who said it was 777? all it says is that others had read access, not write. and actually, having a home folder (or just the public_html folder) with 777 on a university network is extremely common (or at least it was when i was in school). not sure how they got set that way in the first place, but it was a common joke to modify someone's public_html folder (and thus, they're school.edu/~username/ website).
how is that different that leaving a CD physically out in the open? someone else is able to grab it and copy it. would that make me liable for leaving it there?
so for those on the network, the internet2 network sort of works as if it were part of the regular internet backbone? does that mean p2p between two people from different universities on the network could go across internet2? hmm...
(warning, just my opinion)
both Xandros and Lindows were on the fringe of the linux community, Xandros for its seeminly less than wholehearted loyalty to FOSS, and Lindows for, well, because it seemed like a toy to attract Windows users.
now, "Suse isnt the fringe" you say. yes, but why is that? is it perhaps because we have a hard time separating pre- and post-Novell Suse? had Novell started their own distro, instead of buying Suse, what kind of reputation would that distro have?
now the question is, who's next? will they ever go after the big guys in the center (red hat, debian, etc), and will they succeed?
no you wouldnt. at the speed of light time stands still. outside of your reference frame, yes, time would still exist but you could not experience it because that would require time. you'd be completely still, unable to move. the universe would pass by instantaneously.
yeah, i forgot light changes speed in some mediums. not sure how that fits in to relativity though.
yes, light is particles, called photons. they are massless, which is what i believe allows them to move at the speed of light. and they always move at the speed of light too. i believe, in order to move at the speed of light, you must have always been, and always will, move at the speed of light. at light speed, time doesnt move, so you cant get out of light speed because that would require time to do so. i think it works the other way too.
well now you've got me wondering. i know it's not instantaneous, but i cant figure out the physics of it. someone please answer this or it'll bother me all day.
of course, Acid2 isnt the greatest benchmark. it's specifically targeted at things browsers often get wrong. it's isnt a comprehensive list of W3C standards. for that, wikipedia has a number of in-depth tables: HTML XHTML CSS ECMAScript
Acid2 implies that Gecko is worse than Presto (Opera) and KHTML, but the details claim otherwise. a quick glance shows that Gecko, Presto, and KHTML are about equal, each with their strengths and faults.
what it looks like to me:
HTML: all 4 (including IE) are pretty equal
XHTML: Gecko and Presto
CSS: tough one. probably KTML and/or Presto.
ECMAScript: Gecko
if i can come up with an idea completely on my own, without influence from someone else who had the same idea, why should someone else prevent me from using that idea just because they thought of it first?
well, that wouldnt be a killer iPhone app, it would be a killer ajax app. there are already handhelds with javascript-enabled browsers, and i dont know of anyone mentioning any "killer ajax apps" for them.
you can pretty much already do that, though, using special relativity. motion and acceleration/gravity affect the speed of time relative to something else, so if you sent something off in a rocket ship and it came back, a clock on the ship would not match a clock that stayed on earth. IIRC, less time would elapse on the ship than on earth (could be vice-versa).
mainly because there is no information transfer going on at all in quantum entanglement (at least, there isnt in the interpretation i subscribe to, and i'm not sure if there are any interpretations that do involve information transfer). if there were information transfer, it would violate special relativity.
but information is matter. information cannot exist without matter (matter includes energy) and vice-versa. you cannot transmit information without trasmitting matter.
and nothing is travelling in the normal sense. there's a few different ways of describing what's actually happening. i like the many-worlds interpretation.
true. what i said still stands though, just take out the words FTL. quantum entanglement is often described (including in the article) in ways that make people think there is information transfer going on, which leads people to look for ways to harness it. and it always fails because they misunderstood what was going on in the first place.
how many times must it be explained, you cannot send information FTL using quantum entanglement. more specifically, you cannot send information using quantum entanglement. you can only use it together with a classical communication channel.
you'd think these people wouldve already known that.
you already should have been checking Safari. and you probably dont need to check Netscape, since it uses the Gecko (mozilla) and Trident (IE) rendering engines.
Slashdot Mirror
who said it was 777? all it says is that others had read access, not write. and actually, having a home folder (or just the public_html folder) with 777 on a university network is extremely common (or at least it was when i was in school). not sure how they got set that way in the first place, but it was a common joke to modify someone's public_html folder (and thus, they're school.edu/~username/ website).
how is that different that leaving a CD physically out in the open? someone else is able to grab it and copy it. would that make me liable for leaving it there?
so for those on the network, the internet2 network sort of works as if it were part of the regular internet backbone? does that mean p2p between two people from different universities on the network could go across internet2? hmm...
