The "right" solution is to have a challenge/response protocol where your secret key is never sent out of your computer at all. The current password situation is a huge mess since you need a different password for every site or risk one compromised trusted site giving away your password to everything. Most users, even when using a password manager, aren't going to have unique passwords for every site, let alone strong ones. It wouldn't surprise me at all if such a protocol already exists in the HTML standard. It certainly should.
The downsides to this solution? 1) You need to have a browser that supports the protocol (no browsing in telnet). 2) You need to carry around your keys if you want to use them on more than one computer. 3) You need to explain it to users (but hopefully it can be almost transparent). I'm sure there are other problems but the current situation is untenable.
Reuters uses javascript to refresh and refresh blocker only nukes the META tag type of refreshing. The combination of refresh blocker and noscript does the trick here.
Gospodin is correct: Solving any NP-Complete problem is sufficient, as all the reductions are
polynomial and classical. There are other complexity classes that can involve quantum reductions,
but NP isn't one of them.
That said, there are good reasons to think that quantum computers can't solve NP-Complete problems anyway. Factoring, which breaks RSA, is in NP, but is not NP-Complete.
So, even if D-Wave has built a true 16 qubit quantum computer (which I doubt) their
claims aren't credible.
But digital _IS_ different. The promise of digital data of all sorts is that you should be able to keep it around forever. You might have to transfer it to your new holographic 20 terabyte drive at some point, but that should just copying files over, which is trivial provided you do it before your obsolete hardware fails. To believe that this is just like any other "format war" is to buy into the premise of DRM.
Strange though, it still doesn't render exactly the same. For example, with the line height set smaller, descenders inside headings on slashdot get cut off. With mozilla, they don't. Maybe this is more than I want to know.
Does anyone know why firefox puts significantly more space between lines of text than mozilla does? Aren't they supposed to render the same? This seems to be true regardless of font.
Out of the box... Firefox has really poor cookie management. I have it set to prompt, but once I deny a site permission and realize I want to do business with them it takes many mouseclicks and a lot of stupid scrollbar searching to hunt down the cookieblock and delete it.
Yeah, what's up with this? Mozilla actually has a tools->cookies menu that lets you quickly block or unblock cookies from a site. Why doesn't firefox?
Hmmm, why couldn't it? How about a service for swapping cookies in order to poison the pool of data, similar to swapping store loyalty cards, but automatically done by the browser?
"Their news feeds are selected to favor their own political leanings"
There's really next to no evidence of that. The blog you link to claims to have been given
"excuses" by Google for not being included in their
index, and points out that the overwhelmingly Democratic-leaning political donations of Google employees suggest a possible reason. That's hardly enough to claim that there IS bias in Google's newsfeed selection.
This is an interesting post, but it's also wrong. Propaganda may be entirely truthful.
From dictionary.com (or use your favorite if you don't trust that site):
Propaganda:
1. The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.
2. Material disseminated by the advocates or opponents of a doctrine or cause: wartime propaganda.
3. Propaganda Roman Catholic Church. A division of the Roman Curia that has authority in the matter of preaching the gospel, of establishing the Church in non-Christian countries, and of administering Church missions in territories where there is no properly organized hierarchy.
So, while propaganda need not be truthful (as you say, it is unconcerned with truth, it need not be untrue either.
Slashdot Mirror
Now Gore has been smeared by this "I invented the internet" for a long time, but this is just vicious!
Oh the irony!
The "right" solution is to have a challenge/response protocol where your secret key is never sent out of your computer at all. The current password situation is a huge mess since you need a different password for every site or risk one compromised trusted site giving away your password to everything. Most users, even when using a password manager, aren't going to have unique passwords for every site, let alone strong ones. It wouldn't surprise me at all if such a protocol already exists in the HTML standard. It certainly should.
The downsides to this solution? 1) You need to have a browser that supports the protocol (no browsing in telnet). 2) You need to carry around your keys if you want to use them on more than one computer. 3) You need to explain it to users (but hopefully it can be almost transparent). I'm sure there are other problems but the current situation is untenable.
Reuters uses javascript to refresh and refresh blocker only nukes the META tag type of refreshing. The combination of refresh blocker and noscript does the trick here.
The refresh blocker extension might be what you're looking for.
D'oh. Maybe if the AC I replied to had just used the preview button....
So, if FWB was more competent, he would have killed Lincoln more?
I couldn't decide if I should moderate this "insightful" or "funny" so I just gave up and posted.
You can do this with unionfs. This is used for saving user data in puppylinux, and probably other bootable CD distributions.
Those darned liberals, always standing up for individual rights.
That said, there are good reasons to think that quantum computers can't solve NP-Complete problems anyway. Factoring, which breaks RSA, is in NP, but is not NP-Complete. So, even if D-Wave has built a true 16 qubit quantum computer (which I doubt) their claims aren't credible.
But digital _IS_ different. The promise of digital data of all sorts is that you should be able to keep it around forever. You might have to transfer it to your new holographic 20 terabyte drive at some point, but that should just copying files over, which is trivial provided you do it before your obsolete hardware fails. To believe that this is just like any other "format war" is to buy into the premise of DRM.
I hope he washes his hands first!
Couldn't the Octopi have survived the flood without Noah's help?
A two-megapixel cameraphone?
Strange though, it still doesn't render exactly the same. For example, with the line height set smaller, descenders inside headings on slashdot
get cut off. With mozilla, they don't. Maybe this is more than I want to know.
Sweet. Thank you so much--that was driving me nuts. I couldn't find anything about it on bugzilla, probably because it isn't a bug.
Does anyone know why firefox puts significantly more space between lines of text than mozilla does? Aren't they supposed to render the same? This seems to be true regardless of font.
Out of the box ... Firefox has really poor cookie management. I have it set to prompt, but once I deny a site permission and realize I want to do business with them it takes many mouseclicks and a lot of stupid scrollbar searching to hunt down the cookieblock and delete it.
Yeah, what's up with this? Mozilla actually has a tools->cookies menu that lets you quickly block or unblock cookies from a site. Why doesn't firefox?
Hmmm, why couldn't it? How about a service for swapping cookies in order to poison the pool of data, similar to swapping store loyalty cards, but automatically done by the browser?
And 100% of them are definitely guilty. We know that how?
There's really next to no evidence of that. The blog you link to claims to have been given "excuses" by Google for not being included in their index, and points out that the overwhelmingly Democratic-leaning political donations of Google employees suggest a possible reason. That's hardly enough to claim that there IS bias in Google's newsfeed selection.
This is an interesting post, but it's also wrong. Propaganda may be entirely truthful.
From dictionary.com (or use your favorite if you
don't trust that site):
Propaganda:
1. The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.
2. Material disseminated by the advocates or opponents of a doctrine or cause: wartime propaganda.
3. Propaganda Roman Catholic Church. A division of the Roman Curia that has authority in the matter of preaching the gospel, of establishing the Church in non-Christian countries, and of administering Church missions in territories where there is no properly organized hierarchy.
So, while propaganda need not be truthful (as you
say, it is unconcerned with truth, it need not be untrue either.
cookies aren't evil, they can't hurt you
Then why are you clearing them out once a week?
Anything free is worth what you pay for it.