It's a little more specific than that, the first page you go to from Google (referer id) will have the solution right at the end of the page. After that they've left a grubby little cookie on your machine which they use to screw with their pages.
This means they get around Google's rules about the page served to the googlebot must be the same as the one served to the users. Still if enough people complain Google may decide that they're still breaking the rules.
BTW: If you make your agent the googlebot and disable cookies for experts exchange you can see all the pages.
But just learn about MS conditional comments then you can treat it like http://offbyone.com/offbyone/ or Links2.
The conditional comments means you can hide you style sheets and javascript from any MS browser you don't want to support so all it sees is bare html3. Then you're in the realm of graceful degradation and unobtrusive javascript.
Then you should raise a bug against the installer.
It's reasonable for the installer to bring the GPL to notice at install time but if it has a 'decline' button it should allow the install but notify the user that redistribution is not allowed.
Maybe you should suggest that there's a decline button that just pops up a message to that effect and a next/continue button (but not an accept).
The BSD license has a similar issue in that you can't actually decline the license in any real way because you don't have to do anything. I suppose the decline button should be greyed out!
A window lock will never keep out a thief. But it will make them go elsewhere, or decide it's not worth it.
If you're root you have a master key, so the lock has no meaning. But if you've not got your key yet it makes your attack a lot more obvious.
Without the lock the thief can make a tiny hole in the window and flip open the latch; once they're in they close the window and nobody can see the difference. With the lock the thief has no option but to smash the window, leaving lots of evidence that something is wrong. Likewise a computer attacker has to make themselves a lot more obvious if they want to get out of a chroot. They also have to know if another process will respond badly to a signal or if there's some IPC they can interfere with or a process they can attach with ptrace() or a local root exploit. They might have to wait around for the oppotunity to get to root or out of the chroot while all the time the logs build up.
So a chroot will discourage an attacker, just like window locks discourage a thief but they are not a security device because they don't actually add security they just strengthen the existing security a little... and every little helps!
No fixups were invented so that microprocessors could simulate the big iron.
In the grown up computer world the CPU just had a base+range pair to say where the current program's memory was and every program ran as if it were at address zero; like the OS itself.
This way a program that was waiting for a screen to come back from a block mode terminal could relocated to free up the fast memory.
The simple fact is this need to relocate data isn't going to go away because closer data will always be faster to access. ie: Register >> onchip >> oncpucard >> onmotheboard >> oninterfacecard >>... >> removable >> compressedremovable >>...... >> theothersizeoftheowrld >> therestoftheuniverse.
There are only so many atoms within a picosecond of the cpu.
You are right, but incomplete. For RFCs should means that you need a damn good reason to break the rule and if you do expect things to break. This particular extension was added for machines are a pile of shit and should only be used on machines that are.
Aw, come on, you can do better then that, I want a PentAthlon.
Though a DecAthlon would be even better, the DecQuadium (aka Sequent 10x486-50) I used to use was a awesome machine in it's day.
Google know they are going to get a whacking big bill every month, they can predict it an budget for it.
What they don't want is to have to go cap in hand to every one of thier ISPs and peers and beg to be allowed to run a new service. Nor do they want a sudden doubling of the bill because someone has decided to reclassify one of the services they do provide.
They want a bill that's fair, as cheap as possible of course, but more importantly it must be predictable so this month's bill follows the bugdeted graph or any additional costs can be directly liked to some department's revenue.
They are really pissed at the idea that the ISPs want to tell them what services they can provide when all the ISPs are doing is providing a wire just like thier own internal dark fibre but at ten times the cost of their internal network.
The stupid thing is it is a statement of policy, it's just that it's not in marketing speak.
If your brother says something like that you know you'll get either that or a good excuse. The good excuse is always an unwritten option, it's just with professional liars that you have to tie them to the every single written word because trying to pin them to a statment is like trying to pin live eels!
The Microsoft RTF 'standard' is re-written with every version of MS-Word. It has exactly the same compatability problems as MS-DOC because it's about the same format, just asciified. Also an MS-WORD RTF file usually contains three seperate versions of the document (a) the document in the current RTF variant, (b) the document in the previous RTF variant and (c) an original style approximation of the document. This is one of the reasons it makes such big files. (The other major one is that MS-Word usually puts images in the file as hexdumped BMP files!)
