Unfortunately, even with 1920x1200 displays, we're still not there yet. Anti-aliasing at a lower resolution will often look better because it smooths out the sharp edges, essentially blurring the image slightly.
We only get a general election every five years. In the last two elections, the main opposition party have behaved like idiots. (Who the hell came up with "It's not racist to restrict immigration" - no one said it was and they made themselves look like pricks.)
Additionally, while this has been going on a while, the worst of it has been in the last few years. ID cards have fallen by the wayside as has extending the length of time someone can be held as a terrorist suspect without charge to 42 days.
Linux was something I'd heard of which sounded cool and was free so I thought I'd try it out.
I downloaded the three RedHat 9 CDs, read the installation manual very carefully and then installed it on the family PC, hoping like hell I didn't break windows or make the thing unbootable (backups? what backups?).
I messed around with it for a bit, liked it mostly but was too attached to windows software. Later I received a PC for myself from a family friend with a hideously broken install of windows ME. I didn't have a Windows CD at the time so I installed RedHat 9 briefly, then found, downloaded and installed Ubuntu and never looked back.
A given site can only read cookies which have been set by the same site (well, domain). There are various exploits to get around this called Cross Site Scripting (XSS) attacks which involve somehow putting javascript onto someone else's page (such as a slashdot comment). This type of attack can be thwarted by properly escaping any dynamic content.
Allowing access to other site's cookies is a problem because most sites which allow you to log in tell users apart by giving each of them a different cookie. By stealing someone else's cookie you might be recognised as them without having to log in.
I can say first hand that it really starts to fail when you start sending yourself automated messages that you don't usually read.
I had my home server forward system mails to my gmail address. A lot of these were notifications where I didn't need to read more than the subject line to know what it said. Occasionally a cron job would report an error every hour until something got fixed (which might not be until the next day) and then I'd delete the whole 'conversation' without reading it.
After a while I thought that I should have gotten an e-mail telling me that there were system updates waiting to be installed and found to my horror that gmail had been sorting about half of the automated mail notifications I receive into spam (including facebook notifications (which nearly made me miss someone's birthday), online purchase receipts, e-bay notifications, out-of hours updates from work (fortunately none of them urgent) as well as my own notification e-mails.
Hopefully their spam filter takes note when I remove stuff from the spam folder. I've whilelisted all the addresses which send me mail currently but I hope I don't find future updates heading to the spam box.
Unless the game you're playing trusts the client to do its own hit detection (which would preclude any competitive Internet play), it's the server that disagreed over whether you hit the person, not their client. (although it's possible that some artifacts are produced due to lag compensation)
The only game that I'm aware of that doesn't do server side hit detection is bzFlag, where each client checks for hits against itself which would make cheating trivial, even if the source code wasn't already available. (More server side logic is planned for v3.0.)
To be fair, with the verification done for cheap certs, that's all most SSL Certs assure you of anyway.
Just because I have an SSL Cert doesn't mean I am a reputable entity or that I don't lie. (Unless you were referring to EV Certs in which case you have more of a point.)
If they have an agreement with the publisher not to release the game until a certain date, I don't see why you feel they should break that just because someone else did. For one thing, it makes publishers less likely to use steam again. (This is quite apart from the issue that having different release dates in different countries is stupid)
Incidentally, the same thing happened when some stores broke the release date on Half-Life 2. People bought the game but couldn't activate it on Steam until the official release date.
And I used to live on the same corridor as a guy who smoked weed at uni. I particularly recall him stepping out of his room one afternoon with his eyes bloodshot and streaming, all relaxed but having to concentrate to see anything. I remember him and his friends just staring into space and not really actively conversing with those of us who weren't stoned.
Who cares? It's just one data point. I'd be the first to say that I've seen my housemate this year look far worse getting up in the afternoon with a massive hangover.
I'm not saying it should be illegal, just that you are wrong to assume that anyone who is against pot doesn't know what they're talking about.
I'm reasonably sure that these "nuclear batteries" will be safe so long as they're left alone.
What is feel is more important is the question of how much damage someone could do with one if they really tried.
Sure you can bury the thing in my back garden but what if I one day go mad and decide to attack it using a pneumatic drill? (Or whatever, pick your tool of choice)
1. Any self-generated cert (even self-signed) which has been directly copied from the service provider (bank, etc.) and imported into the browser.
Though this is the most secure, it is a shame that the user may receive warnings from other Firefox users who visited the site about the cert being "Invalid", undermining confidence in this most secure method of using certs.
If the certificate is imported into the browser as a trusted certificate you don't get the warning, that's the point.
The invalid warnings are for when the certificate has been sent over an untrusted connection and you have no assurance that the certificate is the correct one for the site. In this case, flashing a huge warning in the user's face is absolutely the right thing to do since at the moment, all legitimate online shops have a certificate verified by a third party.
