Isn't that something like a 2nd or 3rd level evocation spell? Amateurs! Nah, it's illusion not evocation. And even then, it's sphere-shaped while the article wants a cone.
"driver attempting to steer his vehicle to the right was involuntarily taken to the left."
Uh. Sounds about right...;-) How exactly is this a troll? That's quite... natural. Or are you going to tell me that an american, a ruskie or a german would reflexively act differently? For those who failed to get the parent's joke, there are some backwards islands where people drive on the wrong side of the road...
Simply put it into your company's apt repo, together with all other updates. In any reasonable OS the auto-update is already disabled by the package maintainers; programs have no reason to implement updating on their own. An "operating system" is not supposed to include everything while working hard to exclude any third-party application software -- it's supposed to be primarily a platform.
Too bad, a common problem lies in a certain OS being anything but reasonable, but that's not a problem with FireFox itself.
3. Do they have guaranteed response times on support calls? CROSS And does IE have such a guarantee? Or even anything vaguely resembling support (as in "fixing egregious defects", not in "telling an accountant that they need to click the 'X' in another program to get to the 'Internet' icon")?
Well, I haven't heard about any Nobel prizes or Fields medals awarded to Google's employees recently.
So, because of network latency, the best you can do is: 1. run Google queries for n^2 routes for all node pairs 2. solve the Travelling Salesman problem yourself
Because there is no way to go A->B->C faster than A->B + B->C if you want to visit B on the way, asking Google/Yahoo/etc for A->B->C routes is pointless.
Of course, step 2. is left as an exercise to the reader.
Even better... according to the article, apparently that keyboard "allows convenient use of any language -- Cyrillic, Ancient Greek, Georgian, Arabic, Quenya, hiragana, etc. ". Technically, you don't need a keyboard for a language (as opposed to a script), but if they mean what I think, a piece of hardware that can finally push the Tengwar through the Unicode Consortium would be nice.
Yet, I see IRV in the US only advocated for single-seat elections. Huh? People doing the advocating are politicians, not mathematicians. They don't really know the alternatives, all they see is how bad plurality voting is.
And that's at least partially acceptable. Even if we get IRV instead of something better, it's a huge step forward already.
The paper referred in the article is next to worthless, too. It goes to great lengths to say that "range voting is the best, because it represents the voters' wishes the best".
Except, they assume that people will agree to throw away their vote just because they're don't agree with one side entirely. Range voting is nothing but approval voting with a possibility of casting only a fraction of a vote. This is what the paper refers to as "strategic range voting".
The whole reasoning is busted, because it assumes people will agree to waste most of their vote just to make someone else more happy. WTF? Rational people vote the way which gives the best chance of getting results _they_ want.
The paper also compares range voting to systems which are pretty bad but have been used historically, disregarding serious contenders like Condorcet.
What's the point? If you download the signatures from the same website as the packages, you won't catch any but most lazy/inept attackers. The ones here were that stupid, but come on, this trick works only once.
In fact, if an attacker can tamper with the website on any point (including a router/proxy on the way), they can change the md5 whenever they change any other communication if they only care enough. For any resilience, you'd need public key cryptography; but even then you will be only as safe as the least safe private key.
It's not "perfectly" functional. For example: * v6 address isn't there until ~10 mins after boot or until you disable+enable the interface * SMB/CIFS over v6? no way * you can't use DNS over v6
On a complete unrelated note: your name sounds Polish. No major ISPs support v6 here, but the tunnel brokers are awesome. On SixXS I get connections to most oversea places *BETTER* by at least 10ms ping than routed directly through tpsa/Neostrada, tpsa/IDSL, tpsa/PolPak or Netia.
Don't believe a word Bill, Steve or wannabes like Darl say. You can get better results listening to random smattering of words, which (if grammatically correct, non-contradicting and such) will be correct 50% of the time -- while Bill will be right only if he makes a mistake.
Their strategy is: 1. ignore 'em 2. mock 'em 3. fight 'em
Ours should go 3/2/1. We have already been at 2 (Vista and co), so it's a good time to hit 1.
I think the author meant to say that Jesus has been performing more miracles in the last 2000 years (the earth isn't even 10,000 years old yet). Heresy! It's well-known that the world has been created last Thursday!
"in Chechnya 99.3% of the population were said to have voted for Putin's party Schweet. And the Chechen population has really a lot to thank Putin's FSB for...
Not ever, actually. It would need to go pretty fast -- the escape velocity needed to escape our galaxy from the vicinity of the Solar system is around 1000km/s.
We have ever launched 5 spacecraft going fast enough to escape out of the Solar system, at mere 11-ish km/s at the Earth orbit ("-ish" because we cheat a bit using gravitational slingshots).
Naturally, it would be strange if no one thought of making such a phone. What bothers me is, no one seems to use encryption. We're swamped with news about latest new and shiny phones, yet there's never a word about a real phone having such a feature. This/. article, for example, talks about Skype which is not available on portable devices -- and even if it was, black-box encryption is worthless. Skype is known to cooperate with China, for example -- so their encryption may be trustworthy enough against Johnny ScriptKiddie listening on a r00ted router, but not much more.
