We're talking about media coverage. If the corporate standard commands IE, IE it is. But the news are supposed to be informative, and all they do is repeat: "Turn off this, turn off that..."
I am sure that this is because of their overall education, but that is no excuse.
You are paying a premium, but you're getting the good stuff!
You mean that 10% ethanol (doubt that) and the different measure for the octane number is a justification for roughtly the DOUBLE price? I think not.
First, half the price of the fuels is taxes. Second, EU have to import most of them, the only places Europe that dig for oil is in the north atlantic ocean, it is not that much, really.
I suppose the way to have cheap petrol is to cut on fuel taxes (thus cutting social expenses, like medicare, retirement, social security) and expand in the Middle East (which pisses a lot of guys). In USA a rise to the real price of fuels, about 6$ per galon like in EU, is the best thing you can do to spark a civil war.
You mean that MY software will look for the tag. I still think that software is the running logic of the computer. And even if looking for the tag is built in the hardware, override it. If such a mandatory check is introduced, hacks will be made, mind my words.
The only REAL problem with that is TCP like Palladium... but I very much doubt that China and Taiwan will stop building PCs without TCP, if there is a strong demand for them. Especially by me. And by some 99% of the governments in the world...
Really, US geeks, unite and save yourselves. You have my support.
If we put pressure on customers by making them pay, maybe they'll do things that make phishing attacks harder to carry out.
Well... you're not right. First, when the brown stuff hits the fan, you're going to get so deep in it that you may NEVER go back on foot.
Second, if you tell all customers how important is it, you'll get exactly... nothing. I mean, to change a social problem like this one you'll need constant pushes in the right direction... occasional stabbing of customers is not going to prepare them for it. Besides, what is he going to do? What if the bank does not use SSL? It is really not the custommer's fault.
Besides, who's the one with the money? Actually, the bank. It is richer than the person. Remember the history of the ATMs in UK and USA. In USA credit card companies were liable for ATM security problems, so they pushed to increase security. In UK the customer was liable, so the problems were not addressed at all.
In the first sentence the EU spokesman clearly states that by building protection into Vista Microsoft is 'shutting out' rivals in the software security market. Except that if Windows was secure in the first place those 'rivals' would've never existed. So a market emerged and now it is disappearing. It should've been seen as temporary from day one, especially considering the fact that Microsoft has ALWAYS been trying to make their software more secure. I believe the scream is because MS is going to BUNDLE security applications in their OS. It is not making the OS secure, it is bundling software with it. That is illegal.
It's also not surprising that there will be a lobby, a dying scream if you will, to prevent it. Like you said, a lot of people make money off of Microsoft's insecure programs. A lot of untrustworthy people do as well. People who make spyware and botnets. And hopefully not as many after Vista. Dream all you can - Vista will cure cancer and AIDS, the world saviour. The same untrustworthy people will exploit the same ol' holes. Mainly PEBKAS.
When Todd said the EU is "ready to give guidance" what he really meant was "We want Microsoft to do whatever we ask". He is just a puppet of course, going through the motions of his strings which are pulled by the EU. That is sooo much different from where? Of course strings are pulled, it is the way in politics. What you should point out is how exactly that is so bad?
And, simply put, Microsoft does NOT have a monopoly. Nobody is forced to have Microsoft products. There are viable alternatives. Even OSS offers alternatives, and we've seen many organizations, from companies to countries, going to OSS. And more so as time goes on. Oh phleeeeze... after two convictions from EU and one from US, there are still people that claim MS is not monopoly. Live with it people, they are monopoly, and they are repeatingly ignoring anticompetitive laws.
That's true, because if the PA was given control of those issues, it would be detrimental to Israel's security. Are you suggesting that Israel should let a Hamas government who openly wants to destroy Israel do whatever they wanted with regard to these sensitive issues?
Hmmm... let's check: 1. Hamas hates Israel. 2. People vote for Hamas. Therefore the palestinians hate Israel. 3. Israel does not give any power to palestinians.