The trusted third party solution we have currently is the most convenient since it's all automatic and transparent to the user. What we're recently finding is that some of these trusted third parties are not turstworthy.
A P2P model is far worse from an ISPs point of view as they have to provide twice as much bandwidth (once to receive the file, once to send it on).
With the traditional download model, ISPs can cache static files (including iPlayer shows) within their own network, vastly reducing costs.
I don't know why ISPs are complaining about iPlayer so much, I'm sure it's much less of a problem than things like youtube where the variety of content is much higher, even if the bandwidth used is lower.
I really don't want my ISP to be able to charge me based on how I use my bandwidth. If they want to charge different rates at different times or charge based on data transferred then that's a different problem.
Firstly, the word has been in use since the 1600s (wikipedia has citations) so it's not like publishers have recently made it up.
Secondly, these days, pirates are more likely to be associated with romantic notions of living free and sticking it to the man, thanks their portrayal in stories like Pirates of the Carribean.
Overpricing is an intrinsic function of monopoly pricing. Revenue is maximized when raising the price would result in so many fewer copies sold that the extra per-copy income no longer outweighs the loss of copies sold.
But (excluding a few extremely popular "must-haves") a game publisher doesn't have a monopoly, they must compete with all the other available games. I'm not deciding "can I afford game X" I'm deciding "will I buy game X or game Y?" Obviously the relative costs of games X and Y is an important factor in this decision.
Secondly, the idea of pirates "comteting" with retail sales is ludicrous, there is no competition, I can have the game for free or I can pay for it. What? Additionally, pirates don't have irritating things like needing to turn a profit to remain viable or needing to recoup the cost of development. Legitimate publishers are never going to be able to compete with pirates.
Slashdot Mirror
Unfortunately, even with 1920x1200 displays, we're still not there yet. Anti-aliasing at a lower resolution will often look better because it smooths out the sharp edges, essentially blurring the image slightly.
We only get a general election every five years. In the last two elections, the main opposition party have behaved like idiots. (Who the hell came up with "It's not racist to restrict immigration" - no one said it was and they made themselves look like pricks.)
Additionally, while this has been going on a while, the worst of it has been in the last few years. ID cards have fallen by the wayside as has extending the length of time someone can be held as a terrorist suspect without charge to 42 days.
Linux was something I'd heard of which sounded cool and was free so I thought I'd try it out.
I downloaded the three RedHat 9 CDs, read the installation manual very carefully and then installed it on the family PC, hoping like hell I didn't break windows or make the thing unbootable (backups? what backups?).
I messed around with it for a bit, liked it mostly but was too attached to windows software. Later I received a PC for myself from a family friend with a hideously broken install of windows ME. I didn't have a Windows CD at the time so I installed RedHat 9 briefly, then found, downloaded and installed Ubuntu and never looked back.
Would you care to explain what you consider to be wrong with Windows 7 rather than just implying that it isn't very good?
I found it to be a great improvement over previous iterations of the windows desktop (still no virtual desktops though).
A given site can only read cookies which have been set by the same site (well, domain). There are various exploits to get around this called Cross Site Scripting (XSS) attacks which involve somehow putting javascript onto someone else's page (such as a slashdot comment). This type of attack can be thwarted by properly escaping any dynamic content.
Allowing access to other site's cookies is a problem because most sites which allow you to log in tell users apart by giving each of them a different cookie. By stealing someone else's cookie you might be recognised as them without having to log in.
If you want the functionality of a computer while you're on the road, get out your laptop.
I can say first hand that it really starts to fail when you start sending yourself automated messages that you don't usually read.
I had my home server forward system mails to my gmail address. A lot of these were notifications where I didn't need to read more than the subject line to know what it said. Occasionally a cron job would report an error every hour until something got fixed (which might not be until the next day) and then I'd delete the whole 'conversation' without reading it.
After a while I thought that I should have gotten an e-mail telling me that there were system updates waiting to be installed and found to my horror that gmail had been sorting about half of the automated mail notifications I receive into spam (including facebook notifications (which nearly made me miss someone's birthday), online purchase receipts, e-bay notifications, out-of hours updates from work (fortunately none of them urgent) as well as my own notification e-mails.
Hopefully their spam filter takes note when I remove stuff from the spam folder. I've whilelisted all the addresses which send me mail currently but I hope I don't find future updates heading to the spam box.
Unless the game you're playing trusts the client to do its own hit detection (which would preclude any competitive Internet play), it's the server that disagreed over whether you hit the person, not their client. (although it's possible that some artifacts are produced due to lag compensation)
The only game that I'm aware of that doesn't do server side hit detection is bzFlag, where each client checks for hits against itself which would make cheating trivial, even if the source code wasn't already available. (More server side logic is planned for v3.0.)