RTF is seen as more compatible than MS-DOC because the previous version of word can read the file; but that's a con, it's just a single step reversed combatability not true interoperability.
Finally it's also got the same problem as OOXML, a very, VERY badly written standards document.
Nope, he was trying to push buttons, you know, round here it's called being a troll.
But this is the superior breed, the Info Troll they really like hanging around political discussions and are great with "Inciteful" comments.
Hmmm, of course this does make me wonder what secrets you might have about crossdressing, being as you reacted so strongly to a phrase copy and pasted from wikipedia...
Because they are intending to do a Microsoft, one day you will be forced to upgrade.
On that day I will have to see which of the many possibilities have come true.
AACS has been dumped because it doesn't work (ha! ha! -- Yea Right!)
AACS is still used but the keys aren't being bricked anymore
There's nothing worth watching; eg. HDTV is a big flop for everything except sports. (Think 6 foot razor burn!)
I expect the problem is that to do anything with either of these formats you must be a member of the AACS club. So it comes down to the question "can the makers get access to sufficient specifications to make disks and players without unreasonable cost, conditions or contract terms?"
So how big a bribe is needed to join the club? Is it reasonable, what are the other conditions?
I would say that any UK TV bought in the last ten, probably twenty, years has no problem synching to both 50 and 60 hz. I might be wrong for _really_ cheap TVs but not for one bought by someone with a wii.
If a US import doesn't work then it's the Wii not the TV. If a US import displays in black and white only the Wii might actually be putting out a true NTSC colour subcarrier but the chances of that are about zero considering the cost reduction pressure on a Wii. (BTW: higher end TVs will understand the NTSC colour too)
Can the Wii do RGB scart? That's only frequency dependant.
Slashdot Mirror
http://worsethanfailure.com/Articles/XML_vs_CSV__0x3a__The_Choice_is_Obvious.aspx
This means they get around Google's rules about the page served to the googlebot must be the same as the one served to the users. Still if enough people complain Google may decide that they're still breaking the rules.
BTW: If you make your agent the googlebot and disable cookies for experts exchange you can see all the pages.
Note to self: check temperature setting before turning it on.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Uk_13a_double_socket.jpg
It's normal in the UK too. Probably got something to do with the 30A plus cable in the wall.
I expect you'll want some of this stuff too http://www.google.com/products?q=elbow+grease&btnG=Search&show=dd humm, it's under "Personal Lubricants" surely thats not what my grandmother was refering to!
I think I may have started this back in 2001, when the CSS stuff was current http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/DeCSS/Gallery/Stego/index.html
And yes it is VERY simple.
But just learn about MS conditional comments then you can treat it like http://offbyone.com/offbyone/ or Links2.
The conditional comments means you can hide you style sheets and javascript from any MS browser you don't want to support so all it sees is bare html3. Then you're in the realm of graceful degradation and unobtrusive javascript.
http://www.au.kddi.com/english/product/lineup/simple_phone_a101k/index.html
Then you should raise a bug against the installer.
It's reasonable for the installer to bring the GPL to notice at install time but if it has a 'decline' button it should allow the install but notify the user that redistribution is not allowed.
Maybe you should suggest that there's a decline button that just pops up a message to that effect and a next/continue button (but not an accept).
The BSD license has a similar issue in that you can't actually decline the license in any real way because you don't have to do anything. I suppose the decline button should be greyed out!
A window lock will never keep out a thief. But it will make them go elsewhere, or decide it's not worth it. ... and every little helps!
If you're root you have a master key, so the lock has no meaning. But if you've not got your key yet it makes your attack a lot more obvious.
Without the lock the thief can make a tiny hole in the window and flip open the latch; once they're in they close the window and nobody can see the difference. With the lock the thief has no option but to smash the window, leaving lots of evidence that something is wrong. Likewise a computer attacker has to make themselves a lot more obvious if they want to get out of a chroot. They also have to know if another process will respond badly to a signal or if there's some IPC they can interfere with or a process they can attach with ptrace() or a local root exploit. They might have to wait around for the oppotunity to get to root or out of the chroot while all the time the logs build up.
