I tried SeaMonkey quite a while back, having become overly annoyed at Firefox's increasing bloat and other antics (the inevitable feature creep trend of randomly changing around UI elements to no obvious benefit, for one.) it's essentially just what Netscape was to Navigator, or what Mozilla was to Phoenix/Thunderbird/Firefox. I think it's just as bloated and obnoxious on the whole.
there are plenty of lighter-weight Firefox forks without all the crud. I've enjoyed Pale Moon quite a bit. there are similar alternatives for Chrome users as well, such as Comodo (but it's proprietary.)
you're trying (poorly) to troll, but for those who actually are curious, no, you should not do anything of the sort. you should use a proper password hashing framework which makes use of hash functions actually intended for use with authentication systems, such as phpass.
the SHA-family of hashes are not password hashing functions. and the idea of applying rainbow tables to a modern password hashing algorithm with adjustable cost and proper salting is so silly that I can't even laugh.
why would Google make it onto the test when EPB doesn't? this obviously has naught to do with "fastest ISPs," whatever that would even mean. really they mean residential "broadband" access speeds over international common carriers.
sadly, they would probably include Google among this list just for political reasons.
not posting as "AC" because no one cares--myself included. you could be right. or perhaps Rogers just really wishes they hadn't the misfortune of being born in an utter shit-hole.
why wouldn't it? holy crap. the sensationalism in that title.. the obvious political slant coloured with righteous indignation. it makes me feel en garde, as if I'm being trolled, and sometimes I may be, but really I'm not, because it seems most people actually think the way the headline implies. people want the government to take control of everything. 10 trillion new laws a month, or get out of Washington. you're not doing your job!
holy god, man. it's like I like in bizarro-land. it really, truly is. is everyone insane?
the bit I love is people not knowing what the hell they're talking about.
I'd wager that people keen on using the "word" statist are probably 'anarcho-capitalist' libertarians. they aren't constitutionalists. you're really confused.
more importantly, the word state does not mean what you think it does in this context. "states rights" in the United States refers to a particular form of federated government, which has been instituted and is guaranteed by a living constitution. the word statist refers to a tendency to favor an elite class of governing rulers. it has nothing to do with constitutional republics. further, those who defend states' rights do so not out of some fascination with state governments, but with respect for the document upon which this nation was made significant. you have to take these things in context, or you're just being ignorant.
further still, you misunderstand what states' rights is and how it applies. it has nothing to do with giving the government power. in fact, it has a lot more to do with reducing government powers, by marginalizing their scope. it is a process, not an end.
I didn't do anything for you. read it if you want to? it has no "scientific" value, because it's not science. I don't need to read something like that. I don't read Harry Potter, either.
in the US, the conservative politica party is called the Libertarians. republicans aren't opposed to big government nonsense at all. you're confused. but, yes, of course true conservatives don't want to politicize the environment and take taxpayer money by theft to spend on their pet projects, under the guise of "progress."
The change is so drastic, the paper says, that scientists can claim with near certainty that events like the Texas heat wave last year, the Russian heat wave of 2010 and the European heat wave of 2003 would not have happened without the planetary warming caused by the human release of greenhouse gases.
yeah, ok. thanks for isolating those 1.0 * 10^23 variables for me and forming a conveniently packaged political conclusion. what's next? this kind of "science" is a joke.
Obama appeals to real people? uh, sure. he's incredibly appealing with the way he wants to increase taxes and the size of government, while shitting all over our civil liberties, assassinating American citizens, and continuing wars--traditional and ideological both.
Romney has tons more cash than Obama? hah. you are so uninformed and deluded that I don't even know where to begin. Obama has $80 billion for his presidential campaign, and that number alone ought to tell you idiots who are so adamant about meaningless sound-bytes like "campaign finance reforrm" that the whole political/electoral system is nothing more than a rigged game, a facade for crony capitalists to keep funneling money to their corporate buddies. how much more obvious do you need it? you wouldn't see such insane figures in the first place if that weren't the case. this entire regulatory environment, this welfare system--it's nothing more than theft from taxpayers for the benefit of rich banksters and scumbags, which, newsflash, is comprised of Obama and Romney both.
in the video, with its predictable post-rock sounding uplifting score (I called it before even clicking the link), Neil Tyson asks of me: how much would [I] pay to "launch our economy?"
um, I'm sorry, pal, but I don't think that's how "the economy" works.
With Kansas stating that 'evolution could not rule out a supernatural or theistic source, that evolution itself was not fact but only a theory and one in crisis, and that Intelligent Design must be considered a viable alternative to evolution,' and North Carolina's legislature circulating a bill telling people to ignore climate science, maybe it's time we start listening to experts who have a proven record of success, rather than ideology that has only been 'proven' in the mind of elected politicians.
or maybe it's time to get the government out of education?
Slashdot Mirror
you aren't "sirius," are you? for your pretense about basic astronomy, you don't seem to understand the concept of the celestial sphere.
it doesn't. it just says this it's a southern hemisphere star. this refers to the celestial equator, not "where you are on Earth."