Further reading:
http://developer.valvesoftware.com/wiki/Source_Multiplayer_Networking
http://developer.valvesoftware.com/w/index.php?title=Lag_Compensation
http://my.bzflag.org/w/Lag
How should the Gimp's GUI look?
(This is a serious question, I agree with your MDI comments, but am not sure what's so wrong with GIMP's gui as it is now)
It doesn't make sense?
To be fair, with the verification done for cheap certs, that's all most SSL Certs assure you of anyway.
Just because I have an SSL Cert doesn't mean I am a reputable entity or that I don't lie. (Unless you were referring to EV Certs in which case you have more of a point.)
So bitch at the publisher who asked for the agreement not to allow authorisations before the release date, not at Valve.
Alternatively, bitch at the publisher for using Steam at all.
Alternatively, bitch at the store you bought it from for selling you a game that doesn't work.
If they have an agreement with the publisher not to release the game until a certain date, I don't see why you feel they should break that just because someone else did. For one thing, it makes publishers less likely to use steam again. (This is quite apart from the issue that having different release dates in different countries is stupid)
Incidentally, the same thing happened when some stores broke the release date on Half-Life 2. People bought the game but couldn't activate it on Steam until the official release date.
Except it won't because unix time doesn't account for leap seconds
User: Ummm, this seems wrong...
MS: Nah, that's by design
Lots of users: WTF? No, it's wrong you idiots!
That last bit was somewhat intense but was only brought about my MS's initial attempt to wave away the problem.
Possibly true but not as a direct result of the numbers given.
GDP (PPP) is adjusted based on the costs of living in that country.
See also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita
Did you completely fail to read the rest of my post?
I'm not against legalisation, assuming it doesn't cause any more social problems than alcohol does (increased crime, anti-social behaviour etc).
I am personally against both pot smoking and heavy drinking.
I am not your friend.
And I used to live on the same corridor as a guy who smoked weed at uni. I particularly recall him stepping out of his room one afternoon with his eyes bloodshot and streaming, all relaxed but having to concentrate to see anything. I remember him and his friends just staring into space and not really actively conversing with those of us who weren't stoned.
Who cares? It's just one data point. I'd be the first to say that I've seen my housemate this year look far worse getting up in the afternoon with a massive hangover.
I'm not saying it should be illegal, just that you are wrong to assume that anyone who is against pot doesn't know what they're talking about.
What do I want it lying down for?
I'd expect some sort of fold out frame
I'm reasonably sure that these "nuclear batteries" will be safe so long as they're left alone.
What is feel is more important is the question of how much damage someone could do with one if they really tried.
Sure you can bury the thing in my back garden but what if I one day go mad and decide to attack it using a pneumatic drill? (Or whatever, pick your tool of choice)
Sure, so long as the P2P client prioritises connections to users on the same ISP (is that even possible?)
If the certificate is imported into the browser as a trusted certificate you don't get the warning, that's the point.
The invalid warnings are for when the certificate has been sent over an untrusted connection and you have no assurance that the certificate is the correct one for the site. In this case, flashing a huge warning in the user's face is absolutely the right thing to do since at the moment, all legitimate online shops have a certificate verified by a third party.
The trusted third party solution we have currently is the most convenient since it's all automatic and transparent to the user. What we're recently finding is that some of these trusted third parties are not turstworthy.
A P2P model is far worse from an ISPs point of view as they have to provide twice as much bandwidth (once to receive the file, once to send it on).
With the traditional download model, ISPs can cache static files (including iPlayer shows) within their own network, vastly reducing costs.
I don't know why ISPs are complaining about iPlayer so much, I'm sure it's much less of a problem than things like youtube where the variety of content is much higher, even if the bandwidth used is lower.
I really don't want my ISP to be able to charge me based on how I use my bandwidth. If they want to charge different rates at different times or charge based on data transferred then that's a different problem.
Firstly, the word has been in use since the 1600s (wikipedia has citations) so it's not like publishers have recently made it up.
Secondly, these days, pirates are more likely to be associated with romantic notions of living free and sticking it to the man, thanks their portrayal in stories like Pirates of the Carribean.
But (excluding a few extremely popular "must-haves") a game publisher doesn't have a monopoly, they must compete with all the other available games. I'm not deciding "can I afford game X" I'm deciding "will I buy game X or game Y?" Obviously the relative costs of games X and Y is an important factor in this decision.
Secondly, the idea of pirates "comteting" with retail sales is ludicrous, there is no competition, I can have the game for free or I can pay for it. What? Additionally, pirates don't have irritating things like needing to turn a profit to remain viable or needing to recoup the cost of development. Legitimate publishers are never going to be able to compete with pirates.