What you do is a while(1) {alert('Haha!')}. The solution would be to allow people to abort scripts from the modal window (see Bug #61098), but... it's been here for 5 years and still has a status of NEW.
Wireless Connection Status > Properties > Internet Protocol > General > DNS
I set it to one of their nameservers.
The funny thing is, their little image ( http://www.unifiedroot.com/registrars ) now shows me a "You have access to whole internet" (yeah, like I'd actually care about the 0.0 percent of the web that uses their registrar) but URLs like http://schiphol/ don't seem to work... Anyone else try?
By the way, unless you want to lock out 90% of all possible customers, you'll probably keep your old domain name running (I know Schiphol has).
The Yahoo article is very biased for the move, but the "clinched deals with most ISPs in Turkey" is quite major. This could mean a greater fragmentation of the internet... we know countries can do it, we know that China has done it.
They still have the jump on the market. They still have the equipment and expertise to manufacture the vaccine. Just because they're breaking the patent doesn't mean the drug will magically appear. If this is a variable that has to be factored into the moral equation, it is a small one.
"Phantom bird flue pandemic" bah. When it comes to pandemics, it's not a question of if: it's a question of when.
And very likely people were wondering whether or not to delete it, being original research. Wikipedia can do some very interesting things, but not all of them are in accord with Wikipedia's policy.
With this sudden name change of Mambo to Joomla!, User:Bishonen has suddenly nominated both and Joomla!.
There is extremly divisive debate on bothpages, some people voting delete on the grounds that the articles are ads, others going "WTF are you doing! This is certainly notable!"
Personally, I'm absolutely flabbergasted. What the hell are these Wikipedians doing?
...these patents could shut down almost every dynamic site on the Internet, including the USPTO.
Nonsense. Even if they had enough money to go around suing every dynamic site on the internet (think 8,168,684,336 web pages indexed by Google and divide by, say, 1,000), it would halted by the court which would find these patents "obvious" and with "prior use" and invalidate them. They have to prove all this stuff, and of course, it's simply not possible.
Now, let's have an actual look at the patent, shall we? What's interesting is that they have lots of diagrams of prior art. Let us examine what exactly these figures describe. Fig 2 (if it doesn't show up for you, try reloading the page, it's some stupid Quicktime implementation) shows a client sending a request to a "web server executable" which serves a page among an array of pages. Hmph. Static web server. Clear prior art. Fig 3 shows a CGI setup, where the browser requests a CGI application and it is executed. Figure 1, which is not prior art, and it gets interesting. (you see, I'm not sure whether or not the claims of the Slashdot blurb are correct).
In general, processor 102 retrieves processing instructions and data from a data storage medium 108 using mass storage device 107 and downloads this information into random access memory 103 for execution. Processor 102, then executes an instruction stream from random access memory 103 or read-only memory 104. Command selections and information input at input device 106 are used to direct the flow of instructions executed by processor 102. Equivalent input device 106 may also be a pointing device such as a conventional mouse or trackball device. The results of this processing execution are then displayed on display device 105.
The preferred embodiment of the present invention is implemented as a software module, which may be executed on a computer system such as computer system 100 in a conventional manner. Using well known techniques, the application software of the preferred embodiment is stored on data storage medium 108 and subsequently loaded into and executed within computer system 100. Once initiated, the software of the preferred embodiment operates in the manner described below.
So... 105 = web browser, 106 = mouse. But wait! Aren't parameters in dynamic websites part of the request headers? What's this "Command selections and information input at input device 106?" Hmm, that's weird,::skips ahead:: This clears up things:
For example, a large Web site may receive thousands of requests or "hits" in a single day. Current Web servers process each of these requests on a single machine, namely the Web server machine. Although these machines may be running "multi-threaded" operating systems that allow transactions to be processed by independent "threads," all the threads are nevertheless on a single machine, sharing a processor. As such, the Web executable thread may hand off a request to a processing thread, but both threads
This article probably isn't talking about home wireless networks but I know for my network "it just works" and we leave it at that. Main problem is when we enable encryption, service lasts about 1 minute and then disconnects. We've never been able to troubleshoot this problem, and thus we're stuck passing all of our data over an unencrypted connection.