Sounds pretty much like illegal occupation, don't you think? After all, palestinians were there too much time before Israel formed. Why shouldn't they have a country of their own?
Actually it is still a grey area. IANAL. I think soon I may become one, if I continue to read that much about it. First of all, you have the right to remain silent only when testifying against YOU in a CRIMINAL case. If you testify against others, and the said material can be used against you, the court cannot accept it as evidence.
I read that if the existence of the data itself can be enough for a conviction (i.e. forged finance books, this was tried in an actual case), you cannot be compelled to provide the data, because that court order will disregard your right to be presumed innocent: If you provide it, you're found guilty. If you don't, you're presumed guilty. I am not sure that this can apply for civil lawsuits.
If it is a civil lawsuit... well, you're in trouble. The best thing you can aim for is: 1. Deny all electronic evidence - screenshots?!?!, IP addresses?!?! 2. Deny there is encrypted data. 3. Deny ever knowing the password. 4. Plead that the data has been destroyed due to buggy hardware/software, but make sure you can prove that was done BEFORE the court order to give the harddisk. 5. Use plausible deniablity.
Your aim is to make the existence of the said data so hard to prove, that it would actually be unusable in court. Well, if you're doing something bad and the authorities try hard enough, you're going to get convicted on the rest of the evidence, no matter how you protect yourself. That is why I am very fond of the idea of encryption - it actually might slow down some convictions, but will not be an obstacle before a determined police force. But on the other hand, it will ensure my privacy.
It is interesting that in my country MS lobying has made computer high-sea plundering a CRIMINAL offence, so I cannot actually be made reveal the said password - assuming the upper remark is true for my country, it is for UK and US for sure. Anyway, I won't give my password. Never.
Unless we seriously misunderstand gravity, this thing will disappear instantly because it can't hope to sustain itself.
I am afraid that is correct, you misunderstood what a black hole is. A black hole is a place in the universe with a certain mass (or energy, that is the same, even more for a black hole), that has certain properties. You can call it particle in a broader sence, because a black hole has mass (energy) and no internal structure. Well, maybe electric, barionic, or any other kind of charge. The point is, there is NO internal structure. You can visualise it as a solid ball.
The thing is, to create a black hole you can compress matter (or energy) in a small place so that gravity IN THE SAME SMALL AREA increases so much, that it actually gets big enough so that no particle or energy can escape it. Thus, by classical mechanics it cannot emit energy. It should perfectly sustain itself, because you cannot expand it, because the gravity is so big.
Now, quantum mechanics come into being. Vacuum is not space without matter, there is matter in vacuum. That matter, however, has no physical properties, because it has no mass to us. In fact, it has mass but for very short time. Popular scientist as Hawking describe it as a dance of energy and matter. Just read something from them, I cannot describe it that good. But in vacuum particles are created every second in pairs with their anti-particle, then they normaly annihilate. Near a black hole one of the pair of particles can fall, and the other can escape the black hole. Thus it is seen from the outside as emission of particles from the black hole. Then the mass of the black hole decreases. (The decrease is still seen as a consequence of the leaving of the other particle, but science is still not very good at explaining why stuff happens. It just does.) The smaller the black hole, the easier and more probable this process become. Thus, after some time the black hole evaporates.
If something emits, then is has a temperature, kind of. Maybe it is the other way arround. The temperature of a macroscopic black holes (like one formed from a star twice the size of our sun) is estimated to be less than 0,4 K above absolute zero, so this kind of black hole is actually GAINING energy, but if the universe gets cold enough it will start to emit more, and then evaporate.
If there is a small black hole - maybe 1000 tons, or something like that - it will be smaller than an electron or a proton, and it will emit energy fast - it will be bright. But until this process is finished, it will be a black hole, and there is nothing that will change it.
So now I'm going to say to you: You can't sue. If you do, you won't win. You gave up your right to sue when you agreed to the license.
You should note that ALL licenses have to obey the law. Did you notice that all liablity disclaimers end with "... to the extent provided by applicable law" or similar phrases. Maybe applicable law have to be changed (or does already, I don't know really) so if you pay for a license you get some kind of protection for your money.
