN, but tunnel another security protocol (e.g. Tor, or a connection to another VPN) through it.
I hate facebook and have never owned one and it's evil and I'm way too good to ever be on a social network so this story is worthless. They changed shit, now they're even more evil. I'm better than all you people who are on facebook, you just go on there to feel good about yourselves.
I'd love to own a facebook, because if I did, I'd be rich.:-) However I don't have, don't need and don't want a profile on the existing facebook.
This is something that has bugged me for years: why do people still use calculators?
Because it's vastly more convenient to use than the computer calculators. For one, I don't have to switch programs; also I've got a keypad optimized for the task, with small keys which are ideal for that task (but would be far too small to use for general typing). If I'm anyway in a program which allows calculating (e.g. Mathematica or gnuplot, or the browser, thanks to Google), I'm more likely to just type my calculation into it. However otherwise it's just more comfortable to long for the calculator.
In the time until I've found the entry in the phone book, I've typed in the number three times. I only use the phone book for numbers I use seldom enough to not remember them.
Children who just walk away without explicitly planning to (which I'm sure will be the absolutely most common case) most likely will not remove the GPS. Of course, given that the GPS is mounted on a reflective jacket, it would mean that if a child removes the reflective jacket for whatever reason (e.g. because of feeling hot after running around), the GPS will be removed as well.
Except that for an abductor it would be trivial to remove that GPS device. I'm sure if criminals had been the issue, they would not have made it public.
Why is it that its okay for Mozilla to have restrictions on their code and require conditions of a license to be met, but its not for MPEG-LA?
If you don't want to use Mozilla, you are free to use another browser, without any averse effect. But if H.264 becomes the standard video on the Web, you cannot just choose another format. Providers can't because people likely will not have that other codec installed, and possibly cannot even install it. Users cannot, because if a video is H.264, there's no way to watch it except with a H.264 codec. You cannot even write your own H.264 codec without a license, because unlike copyright, patents also cover clean-room reimplementations.
"I want to not get punished for things I haven't even done just because someone claims I did it." How's that for a start?
There's a reason why due process exists. This type of law is a punishment without a court being involved. It is not necessary to be proven guilty. It suffices that someone claims you are.That's what's bad about it. That's several orders of magnitude more important than any question of copyright. It's about the foundation of the rule of law. Due process. No punishment without conviction. That's what this is about. Therefore it's also completely irrelevant here what you think about downloading of music. I'd be against this type of law even if it were about murder, despite the fact that I definitely do not think murder should be legalized.
Again, this is not about the legality of music download. This is about the foundation of the rule of law.
And if it's actually an accurate result then it doesn't matter how small the value is. As soon as you break the speed of light by _any_ amount then the theoretical doors are wide open. According to Einstein breaking the speed of light by even just one nanosecond is _exactly_ as impossible as Star Trek variety warp speed.
Indeed, according to Einstein, in the right reference frame it is Star Trek variety warp speed. Indeed, there's a frame of reference where the speed is infinite. And a frame of reference where the neutrinos were detected before they were generated.
In other words, there are only three possibilities: * The measurement is wrong * Relativity is wrong * We can send messages to the past using neutrinos At least one of those must be true.
That clarifies the subject but you assume that compilers are perfect pieces of immutable software - they aren't. In the example you gave, it is expectable for gcc to have specific defines or makefile rules for each compiler, resulting on a different binary. Also, there is the problem of external dependencies - the libc implementation of Microsoft and Borland are different, even when the api is the same.
While gcc may have compiler-specific defines, that hopefully doesn't modify the code generation part. But yes, this could in principle give a persistent difference (but it's very unlikely that this difference would be self-propagating, unless it was inserted intentionally, in which case it would make gcc not trustworthy anyway).
The library dependence is irrelevant, because the libc gcc-compiled programs (including gcc-compiled gcc) use is completely independent from the libc used by the compiler used to bootstrap gcc.
It is usual for different compilers to have different flags, that do not translate for the same optimization.
The options gcc accepts don't depend on the compiler used to bootstrap it, especially not on the options that compiler supports. Again, the compare is not of binaries generated by those compilers.
The same source code (the same algorithm) can/will give you different binary results on different compilers, due to instruction alignment, code branching and optimization.
To the n-th time: I did not propose to compare binaries produced by the bootstrap compilers. Is this now clear?
Yeah, and when the results don't match, you don't know which version is tampered, so you're left at where you started.
