Actually, there is probably a better way yet: An ISP can block it's ports if it wants to, but it must tell it's users, and there needs to be at least two different ISPs in any market.
Some ISPs could advertise that they block $a, $b, and $c, as a security measure. If the customer doesn't want to think about security, they go with those ISPs. Others could advertise they allow access to the entire net. I would sign up for that, and do my own security.
Of course, for this to work there actually needs to be competition in the ISP realm. Not a given at the moment.
It just modifies it so it isn't as annoying. (Spreading the force over a larger area.)
Very useful, yes, but you would still hear it going overhead. (Though I suppose the 'boom' fades as you move away from the plane, and this could speed that up...)
It can't start with numbers, have duplicates, and more stupid conditions. Even a password like w4Pl3w2abn would be rejected because it contains "w" twice and a and b in order.
At some point that's going to be counter productive: they are narrowing the password space so much that a brute force attack will become effective, if it knows the rules. (Quite simply there are so many passwords not allowed that the 'available' list is small enough to search.)
Personally, most of my passwords are quite easy to guess, but I don't consider the accounts secure. On the few 'secure' accounts I have the passwords are much stronger, and all unique.
Actually, it sounds like Be had nothing but the resources to fight them in court. A pretty good position to be in against MS: then they can't fight you any other way but legally, and given the specifics of the case, it probably wouldn't have gone nice for MS. After all, they have already got a judge saying they did something like this...
Well, it's currently $20.50. I actually thought about bidding, even though I could buy it directly from Apple, if I was inclined to actually listen to the song.
In this case, the price represents the opportunity to test the legal system in a new way, and hopefully show the fundamental problems with DRM. (Even Apple's fairly good system.) All this in a form that *doesn't* sound like you are promoting piracy. The opportunity to be a part of legal history is worth something.
I've never needed more than one level of tables... (Of course, if I'm writing for myself, I have no fear of using all of CSS: Mozilla supports it, and I don't need to be *completely* compatible. I figure the standards will stay around a while. Also, I use a HTML text editor, which has table features for when I need them.)
As for the tag, I just put the whole comment in code mode. It seemed easer. (Just like this one is plain text. Easier/quicker.)
That's funny, but it brings up a good point: why are we accepting formats that can't be used anywhere anyway?
A few years ago, after having to convert all my old documents the umpteenth time, I decided that I wasn't going through that again. So I started writing everything in HTML.
Now, admittedly not everyone is going to want to write stuff like <p><q><em>, but it works for me, and I can be sure that everyone has a reader that can display it, and will for quite some time in the future. I think we need better tools/more thought on a truly universal markup system. (XML is quite close, mostly lacking in good tool sets at the moment, and those are being worked on.)
The Segway allows travel at an intermediate rate - between walking and biking. As to the path issue, there is no rational reason that it couldn't re allowed on foot paths.
Sure there is: the same reason you don't have bikes on (some) footpaths. That is: a human foot is primarily downward force, while a moving wheel puts in quite a bit of horizontal force, as well as the downward force. Also, a wheel puts down a continuous rut-like impression, which can easily lead to real ruts and speed up erosion. A footprint does not. Not to mention the twisting force in a turn, that in a human foot is usually absorbed by the ankle...
Basic foot traffic is the lowest impact traffic we have. On a path who has a main attraction that it is naturally beautiful, restrictions to keep that natural beauty make sense.
Of course, one or three Segways isn't going to make much difference. But you don't want to make too many exceptions...
Ah, the old "Never test for a situation you don't know how to handle."
Point. Unfortunately, we'll never know if they could have come up with a solution. Basically the the decision was: "We don't think we would be able to save them anyway, so we won't try." Machiavellian, but workable.
There might be confusion: Apple's Rendezvous can be used to discover messaging systems on the network, so you can have a 'Rendezvous-Aware' chat program for instance.
It is at least enough to start a case. You could probably tell from context which Rendezvous was being discussed, but it could get close...
As for it not going to court: I agree. It'll be settled out of court most likely.
Supposedly it needs specific features of the G4, though I'm not sure I believe that. (Though I don't blame MS; they haven't had time to do anything to it yet.)
Since SMP is more pervasive on Mac than on PC, do Mac games take more advantage of SMP? Does GL on the Mac render retained mode data outside of the calling thread or otherwise significantly distribute game-related work in the OS itself?
Most Mac games are not specifically written to take advantage of SMP. However, OS X (which is required for a G5) is pervasively multithreaded, and distributes the load among multiple processors very well. Any thread can run on any processor, as needed.
So, if a game is multithreaded it will use both processors. The graphics system under OS X is multithreaded, so it can use both processors. (And for that matter, the graphics card as well; Quartz Extreme offloads quite a bit of processing that way.) Basically any system call is likely to be done in a separate thread, and two threads should never take running time from each other.