I just want to point out that this case is not that trivial.
Any competent power user should have the sense to not be logging into their desktop as an admin,... I want to reiterate on this problem a little. I recently reinstalled my Windows XP Home and I wanted to see how can I live as a regular user. I started the computer, logged-in and... Baaam, the USB wants to connect. So what? Well, it asks for admin priviledges. I skip it, and I notice my time is not correct... Baaam, needs admin priviledges to correct, but does not ask for them, I just can't see how to do that without logging out. Ctrl+Alt+Del and a minute afterwards I am the admin, again. Sorry, it is just unusable. And I did not manage to get to run any program, but I am quite sure that would be
Frankly, the simila gnu/linux environment also need admin priviledges for this stuff... the thing is, it usually asks, and if it does not, you can always open a shell, switch user and run whatever you like.
The reason Linux and other *nix-es are doing so well in multi-user environments is because they are made to be run as regular users. Heck, you can create read-only root partition without much trouble to run on thin clients and such... But the system has been built from ground zero with this in mind. No program inteded to run as user uses things that require root priviledges, in fact some warn if run as root, or just exit. Some programs have a part for root to setup user priviledges (k3bsetup pops-up).
It is the culture of programming. In Windows, it is changing slowly for the better, that Linux had from the beginning. In Windows, you have 20 places where you can put accounts - for shares, for various services like MsSQL, users of the computer... Awful task to synchronize everything, to make all ACLs balanced... While Linux have a good pratice - you have unified users. Some services like ftp can have different users, but 99% of the time that is useless.
We'll see. Vista will come, and the future of the PC is before us. But mind my words - if the practice of writing badly is not gone, we'll have the same mess. And many pop-ups are not going to help us, either. Not unless they are asking the right questions.
No, but if they sold and shipped the handgun to someone who lives in the UK they might be. I still can't see how they can have jurisdiction over me? I didn't commit a crime by sending a gun by the mail, if that was legal in the country from where I have sent it. And if it is illegal, I should not be held responsible by the UK, I have nothing to do with them.
But if you're playng Go you are going to need more AI than just simple instructions... you're going to need good algorythms. Such extensions as proposed in TFA are not going to help build AI one itsy-bitsy thing. The best they can do is speed-up small routines. Which I think is a good idea, since games are 98% of the CPU usage in the planet. I mean, CPU that is not wasted on downloading pr0n:), of course.
Following your logic, the best tactic would be to set up an open WiFi access point "by mistake". If you then get an inquiry, it's easy to show that anyone in a 250m radius could have accessed a P2P network through your IP address...
And the problem exactly is?
I mean, with all the spambots and zombies out there, and the viruses, are YOU supposed to be held responsible for bugs in the software, that allows remote exploits and trojan horses? I know the all EULAs disclaim warranty of any kind, but to actually sue the user you must proove intent.
the authorities can always arrest you for SOMETHING, and hence they have immense power over the *cough* voters *cough*.
If you are a felon you cannot vote. More and more crimes are being made felonies, including the crime of having too many misdemeanors. Misdemeanors can often be prosecuted without trial or at least without legal representation being made available. And of course in some states it is reported that even having unpaid speeding tickets can prevent you from voting because the police are waiting at the voting booth to take people to jail. If you want power in a Democracy you can either convince the majority of your view or prevent the majority of your opposition from voting. Guess which one our rulers have decided is easier to do.
Man, I know that felons cannot vote, but I am very curious how can you actually do that? I mean, WTF? What democracy is thif you can be robbed of your right to vote?
(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
(2)...
(3)...
You should note that there is no disticntion regarding whether you're a criminal or not.
In my country every election in every prison there are voting booths and usually the national TV shows a report on them. The reality is NOT whay you see in the Holywood movies, these people are serving their terms, they look crushed most of the time, they're guilty BUT they are still people! Why would you expell them from voting is beyond me.