(warning, just my opinion)
both Xandros and Lindows were on the fringe of the linux community, Xandros for its seeminly less than wholehearted loyalty to FOSS, and Lindows for, well, because it seemed like a toy to attract Windows users.
now, "Suse isnt the fringe" you say. yes, but why is that? is it perhaps because we have a hard time separating pre- and post-Novell Suse? had Novell started their own distro, instead of buying Suse, what kind of reputation would that distro have?
now the question is, who's next? will they ever go after the big guys in the center (red hat, debian, etc), and will they succeed?
no you wouldnt. at the speed of light time stands still. outside of your reference frame, yes, time would still exist but you could not experience it because that would require time. you'd be completely still, unable to move. the universe would pass by instantaneously.
yeah, i forgot light changes speed in some mediums. not sure how that fits in to relativity though.
yes, light is particles, called photons. they are massless, which is what i believe allows them to move at the speed of light. and they always move at the speed of light too. i believe, in order to move at the speed of light, you must have always been, and always will, move at the speed of light. at light speed, time doesnt move, so you cant get out of light speed because that would require time to do so. i think it works the other way too.
well now you've got me wondering. i know it's not instantaneous, but i cant figure out the physics of it. someone please answer this or it'll bother me all day.
no, that's exactly what i said. the W3C doesnt say that title is for tooltips, it says that most visual browsers do it that way.
of course, Acid2 isnt the greatest benchmark. it's specifically targeted at things browsers often get wrong. it's isnt a comprehensive list of W3C standards. for that, wikipedia has a number of in-depth tables:
HTML
XHTML
CSS
ECMAScript
Acid2 implies that Gecko is worse than Presto (Opera) and KHTML, but the details claim otherwise. a quick glance shows that Gecko, Presto, and KHTML are about equal, each with their strengths and faults.
what it looks like to me:
HTML: all 4 (including IE) are pretty equal
XHTML: Gecko and Presto
CSS: tough one. probably KTML and/or Presto.
ECMAScript: Gecko
are you agreeing or disagreeing with me? the link agrees with me. you gots to be more specific man.
i dont think the w3c says that the title attribute is meant to be used as a tooltip. it's just that most browsers do.
does it matter?
if i can come up with an idea completely on my own, without influence from someone else who had the same idea, why should someone else prevent me from using that idea just because they thought of it first?
well, that wouldnt be a killer iPhone app, it would be a killer ajax app. there are already handhelds with javascript-enabled browsers, and i dont know of anyone mentioning any "killer ajax apps" for them.
i think you're thinking of the transactional interpretation which is apparently what the researcher subscribes to.
i actually like the many-worlds theory. i find it easier to grasp.
you can pretty much already do that, though, using special relativity. motion and acceleration/gravity affect the speed of time relative to something else, so if you sent something off in a rocket ship and it came back, a clock on the ship would not match a clock that stayed on earth. IIRC, less time would elapse on the ship than on earth (could be vice-versa).
mainly because there is no information transfer going on at all in quantum entanglement (at least, there isnt in the interpretation i subscribe to, and i'm not sure if there are any interpretations that do involve information transfer). if there were information transfer, it would violate special relativity.
but information is matter. information cannot exist without matter (matter includes energy) and vice-versa. you cannot transmit information without trasmitting matter.
and nothing is travelling in the normal sense. there's a few different ways of describing what's actually happening. i like the many-worlds interpretation.
how would that work? how could it go backwards in time if time (relative to it) is moving forwards?
true. what i said still stands though, just take out the words FTL. quantum entanglement is often described (including in the article) in ways that make people think there is information transfer going on, which leads people to look for ways to harness it. and it always fails because they misunderstood what was going on in the first place.
how many times must it be explained, you cannot send information FTL using quantum entanglement. more specifically, you cannot send information using quantum entanglement. you can only use it together with a classical communication channel.
you'd think these people wouldve already known that.
so... since windows isnt secure, you shouldnt even bother using secure file transfer, and instead use regular ftp. is that what you're getting at?
you already should have been checking Safari. and you probably dont need to check Netscape, since it uses the Gecko (mozilla) and Trident (IE) rendering engines.