To get the uninterested population use it, encryption would have to be completely transparent. This is easy to do -- GSM connections are nothing but a compressed stream of bits anyway, they don't have to be understandable to pass through the network; if the stream includes a handshake it will be encrypted, if not, it's a talk with a non-compatible phone and will proceed in clear text^H^H^H^Hvoice. Adding key management would be a must for those with a clue about security, but if most users get an alarm if someone's public key changed, this would be a huge plus. Heck, do YOU preseed your ssh known keys? I admit I don't, being vulnerable to a MITM if someone gets me during the first connection.
ssh can replace telnet without a layman user even knowing the difference. If you can do the same with phones, we're golden.
In the days of smart phones, I wonder why they bother sending the conversations in the plain, encoded in a way open to the phone company, shared with the guvmint, Russian mafia, and anyone who pays a dime.
I personally hardly use my phone, I don't remember the last time I used it for something else than telling my sister of friend that I'm almost there -- so I don't bother with iPhones or any other $500 bricks. For those who do make more than two calls a month and have one of those super-duper new phones, not using encryption is kind of hard to understand.
The real goal of switching to an open, implementable (which rules out OOXML...) standard is to open up the market for software which can edit/display it. Open market = allowing office software other than Microsoft's. And, taking a look at where they take most of their profits from, I say it will be a frigid day in hell when Microsoft stops using every underhanded tactic possible in this fight.
Right, we all use Adblock and the like. Yet, you can't force everyone in the vicinity to do so, there are lesser minds who opt for Opera, and there's even a tiny portion of giants on Links -- and let's not even mention how low SOME folks can fall.
I would say that adzapper (if you use squid) or a DNS-based blacklist is quite mandatory wherever you do have a say. Glancing at the logs of ISPs I have root at, roughly 1/4 of all freaking http requests go to lowlifes -- and even that based on my grossly incomplete list of ad/spyware/tracking scum.
Yeah, 25%. That's horrible. And there are some customers dumb enough to complain if you do protect them from ads, so you can't do this in an ISP scenario. But in a company, school or family? Hell yeah, there's no reason for doubleclick.com to get through, ever.
Q: What's the height of insolence? A: Vote for PiS and leave the country.
(PiS is a major party, extreme right-wing when it comes to religion, nationalism and authoritarism, strong left economically). And no wonders, there's a mass emigration going out of Poland...
Slashdot Mirror
It's gas! It's deadly! Protect yourself! Protect your kids!
I bet quite a number of folks will stock up on gas masks when they'll hear these news...
Uh. Sounds about right...
Or are you going to tell me that an american, a ruskie or a german would reflexively act differently? For those who failed to get the parent's joke, there are some backwards islands where people drive on the wrong side of the road...
Simply put it into your company's apt repo, together with all other updates. In any reasonable OS the auto-update is already disabled by the package maintainers; programs have no reason to implement updating on their own. An "operating system" is not supposed to include everything while working hard to exclude any third-party application software -- it's supposed to be primarily a platform.
Too bad, a common problem lies in a certain OS being anything but reasonable, but that's not a problem with FireFox itself.
Well, I haven't heard about any Nobel prizes or Fields medals awarded to Google's employees recently.
So, because of network latency, the best you can do is:
1. run Google queries for n^2 routes for all node pairs
2. solve the Travelling Salesman problem yourself
Because there is no way to go A->B->C faster than A->B + B->C if you want to visit B on the way, asking Google/Yahoo/etc for A->B->C routes is pointless.
Of course, step 2. is left as an exercise to the reader.
Even better... according to the article, apparently that keyboard "allows convenient use of any language -- Cyrillic, Ancient Greek, Georgian, Arabic, Quenya, hiragana, etc. ". Technically, you don't need a keyboard for a language (as opposed to a script), but if they mean what I think, a piece of hardware that can finally push the Tengwar through the Unicode Consortium would be nice.
They've been rotting there since 1989...
And that's at least partially acceptable. Even if we get IRV instead of something better, it's a huge step forward already.
The paper referred in the article is next to worthless, too. It goes to great lengths to say that "range voting is the best, because it represents the voters' wishes the best".
Except, they assume that people will agree to throw away their vote just because they're don't agree with one side entirely. Range voting is nothing but approval voting with a possibility of casting only a fraction of a vote. This is what the paper refers to as "strategic range voting".
The whole reasoning is busted, because it assumes people will agree to waste most of their vote just to make someone else more happy. WTF? Rational people vote the way which gives the best chance of getting results _they_ want.
The paper also compares range voting to systems which are pretty bad but have been used historically, disregarding serious contenders like Condorcet.
//#!/usr/bin/gcc
For C, try: apt-get install tcc#!/usr/bin/tcc -run
Caveats:
What's the point? If you download the signatures from the same website as the packages, you won't catch any but most lazy/inept attackers. The ones here were that stupid, but come on, this trick works only once.