[SARCASM]It is not like they are a significant portion of the population... [/SARCASM]
I just can't understand what is the US of A trying to do? What's all the fuss with those criminals? So far they are neglecting at least three parts of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - torture in Gitmo, disregarging the presumption of innocence and banning convicted felons from voting. May I remind you that is the same declaration they try to impose on the rest of the world.
Software vendor pushes sales of proprietary software up with unsubstantiated claims and FUD. The said software is being framed as adware because of certain "features". News at 11.
After the file was encrypted, they deleted the original one as per instructions. Trouble was it was in the "Recycle" bin a readable. And how is THAT supposed to be a problem of the encryption?
The truth is that electronic materials leave traces. Recycle bin? Don't get me started on the swap file, and so on, and so forth.
99% of using encryption is to know what you're doing. That's what the GP said, and that is the truth. 99% of the posts underestimate human intelligence so much, that I would believe there is actually nothing done with reverse engeneering - but mind my words - people are smarter than that. They just need to be educated.
...but with a secured network it [hacking] is too difficult to prove. There you have it. Even a less-savvy judge will be convinced that it is possible and feasible, if there are tools like that mainstream.
... to mention an Ars Technica article about a new product intended to detect and throttle encrypted BitTorrent traffic. When torrents first saw common use ISPs would throttle the bandwidth available to them, in order to ensure connectivity for everyone. First, they oversell. That is normal, but they want to "optimize" the network, so to speak. Just throttle the minority that is using it, and continue to lie and charge the majority. Easy, fast and painless. The solution, not the network your customers are getting.
Some clients began encrypting their data to get around this, and the company Allot Communications is now claiming their NetEnforcer product will return the advantage to the ISPs. In Slashdot it is more appropriately to say "to help ISPs get more money for less". This is clearly a disadvantage for everyone but the ISPs, why are so many people advocating the "advantage".
From the article: "Certainly, increasing BitTorrent traffic is a concern for ISPs. But don't everyone agree that MY traffic is MINE and MINE alone. The concern also.
In early 2004, torrents accounted for 35 percent of all traffic on the Internet. By the end of that year, this figure had almost doubled, and some estimate that in certain markets, such as Asia, torrent traffic uses as much as 80 percent of all bandwidth. Nice.
However, BitTorrent is an extremely important tool that has many uses other than what everyone assumes it is good for, namely movie piracy. Yup. By the way, most of the other stuff could be easily transfered over http and ftp. Except Linux CD-s, they are expensive to host.
Aren't we tired of so many wars? War on Drugs, War on Terror, not War on BitTerror? I suspect the only war actively waged is the war on innoscent people. Which nobody bothered declare, by the way...
My god, I have done some programming in VS 2003 but I missed all the things you mentioned. Except the ridiculously long compile times. Well, I only managed small projects, so no wander why I have missed it.
The truth is that after VS 2003 I went to Eclipse. It lacks (good) support of C++, but the Java thingy is superb... the code completion, refactoring, hints... I can live my life when writing apps, it automatically asks me what to do with uncatched exception, has excelent plugnins for EVERYTHING. If only someone would write the same features for C++ I would never ever ever want to go back to VS 2003.
VS 200x has good graphical interface and good wizards, but the rest is mostly pile-o-shit, compared to Eclipse (well, the equvalent features). I especially hate that it can operate only with MS SQL. Vendor locking, anyone?
Well, actually that is a kind of a loophole. I think GPL was not intended to be used that way. There was a clause that said something like: software that is made exclusively to work with the GPL-ed application should NOT be considered separate work. I can't remember the exact words, but something like that.
Now NVidia and ATI are using this to publish their non-OSS drivers - a small wrapper and the code is distributed as a binary. I am not sure that such use will remain possible in the new GPLv3.
Slashdot Mirror
We're talking about media coverage. If the corporate standard commands IE, IE it is. But the news are supposed to be informative, and all they do is repeat: "Turn off this, turn off that..."
I am sure that this is because of their overall education, but that is no excuse.
Not yet, but if we keep up the good work of Linus(http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/ 04/18/2046203), we'll have it running in no time!
You are paying a premium, but you're getting the good stuff!
