In your scheme of things, how do you propose to let multiple users have access to the same program without duplicating the binaries? Putting programs together in the same location as data files has, in part, been the cause of the current permissions mess on Windows.
Along with the need to limit programs from accessing data they should not be accessing, there is a need to prohibit limited-privileged user accounts from modifying program binaries and resources. What we probably need is some combination of your suggestion along with current practices in various UNIX flavors (which have addressed the issue I raised, BTW).
Specifically, your idea of limiting access to user data files even within a user's home directory is a good idea, but the mapping between a program and the data it can access, should not be as simple as "if it is my descendant in the directory hierarchy, I can access it".
There is, however, an exceptions to the cap for people who have earned a Masters or Doctorate degree from a U.S. university. There is no distinction made by nation of origin, as correctly stated by the parent.
You are watching the October 2005 version of this page, and the map will not work from that URL because Google Maps API keys are issued for a particular domain. Use the first link I provided.
I've done this myself at least since October 2005. Source code available if you send me an email, and I'll even package it nicely and write a HOWTO some day...
either a registry based approach (opaque data storage with a defined interface) vs a flat text based approach (clear data storage with an undefined interface).
The GP's point was not entirely about automatic recovery from a broken structure; it was about human-led recovery. In a binary dump, even with defined interfaces, a single byte can render the entire structure non-human-readable. With a plain text file, a human can look at it and try to diagnose the problem -- simply by looking.
Occam's Razor: "All other things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one." As detailed at Groklaw, ODF reuses other standards such as SVG, Dublin Core and XLink, while MS tries to bring up new ones. I believe much of this contributes to the bloat in the spec, and will translate to bloat in an actual implementation.
Haven't you heard? They have been on display at the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard'.
Think of it as a cross between markup and a programming language for writing papers. There's an edit-compile-test cycle; results are completely predictable; modern editors are almost full-blown IDEs for LaTeX. It integrates well into multi-user editing scenarios: you can check in your source tex files into CVS or subversion, and get free version control with diffing capabilities. Try that with a binary format.
How many times have you struggled to get an image placed just right in a popular WYSIWYG text editor? How many times has your favorite WYSIWYG editor added a page to your report that makes it go over the page limit, minutes before a critical submission deadline?
The little time spent in learning the language far outweighs the advantages it provides. Give it a try!
At this point, their homepage is changed to a site using^H^H^H^H^H about Mesothelioma (a rare form of cancer) to ring up high-paying results on the perpetrators' Google ads.
High-paying, because mesothelioma is an uncommon word.
If not, why not? Are they not prone to the same defect that other OEMs have been subjected to? Or is Sony just being complacent? Either way, it's not a good thing.
Atleast it wasn't on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying, "Beware of the Leopard".
But it's just a disk, some paper and a plastic bag.
If a brain surgeon opens your cranium and takes a peek inside your brain, does he see ideas and intelligence? Just because he only sees a brain, can he determine the content? And if he cannot measure any content, does that mean you are mindless? No.
( ) Censor your writings prior to ftp upload? ( ) Inform government agents? ( ) Prepare a firing squad? [X] Do nothing (but fuck up the html) [Too bad/. won't let you indicate disabled options in grey or something.]
Slashdot Mirror
In your scheme of things, how do you propose to let multiple users have access to the same program without duplicating the binaries? Putting programs together in the same location as data files has, in part, been the cause of the current permissions mess on Windows.
Along with the need to limit programs from accessing data they should not be accessing, there is a need to prohibit limited-privileged user accounts from modifying program binaries and resources. What we probably need is some combination of your suggestion along with current practices in various UNIX flavors (which have addressed the issue I raised, BTW).
Specifically, your idea of limiting access to user data files even within a user's home directory is a good idea, but the mapping between a program and the data it can access, should not be as simple as "if it is my descendant in the directory hierarchy, I can access it".
There is, however, an exceptions to the cap for people who have earned a Masters or Doctorate degree from a U.S. university. There is no distinction made by nation of origin, as correctly stated by the parent.
You are watching the October 2005 version of this page, and the map will not work from that URL because Google Maps API keys are issued for a particular domain. Use the first link I provided.
I've done this myself at least since October 2005. Source code available if you send me an email, and I'll even package it nicely and write a HOWTO some day ...
either a registry based approach (opaque data storage with a defined interface) vs a flat text based approach (clear data storage with an undefined interface).
The GP's point was not entirely about automatic recovery from a broken structure; it was about human-led recovery. In a binary dump, even with defined interfaces, a single byte can render the entire structure non-human-readable. With a plain text file, a human can look at it and try to diagnose the problem -- simply by looking.
It's a little bit like violence in that regard. Keep adding more until it all falls apart.
Occam's Razor: "All other things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one." As detailed at Groklaw, ODF reuses other standards such as SVG, Dublin Core and XLink, while MS tries to bring up new ones. I believe much of this contributes to the bloat in the spec, and will translate to bloat in an actual implementation.
I always thought Windows machines were already possessed by the Devil.
Haven't you heard? They have been on display at the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard'.
Aha, RIAA math!
I, for one, welcome our clichéd-overlord-joke-bearing Slashdot comments.
Many things. Most of which depend on your being a virus writer.
Think of it as a cross between markup and a programming language for writing papers. There's an edit-compile-test cycle; results are completely predictable; modern editors are almost full-blown IDEs for LaTeX. It integrates well into multi-user editing scenarios: you can check in your source tex files into CVS or subversion, and get free version control with diffing capabilities. Try that with a binary format.
How many times have you struggled to get an image placed just right in a popular WYSIWYG text editor? How many times has your favorite WYSIWYG editor added a page to your report that makes it go over the page limit, minutes before a critical submission deadline?
The little time spent in learning the language far outweighs the advantages it provides. Give it a try!
At this point, their homepage is changed to a site using^H^H^H^H^H about Mesothelioma (a rare form of cancer) to ring up high-paying results on the perpetrators' Google ads. High-paying, because mesothelioma is an uncommon word.
Recently, I did glance up at the top-right corner of a book to see what time it was. And was disappointed to see a page number instead.
Of course, they did. Their brilliant idea was to take others' brilliant ideas, copy them, and kill off the original guy. Brilliant idea if you ask me!
I thought they did a 360, really?
If not, why not? Are they not prone to the same defect that other OEMs have been subjected to? Or is Sony just being complacent? Either way, it's not a good thing.
You opted in when you put your content on the world wide web.
Atleast it wasn't on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying, "Beware of the Leopard".
Jobs.
But it's just a disk, some paper and a plastic bag.
From: http://www.embroideryprotection.org/faqs.htmlIf a brain surgeon opens your cranium and takes a peek inside your brain, does he see ideas and intelligence? Just because he only sees a brain, can he determine the content? And if he cannot measure any content, does that mean you are mindless? No.
And this is why, folks, we need Google Book Search. At least then they could search to find out there's a book they should have had access to.
<div style="display: table-cell; vertical-align: middle;">
<p>This is a vertically- and horizontally-centered block.</p>
</div>
</div>
( ) Censor your writings prior to ftp upload? /. won't let you indicate disabled options in grey or something.]
There, fixed that for you!( ) Inform government agents?
( ) Prepare a firing squad?
[X] Do nothing (but fuck up the html) [Too bad