Thanks. That's pretty much what I thought.. Gimp has such a horrible interface because it isn't a direct clone of Photoshop. So the reverse is also true. Photoshop has such a horrible interface because it isn't Gimp. Apart from the 16 bit colour space, personally they seem pretty similar to me. Absolutely and unconditionally wrong on all counts.
Still quite a hollow argument though which basically comes down to moaning about having to learn something new. What?
But are LHC collisions essentially identical to those of high energy cosmic rays? I think not. Now LHC might not yet have enough power to do something doomsdayish, but the day will surely come that we humans create something that has real doomsday potential... We will likely never, ever be able to create subatomic collisions of comparable energies to what nature is causing every day in our upper atmosphere. The energies involved are so ridiculously high, we don't even know of a single process, on any scale, anywhere in the universe, that could create them. All we have are vague guesses on where they come from.
And I mean not just "guessing" that it "must" be happening all the time, I mean having actual calculations showing that LHC energies, collision produced particles and their velocities etc. are something that happens all the time. We have exactly that, a thousand times over.
But I've never seen anybody actually cite examples of the terrible Gimp interface in anything but the vaguest terms as opposed to the silky smooth and obvious ways of doing the same thing with Photoshop. That because that's how interfaces are. They are very subtle and nebulous things. Good interface design is nowhere near as easy as "that button is in the wrong place". And learning how to evaluate and design them is not a small task.
Due diligence may be quite prudent. However, that doesn't mean these guys are not nutcases.
Far higher-energy interaction happen every day as high-energy cosmic rays hit the atmosphere. If these things could happen, they would have already happened and destroyed the Earth long ago.
Actually, it is quite hard to cool things in space, if they generate any kind of heat. You can only radiate heat away - conduction and convection won't help you.
Well, first off, I do enjoy reading Hamilton. I'm not so stuck-up that I can't enjoy some entertaining trash. Explosions and spaceships make for a ripping good yarn.
But his problem is that is just about all he can write. He can write up big battles full of futuristic gadgets, and has some skill with coming up with fun futures, but those worlds are filled with hilariously flat and stereotypical characters embarking on simplistic and largely unsurprising adventures. You can tell that as soon as he stops writing about those exploding spaceships, his stories get really bogged down, because there really is nothing else there to care about.
Banks, on the other hand, can actually write. He can create realistic and engaging characters, and he can tell a story in more than a straight linear A-to-B fashion. Whatever exploding spaceships are involved are just icing on the cake, as they should be.
Hamilton writes what is essentially quite juvenile pulp fiction. That's not to say it's not enjoyable, but it's essentially silly trash. Banks is much more of the high-literature variety. Comparing the two is almost impossible.
That is not an argument that should ever be made. This kind of messy, unpredictable problem involving the kernel is exactly the kind of thing that may suddenly turn out to be exploitable after everyone's assumed it's not, when somebody clever enough sets their mind to it. It's happened many times before.
You really want to err on the side of caution in these cases.
No, that's why you're not supposed to use software which is so full of holes that the only way to keep it safe is to continuously upgrade as the problems are discovered one after another.
Well, if Storm is not attacking IIS (and now you made me have to pause and consider which letters go where, too), isn't that likely just because IIS is harder to attack, thus not really biasing the results in any meaningful way?
Yes, it's totally unreasonable for the media to think that when a bunch of people act as a group, name themselves as a group, release material under a common name, write their name capitalized as a proper noun, that these people are actually a group.
Slashdot Mirror
Due diligence may be quite prudent. However, that doesn't mean these guys are not nutcases.
Far higher-energy interaction happen every day as high-energy cosmic rays hit the atmosphere. If these things could happen, they would have already happened and destroyed the Earth long ago.
Good old capitalism, always serving the best interests of the people!
They're a Scientology operation these days, so they're backed up by that money.
Even so, you have the sun blazing away at you.
Yes, we do. Don't project your own ignorance onto others.
Actually, it is quite hard to cool things in space, if they generate any kind of heat. You can only radiate heat away - conduction and convection won't help you.
Well, first off, I do enjoy reading Hamilton. I'm not so stuck-up that I can't enjoy some entertaining trash. Explosions and spaceships make for a ripping good yarn.
But his problem is that is just about all he can write. He can write up big battles full of futuristic gadgets, and has some skill with coming up with fun futures, but those worlds are filled with hilariously flat and stereotypical characters embarking on simplistic and largely unsurprising adventures. You can tell that as soon as he stops writing about those exploding spaceships, his stories get really bogged down, because there really is nothing else there to care about.
Banks, on the other hand, can actually write. He can create realistic and engaging characters, and he can tell a story in more than a straight linear A-to-B fashion. Whatever exploding spaceships are involved are just icing on the cake, as they should be.
Hamilton writes what is essentially quite juvenile pulp fiction. That's not to say it's not enjoyable, but it's essentially silly trash. Banks is much more of the high-literature variety. Comparing the two is almost impossible.
All that we know it does. That was the point. We can not tell that that is all it can be used to do with any high degree of certainty.
That is not an argument that should ever be made. This kind of messy, unpredictable problem involving the kernel is exactly the kind of thing that may suddenly turn out to be exploitable after everyone's assumed it's not, when somebody clever enough sets their mind to it. It's happened many times before.
You really want to err on the side of caution in these cases.
They are used in memmove(), which you can hardly argue is not "used very much".
I'd appreciate it if you replied to the things I actually said. By doing so, I would actually be able to answer you.
No, that's why you're not supposed to use software which is so full of holes that the only way to keep it safe is to continuously upgrade as the problems are discovered one after another.
Well, if Storm is not attacking IIS (and now you made me have to pause and consider which letters go where, too), isn't that likely just because IIS is harder to attack, thus not really biasing the results in any meaningful way?
Yes, and? What is the relevance of this statement?
And? What does "coded not to attack Microsoft Windows" mean to you, exactly?
I ignored the "terrorist" part because it was obvious hyperbole, not backed up by fact.
And there's really nothing overly factually incorrect in what is being published. Simplified, sure, incorrect, not so much.
Yes, it's totally unreasonable for the media to think that when a bunch of people act as a group, name themselves as a group, release material under a common name, write their name capitalized as a proper noun, that these people are actually a group.
Kiss me, cruel Fortran!
Windows GUIs. Gotta interface all that gear somehow.
Assembly. Visual Basic and Fortran are common tools of a physicist.
Seldom has a username been so relevant.