You mean that 10% ethanol (doubt that) and the different measure for the octane number is a justification for roughtly the DOUBLE price? I think not.
First, half the price of the fuels is taxes. Second, EU have to import most of them, the only places Europe that dig for oil is in the north atlantic ocean, it is not that much, really.
I suppose the way to have cheap petrol is to cut on fuel taxes (thus cutting social expenses, like medicare, retirement, social security) and expand in the Middle East (which pisses a lot of guys). In USA a rise to the real price of fuels, about 6$ per galon like in EU, is the best thing you can do to spark a civil war.
You mean that MY software will look for the tag. I still think that software is the running logic of the computer. And even if looking for the tag is built in the hardware, override it. If such a mandatory check is introduced, hacks will be made, mind my words.
... but I very much doubt that China and Taiwan will stop building PCs without TCP, if there is a strong demand for them. Especially by me. And by some 99% of the governments in the world...
The only REAL problem with that is TCP like Palladium
Really, US geeks, unite and save yourselves. You have my support.
If a million monkeys by chance produce an OS identical in every respect...
I guess you mean "If another million monkeys by chance produce an OS identical in every respect...
(Joke)
Who is the smart guy that called the software RSVP ... isn't that Responder, Sil Vouz Plait? Like in: Please, respond. Clearly runs under Windows...
If we put pressure on customers by making them pay, maybe they'll do things that make phishing attacks harder to carry out.
... you're not right. First, when the brown stuff hits the fan, you're going to get so deep in it that you may NEVER go back on foot.
... nothing. I mean, to change a social problem like this one you'll need constant pushes in the right direction ... occasional stabbing of customers is not going to prepare them for it. Besides, what is he going to do? What if the bank does not use SSL? It is really not the custommer's fault.
Well
Second, if you tell all customers how important is it, you'll get exactly
Besides, who's the one with the money? Actually, the bank. It is richer than the person. Remember the history of the ATMs in UK and USA. In USA credit card companies were liable for ATM security problems, so they pushed to increase security. In UK the customer was liable, so the problems were not addressed at all.
The way you describe it seems like it is a typical fair use case. I believe there was some kind of court ruling that explicitly said it is fair use.
But the issue is that MS a monopolist with anticompetitive practices, which is hardly a technology issue.
Let's go over it, shall we?
... after two convictions from EU and one from US, there are still people that claim MS is not monopoly. Live with it people, they are monopoly, and they are repeatingly ignoring anticompetitive laws.
In the first sentence the EU spokesman clearly states that by building protection into Vista Microsoft is 'shutting out' rivals in the software security market. Except that if Windows was secure in the first place those 'rivals' would've never existed. So a market emerged and now it is disappearing. It should've been seen as temporary from day one, especially considering the fact that Microsoft has ALWAYS been trying to make their software more secure.
I believe the scream is because MS is going to BUNDLE security applications in their OS. It is not making the OS secure, it is bundling software with it. That is illegal.
It's also not surprising that there will be a lobby, a dying scream if you will, to prevent it. Like you said, a lot of people make money off of Microsoft's insecure programs. A lot of untrustworthy people do as well. People who make spyware and botnets. And hopefully not as many after Vista.
Dream all you can - Vista will cure cancer and AIDS, the world saviour. The same untrustworthy people will exploit the same ol' holes. Mainly PEBKAS.
When Todd said the EU is "ready to give guidance" what he really meant was "We want Microsoft to do whatever we ask". He is just a puppet of course, going through the motions of his strings which are pulled by the EU.
That is sooo much different from where? Of course strings are pulled, it is the way in politics. What you should point out is how exactly that is so bad?
And, simply put, Microsoft does NOT have a monopoly. Nobody is forced to have Microsoft products. There are viable alternatives. Even OSS offers alternatives, and we've seen many organizations, from companies to countries, going to OSS. And more so as time goes on.
Oh phleeeeze
That's true, because if the PA was given control of those issues, it would be detrimental to Israel's security. Are you suggesting that Israel should let a Hamas government who openly wants to destroy Israel do whatever they wanted with regard to these sensitive issues?
