Perhaps because some people need it to compile their network drivers. (Yeah, that'd be me!) So without gcc, they have to find some other machine to download it, and go through all the rubbish of transferring it. No, I did not keep SUSE on my system for very long, especially when it refused to go above 800x600.
In addition, desktop does not necessarily rule out programmer. I code, and I use Fedora. Fedora has apt and yum. Incidentally, I can't use apt at the moment, because I installed a source version of xscreensaver, so its decided I need to uninstall things that depend on it...
Anyway, that wasn't relevant. In essence: GCC useful. It should be kept there for contingencies.
Not quite right. When you think in words, you are sending the nerve impulses to your vocal chords, but not creating the sound. When you think in a less conscious manner - i.e. day-to-day decision making, putting the kettle on, as opposed to mulling things over - you don't. But reading to yourself and thinking to yourself are the same if you can hear the words in your head. If this is the case, then you are sending the nerve impulses.
Well, if New Scientist carries media spin, then I guess me technical info is skewed, however:
From what I hear (from New Scientist) nanoparticles behave far differently from the original substance that treating them as a new variant doesn't appear strict enough. (Although, I don't know what you determine variant as)
As for other parts of nanotech, yes, some has been around for ages, such as manufacturing silicon chips - a lot of nanotech is harmless. However, when considering injecting things into people (as is the case with using buckyballs to coat drugs), we have to know a better idea of the consequences than we do, now.
Well, that's a better idea, and, having never been down a road with half the lights on, half off, I can't comment or as to the conditions.
Speculatively, though, I expect that, although it would be fine for driving, walking would be less secure, as street lights appear to be positioned in order to provide just a slight overlap. This would (I expect) leave dark spots.
It's foolish to believe that roads without lights are as safe as those with lights, even with headlights and cat's-eyes.
Likewise, It's foolish to assume that everyone who might be caught outside after 11 will buy a torch, and it's nothing compared to the security afforded by street lights. Try walking down an unlit section of town, or countryside, with a torch, and see just how much you can see. The ground in front of you - great, you don't trip, but you're still more likely to be jumped by people you can't see.
Of course that'll work, because everyone that happens to be driving at night wants no street lights, and anyone out after dark having a party wants to walk back in near total blackness.
Streetlights are actually there for a reason, and that applies equally in the middle of the night, because people still travel then.
Except that these so called nanoparticles exhibit very different behaviour to their normal, un-nanoish counterparts. This means that, although lawksing about how dangerous nanotech is is silly, nanosubstances should be treated as an entirely new chemical compared to the normal version.
Now, for the [frankly]dumbass[/frankly] mod who did, the reason we change back is that otherwise we lose MORE, because we have to keep lights on for longer again at the other end of year...
Couple of weeks? I'm sorry, I may be rather naïve when it comes to the world of work, but two weeks seems a little extreme when all that happens is you lose one hour of sleep, if you don't go to bed early.
It doesn't take two weeks for a body clock to change by an hour, and indeed, it doesn't really require the body clock to change for you to sleep pretty well.
Well, I've jumped in late, but that doesn't sound right. Socialist states may still have a government, it's just that the means of production is controlled by the people, not the government.
Essentially, this can be reduced to heavy democracy, as a start wherein the government represents faithfully the will of the people, production will be controlled, albeit indirectly, by the people.
I don't supposed you've ever noticed how fast firefox builds are produced in comparison to IE? Or how fast Fedora Core is updated compared to windows? Or how often a linux kernel update is delivered?
In general, if not virtually across the board, OSS software is released in a faster cycle than closed source.
And the supposition has greater weight than the market share "evidence."
we only ever hear about *discovered* exploits [...] there's no evidence Windows has more exploits per LOC than any other piece of software.
"Likewise," there is no evidence that it has less than any other piece of software, according to your "discovered exploits" logic.
The reason OSS proponents say there are less in OSS is that there are many people who evaluate the code, enabling a faster fixing of bugs. This is evidence to suppose that open source is more secure.
Platform prevalence, however, does not influence the number of possible exploits in a piece of software. Those who say that there are near-identical numbers in both pieces of software have no evidence to go on, and this proves that there is no reason to suppose that open/closed source have identical numbers of security holes.
Remember Microsoft usually has the legal and financial might to win a court case in any situation - right or wrong. Occasionally, it goes the other way and the EC fines them a nominal sum. However, although in this case he was "justly" destroyed, it's worth keeping in mind that being destroyed by a company like Microsoft does not necessitate any kind of guilt.
