Why must a Web server know any information at all about what kind of an OS, sites last visited or whether or not a user has visited a site before?
You have a point about the OS and half a point about "site visited before" (but that's one thing I don't care about; if I visit a site I expect the site to know that), however the browser does not by default send a list of sites last visited. That's only revealed by tricks using features which were certainly not intended for that .
OK, then please tell me how host files can at the same time stop third-party requests to a site (like embedded YouTube videos, or Facebook like buttons) and at the same time allow explicit access of the very same site (that is, when you explicitly go to Youtube or Facebook).
With RequestPolicy that's trivial (indeed, it's the default, you don't even need to know the third party site to be sure that it is blocked, let alone explicitly deny it).
The problem is: How do you prove that it was an intentional event, as opposed to a malfunctioning of the controls?
Or what if one country hacks into another country's control system and uses one of their satellites as weapon? If the satellite happens to be on the other hemisphere (so there's no danger of accidentally hitting the own country), they don't even need to have control. Just DoS the other country's control, and have the out-of-control satellite burn populated areas at random.
I'd expect it to be easier to electrically connect the place than to bring the CO2 there.
Well, unless you could use those bricks as intermediate form. That would make a very compact, transportable substance you could conveniently transport to those propane factories. There the bricks would be split up again to get the CO2 for making propane (or another hydrogenated carbon), and the other substances then brought back to the power plant (together with the fuel) for repeated CO2 capture.
Back in the early days at mobileread.com Kovid was asked to to include an file management opt-out feature like iTunes, and he was 'meh, code it yourself'.
Well, you could have coded it yourself, or you could have paid someone to get it coded.
If he had said "I'll never let that into the code" that would have been different. But since he doesn't take money for it, he is under no obligation to add features he doesn't feel like putting in.
"ERM" it ain't the wet season at the moment hence you argument is non-germane.
He did not argue that this fire is a good one that shouldn't be put out. This one is clearly a bad fire out of control that ought to be put out.
What he argues is that the reason this fire got that bad is because in the wet season, too few fires have been left burning. I have no idea whether what he claims is true, but please don't argue something he didn't even claim.
I think you want to say "this is not not caused by global warming." The fire releases large amounts of CO2 while at the same time destroying plants which would otherwise consume CO2, so I can well imagine that this does indeed have an effect on global warming.
This is not for communication between two points on earth. This is for communication with the satellite itself. With a direct Laser link, you should get the lowest latency physically possible.
First, it would be black people or Pole jokes. Last I checked "feminist" was not considered a pejorative word (although with modern Political Correctness you can never be completely sure).
Second, I don't see how such a joke could be appropriate here, since neither black people nor Poles are known to have issues with men, unlike feminists.
Third, my joke was not a joke about feminists. But of course it needs a minimum of thinking to recognize that.
And it is a fact that for many men, a room full of feminists would be a hostile environment.
Well, in one case you let it run a relatively short time and see how well it matches another clock, in the other case you let it run a very long time. compensate for short-time errors, and again check how well it matches another clock.
Clearly the accuracy measurement needs longer than the stability measurement (and moreover you need to know the stability in order to compensate for your accuracy measurement).
Actually I suspect the incentive was more economic: If it had widely known that there's a dangerous illness there, there probably had been much fewer pilgrims, bringing much less money into the country.
If they offer the film for $2 after some time, and a single other person who would otherwise watched the movie for $12 would wait for it to cost only $2$ instead, it would more than offset the win the cinema makes from you.
Only if for anyone watching in any case, but for the cheapest possible price, there are at least five people who would not have watched at all for $12, but will for $2, the cinema will not make a loss.
And that's under the unrealistic assumption that those extra screenings come at no extra cost.
Slashdot Mirror
You have a point about the OS and half a point about "site visited before" (but that's one thing I don't care about; if I visit a site I expect the site to know that), however the browser does not by default send a list of sites last visited. That's only revealed by tricks using features which were certainly not intended for that .