... let's check:
Hmmm
1. Hamas hates Israel.
2. People vote for Hamas. Therefore the palestinians hate Israel.
3. Israel does not give any power to palestinians.
Sounds pretty much like illegal occupation, don't you think? After all, palestinians were there too much time before Israel formed. Why shouldn't they have a country of their own?
Actually it is still a grey area.
... well, you're in trouble. The best thing you can aim for is:
IANAL. I think soon I may become one, if I continue to read that much about it.
First of all, you have the right to remain silent only when testifying against YOU in a CRIMINAL case. If you testify against others, and the said material can be used against you, the court cannot accept it as evidence.
I read that if the existence of the data itself can be enough for a conviction (i.e. forged finance books, this was tried in an actual case), you cannot be compelled to provide the data, because that court order will disregard your right to be presumed innocent: If you provide it, you're found guilty. If you don't, you're presumed guilty. I am not sure that this can apply for civil lawsuits.
If it is a civil lawsuit
1. Deny all electronic evidence - screenshots?!?!, IP addresses?!?!
2. Deny there is encrypted data.
3. Deny ever knowing the password.
4. Plead that the data has been destroyed due to buggy hardware/software, but make sure you can prove that was done BEFORE the court order to give the harddisk.
5. Use plausible deniablity.
Your aim is to make the existence of the said data so hard to prove, that it would actually be unusable in court. Well, if you're doing something bad and the authorities try hard enough, you're going to get convicted on the rest of the evidence, no matter how you protect yourself. That is why I am very fond of the idea of encryption - it actually might slow down some convictions, but will not be an obstacle before a determined police force. But on the other hand, it will ensure my privacy.
It is interesting that in my country MS lobying has made computer high-sea plundering a CRIMINAL offence, so I cannot actually be made reveal the said password - assuming the upper remark is true for my country, it is for UK and US for sure. Anyway, I won't give my password. Never.
Unless we seriously misunderstand gravity, this thing will disappear instantly because it can't hope to sustain itself.
I am afraid that is correct, you misunderstood what a black hole is.
A black hole is a place in the universe with a certain mass (or energy, that is the same, even more for a black hole), that has certain properties. You can call it particle in a broader sence, because a black hole has mass (energy) and no internal structure. Well, maybe electric, barionic, or any other kind of charge. The point is, there is NO internal structure. You can visualise it as a solid ball.
The thing is, to create a black hole you can compress matter (or energy) in a small place so that gravity IN THE SAME SMALL AREA increases so much, that it actually gets big enough so that no particle or energy can escape it. Thus, by classical mechanics it cannot emit energy. It should perfectly sustain itself, because you cannot expand it, because the gravity is so big.
Now, quantum mechanics come into being. Vacuum is not space without matter, there is matter in vacuum. That matter, however, has no physical properties, because it has no mass to us. In fact, it has mass but for very short time. Popular scientist as Hawking describe it as a dance of energy and matter. Just read something from them, I cannot describe it that good. But in vacuum particles are created every second in pairs with their anti-particle, then they normaly annihilate. Near a black hole one of the pair of particles can fall, and the other can escape the black hole. Thus it is seen from the outside as emission of particles from the black hole. Then the mass of the black hole decreases. (The decrease is still seen as a consequence of the leaving of the other particle, but science is still not very good at explaining why stuff happens. It just does.) The smaller the black hole, the easier and more probable this process become. Thus, after some time the black hole evaporates.
If something emits, then is has a temperature, kind of. Maybe it is the other way arround. The temperature of a macroscopic black holes (like one formed from a star twice the size of our sun) is estimated to be less than 0,4 K above absolute zero, so this kind of black hole is actually GAINING energy, but if the universe gets cold enough it will start to emit more, and then evaporate.
If there is a small black hole - maybe 1000 tons, or something like that - it will be smaller than an electron or a proton, and it will emit energy fast - it will be bright. But until this process is finished, it will be a black hole, and there is nothing that will change it.
