Yes, at that time websites also didn't have images, and about nobody could get to see one.
The images are Netscape fault, but I'd disagree about the ads. Are you blaming them on Netscape because of Javascript? If so, well, Javascript is indeed something Netscape must be ashamed for, but if they didn't do it somebody else would have done something worse (AKA VBScript).
Anyway, the web has ads because there are enough people to see them. Remove the people and the ads will go away, but there's nothing you can change on the software stack that'll get ride of them.
Point is, they are making it opt-out, but saying it won't track you. And you have the code, so they are probably honest (no doubt somebody will check).
Yes, it does look bad. But no, it's not as bad as most people here are making it sound like.
If you remember a bit less than a decade ago, the consensus was that every open source software should get UX experts to review them, and designers to help create their appearance.
That was also the time Mozilla started to get some real money, and went out to hire a team, so it's not surprising that they have a lot of UX experts and designers. And when you have a team of experts giving you advice, why wouldn't you listen to it? Did you make a mistake by hiring them at first?
Yes, one'd have to hard-code it. It's up to the developer to decide what server to hard-code, obviously. Context will tell what's more appropriate, by I'd gess most big projects would use their own servers.
No need to make your applications stop working. Just try the default DNS, and if it fails use another server. Also, cache the failure during the session, so the ISP will lose your metadata.
How is referencing some syntax on google any different from referencing something in a book? Apart from the 8 seconds it takes to look it up on google vs. the 38 seconds it takes to look it up in a book?
Unless you have just a couple of books, that'll probably take something in the 90-6000 seconds interval. Also, Google can point you into many more "books" than what fits your bookcase. This is one of those cases where a quantitative difference is so big that it becomes a qualitative difference.
The internet is just a terrible source for up-to-date information.
Wait, what?!?
What better source do you know? Do you know how we used to find up-to-date information before the Internet? We didn't, we relied on months old printed articles or years old books.
Nope, there's no easy way to remove Kerberos dependency on time synchronization.
The only thing needing notice is that Kerberos requires closks to be synced within about a second (could be increased to a few minutes of error easily), while NFS reuires a few miliseconds of error at most.
RFID is still easier than either OCRng tags or silikscreening QR codes. It lasts way more than the clothes, it can be read on both sides, it's faster to read, and it can be read while wrapped. Also, it can be mass produced, easily fixed, and given a meaning only after the fact.
That's easy. If the content is commercial, the cryptographic keys must be either sold or published at some time. Otherwise there wouldn't be any money in there.
The point of fire drills is to test if your evacuation procedures are fast enough. If people somehow get out faster in a real fire, well, good for them.
What takes us to this article proposal... What's the point?
Perl was once my go-to language for small scripts.
It isn't anymore. Perl is so full of idiosyncrasies that it's easier to learn another couple of languages than to code a couple of scripts on it. Even after it's your go-to language.
Slashdot Mirror
Yep. Whatever opinion you hold, that payment demand does change everything.
Yes, at that time websites also didn't have images, and about nobody could get to see one.
The images are Netscape fault, but I'd disagree about the ads. Are you blaming them on Netscape because of Javascript? If so, well, Javascript is indeed something Netscape must be ashamed for, but if they didn't do it somebody else would have done something worse (AKA VBScript).
Anyway, the web has ads because there are enough people to see them. Remove the people and the ads will go away, but there's nothing you can change on the software stack that'll get ride of them.
Point is, they are making it opt-out, but saying it won't track you. And you have the code, so they are probably honest (no doubt somebody will check).
Yes, it does look bad. But no, it's not as bad as most people here are making it sound like.
If you remember a bit less than a decade ago, the consensus was that every open source software should get UX experts to review them, and designers to help create their appearance.
That was also the time Mozilla started to get some real money, and went out to hire a team, so it's not surprising that they have a lot of UX experts and designers. And when you have a team of experts giving you advice, why wouldn't you listen to it? Did you make a mistake by hiring them at first?
In all seriousness, do you ask those questions when you board a plane?
Yes, you should look up Rice's Theorem.
With cars, it's posible. With complex software it isn't. There's a reason for that.
Yes, one'd have to hard-code it. It's up to the developer to decide what server to hard-code, obviously. Context will tell what's more appropriate, by I'd gess most big projects would use their own servers.
I bet you don't read 90% of what's written on any subject.
No need to make your applications stop working. Just try the default DNS, and if it fails use another server. Also, cache the failure during the session, so the ISP will lose your metadata.
The registart choice is up to you. Just choose one that offers DNSSEC.
The ISP part is harder, but if applications stopped using their DNS when DNSSEC is not available, they would adopt it in a heart beat.
Unless you have just a couple of books, that'll probably take something in the 90-6000 seconds interval. Also, Google can point you into many more "books" than what fits your bookcase. This is one of those cases where a quantitative difference is so big that it becomes a qualitative difference.
Wait, what?!?
What better source do you know? Do you know how we used to find up-to-date information before the Internet? We didn't, we relied on months old printed articles or years old books.
Nope, there's no easy way to remove Kerberos dependency on time synchronization.
The only thing needing notice is that Kerberos requires closks to be synced within about a second (could be increased to a few minutes of error easily), while NFS reuires a few miliseconds of error at most.
No idea at all.
I'm calling it Red-Hattitis, expecting it to be a kind of mental disorder. But if somebody does really know what's the cause, I'l love to hear.
RFID is still easier than either OCRng tags or silikscreening QR codes. It lasts way more than the clothes, it can be read on both sides, it's faster to read, and it can be read while wrapped. Also, it can be mass produced, easily fixed, and given a meaning only after the fact.
In fact, I didn't think about peer to peer communications, just broadcasting.
That's easy. If the content is commercial, the cryptographic keys must be either sold or published at some time. Otherwise there wouldn't be any money in there.
An interesting aspect of science is that all our models are always wrong. And we are always aware of that.
I do, but you won't be able to go through doors.
The point of fire drills is to test if your evacuation procedures are fast enough. If people somehow get out faster in a real fire, well, good for them.
What takes us to this article proposal... What's the point?
Every program has a very specific pourpose, not general porpouse.
A neural net is still a turing complete computer, by the way.
Perl was once my go-to language for small scripts.
It isn't anymore. Perl is so full of idiosyncrasies that it's easier to learn another couple of languages than to code a couple of scripts on it. Even after it's your go-to language.
And that's the reason you want to target them, so those 30,000 people get the McDonalds ads, and the other dozen gets whatever they'll actualy buy.
What leads back to the in the title.
Wait. What?!
The part of the profits that would change hands if they succeed is called "interest". All the companies that GTAT owns money to would get some of it.
Just a normal star... with a huge mass in quite a small volume, and that does not emmit light.
There's no reason to assume those things are black holes. That's jumpping to conclusion.