Interestingly, our neighbor doesn't encrypt their network either, so if our Internet goes out, we can always piggyback off the neighbors connection. But that's even worse security. And one of these days we're going to pay for it.
On another note, Windows networks are notoriously difficult to secure. I've worked with the Skidmore computer lab, and not too long ago that had a problem with a virus bringing down the entire grid (they ended up restricting CTY students from their labs) but the way the "secure" their networks is basically wipe everything when the computers are turned off. There are, of course, several problems.
It doesn't work for all computers.
Some computers are not shut off at all.
You're giving the equivalent of "administrative access" while the computer stays on, so serious damage can be achieved during the time when the computer stays on."
You can also log onto the computer itself (with administrative access too) and that's not wiped.
There are no automatic logout policies to deter inappropriate use of terminals.
Then we must worry about the game being too hard. Fortunantely, it'll be hard for everyone, but perhaps that's why we won't be seeing animated game transcripts (although that'd be really cool).
Go is a perfect example of a game that needs intelligence, not brute force. Of course, that's not to say Chess doesn't need intelligence, but it's to a lesser extent. Now, whether or not computers will get as "smart" as us is debatable.
By the way, you should read the Wikipedia article on Go. It's really good and has been featured before.
For a story book, instead of releasing beta of a pseudo-complete book, author should release it chapter by chapter, and change the story direction based on reader feedback, in another word, Plot-Beta rather than Writing-Beta.
That would be a disaster.;-)
Seriously, though, a lot of the time, the criteria for getting a book published simply is whether or not it's finished or not. Young, struggling writer = Unfinished Novels. Lots of them. Old, struggling writers = Finished Novels that sold about 100 copies. Let's not change the problem.
You also have to consider the "integration" part of the program. Pit an extension versus a built in feature and most likely, the built in feature will win.
And then you have the extensions that rewire Firefox's internals.
Slashdot Mirror
What you do is a while(1) {alert('Haha!')}. The solution would be to allow people to abort scripts from the modal window (see Bug #61098), but... it's been here for 5 years and still has a status of NEW.
It must be so difficult that increases in memory footprints are not grounds for freezing a tree and backing out the commits.
Wireless Connection Status > Properties > Internet Protocol > General > DNS
4 2 and http://secunia.com/advisories/12580/ )... now who's the top level, and at what level do we trust cookies? Choices, choices...
I set it to one of their nameservers.
The funny thing is, their little image ( http://www.unifiedroot.com/registrars ) now shows me a "You have access to whole internet" (yeah, like I'd actually care about the 0.0 percent of the web that uses their registrar) but URLs like http://schiphol/ don't seem to work... Anyone else try?
By the way, unless you want to lock out 90% of all possible customers, you'll probably keep your old domain name running (I know Schiphol has).
The Yahoo article is very biased for the move, but the "clinched deals with most ISPs in Turkey" is quite major. This could mean a greater fragmentation of the internet... we know countries can do it, we know that China has done it.
This will only make those working on the cookie problem ( https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2523
That is simply not true. Not only do I get by with Firefox: I also get by with JavaScript disabled.
:gasps:
They still have the jump on the market. They still have the equipment and expertise to manufacture the vaccine. Just because they're breaking the patent doesn't mean the drug will magically appear. If this is a variable that has to be factored into the moral equation, it is a small one.
"Phantom bird flue pandemic" bah. When it comes to pandemics, it's not a question of if: it's a question of when.
And very likely people were wondering whether or not to delete it, being original research. Wikipedia can do some very interesting things, but not all of them are in accord with Wikipedia's policy.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Enigmail all the way, baby. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32) - GPGshell v3.40 iD8DBQFDKNDpqTO+fYacSNoRAiDLAJ9SwsCk9L0zS3BSDLVddS qYuybq5ACfXu3i
PxFublPT97snB4HRNh9Ku3Y=
=kt/N
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Mozilla is not a corporation. Mozilla Corporation is a corporation, Mozilla Foundation is a non-profit organization, and the foundation is the parent.
