It’s massive, so it’s almost certainly a gas giant like Jupiter, and it’s hot, probably about 730 C (1350 F) at the tops of its clouds.
This is not them asking for your account but rather asking you to AUTHORISE gawker's access to your account details.
The way I read it is that Gawker is using Facebook as authentication service. Once authenticated Gawker is authorizing you to do certain things, like post comments.
I guess that accounts for all the cheap labor.
to this:
I wouldn't believe anything Mr. Woo has to say.
If you have other reasons why you don't trust what Mr. Woo said, maybe it'd be worthwhile to air those as well.
Bug finders now still get paid. but those who don't reveal everything Google wants do not.
True, and I don't think they are unreasonable to demand the full exploit when they are paying for it. I don't necessarily always agree with Google's approach but I think it's good that they man up and pay for the bugs. I wish more companies would do that.
I now alias "r" as "rm -i". "r" by itself does not have default behavior on most computers.
I have a friend that used to alias "r" for "rm" and "e" for "emacs". Once he had to restore his thesis from day or two old backup he stopped doing that
it's not unusual for a program to:
- Create a new file.
- Dump the data into the new file.
- Rename the old file.
- Rename the new file so it has the same name as the old one.
- Delete the old file.
This. Some of the more recent applications may replace last three steps with atomic rename so that new file replaces the old one. Linux has supported atomic rename already for a good while and so do Vista and later versions of Windows. Even after this data from the old file and new file are still retained on disk, even though space used for the old file will be marked 'free'.
Before I go any further, I am a pilot. [...] Final approach and landing is the single most dangerous operation performed by pilots
I have to say I'm surprised about that statement. Here I thought that being on final would set you up nicely for the landing; you'd be already lined up with the runway, most probably well positioned on the glideslope and more or less ready to take anything. Lose an engine and dead-sticking it down shouldn't be a problem.
I'd call take-off the most dangerous stage of the flight. You are just about the leave the runway, if you lose the power too many inexperienced pilots will try to make the "impossible turn" and make it back to the runway they departed. During and immediately after the take-off you don't have altitude, you are usually out of position and have limited number of outs to take if something goes wrong.
"Altitude above you, runway behind you and fuel on the ground don't do you any good." Now, if you take the lasers into the equations it doesn't change the fact that additional risk is the same in both of the cases. Losing your sight on the take off is just as bad and during the landing - same thing goes for being momentarily distracted. VFR pilots are notoriously bad at maintaining the level flight when the lose sight of the horizon. Controlled Flight Into Terrain is just as deadly no matter whether just after the take off or just before landing. It is still worth remembering that the baseline risk is higher on the takeoff.
Variables don't; constants aren't.