I don't know which one was tampered with, right. But I know that most probably one was tampered with (or, less likely, one of them has a bug which propagates), which I wouldn't have known otherwise. So I know I should do more work to find out which one (e.g. by bootstrapping with a third compiler, and testing which of the now three final binaries agree). In other words, I'm not left at where I started (which is not knowing at all whether one of the compilers was tampered with).
No. There are several (not necessarily equivalent) definitions of what a web service is, but they have, at their core, define a web service as a function or functionality that one can invoke programmatically (and that was designed with this in mind) over an IP-based protocol in general, and over HTTP in particular, either way exploiting, relying and/or being affected by the characteristics, positive and negative, of the so-called Internet architecture.
Well, AFAICT all those things this site accesses fulfill that definition. Or do you really thing they parse web sites as presented to humans?
So, if I understand this correctly, I get the exciting chance to hand login credentials to a variety those accounts I deem important to some nascent.bomb outfit, whose TOS specifically says that it can change at any time, my responsibility to check(is there a trigger for that, by any chance?), and which currently doesn't make any mention of limitations on what they can do with those credentials(never mind what their eventual aquirerer might do...); but which is quite clear on just how hard I indemnify and hold them harmless pretty much no matter what?
Sounds Awesome!
It's still too limited. It doesn't support your bank account yet. Just having unfortunate automatic twitters in your name is not sufficient. Automatic money movement is much more interesting. Especially when combined with the possibility to select from existing rules... this could result in some very interesting money flows.:-)
It's a service which is offered over the web. Isn't that the very definition of a web service? However, what this is not is a mashup. It doesn't recombine content, but offers functionality across services.
It is analog film. You measure resolution by the level of detail and the smallest objects you can make out.
The resolution may have been limited by the film, or by the optics. And I didn't ask for how it is measured, but what it was. And yes, what interest me is what size of object could be seen.
The satellite allowed the intelligence community to capture the highest-quality imagery it had ever gotten with low-resolution camera, Vick said. It also allowed analysts to get a look at huge swathes of territory with fewer pictures â" a single frame covered about 370 nautical miles, roughly the equivalent of the distance from Cincinnati to Washington.
That says nothing about the resolution. That is, whatz detail could you see.
Slashdot Mirror
From what I understand, the point of this is being able to handle a bunch of folded containers just like a single unfolded one.
I don't think many ocean carriers read Slashdot. Therefore as an ad it would be utterly misplaced.
The key part is "when an UK judge tells them to." Which means that the UK judge must be convinced that this request is justified under UK rules. Not perfect (the request can contain any amount of lies, and the judge can fall for them), but at least one more barrier. And if you're really concerned about your security, I guess you'll not do your stuff directly through that VPN, but tunnel another security protocol (e.g. Tor, or a connection to another VPN) through it.
I hate facebook and have never owned one and it's evil and I'm way too good to ever be on a social network so this story is worthless. They changed shit, now they're even more evil. I'm better than all you people who are on facebook, you just go on there to feel good about yourselves.
I'd love to own a facebook, because if I did, I'd be rich. :-)
However I don't have, don't need and don't want a profile on the existing facebook.
Because it's vastly more convenient to use than the computer calculators. For one, I don't have to switch programs; also I've got a keypad optimized for the task, with small keys which are ideal for that task (but would be far too small to use for general typing). If I'm anyway in a program which allows calculating (e.g. Mathematica or gnuplot, or the browser, thanks to Google), I'm more likely to just type my calculation into it. However otherwise it's just more comfortable to long for the calculator.
In the time until I've found the entry in the phone book, I've typed in the number three times. I only use the phone book for numbers I use seldom enough to not remember them.
Children who just walk away without explicitly planning to (which I'm sure will be the absolutely most common case) most likely will not remove the GPS. Of course, given that the GPS is mounted on a reflective jacket, it would mean that if a child removes the reflective jacket for whatever reason (e.g. because of feeling hot after running around), the GPS will be removed as well.
Has it?
Except that for an abductor it would be trivial to remove that GPS device. I'm sure if criminals had been the issue, they would not have made it public.
If you don't want to use Mozilla, you are free to use another browser, without any averse effect. But if H.264 becomes the standard video on the Web, you cannot just choose another format. Providers can't because people likely will not have that other codec installed, and possibly cannot even install it. Users cannot, because if a video is H.264, there's no way to watch it except with a H.264 codec. You cannot even write your own H.264 codec without a license, because unlike copyright, patents also cover clean-room reimplementations.