Although they did do that with Google (prefetching, anyone?)
With this sudden name change of Mambo to Joomla!, User:Bishonen has suddenly nominated both and Joomla!. There is extremly divisive debate on both pages, some people voting delete on the grounds that the articles are ads, others going "WTF are you doing! This is certainly notable!" Personally, I'm absolutely flabbergasted. What the hell are these Wikipedians doing?
A little while back, I would have had no clue what the joke meant. Actually, it's suprisingly relevant. Anyway... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Mons terism
As a Chinese American, I can say I was considerably annoyed when I found out my personal website was blocked by the firewall.
i n_mainland_China
As a Wikipedian, I can tell you that http://zh.wikipedia.org/ is a great case study of this censorship... it had a huge chilling effect on the project during that time. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Wikipedia
See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_
And therein the problem with "open" source.
For those of you who don't watch TV anymore :cough:, here's a primer: Call for Help and Leo Laporte.
Nonsense. Even if they had enough money to go around suing every dynamic site on the internet (think 8,168,684,336 web pages indexed by Google and divide by, say, 1,000), it would halted by the court which would find these patents "obvious" and with "prior use" and invalidate them. They have to prove all this stuff, and of course, it's simply not possible.
Now, let's have an actual look at the patent, shall we? What's interesting is that they have lots of diagrams of prior art. Let us examine what exactly these figures describe. Fig 2 (if it doesn't show up for you, try reloading the page, it's some stupid Quicktime implementation) shows a client sending a request to a "web server executable" which serves a page among an array of pages. Hmph. Static web server. Clear prior art. Fig 3 shows a CGI setup, where the browser requests a CGI application and it is executed. Figure 1, which is not prior art, and it gets interesting. (you see, I'm not sure whether or not the claims of the Slashdot blurb are correct).
So... 105 = web browser, 106 = mouse. But wait! Aren't parameters in dynamic websites part of the request headers? What's this "Command selections and information input at input device 106?" Hmm, that's weird, ::skips ahead:: This clears up things:
Well, at least it's not every-once-in-a-while 61 seconds in a minute, 60 minutes in an hour, and 24 hours in a day. [/lying]
Moderators are getting pretty desperate hmm...
You mean Pre-emptive Slashdot strike. As of two seconds ago, the site hadn't melted down yet.
This article probably isn't talking about home wireless networks but I know for my network "it just works" and we leave it at that. Main problem is when we enable encryption, service lasts about 1 minute and then disconnects. We've never been able to troubleshoot this problem, and thus we're stuck passing all of our data over an unencrypted connection.
Interestingly, our neighbor doesn't encrypt their network either, so if our Internet goes out, we can always piggyback off the neighbors connection. But that's even worse security. And one of these days we're going to pay for it.
On another note, Windows networks are notoriously difficult to secure. I've worked with the Skidmore computer lab, and not too long ago that had a problem with a virus bringing down the entire grid (they ended up restricting CTY students from their labs) but the way the "secure" their networks is basically wipe everything when the computers are turned off. There are, of course, several problems.
Then we must worry about the game being too hard. Fortunantely, it'll be hard for everyone, but perhaps that's why we won't be seeing animated game transcripts (although that'd be really cool).
Not necessarily. For example, Go is a popular game in East Asia, but success at making computers that can play go "is moderate at best".
Go is a perfect example of a game that needs intelligence, not brute force. Of course, that's not to say Chess doesn't need intelligence, but it's to a lesser extent. Now, whether or not computers will get as "smart" as us is debatable.
By the way, you should read the Wikipedia article on Go. It's really good and has been featured before.
RTFA, especially the talk page when it comes to Wikipedia. Brion Vibber has already commented on the salting.
You also have to consider the "integration" part of the program. Pit an extension versus a built in feature and most likely, the built in feature will win. And then you have the extensions that rewire Firefox's internals.