As a real-word example EV Nova (one of my favorite games, so I'm plugging them.) runs much faster on my dual 867MHz MDD Mac than my uncle's 1GHz iMac, without being 'designed for' SMP. (I wish I had a real benchmark for you though.) The OS takes care of that.
No, it is different. This one is shutting down, and this is how the operator is making sure that everyone knows it is no longer functional.
It is a public service, of sorts. He is guaranteeing that no one is using the blacklist. That way it can't be misused by someone hijacking it, or just left in place by someone who doesn't care. It is shut down. And everyone will know it.
Try Anne Rice (if they are strong enough) or the 'Covenant with the Vampire' series by Jeanne Kalogridis. There are others too, those are just the first that come to mind.
Of course, in none of these to vampires *like* daylight. Just that they can stand it. For that matter, BVTS is a lot closer to them than to Dracula: in Dracula the vampires are essentially dead during the day. In BVTS they are fine, but sunlight itself burns them.
Not that any of this changes my point. These are rules imposed inside the story, and the only reason all these stories talk about vampires is that the authors didn't feel like trying to create an entire race on their own, and instead used one which people have heard of. They then change the specific details to fit the story.
Ok, true, fantasy does have to follow some structure. But it is entirely self-emposed: Vampires in other stories can walk in daylight occasionally, but in the Buffyverse that has been outlawed. Why? Because. The rules are *internal*. Set by the author, and followed only because it helps the storytelling. This is in contrast to science fiction, where the rules are *external*: conservation of mass, conservation of energy, gravity, and so forth, and followed because we are dealing with the possible.
I'll defend Harry Potter, for want of something better to do...
Harry Potter does not claim to be consistent with any rules of science. Including the rules of cause and effect, or predictability. 'Magic', by any accounts, is an art, requiring talent, skill, and experience to practice. Just because something happens in one case that does not mean it works in a similar case. Why? Because it is magic, and follows no rules but the historic: A happened when we did B before, so if we do B again A will happen again. Probably.
"Any science sufficiently advanced is indistinguishable from magic." is true to those who do not understand the science. Magic is still magic when you understand magic.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, there is probably a better way yet: An ISP can block it's ports if it wants to, but it must tell it's users, and there needs to be at least two different ISPs in any market.
Some ISPs could advertise that they block $a, $b, and $c, as a security measure. If the customer doesn't want to think about security, they go with those ISPs. Others could advertise they allow access to the entire net. I would sign up for that, and do my own security.
Of course, for this to work there actually needs to be competition in the ISP realm. Not a given at the moment.
It just modifies it so it isn't as annoying. (Spreading the force over a larger area.)
Very useful, yes, but you would still hear it going overhead. (Though I suppose the 'boom' fades as you move away from the plane, and this could speed that up...)
It is better in that it works for more things, but is a similar idea. I think it actually can store your Kerberos password.
At some point that's going to be counter productive: they are narrowing the password space so much that a brute force attack will become effective, if it knows the rules. (Quite simply there are so many passwords not allowed that the 'available' list is small enough to search.)
Personally, most of my passwords are quite easy to guess, but I don't consider the accounts secure. On the few 'secure' accounts I have the passwords are much stronger, and all unique.
Theo says it will be out in 'about three weeks.'
Actually, no. Even if I were to concede Linux was stolen from SCO, I have no current Linux boxen. My machines run Mac OSX, OpenBSD, and FreeBSD.
Actually, it sounds like Be had nothing but the resources to fight them in court. A pretty good position to be in against MS: then they can't fight you any other way but legally, and given the specifics of the case, it probably wouldn't have gone nice for MS. After all, they have already got a judge saying they did something like this...
Oh, for the ability to go back and add an 'h'...
Shame. Sorry.
You, sir, are proof that Slashdot has no same. I welcome you as the first member of the 'keep your enemies closer' foes list.
Well, it's currently $20.50. I actually thought about bidding, even though I could buy it directly from Apple, if I was inclined to actually listen to the song.
In this case, the price represents the opportunity to test the legal system in a new way, and hopefully show the fundamental problems with DRM. (Even Apple's fairly good system.) All this in a form that *doesn't* sound like you are promoting piracy. The opportunity to be a part of legal history is worth something.
I think that qualifies as a BFG.
I've never needed more than one level of tables... (Of course, if I'm writing for myself, I have no fear of using all of CSS: Mozilla supports it, and I don't need to be *completely* compatible. I figure the standards will stay around a while. Also, I use a HTML text editor, which has table features for when I need them.)
As for the tag, I just put the whole comment in code mode. It seemed easer. (Just like this one is plain text. Easier/quicker.)
That's funny, but it brings up a good point: why are we accepting formats that can't be used anywhere anyway?