OK, then please tell me how host files can at the same time stop third-party requests to a site (like embedded YouTube videos, or Facebook like buttons) and at the same time allow explicit access of the very same site (that is, when you explicitly go to Youtube or Facebook).
With RequestPolicy that's trivial (indeed, it's the default, you don't even need to know the third party site to be sure that it is blocked, let alone explicitly deny it).
Less network traffic.
One more reason to use RequestPolicy. A request that isn't even made cannot reveal any information.
The problem is: How do you prove that it was an intentional event, as opposed to a malfunctioning of the controls?
Or what if one country hacks into another country's control system and uses one of their satellites as weapon? If the satellite happens to be on the other hemisphere (so there's no danger of accidentally hitting the own country), they don't even need to have control. Just DoS the other country's control, and have the out-of-control satellite burn populated areas at random.
1. Whoosh.
2. You want to consult a dictionary about the term "signature".
You misunderstood. That was his signature.
Yeah, that's why carbon dioxide (which also contains carbon) is highly flammable ... oh, wait ...
I'd expect it to be easier to electrically connect the place than to bring the CO2 there.
Well, unless you could use those bricks as intermediate form. That would make a very compact, transportable substance you could conveniently transport to those propane factories. There the bricks would be split up again to get the CO2 for making propane (or another hydrogenated carbon), and the other substances then brought back to the power plant (together with the fuel) for repeated CO2 capture.
Especially, how much energy it costs.
Well, you could have coded it yourself, or you could have paid someone to get it coded.
If he had said "I'll never let that into the code" that would have been different. But since he doesn't take money for it, he is under no obligation to add features he doesn't feel like putting in.
Have you verified that with those settings, Chrome doesn't communicate back to Google, or do you just assume it?
He did not argue that this fire is a good one that shouldn't be put out. This one is clearly a bad fire out of control that ought to be put out.
What he argues is that the reason this fire got that bad is because in the wet season, too few fires have been left burning. I have no idea whether what he claims is true, but please don't argue something he didn't even claim.
I think you want to say "this is not not caused by global warming." The fire releases large amounts of CO2 while at the same time destroying plants which would otherwise consume CO2, so I can well imagine that this does indeed have an effect on global warming.
Has anyone done research on the regional concentration of first posters?
In any case it should have triggered SIGILL.
This is not for communication between two points on earth. This is for communication with the satellite itself. With a direct Laser link, you should get the lowest latency physically possible.
Haw haw! Got any nigger or Polack jokes, Max?
First, it would be black people or Pole jokes. Last I checked "feminist" was not considered a pejorative word (although with modern Political Correctness you can never be completely sure).
Second, I don't see how such a joke could be appropriate here, since neither black people nor Poles are known to have issues with men, unlike feminists.
Third, my joke was not a joke about feminists. But of course it needs a minimum of thinking to recognize that.
And it is a fact that for many men, a room full of feminists would be a hostile environment.
Well, in one case you let it run a relatively short time and see how well it matches another clock, in the other case you let it run a very long time. compensate for short-time errors, and again check how well it matches another clock.
Clearly the accuracy measurement needs longer than the stability measurement (and moreover you need to know the stability in order to compensate for your accuracy measurement).
Actually I suspect the incentive was more economic: If it had widely known that there's a dangerous illness there, there probably had been much fewer pilgrims, bringing much less money into the country.
Yeah, they should have specified the height as 72 DTP points instead. :-)
My experience on Slashdot is the opposite: People love to talk about how crappy it is.
Of other studio's films so they waste money on them?
I'm all for supporting the tomato industry, but letting those tomatoes rot seems like a waste to me.
(And no, there's no need to educate me about what you really meant.)
His point was that not everyone is like you.
If they offer the film for $2 after some time, and a single other person who would otherwise watched the movie for $12 would wait for it to cost only $2$ instead, it would more than offset the win the cinema makes from you.
Only if for anyone watching in any case, but for the cheapest possible price, there are at least five people who would not have watched at all for $12, but will for $2, the cinema will not make a loss.
And that's under the unrealistic assumption that those extra screenings come at no extra cost.