In fact, if an attacker can tamper with the website on any point (including a router/proxy on the way), they can change the md5 whenever they change any other communication if they only care enough. For any resilience, you'd need public key cryptography; but even then you will be only as safe as the least safe private key.
It's not "perfectly" functional. For example:
* v6 address isn't there until ~10 mins after boot or until you disable+enable the interface
* SMB/CIFS over v6? no way
* you can't use DNS over v6
On a complete unrelated note: your name sounds Polish. No major ISPs support v6 here, but the tunnel brokers are awesome. On SixXS I get connections to most oversea places *BETTER* by at least 10ms ping than routed directly through tpsa/Neostrada, tpsa/IDSL, tpsa/PolPak or Netia.
Bad. Nothing changed.
Don't believe a word Bill, Steve or wannabes like Darl say. You can get better results listening to random smattering of words, which (if grammatically correct, non-contradicting and such) will be correct 50% of the time -- while Bill will be right only if he makes a mistake.
Their strategy is:
1. ignore 'em
2. mock 'em
3. fight 'em
Ours should go 3/2/1. We have already been at 2 (Vista and co), so it's a good time to hit 1.
The sign-up mail:
:-(
2007-12-12 09:53:11 1J2NL0-0007pT-Qi SA: Action: permanently rejected message: score=6.4 required=5.0 trigger=5.0 (scanned in 4/4 secs | Message-Id: EXT-SMTP-02wB1D6nxK0007f39f@ext-smtp-02.partners.extranet.microsoft.com). From <winsurv@microsoft.com> (host=mail4.mssupport.microsoft.com [131.107.70.12]) for winspyware@angband.pl
2007-12-12 09:53:11 1J2NL0-0007pT-Qi F=winsurv@microsoft.com H=mail4.mssupport.microsoft.com [131.107.70.12] P=esmtp rejected by local_scan(): Rejected
I guess SpamAssassin knows it better than me... Oh well, now I'll never know whether it works on Wine or not
Not ever, actually. It would need to go pretty fast -- the escape velocity needed to escape our galaxy from the vicinity of the Solar system is around 1000km/s.
We have ever launched 5 spacecraft going fast enough to escape out of the Solar system, at mere 11-ish km/s at the Earth orbit ("-ish" because we cheat a bit using gravitational slingshots).
Naturally, it would be strange if no one thought of making such a phone. What bothers me is, no one seems to use encryption. We're swamped with news about latest new and shiny phones, yet there's never a word about a real phone having such a feature. This /. article, for example, talks about Skype which is not available on portable devices -- and even if it was, black-box encryption is worthless. Skype is known to cooperate with China, for example -- so their encryption may be trustworthy enough against Johnny ScriptKiddie listening on a r00ted router, but not much more.
To get the uninterested population use it, encryption would have to be completely transparent. This is easy to do -- GSM connections are nothing but a compressed stream of bits anyway, they don't have to be understandable to pass through the network; if the stream includes a handshake it will be encrypted, if not, it's a talk with a non-compatible phone and will proceed in clear text^H^H^H^Hvoice. Adding key management would be a must for those with a clue about security, but if most users get an alarm if someone's public key changed, this would be a huge plus. Heck, do YOU preseed your ssh known keys? I admit I don't, being vulnerable to a MITM if someone gets me during the first connection.
ssh can replace telnet without a layman user even knowing the difference. If you can do the same with phones, we're golden.
In the days of smart phones, I wonder why they bother sending the conversations in the plain, encoded in a way open to the phone company, shared with the guvmint, Russian mafia, and anyone who pays a dime.
I personally hardly use my phone, I don't remember the last time I used it for something else than telling my sister of friend that I'm almost there -- so I don't bother with iPhones or any other $500 bricks. For those who do make more than two calls a month and have one of those super-duper new phones, not using encryption is kind of hard to understand.
Yeah. That's why our system is called the Solar-Jovian System; the barycenter of the Sun+Jupiter is above the Sun's surface.
Right, we all use Adblock and the like. Yet, you can't force everyone in the vicinity to do so, there are lesser minds who opt for Opera, and there's even a tiny portion of giants on Links -- and let's not even mention how low SOME folks can fall.
I would say that adzapper (if you use squid) or a DNS-based blacklist is quite mandatory wherever you do have a say. Glancing at the logs of ISPs I have root at, roughly 1/4 of all freaking http requests go to lowlifes -- and even that based on my grossly incomplete list of ad/spyware/tracking scum.
Yeah, 25%. That's horrible.
And there are some customers dumb enough to complain if you do protect them from ads, so you can't do this in an ISP scenario. But in a company, school or family? Hell yeah, there's no reason for doubleclick.com to get through, ever.
We have a saying in Poland:
Q: What's the height of insolence?
A: Vote for PiS and leave the country.
(PiS is a major party, extreme right-wing when it comes to religion, nationalism and authoritarism, strong left economically). And no wonders, there's a mass emigration going out of Poland...