$ SHUTDOWN -slashdort NOW!!!!!!
>> HOORAY!
Thanks for shutting down Slashdort. Too many people confused it with Slashdot.
SCNR
Just make the option a jumper on the motherboard, and you're virtually guaranteed that only people with at least some clue will change it.
"I want to not get punished for things I haven't even done just because someone claims I did it."
How's that for a start?
There's a reason why due process exists. This type of law is a punishment without a court being involved. It is not necessary to be proven guilty. It suffices that someone claims you are. That's what's bad about it. That's several orders of magnitude more important than any question of copyright. It's about the foundation of the rule of law. Due process. No punishment without conviction. That's what this is about. Therefore it's also completely irrelevant here what you think about downloading of music. I'd be against this type of law even if it were about murder, despite the fact that I definitely do not think murder should be legalized.
Again, this is not about the legality of music download. This is about the foundation of the rule of law.
And if it's actually an accurate result then it doesn't matter how small the value is. As soon as you break the speed of light by _any_ amount then the theoretical doors are wide open. According to Einstein breaking the speed of light by even just one nanosecond is _exactly_ as impossible as Star Trek variety warp speed.
Indeed, according to Einstein, in the right reference frame it is Star Trek variety warp speed. Indeed, there's a frame of reference where the speed is infinite. And a frame of reference where the neutrinos were detected before they were generated.
In other words, there are only three possibilities:
* The measurement is wrong
* Relativity is wrong
* We can send messages to the past using neutrinos
At least one of those must be true.
Hold on, I just need to wipe the dust off of this LHC I keep in my garage and then we can try to replicate their findings.
Be careful with that dust. It may still contain some dangerous microscopic black holes from your last run. :-)
If a reputable source (like a math textbook) writes 1+1=3, it's still not correct.
While gcc may have compiler-specific defines, that hopefully doesn't modify the code generation part. But yes, this could in principle give a persistent difference (but it's very unlikely that this difference would be self-propagating, unless it was inserted intentionally, in which case it would make gcc not trustworthy anyway).
The library dependence is irrelevant, because the libc gcc-compiled programs (including gcc-compiled gcc) use is completely independent from the libc used by the compiler used to bootstrap gcc.
The options gcc accepts don't depend on the compiler used to bootstrap it, especially not on the options that compiler supports. Again, the compare is not of binaries generated by those compilers.
To the n-th time: I did not propose to compare binaries produced by the bootstrap compilers. Is this now clear?
I don't know which one was tampered with, right. But I know that most probably one was tampered with (or, less likely, one of them has a bug which propagates), which I wouldn't have known otherwise. So I know I should do more work to find out which one (e.g. by bootstrapping with a third compiler, and testing which of the now three final binaries agree). In other words, I'm not left at where I started (which is not knowing at all whether one of the compilers was tampered with).
At which time the process will message: "Mission accomplished."
And what does the summary say?
"Ted Samson reports on a new Web application dubbed ifttt.com that mashes up all those Web services we routinely use.
Well, AFAICT all those things this site accesses fulfill that definition. Or do you really thing they parse web sites as presented to humans?
So, if I understand this correctly, I get the exciting chance to hand login credentials to a variety those accounts I deem important to some nascent .bomb outfit, whose TOS specifically says that it can change at any time, my responsibility to check(is there a trigger for that, by any chance?), and which currently doesn't make any mention of limitations on what they can do with those credentials(never mind what their eventual aquirerer might do...); but which is quite clear on just how hard I indemnify and hold them harmless pretty much no matter what?
Sounds Awesome!
It's still too limited. It doesn't support your bank account yet. Just having unfortunate automatic twitters in your name is not sufficient. Automatic money movement is much more interesting. Especially when combined with the possibility to select from existing rules ... this could result in some very interesting money flows. :-)
It's a service which is offered over the web. Isn't that the very definition of a web service?
However, what this is not is a mashup. It doesn't recombine content, but offers functionality across services.
Thanks. Now I've got an idea what these satellites were able to do.
It is analog film. You measure resolution by the level of detail and the smallest objects you can make out.
The resolution may have been limited by the film, or by the optics. And I didn't ask for how it is measured, but what it was. And yes, what interest me is what size of object could be seen.
That says nothing about the resolution. That is, whatz detail could you see.