So a chroot will discourage an attacker, just like window locks discourage a thief but they are not a security device because they don't actually add security they just strengthen the existing security a little
No fixups were invented so that microprocessors could simulate the big iron.
In the grown up computer world the CPU just had a base+range pair to say where the current program's memory was and every program ran as if it were at address zero; like the OS itself.
This way a program that was waiting for a screen to come back from a block mode terminal could relocated to free up the fast memory.
The simple fact is this need to relocate data isn't going to go away because closer data will always be faster to access. ie: Register >> onchip >> oncpucard >> onmotheboard >> oninterfacecard >> ... >> removable >> compressedremovable >> ... ... >> theothersizeoftheowrld >> therestoftheuniverse.
There are only so many atoms within a picosecond of the cpu.
So what are Microsoft now saying about Vista ...
It's in the schedutils package in Debian stable. You need a 2.6 kernel.
There's no way they'll read the screen in front of them.
The real question is why aren't there any scroll bars?
Aw, come on, you can do better then that, I want a PentAthlon.
Though a DecAthlon would be even better, the DecQuadium (aka Sequent 10x486-50) I used to use was a awesome machine in it's day.
Google know they are going to get a whacking big bill every month, they can predict it an budget for it.
What they don't want is to have to go cap in hand to every one of thier ISPs and peers and beg to be allowed to run a new service. Nor do they want a sudden doubling of the bill because someone has decided to reclassify one of the services they do provide.
They want a bill that's fair, as cheap as possible of course, but more importantly it must be predictable so this month's bill follows the bugdeted graph or any additional costs can be directly liked to some department's revenue.
They are really pissed at the idea that the ISPs want to tell them what services they can provide when all the ISPs are doing is providing a wire just like thier own internal dark fibre but at ten times the cost of their internal network.
The stupid thing is it is a statement of policy, it's just that it's not in marketing speak.
If your brother says something like that you know you'll get either that or a good excuse. The good excuse is always an unwritten option, it's just with professional liars that you have to tie them to the every single written word because trying to pin them to a statment is like trying to pin live eels!
The Microsoft RTF 'standard' is re-written with every version of MS-Word. It has exactly the same compatability problems as MS-DOC because it's about the same format, just asciified. Also an MS-WORD RTF file usually contains three seperate versions of the document (a) the document in the current RTF variant, (b) the document in the previous RTF variant and (c) an original style approximation of the document. This is one of the reasons it makes such big files. (The other major one is that MS-Word usually puts images in the file as hexdumped BMP files!)
RTF is seen as more compatible than MS-DOC because the previous version of word can read the file; but that's a con, it's just a single step reversed combatability not true interoperability.
Finally it's also got the same problem as OOXML, a very, VERY badly written standards document.
Nope, he was trying to push buttons, you know, round here it's called being a troll. ...
But this is the superior breed, the Info Troll they really like hanging around political discussions and are great with "Inciteful" comments.
Hmmm, of course this does make me wonder what secrets you might have about crossdressing, being as you reacted so strongly to a phrase copy and pasted from wikipedia
On that day I will have to see which of the many possibilities have come true.
I expect the problem is that to do anything with either of these formats you must be a member of the AACS club. So it comes down to the question "can the makers get access to sufficient specifications to make disks and players without unreasonable cost, conditions or contract terms?"
So how big a bribe is needed to join the club? Is it reasonable, what are the other conditions?
> WTF don't companies who make boomboxes that can read mp3 CDs put DVD drives in instead?
Because they'd have to pay to include CSS even if they never need to use it.
Are you sure? Wasn't that you I saw on http://bayimg.com/tag/iamadoofus ?
I would say that any UK TV bought in the last ten, probably twenty, years has no problem synching to both 50 and 60 hz. I might be wrong for _really_ cheap TVs but not for one bought by someone with a wii.
If a US import doesn't work then it's the Wii not the TV.
If a US import displays in black and white only the Wii might actually be putting out a true NTSC colour subcarrier but the chances of that are about zero considering the cost reduction pressure on a Wii. (BTW: higher end TVs will understand the NTSC colour too)
Can the Wii do RGB scart? That's only frequency dependant.
Come on now, how do you know it didn't fall off the back of the courier's lorry?
The concept of it 'getting married' to a testcard is ridiculous.