However no one will be allowed to study the source, compile it just before voting, and use this binary to actually vote. So open or close, it doesn't matter.
Who and what guarantees the publicly available source code will be precisely the same as the code from which the binary was built? For paranoid and conspiracy types there's no difference. The others don't care, or don't understand, or both.
This this is free. You cannot pirate something free.
I hope the next time you'll come up with "I don't use the Interent/Slashdot/whatever. The evil hackers use it and that's why drm/tcpa/padallium shit start" and stop offending here.
If so, then the Mac version of MSIE must have much better CSS support than MSIE on Windows.
On Windows MSIE nothing works. Want to use visibillity: collapse? You get crap. Want to collapse borders? No way. Want to use someelement > * all-childs-of-someelement selection? MSIE doesn't bother to understand. Want to use [attiribue=...]? Oh Lord! What's this? And on top of that specifying font-family: sans-serif makes the silly thing to render empty squares in place of Unicode characters (though Unicode Arial is installed)
My pages look exactly as specified in Gecko, fine in Konqueror, acceptably in Opera,... but MSIE (on Win) renders only crap.
It's not as much about high/low level as about code reusability. Nowadays it's almost impossible to start anything completely from scratch, so languages offering better code reusability win. And high level languages generally offer much better code reusability (combined with good separation -- I can use other's people code together with my code easily).
This doesn't necessarilly mean high level languages will win, at least not fast. There have to be enough code to reuse -- libraries, modules, or how it's called in the particular language... Thus older languages have a great advantage of the amount of existing code -- look at Fortran, it's ugly as hell, but people still code in it;-)
Nobody cares grep's -o option doesn't work with -i (well, it's actually already fixed in RawHide, but that's another matter).
After half a year we can expect articles about screensaver settings in Linux while RedHat will stop distributing xterm, because of no one using terminal any more.
Strange. When I read the article linked on/. the first time, it talked about type I and type II distortions, and how the original lowest bits are compressed and stored in the hidden info.
But when I read this comment and returned to the article to prove you false, it was different, considerable shorter with much less technical info. Someone had to change it!
Either I've been hit by US of A encryption export regulation, or it's a bug in the Martix.
Is anybody able to find the original (technical) article?
Re:Not the kitchen sink
on
Xandros 1.0
·
· Score: 1
Thank god you can have eight ways to set up PPP, even though some of them are surely crappy. There's a chance some of them work. Having only one which may be crappy too...
And about the four editors: any distro without at least vim, emacs, mcedit, and a GUI editor is dead.
And we all just wait when "the most other operating systems" will be able to export displays, nest displays and other things X was able to do when Bill Gates was just a kid.
BTW, why operating systems, eh? What hell has operating system to do with windowing system? The fact someone's operating systems supports only one kind of GUI doesn't mean others can't do more.
A perfect demonstration why "sensitive but unclassified" is nonsense.
You don't give any reason why given information should be "sensitive but unclassified", instead you give an example of an information which is not classified, but probably should be.
When it's sensitive enough to cause damage when published, then is should be classified. If the current classification system is not enough, then it should be improved. And when it's not sensitive enough, then it should be public. Once we allow partially-classified information class, it's obvious the gov will try to put everything there, thus controlling all information. `1 + 1 = 2' can be sensitive too -- what if some terrorists don't know it yet.
Slashdot Mirror
No doubt it should be OSS.
However no one will be allowed to study the source, compile it just before voting, and use this binary to actually vote. So open or close, it doesn't matter.
Who and what guarantees the publicly available source code will be precisely the same as the code from which the binary was built? For paranoid and conspiracy types there's no difference. The others don't care, or don't understand, or both.
FYI: Linux does not use BSD IP stack.
This this is free. You cannot pirate something free.
I hope the next time you'll come up with "I don't use the Interent/Slashdot/whatever. The evil hackers use it and that's why drm/tcpa/padallium shit start" and stop offending here.
Czech state TV reported Bill Gates invented the Internet... and what?
Some may belive. Some laugh. Noone cares.
There are too many people who invented the Internet yet, so one or two more is nothing.
If so, then the Mac version of MSIE must have much better CSS support than MSIE on Windows.
On Windows MSIE nothing works. Want to use visibillity: collapse? You get crap. Want to collapse borders? No way. Want to use someelement > * all-childs-of-someelement selection? MSIE doesn't bother to understand. Want to use [attiribue=...]? Oh Lord! What's this? And on top of that specifying font-family: sans-serif makes the silly thing to render empty squares in place of Unicode characters (though Unicode Arial is installed)
My pages look exactly as specified in Gecko, fine in Konqueror, acceptably in Opera, ... but MSIE (on Win) renders only crap.
It's not as much about high/low level as about code reusability. Nowadays it's almost impossible to start anything completely from scratch, so languages offering better code reusability win. And high level languages generally offer much better code reusability (combined with good separation -- I can use other's people code together with my code easily).
... Thus older languages have a great advantage of the amount of existing code -- look at Fortran, it's ugly as hell, but people still code in it ;-)
This doesn't necessarilly mean high level languages will win, at least not fast. There have to be enough code to reuse -- libraries, modules, or how it's called in the particular language
Everybody cares about fonts not being perfect.
Nobody cares grep's -o option doesn't work with -i (well, it's actually already fixed in RawHide, but that's another matter).
After half a year we can expect articles about screensaver settings in Linux while RedHat will stop distributing xterm, because of no one using terminal any more.
Is Linux dead?
Strange. When I read the article linked on /. the first time, it talked about type I and type II distortions, and how the original lowest bits are compressed and stored in the hidden info.
But when I read this comment and returned to the article to prove you false, it was different, considerable shorter with much less technical info. Someone had to change it!
Either I've been hit by US of A encryption export regulation, or it's a bug in the Martix.
Is anybody able to find the original (technical) article?
Thank god you can have eight ways to set up PPP, even though some of them are surely crappy. There's a chance some of them work. Having only one which may be crappy too...
And about the four editors: any distro without at least vim, emacs, mcedit, and a GUI editor is dead.
And we all just wait when "the most other operating systems" will be able to export displays, nest displays and other things X was able to do when Bill Gates was just a kid.
BTW, why operating systems, eh? What hell has operating system to do with windowing system? The fact someone's operating systems supports only one kind of GUI doesn't mean others can't do more.
A perfect demonstration why "sensitive but unclassified" is nonsense.
You don't give any reason why given information should be "sensitive but unclassified", instead you give an example of an information which is not classified, but probably should be.
When it's sensitive enough to cause damage when published, then is should be classified. If the current classification system is not enough, then it should be improved. And when it's not sensitive enough, then it should be public. Once we allow partially-classified information class, it's obvious the gov will try to put everything there, thus controlling all information. `1 + 1 = 2' can be sensitive too -- what if some terrorists don't know it yet.