So now I'm going to say to you: You can't sue. If you do, you won't win. You gave up your right to sue when you agreed to the license.
You should note that ALL licenses have to obey the law. Did you notice that all liablity disclaimers end with "... to the extent provided by applicable law" or similar phrases. Maybe applicable law have to be changed (or does already, I don't know really) so if you pay for a license you get some kind of protection for your money.
I just want to point out that this case is not that trivial.
Any competent power user should have the sense to not be logging into their desktop as an admin, ... ... Baaam, the USB wants to connect. So what? Well, it asks for admin priviledges. I skip it, and I notice my time is not correct ... Baaam, needs admin priviledges to correct, but does not ask for them, I just can't see how to do that without logging out. Ctrl+Alt+Del and a minute afterwards I am the admin, again. Sorry, it is just unusable. And I did not manage to get to run any program, but I am quite sure that would be
I want to reiterate on this problem a little. I recently reinstalled my Windows XP Home and I wanted to see how can I live as a regular user. I started the computer, logged-in and
Frankly, the simila gnu/linux environment also need admin priviledges for this stuff... the thing is, it usually asks, and if it does not, you can always open a shell, switch user and run whatever you like.
The reason Linux and other *nix-es are doing so well in multi-user environments is because they are made to be run as regular users. Heck, you can create read-only root partition without much trouble to run on thin clients and such... But the system has been built from ground zero with this in mind. No program inteded to run as user uses things that require root priviledges, in fact some warn if run as root, or just exit. Some programs have a part for root to setup user priviledges (k3bsetup pops-up).
It is the culture of programming. In Windows, it is changing slowly for the better, that Linux had from the beginning. In Windows, you have 20 places where you can put accounts - for shares, for various services like MsSQL, users of the computer... Awful task to synchronize everything, to make all ACLs balanced... While Linux have a good pratice - you have unified users. Some services like ftp can have different users, but 99% of the time that is useless.
We'll see. Vista will come, and the future of the PC is before us. But mind my words - if the practice of writing badly is not gone, we'll have the same mess. And many pop-ups are not going to help us, either. Not unless they are asking the right questions.
No, but if they sold and shipped the handgun to someone who lives in the UK they might be.
I still can't see how they can have jurisdiction over me? I didn't commit a crime by sending a gun by the mail, if that was legal in the country from where I have sent it. And if it is illegal, I should not be held responsible by the UK, I have nothing to do with them.
But if you're playng Go you are going to need more AI than just simple instructions ... you're going to need good algorythms.
Such extensions as proposed in TFA are not going to help build AI one itsy-bitsy thing. The best they can do is speed-up small routines. Which I think is a good idea, since games are 98% of the CPU usage in the planet. I mean, CPU that is not wasted on downloading pr0n:), of course.
Following your logic, the best tactic would be to set up an open WiFi access point "by mistake". If you then get an inquiry, it's easy to show that anyone in a 250m radius could have accessed a P2P network through your IP address...
And the problem exactly is?
I mean, with all the spambots and zombies out there, and the viruses, are YOU supposed to be held responsible for bugs in the software, that allows remote exploits and trojan horses? I know the all EULAs disclaim warranty of any kind, but to actually sue the user you must proove intent.
the authorities can always arrest you for SOMETHING, and hence they have immense power over the *cough* voters *cough*.
... ...
If you are a felon you cannot vote. More and more crimes are being made felonies, including the crime of having too many misdemeanors. Misdemeanors can often be prosecuted without trial or at least without legal representation being made available. And of course in some states it is reported that even having unpaid speeding tickets can prevent you from voting because the police are waiting at the voting booth to take people to jail. If you want power in a Democracy you can either convince the majority of your view or prevent the majority of your opposition from voting. Guess which one our rulers have decided is easier to do.
Man, I know that felons cannot vote, but I am very curious how can you actually do that? I mean, WTF? What democracy is thif you can be robbed of your right to vote?
Let me quote this from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UN) http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html:
Article 21.
(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
(2)
(3)
You should note that there is no disticntion regarding whether you're a criminal or not.