The argument that Linux/Macs are just as (in)secure as Windows generally states that the people with the largest market share are simply getting the largest share of the exploitation, viruses and so on. The grandparent is simply proving this generalisation wrong, since IIS has a smaller market share than Apache and is still target more by hackers.
Mindless off-topic Microsoft basher-bashing gets modded up by mindless anti-Microsoft-bashing slashbots. You insensitive clod.
Go read the other posts on how the Windows operating system contributes to the spam problem. It's interesting how people here complain that people mindlessly bash MS, when in fact they're obviously mindlessly bashing the MS-bashers, because there are often (not always) real issues.
Unfortunately this apparent "going against the flow" is automatically modded up...
That is the key. If "Mac e-mail programs" have vulnerabilities in, like Outlook Exress is often reported as having, then it may. That's why you shouldn't be using Outlook Express - because there are vulnerabilities that cause it to automatically execute attachments. Saying "don't open suspicious attachments" isn't enough in this instance.
Oh you say, no fair pointing at third party software bugs, they don't count. Well sure they do
It is not correct, however, to blame Apple for the bugs in Apache. When people rant about bugs in IE, they blame Microsoft and the IE developers. When people rant about bugs in firefox, they don't complain to Torvalds, do they?
This competition was about the bugs on Macs, and the accusations that Macs are as vulnerable as Windows PCs. Third party software is not "Macs." The competition compares OS X and Windows, not OS X with [product] and Windows with [product.] However, it would be valid to blame vulnerable first-party software - such as Finder, or IE.
I did not say that colour displays are useless, merely that they're too expensive at the moment. Obviously different people have different thresholds of "expensive," and dollars don't mean a lot to me, but when buying my MP3 player there was a substantial hike in price from the 4-tone screens to the full-colour screens.
As for Apple not making a high-end flash player. All apple has to do is make sure they get identical profits for the flash player as for the HDD player. Then it is not "hurting" hard drive player sales, because it would be just the same. However, if flash players were less cost-effective, then it does make sense to put them at the bottom end.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps because some people need it to compile their network drivers. (Yeah, that'd be me!) So without gcc, they have to find some other machine to download it, and go through all the rubbish of transferring it. No, I did not keep SUSE on my system for very long, especially when it refused to go above 800x600.
In addition, desktop does not necessarily rule out programmer. I code, and I use Fedora. Fedora has apt and yum. Incidentally, I can't use apt at the moment, because I installed a source version of xscreensaver, so its decided I need to uninstall things that depend on it...
Anyway, that wasn't relevant. In essence: GCC useful. It should be kept there for contingencies.
Not quite right. When you think in words, you are sending the nerve impulses to your vocal chords, but not creating the sound. When you think in a less conscious manner - i.e. day-to-day decision making, putting the kettle on, as opposed to mulling things over - you don't. But reading to yourself and thinking to yourself are the same if you can hear the words in your head. If this is the case, then you are sending the nerve impulses.
And yet I've never had trouble with the resolution on my Linux box. Humorous, yes. True? Only if you're unlucky/still leaving in the 90s
Well, if New Scientist carries media spin, then I guess me technical info is skewed, however:
From what I hear (from New Scientist) nanoparticles behave far differently from the original substance that treating them as a new variant doesn't appear strict enough. (Although, I don't know what you determine variant as)
As for other parts of nanotech, yes, some has been around for ages, such as manufacturing silicon chips - a lot of nanotech is harmless. However, when considering injecting things into people (as is the case with using buckyballs to coat drugs), we have to know a better idea of the consequences than we do, now.
Well, that's a better idea, and, having never been down a road with half the lights on, half off, I can't comment or as to the conditions.
Speculatively, though, I expect that, although it would be fine for driving, walking would be less secure, as street lights appear to be positioned in order to provide just a slight overlap. This would (I expect) leave dark spots.
It's foolish to believe that roads without lights are as safe as those with lights, even with headlights and cat's-eyes.
Likewise, It's foolish to assume that everyone who might be caught outside after 11 will buy a torch, and it's nothing compared to the security afforded by street lights. Try walking down an unlit section of town, or countryside, with a torch, and see just how much you can see. The ground in front of you - great, you don't trip, but you're still more likely to be jumped by people you can't see.
