You already pay a tax to maintain the information superhighway. It's called your monthly cable or DSL bill. Neither individual states nor the federal government actually have any cost incurred in maintaining any part of the internet - it's all done by private companies which are paid for their efforts. You pay your ISP, they pay their ISP, and so on.
When did eyes start processing sound as well as light?!? Or is this some sort of next-generation eye that will work with these glasses we won't need for the 3D laptops which don't yet exist?
So if you're in Hollywood, it would survive without a scratch if you're in Hollywood, otherwise if you're in the world it wouldn't survive at all, then?
As was pointed out in the article, this isn't Circuit City. This is a completely separate company which has bought the brand name. For all intents and purposes, this is a completely different company with a Circuit City sticker slapped on top.
In any case, attractiveness isn't just determined by physical characteristics. For me, at least, other things play into it like personality, intellect, sense of humour, and so on.
Facebook already does offer encryption - https://www.facebook.com/. Sure, not everything works 100% perfectly, and it sometimes reverts to plain http, but with the use of enforced https through NoScript in Firefox, 98% of the stuff on Facebook can be made to work reliably over HTTPS.
TFA seems to imply that the Mozilla policy degrades HTTPS connections down to plain HTTP - Not only does it make users less secure overall by reducing the number of encrypted connections. This isn't the case - assuming you add an exception for the particular site you are accessing over HTTPS that is using a self-signed certificate, your connection to that site is still encrypted. The only difference is that you don't have the trust element that a commercial HTTPS certificate would give you. IMHO, Mozilla is quite right to add a warning to this effect to protect the masses.
We seem to almost full circle back to the days of thin clients, when the actual Operating System ran on a server somewhere and you just run a very basic piece of client software on your actual computer. Only this time, the client computers and software are much more powerful than they were in the days of thin clients and remote X sessions.
It will show the world that America realizes that we made a huge mistake by electing Dubya twice. Shouldn't that be once?
Re:HTML will rule for a long long time.
on
The Future is XHTML 2.0
·
· Score: 2, Informative
XHTML is not rigid - it simply takes the old HTML 4 tags and adds a few constraints, so that the resulting document is XML-compliant. Its readability isn't affected, it's easy to look at the structure of the document, the learning curve from HTML 4 is minimal, and it makes parsing it much much simpler as there is a well-defined document structure.
Slashdot Mirror
FYI, co-operate does not have a diaeresis over that vowel.
But it is hyphenated. There, fixed that for you.
You're not as far off the EURO as you think.
There, fixed that for you.
There, fixed that for you.
If you travel with British Airways, they'll give you the booze for free on the plane... :)
Compiling Linux and tweaking just to get 64-bit? Nonsense. Ubuntu and many other distros supply 64-bit versions alongside their 32-bit counterparts.
You already pay a tax to maintain the information superhighway. It's called your monthly cable or DSL bill. Neither individual states nor the federal government actually have any cost incurred in maintaining any part of the internet - it's all done by private companies which are paid for their efforts. You pay your ISP, they pay their ISP, and so on.
The eye is only stereo
When did eyes start processing sound as well as light?!? Or is this some sort of next-generation eye that will work with these glasses we won't need for the 3D laptops which don't yet exist?
You forgot your opening tag :-P
And archaeologists hiding in 1950s fridges, if you believe what you see at the movies...
So if you're in Hollywood, it would survive without a scratch if you're in Hollywood, otherwise if you're in the world it wouldn't survive at all, then?
As was pointed out in the article, this isn't Circuit City. This is a completely separate company which has bought the brand name. For all intents and purposes, this is a completely different company with a Circuit City sticker slapped on top.
In any case, attractiveness isn't just determined by physical characteristics. For me, at least, other things play into it like personality, intellect, sense of humour, and so on.
More Microsoft propaganda...
Registrant:
Microsoft Corporation
1 Microsoft Way
Redmond, WA 98052
US
Domain name: GETTHEFACTS.COM
Er, does anyone remember the Titanic, the unsinkable ship?
Facebook already does offer encryption - https://www.facebook.com/. Sure, not everything works 100% perfectly, and it sometimes reverts to plain http, but with the use of enforced https through NoScript in Firefox, 98% of the stuff on Facebook can be made to work reliably over HTTPS.
TFA seems to imply that the Mozilla policy degrades HTTPS connections down to plain HTTP - Not only does it make users less secure overall by reducing the number of encrypted connections. This isn't the case - assuming you add an exception for the particular site you are accessing over HTTPS that is using a self-signed certificate, your connection to that site is still encrypted. The only difference is that you don't have the trust element that a commercial HTTPS certificate would give you. IMHO, Mozilla is quite right to add a warning to this effect to protect the masses.
We seem to almost full circle back to the days of thin clients, when the actual Operating System ran on a server somewhere and you just run a very basic piece of client software on your actual computer. Only this time, the client computers and software are much more powerful than they were in the days of thin clients and remote X sessions.
By the way my patent on the biological reproductive process in humans will go into affect today.
Yes, but when will it go into effect, that's the real question.
XHTML is not rigid - it simply takes the old HTML 4 tags and adds a few constraints, so that the resulting document is XML-compliant. Its readability isn't affected, it's easy to look at the structure of the document, the learning curve from HTML 4 is minimal, and it makes parsing it much much simpler as there is a well-defined document structure.