A few years ago, after having to convert all my old documents the umpteenth time, I decided that I wasn't going through that again. So I started writing everything in HTML.
Now, admittedly not everyone is going to want to write stuff like <p><q><em>, but it works for me, and I can be sure that everyone has a reader that can display it, and will for quite some time in the future. I think we need better tools/more thought on a truly universal markup system. (XML is quite close, mostly lacking in good tool sets at the moment, and those are being worked on.)
Sure there is: the same reason you don't have bikes on (some) footpaths. That is: a human foot is primarily downward force, while a moving wheel puts in quite a bit of horizontal force, as well as the downward force. Also, a wheel puts down a continuous rut-like impression, which can easily lead to real ruts and speed up erosion. A footprint does not. Not to mention the twisting force in a turn, that in a human foot is usually absorbed by the ankle...
Basic foot traffic is the lowest impact traffic we have. On a path who has a main attraction that it is naturally beautiful, restrictions to keep that natural beauty make sense.
Of course, one or three Segways isn't going to make much difference. But you don't want to make too many exceptions...
Ah, the old "Never test for a situation you don't know how to handle."
Point. Unfortunately, we'll never know if they could have come up with a solution. Basically the the decision was: "We don't think we would be able to save them anyway, so we won't try." Machiavellian, but workable.
There might be confusion: Apple's Rendezvous can be used to discover messaging systems on the network, so you can have a 'Rendezvous-Aware' chat program for instance.
It is at least enough to start a case. You could probably tell from context which Rendezvous was being discussed, but it could get close...
As for it not going to court: I agree. It'll be settled out of court most likely.
Scam! I think it actually attracts them! Stay away from that stuff! ;D
No, it means it will not run on a G5 at all.
Supposedly it needs specific features of the G4, though I'm not sure I believe that. (Though I don't blame MS; they haven't had time to do anything to it yet.)
My parents had that problem and a few others recently. It took them about 5 tries to correctly cook a frozen pizza.
And I'm related to these people. *Shudder*
Most Mac games are not specifically written to take advantage of SMP. However, OS X (which is required for a G5) is pervasively multithreaded, and distributes the load among multiple processors very well. Any thread can run on any processor, as needed.
So, if a game is multithreaded it will use both processors. The graphics system under OS X is multithreaded, so it can use both processors. (And for that matter, the graphics card as well; Quartz Extreme offloads quite a bit of processing that way.) Basically any system call is likely to be done in a separate thread, and two threads should never take running time from each other.
As a real-word example EV Nova (one of my favorite games, so I'm plugging them.) runs much faster on my dual 867MHz MDD Mac than my uncle's 1GHz iMac, without being 'designed for' SMP. (I wish I had a real benchmark for you though.) The OS takes care of that.
No, it is different. This one is shutting down, and this is how the operator is making sure that everyone knows it is no longer functional.
It is a public service, of sorts. He is guaranteeing that no one is using the blacklist. That way it can't be misused by someone hijacking it, or just left in place by someone who doesn't care. It is shut down. And everyone will know it.
Try Anne Rice (if they are strong enough) or the 'Covenant with the Vampire' series by Jeanne Kalogridis. There are others too, those are just the first that come to mind.
Of course, in none of these to vampires *like* daylight. Just that they can stand it. For that matter, BVTS is a lot closer to them than to Dracula: in Dracula the vampires are essentially dead during the day. In BVTS they are fine, but sunlight itself burns them.
Not that any of this changes my point. These are rules imposed inside the story, and the only reason all these stories talk about vampires is that the authors didn't feel like trying to create an entire race on their own, and instead used one which people have heard of. They then change the specific details to fit the story.
Ok, true, fantasy does have to follow some structure. But it is entirely self-emposed: Vampires in other stories can walk in daylight occasionally, but in the Buffyverse that has been outlawed. Why? Because. The rules are *internal*. Set by the author, and followed only because it helps the storytelling. This is in contrast to science fiction, where the rules are *external*: conservation of mass, conservation of energy, gravity, and so forth, and followed because we are dealing with the possible.
Nope, it's an original, so go right ahead. They shouldn't know me, yet... ;-)
(Hey, it is nowhere near as bad as me quoting stories I'm still writing.)
I'll defend Harry Potter, for want of something better to do...
Harry Potter does not claim to be consistent with any rules of science. Including the rules of cause and effect, or predictability. 'Magic', by any accounts, is an art, requiring talent, skill, and experience to practice. Just because something happens in one case that does not mean it works in a similar case. Why? Because it is magic, and follows no rules but the historic: A happened when we did B before, so if we do B again A will happen again. Probably.
"Any science sufficiently advanced is indistinguishable from magic." is true to those who do not understand the science. Magic is still magic when you understand magic.