I've been using Flashblock for years. who hasn't?
the hell is Esper? IRCnet? Quakenet?
n/t
okay. this is about par for the course for Slashdot these days, I guess.
In Mozilla/Firebox-based browsers, Flashblock has been doing this for years. I've always used a combination of flashblock+noscript for this purpose.
I tried SeaMonkey quite a while back, having become overly annoyed at Firefox's increasing bloat and other antics (the inevitable feature creep trend of randomly changing around UI elements to no obvious benefit, for one.) it's essentially just what Netscape was to Navigator, or what Mozilla was to Phoenix/Thunderbird/Firefox. I think it's just as bloated and obnoxious on the whole.
there are plenty of lighter-weight Firefox forks without all the crud. I've enjoyed Pale Moon quite a bit. there are similar alternatives for Chrome users as well, such as Comodo (but it's proprietary.)
you're trying (poorly) to troll, but for those who actually are curious, no, you should not do anything of the sort. you should use a proper password hashing framework which makes use of hash functions actually intended for use with authentication systems, such as phpass.
the SHA-family of hashes are not password hashing functions. and the idea of applying rainbow tables to a modern password hashing algorithm with adjustable cost and proper salting is so silly that I can't even laugh.
national*
pretty much every cable ISP in the United States I can think of does this, as well.
why would Google make it onto the test when EPB doesn't? this obviously has naught to do with "fastest ISPs," whatever that would even mean. really they mean residential "broadband" access speeds over international common carriers.
sadly, they would probably include Google among this list just for political reasons.
are you.. retarded?
not posting as "AC" because no one cares--myself included. you could be right. or perhaps Rogers just really wishes they hadn't the misfortune of being born in an utter shit-hole.
why wouldn't it? holy crap. the sensationalism in that title.. the obvious political slant coloured with righteous indignation. it makes me feel en garde, as if I'm being trolled, and sometimes I may be, but really I'm not, because it seems most people actually think the way the headline implies. people want the government to take control of everything. 10 trillion new laws a month, or get out of Washington. you're not doing your job!
holy god, man. it's like I like in bizarro-land. it really, truly is. is everyone insane?
the bit I love is people not knowing what the hell they're talking about.
I'd wager that people keen on using the "word" statist are probably 'anarcho-capitalist' libertarians. they aren't constitutionalists. you're really confused.
more importantly, the word state does not mean what you think it does in this context. "states rights" in the United States refers to a particular form of federated government, which has been instituted and is guaranteed by a living constitution. the word statist refers to a tendency to favor an elite class of governing rulers. it has nothing to do with constitutional republics. further, those who defend states' rights do so not out of some fascination with state governments, but with respect for the document upon which this nation was made significant. you have to take these things in context, or you're just being ignorant.
further still, you misunderstand what states' rights is and how it applies. it has nothing to do with giving the government power. in fact, it has a lot more to do with reducing government powers, by marginalizing their scope. it is a process, not an end.
I didn't do anything for you. read it if you want to? it has no "scientific" value, because it's not science. I don't need to read something like that. I don't read Harry Potter, either.
in the US, the conservative politica party is called the Libertarians. republicans aren't opposed to big government nonsense at all. you're confused. but, yes, of course true conservatives don't want to politicize the environment and take taxpayer money by theft to spend on their pet projects, under the guise of "progress."
yeah, ok. thanks for isolating those 1.0 * 10^23 variables for me and forming a conveniently packaged political conclusion. what's next? this kind of "science" is a joke.
Obama appeals to real people? uh, sure. he's incredibly appealing with the way he wants to increase taxes and the size of government, while shitting all over our civil liberties, assassinating American citizens, and continuing wars--traditional and ideological both.
Romney has tons more cash than Obama? hah. you are so uninformed and deluded that I don't even know where to begin. Obama has $80 billion for his presidential campaign, and that number alone ought to tell you idiots who are so adamant about meaningless sound-bytes like "campaign finance reforrm" that the whole political/electoral system is nothing more than a rigged game, a facade for crony capitalists to keep funneling money to their corporate buddies. how much more obvious do you need it? you wouldn't see such insane figures in the first place if that weren't the case. this entire regulatory environment, this welfare system--it's nothing more than theft from taxpayers for the benefit of rich banksters and scumbags, which, newsflash, is comprised of Obama and Romney both.
next?
you don't know what you're talking about. when you give something free reign, you are giving that thing rule over some other thing.
reins are straps attached to horses. you can "rein in" a thing, but you don't give people "rein" over anything.
uh, the first two people you list are string theorists (lol.) so is the third, but he's also a complete charlatan and quack.
give me a fucking break.
in the video, with its predictable post-rock sounding uplifting score (I called it before even clicking the link), Neil Tyson asks of me: how much would [I] pay to "launch our economy?"
um, I'm sorry, pal, but I don't think that's how "the economy" works.
or maybe it's time to get the government out of education?