Of course that'll work, because everyone that happens to be driving at night wants no street lights, and anyone out after dark having a party wants to walk back in near total blackness.
Streetlights are actually there for a reason, and that applies equally in the middle of the night, because people still travel then.
Except that these so called nanoparticles exhibit very different behaviour to their normal, un-nanoish counterparts. This means that, although lawksing about how dangerous nanotech is is silly, nanosubstances should be treated as an entirely new chemical compared to the normal version.
Now, for the [frankly]dumbass[/frankly] mod who did, the reason we change back is that otherwise we lose MORE, because we have to keep lights on for longer again at the other end of year...
Yeah, or how much it'd cost to give every worker an alarm clock.
Couple of weeks? I'm sorry, I may be rather naïve when it comes to the world of work, but two weeks seems a little extreme when all that happens is you lose one hour of sleep, if you don't go to bed early.
It doesn't take two weeks for a body clock to change by an hour, and indeed, it doesn't really require the body clock to change for you to sleep pretty well.
Well, I've jumped in late, but that doesn't sound right. Socialist states may still have a government, it's just that the means of production is controlled by the people, not the government.
Essentially, this can be reduced to heavy democracy, as a start wherein the government represents faithfully the will of the people, production will be controlled, albeit indirectly, by the people.
I don't supposed you've ever noticed how fast firefox builds are produced in comparison to IE? Or how fast Fedora Core is updated compared to windows? Or how often a linux kernel update is delivered?
In general, if not virtually across the board, OSS software is released in a faster cycle than closed source.
And the supposition has greater weight than the market share "evidence."
"Likewise," there is no evidence that it has less than any other piece of software, according to your "discovered exploits" logic.
The reason OSS proponents say there are less in OSS is that there are many people who evaluate the code, enabling a faster fixing of bugs. This is evidence to suppose that open source is more secure.
Platform prevalence, however, does not influence the number of possible exploits in a piece of software. Those who say that there are near-identical numbers in both pieces of software have no evidence to go on, and this proves that there is no reason to suppose that open/closed source have identical numbers of security holes.
Remember Microsoft usually has the legal and financial might to win a court case in any situation - right or wrong. Occasionally, it goes the other way and the EC fines them a nominal sum. However, although in this case he was "justly" destroyed, it's worth keeping in mind that being destroyed by a company like Microsoft does not necessitate any kind of guilt.
Gain is relative. Relative to the greater of to evils, there is a gain, due to the corresponding drop in evil.
The argument that Linux/Macs are just as (in)secure as Windows generally states that the people with the largest market share are simply getting the largest share of the exploitation, viruses and so on. The grandparent is simply proving this generalisation wrong, since IIS has a smaller market share than Apache and is still target more by hackers.
Go read the other posts on how the Windows operating system contributes to the spam problem. It's interesting how people here complain that people mindlessly bash MS, when in fact they're obviously mindlessly bashing the MS-bashers, because there are often (not always) real issues.
Unfortunately this apparent "going against the flow" is automatically modded up...
Open Relay? Zombie PCs? Heard of them? How long have you been around here?
Yeah.
That is the key. If "Mac e-mail programs" have vulnerabilities in, like Outlook Exress is often reported as having, then it may. That's why you shouldn't be using Outlook Express - because there are vulnerabilities that cause it to automatically execute attachments. Saying "don't open suspicious attachments" isn't enough in this instance.
It is not correct, however, to blame Apple for the bugs in Apache. When people rant about bugs in IE, they blame Microsoft and the IE developers. When people rant about bugs in firefox, they don't complain to Torvalds, do they?
This competition was about the bugs on Macs, and the accusations that Macs are as vulnerable as Windows PCs. Third party software is not "Macs." The competition compares OS X and Windows, not OS X with [product] and Windows with [product.] However, it would be valid to blame vulnerable first-party software - such as Finder, or IE.
I did not say that colour displays are useless, merely that they're too expensive at the moment. Obviously different people have different thresholds of "expensive," and dollars don't mean a lot to me, but when buying my MP3 player there was a substantial hike in price from the 4-tone screens to the full-colour screens.
As for Apple not making a high-end flash player. All apple has to do is make sure they get identical profits for the flash player as for the HDD player. Then it is not "hurting" hard drive player sales, because it would be just the same. However, if flash players were less cost-effective, then it does make sense to put them at the bottom end.
Just steal someone's credit card and sign it with a pritt-sticked picture