In my country every election in every prison there are voting booths and usually the national TV shows a report on them. The reality is NOT whay you see in the Holywood movies, these people are serving their terms, they look crushed most of the time, they're guilty BUT they are still people! Why would you expell them from voting is beyond me.
[SARCASM]It is not like they are a significant portion of the population... [/SARCASM]
I just can't understand what is the US of A trying to do? What's all the fuss with those criminals? So far they are neglecting at least three parts of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - torture in Gitmo, disregarging the presumption of innocence and banning convicted felons from voting. May I remind you that is the same declaration they try to impose on the rest of the world.
Software vendor pushes sales of proprietary software up with unsubstantiated claims and FUD. The said software is being framed as adware because of certain "features".
News at 11.
After the file was encrypted, they deleted the original one as per instructions. Trouble was it was in the "Recycle" bin a readable.
And how is THAT supposed to be a problem of the encryption?
The truth is that electronic materials leave traces. Recycle bin? Don't get me started on the swap file, and so on, and so forth.
99% of using encryption is to know what you're doing. That's what the GP said, and that is the truth. 99% of the posts underestimate human intelligence so much, that I would believe there is actually nothing done with reverse engeneering - but mind my words - people are smarter than that. They just need to be educated.
...but with a secured network it [hacking] is too difficult to prove.
There you have it. Even a less-savvy judge will be convinced that it is possible and feasible, if there are tools like that mainstream.
... to mention an Ars Technica article about a new product intended to detect and throttle encrypted BitTorrent traffic. When torrents first saw common use ISPs would throttle the bandwidth available to them, in order to ensure connectivity for everyone.
First, they oversell. That is normal, but they want to "optimize" the network, so to speak. Just throttle the minority that is using it, and continue to lie and charge the majority. Easy, fast and painless. The solution, not the network your customers are getting.
Some clients began encrypting their data to get around this, and the company Allot Communications is now claiming their NetEnforcer product will return the advantage to the ISPs.
In Slashdot it is more appropriately to say "to help ISPs get more money for less". This is clearly a disadvantage for everyone but the ISPs, why are so many people advocating the "advantage".
From the article: "Certainly, increasing BitTorrent traffic is a concern for ISPs.
But don't everyone agree that MY traffic is MINE and MINE alone. The concern also.
In early 2004, torrents accounted for 35 percent of all traffic on the Internet. By the end of that year, this figure had almost doubled, and some estimate that in certain markets, such as Asia, torrent traffic uses as much as 80 percent of all bandwidth.
Nice.
However, BitTorrent is an extremely important tool that has many uses other than what everyone assumes it is good for, namely movie piracy.
Yup. By the way, most of the other stuff could be easily transfered over http and ftp. Except Linux CD-s, they are expensive to host.
Aren't we tired of so many wars? War on Drugs, War on Terror, not War on BitTerror? I suspect the only war actively waged is the war on innoscent people. Which nobody bothered declare, by the way...
My god, I have done some programming in VS 2003 but I missed all the things you mentioned. Except the ridiculously long compile times. Well, I only managed small projects, so no wander why I have missed it.
The truth is that after VS 2003 I went to Eclipse. It lacks (good) support of C++, but the Java thingy is superb... the code completion, refactoring, hints... I can live my life when writing apps, it automatically asks me what to do with uncatched exception, has excelent plugnins for EVERYTHING. If only someone would write the same features for C++ I would never ever ever want to go back to VS 2003.
VS 200x has good graphical interface and good wizards, but the rest is mostly pile-o-shit, compared to Eclipse (well, the equvalent features). I especially hate that it can operate only with MS SQL. Vendor locking, anyone?
Well, actually that is a kind of a loophole. I think GPL was not intended to be used that way. There was a clause that said something like: software that is made exclusively to work with the GPL-ed application should NOT be considered separate work. I can't remember the exact words, but something like that.
Now NVidia and ATI are using this to publish their non-OSS drivers - a small wrapper and the code is distributed as a binary.
I am not sure that such use will remain possible in the new GPLv3.